The Nvidia DLC

[SaOk 112]

I would love to see some optional GPU physX effects, mostly camonets that would be reacting to wind when near the player. Would bring much extra atmosphere to camps. The camonet fortress would also come to life. Would be superb addition and I have been playing the game so much that few euros wouldnt hurt at all. Better of course if its free. There have been other games too with optional GPU physX effects (e.g. Mafia 2) so why not in ArmA3.

Edit: But I agree that putting better graphics/effects behind DLC would be quite bad direction overally.

Edited June 1, 2014 by SaOk

[Fushko 59]

Sorry OP, you do realize how stupid your post is? Read it again. Still nothing? Ok.

Paid DLCs are for new content, not for graphical enhancements, unless those are things like free texture packs that were left out of the final game to shrink the size of the file. The whole idea of selling graphical enhancements doesn't make any sense.

The point I was trying to make is that I would hate if they invested valuable programmer time (which this would require) into creating any kind of pointless eye candy. This would be a terribly wasteful idea, regardless if it was released as a free patch or as paid DLC.

Those extra GPU cycles would be better served crunching any data that is currently bottlenecking the game on the CPU side (if at all possible), not calculating some crap like wavy cloth and fancy particles. Any such improvements should obviously be part of the core engine, not some paid DLC. No one said anything about "charging for better performance".

Things like wavy clothes and fancy particles are relatively easy for modern GPUs to render, and if done properly, adding this sort of stuff to a game only makes the world feel more believable and immersive. Just saying.

Edited June 1, 2014 by FrankHH

[kremator 1065]

Oh I see your attempt at sarcasm was thinly veiled. Ask a question that the OP cannot answer straight away? Still nothing? Ok.

Obviously you haven't been around for a while, so I'll point out WHY I put the thread. Was it tongue in cheek ... you betcha. Was it to show to lack of support we have had for a PhysX enabled GPU .. you betcha. Was it to provoke noobs shouting their mouth off ... seems like it worked.

However, it wasn't a troll post, as I DON'T think it should be a DLC, but it SHOULD be part of optimisation that can already be used. I'm sure if BIS asked Nvidia nicely they would be more than happy to help out.

You see with all this talk of DLCs, we need to make sure that BIS hasn't lost sight of the goal of 'make everything ingame right', before adding content. However, would I pay for something that makes Arma3 even more beautiful on my Nvidia graphics card, as long as it wasn't to the detriment of others, you betcha.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Kremator

[kklownboy 43]

... it SHOULD be part of optimization can already be used. I'm sure if BIS asked Nvidia nicely they would be more than happy to help out.

....

BIS doesnt use PhysX for particles, so your post is stupid.

AND fuck no on letting in NVDA to help/embed a "dev" guy. Its the end of control if you go down that path.

Better will be AMD-Mantel, and that will happen.

I think some of you guys think Blastcore would work better with PhysX(it wouldnt).... and you couldn't do Blastcore mod, because NVDA would nix it, NVDA is a Closed vendor.

Hell we barely got the 3.x SDK for CPU PhysX from NVDA... and there isnt all that much support (it doesnt sell vidcards) with it.

[Fushko 59]

If only BIS used Havok instead of PhysX, we would have better multi-threaded physics and no confused noobs thinking that this game could run PhysX on the GPU instead of CPU.

[vegeta897 13]

You see with all this talk of DLCs, we need to make sure that BIS hasn't lost sight of the goal of 'make everything ingame right', before adding content.

There are just as many, if not more features coming right along with the DLC, as well as before, after, and in-between. The content does not seem to be BIS's main priority here. We're finally getting features that people have asked BIS to add to the series for over a decade. Don't tell me BIS has lost sight of anything. They've gained clarity as to the community's desires, if anything.

[roshnak 41]

The point I was trying to make is that I would hate if they invested valuable programmer time (which this would require) into creating any kind of pointless eye candy. This would be a terribly wasteful idea, regardless if it was released as a free patch or as paid DLC.

Those extra GPU cycles would be better served crunching any data that is currently bottlenecking the game on the CPU side (if at all possible), not calculating some crap like wavy cloth and fancy particles. Any such improvements should obviously be part of the core engine, not some paid DLC. No one said anything about "charging for better performance".

The performance statement was directed at the OP, but I may have confused his intentions with some of the replies in the thread.

As for the eye candy thing, I agree that the game doesn't need more focus on pretty visuals at this point.

However, would I pay for something that makes Arma3 even more beautiful on my Nvidia graphics card, as long as it wasn't to the detriment of others, you betcha.

Yeah, but what wouldn't you pay BIS for?

That's a serious question, by the way. I'm genuinely curious about where you draw the line.

[Leg 10]

If you're a developer or programmer you'll look at this and not know whether to laugh or criticize.

1) They are already trying to transition the workload from the CPU to the GPU and optimize instructions as much as possible.

