PhysX processer

[white 1]

so how did the op get that 20-30 fps increase? anyone got around to that?

[WonderWaffles 1]

I just did. That was the only thing I changed

[calin_banc 19]

Originally, I was totally against PhysX in Arma 3. Then I got some hands on time with the SDK, and realized that GPU accelerated physX is just one small tiny facet of the PhysX engine and what it's capable of, even on the CPU. Arma 3's CPU PhysX implementation isn't advanced. They're not throwing in a thousand particle effects that requires GPGPU processing to keep up. It's simply modeling vehicle Physics and rag-dolls. (maybe thrown objects as well, not sure). Every other modern Physics engine can do the same and far more on CPU, and the PhysX engine is no different. PhysX does just as well or better. PhysX 3 isn't CPU crippled anymore, so using it as a CPU physics platform (just like the consoles do, hur dur) is exactly what Arma 3 needs.

You guys need to get over thinking of PhysX as a GPU bound process or something "designed for the GPU", because it's simply not true anymore.

Lets not forget that PhysX was originally written to run on the CPU anyways, and it wasn't until Agia came around and bought them up that dedicated physics processing came to be.

They are using it for more than that. The smoke is also effected by wind, helicopter rotor blades etc. It's a little bit bugged right now due to the smoke that will go through solid objects like walls, houses and so on, but it's a nice little feature. To bad grenades, people or cars passing through that smoke wont have an effect on it.

[Leon86 13]

I would just like to have the option because it would help my framerate

It wouldn't make a difference.

[Blew 1]

It wouldn't make a difference.

Care to explain a little more, maybe?

[Leon86 13]

Care to explain a little more, maybe?

Moving physX to the gpu is only usefull if the cpu would be stressed on all cores by lots and lots of physx stuff, but for that you'd need massive particle effects or something. Arma is cpu limited on other parts of the simulation, the physX calculation only takes up a tiny bit of the cpu time, it's only used on vehicles and some cargo boxes, and the ragdoll animations on a death. If you have a big infantry fight you'll only have a few soldiers ragdolling at the same time. A couple of vehicles is also peanuts for a modern cpu.

[froggyluv 2136]

^^^ Yup, I've tested moving to GPU and it made no difference whatsoever.

[WonderWaffles 1]

Does it matter that I have a i5 3550 with a GTX 560 Ti?

Is there something special about those?

[calin_banc 19]

Moving physX to the gpu is only usefull if the cpu would be stressed on all cores by lots and lots of physx stuff, but for that you'd need massive particle effects or something. Arma is cpu limited on other parts of the simulation, the physX calculation only takes up a tiny bit of the cpu time, it's only used on vehicles and some cargo boxes, and the ragdoll animations on a death. If you have a big infantry fight you'll only have a few soldiers ragdolling at the same time. A couple of vehicles is also peanuts for a modern cpu.

And dynamic smoke or that is done through DX like Stalker did?

[Leon86 13]

Dunno, anyway, as long as arma doesn't use 100% of the cpu (physics multithreads easily), which it doesnt come close to on quads, offloading to the gpu is pointless. Arma physx does not use the gpu. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?119211-PhysX&p=1980482&viewfull=1#post1980482

[gossamersolid 155]

Another one of those placebo fix threads where people changing settings apparently gives them an over 9000% increase in framerate.

[WonderWaffles 1]

Another one of those placebo fix threads where people changing settings apparently gives them an over 9000% increase in framerate.

I use a program called fraps. I've paid for it as well. Try someone else next time

[Leon86 13]

try armamark http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?151794-ArmA3Mark-Benchmark-your-ArmA-3

5 runs with each setting should do it.

[gossamersolid 155]

try armamark http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?151794-ArmA3Mark-Benchmark-your-ArmA-3

5 runs with each setting should do it.

1 run with each is all I have time for right now.

PhysX on my GPU (GTX 560Ti):

http://i.imgur.com/4lanTew.png

PhysX on my CPU (Q6600 @ 3.0Ghz)

http://i.imgur.com/w2yyxQm.png

Pretty much no difference in FPS, definitely not a

20-30 FPS increase!!!

as claimed by the author of this topic

[WonderWaffles 1]

Well, i feel bad for you guys. You're missing out!

[gossamersolid 155]

Well, i feel bad for you guys. You're missing out!

Pretty sure I just tried exactly what you said and showed my results...

[tvig0r0us 27]

This has nothing to do with the discussion, but that avatar makes me laugh my ass off every time I see it GossamerSolid :D

Carry on.

[WonderWaffles 1]

Pretty sure I just tried exactly what you said and showed my results...

But you aren't one of the lucky ones

[gossamersolid 155]

This has nothing to do with the discussion, but that avatar makes me laugh my ass off every time I see it GossamerSolid :D

Carry on.

http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/SPACE-CAT.jpg

But you aren't one of the lucky ones

Luck doesn't exist in computers.

If somebody else can provide proof that your magical setting does anything, then I will retract my previous statements. Until then, you are just bullshitting everyone.

Edited March 30, 2013 by GossamerSolid

[bangtail 0]

This thread should be closed as it is blatant disinformation.

ArmA 3 does not use GPU accelerated PhysX.

Changing the setting accomplishes nothing.

[WonderWaffles 1]

you guys are weird

[max power 21]

The thread of failure has failed.

The devs have announced that PhysX in this game is computed on the CPU only. I'm sure they have a good reason for this.

Now that's it's clear that not even the topic starter is interested in his topic anymore, I think we can safely put a lock on this one.

edit: that should read CPU only.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Max Power