2) One does not simply 'have a NVIDIA hardware' and one should not deduce that developers are leaning towards a certain brand which functions better or worse. It's funny that you think that performance issues are based on marketing preferrences.

2b) If you understand hardware, you can have a 500$ computer like me, not a 2000$ waste of money, and run Arma 3 flawlessly on any setting. It's all about configuration and how it ties in to be a functional unit, and you don't have to overspend to get the same exact result.

3) For those who seem to think so, Intel does not specifically make GPUS; the most they do is make integrated graphics which are basic and not for games like Arma III, or even Arma II for that matter. They make expensive and quality CPUs. However, AMD offers fine alternatives and you don't see many people complaining if they pick up a cheaper but powerful AMD and have it running properly.

Conclusion: It doesn't matter what brand you have, or how much you want to spend, it's about how your system ties in; and if you think developers are purposely making things run bad on 'AMD' or 'Intel' or 'Nvidia' and that making a DLC that will make the game purposefully run faster with 'Nvidia' hardware then you have no clue what you're talking about in the first place.

/thread

[P0lT10n 10]

I would love to have the simulations you mentioned, but I will not pay for it... it should be native...

[thenach 10]

I have and Nvidia and Voted no.

If software companies wants to be HW dependant then the PC is not right platform.

Consoles will be the best bet.

[pd3 25]

Honestly as long as it were DLC that only Nvidia hardware could manage, I suppose I wouldn't have a problem with it so long as it wasn't something that could just as easily be accessible to other users.

If we're talking like physX related, and it was say... an IK-based movement and weapon handling system that was greatly assisted by such hardware, I would be 100% for it, and I don't even own nvidia hardware.

[roshnak 41]

If you're a developer or programmer you'll look at this and not know whether to laugh or criticize.

1) They are already trying to transition the workload from the CPU to the GPU and optimize instructions as much as possible.

2) One does not simply 'have a NVIDIA hardware' and one should not deduce that developers are leaning towards a certain brand which functions better or worse. It's funny that you think that performance issues are based on marketing preferrences.

2b) If you understand hardware, you can have a 500$ computer like me, not a 2000$ waste of money, and run Arma 3 flawlessly on any setting. It's all about configuration and how it ties in to be a functional unit, and you don't have to overspend to get the same exact result.

3) For those who seem to think so, Intel does not specifically make GPUS; the most they do is make integrated graphics which are basic and not for games like Arma III, or even Arma II for that matter. They make expensive and quality CPUs. However, AMD offers fine alternatives and you don't see many people complaining if they pick up a cheaper but powerful AMD and have it running properly.

Conclusion: It doesn't matter what brand you have, or how much you want to spend, it's about how your system ties in; and if you think developers are purposely making things run bad on 'AMD' or 'Intel' or 'Nvidia' and that making a DLC that will make the game purposefully run faster with 'Nvidia' hardware then you have no clue what you're talking about in the first place.

/thread

1) Ok, so when are they going to fix shadows?

2b) This seems extremely unlikely. Define running "flawlessly."

[kilroy the nerd 14]

It shouldn't be DLC, if new features are added it should just be an update. Simple as that, charging for features is ridiculous to do.

[Nichols 243]

Heck no things like this are not part of the "new business model" in gaming. I would rather pay $100 one time for a game to be patched up and have access to all future content with a guarantee that it will be patched and added to over a 2-5 year "lifespan" and things like this will be FREE because they are features and not CONTENT.

[rfc 10]

Voted "no". If possible I try to avoid any vendor lock ins.

[hades198 10]

reminds me of the last metro game, where you had to pay to unlock the hardest difficulty.... definitely a no from me

[neofit 65]

"NVidia owner" (GTX780) and "No".

My framerate is directly proportional to the overclocking % I put on the CPU.

And these guys wouldn't know a "nice feature" from unnatural non-existing crap like radial blur that you can't individually remove (cf. the unmoddable IFL44) so the less the better.

Please don't break the engine any more.

[fred41 42]

... i think ...

1. it is a bad idea to offer performance improvements as DLC

2. there is already a very good hardware independent standard for massive parallel calculations (especially, but not exclusive on GPU),

called OpenCL, for such things (no need for nvidia only, CUDA)

Greets,

Fred41

[Bouben 3]

reminds me of the last metro game, where you had to pay to unlock the hardest difficulty.... definitely a no from me

Are you serious? I have never heard of that.

[mr burns 132]

Are you serious? I have never heard of that.

Recon Mode or whatever they called it - quote from my mind "the serious player will be happy to pay .. etc, my ass" :) #jambasparabo

PS: Not that i´d ever had any problem with the missing reconfuck elitism mode, rather than my PC not being up to the awesome gfx, it´s just that "one additional/or less UI layer for money" feature itch :E

Edited June 7, 2014 by Mr Burns