Tintee

Indeed they can change their name. Believe me, an education on this subject is not necessary. Also, you may be very surprised what you can do with a unique nick plus the info that can be gathered from it. I have done this in the past with good results. Some people get very attached to their nick. Then one thing reveals another, and another etc. ;) Possible bug, yep, maybe but that does not mean that all of these incidents are the same bug. I just read a few threads on it and it was a little different to what happened to us. Only one of us remained unaffected by this and was happily running around until the host disconnected. Either way, i`m not really bothered by it and i only took note for future reference in case it happens again.

This happened to us yesterday too and i took a screenshot with the guys name on it.

This may be so. I do not know as i am just reporting what i see. I just tried again with EVGA Precision and it`s more or less agreeing with gpu-z on highish v-ram usage after just a few minutes play. Certainly more than 2GB, always! Usually around 2.5GB.

Well i have the screenshot of it here on my desktop. Believe what you will. :)

Dispel my argument? What argument? I am merely reporting what gpu-z is showing and i have a screenshot of it too. You can feel free to think that my "argument" is wrong if you like. Go and tell the developer of gpu-z that his app is wrong. Dont be telling me. Putting ones head in the sand will not make something go away.

Quote..."Sir, if I may, sir! My HD6970 have got +2GBs of V-RAM, however the game itself have never gone beyond ~1550Ms with everything maxed-out, including all highest MSAA, highest PPAA and V-Sync enabled with 12000/12000/200, sir!" Sir, gpu-z reported a max usage of 3069MB and 84% gpu usage when i was running on ultra at 1920x1080, plus 8xAA. All else maxed and only postprocess were disabled on my gtx680 4gb! What is this "+2GB 6970" you speak of sir? Surely you mean a 2GB? Or a dual gpu 4gb? As in 2gb per core? My 680 appears to be using the available memory as needed. Where you perhaps running at 800x600? It`s all a little bit vague sir!

I do believe that some of you did not read or take onboard what i said earlier. Some seem to be running on ultra settings and not mentioning what amount of v-ram their gpu has. I`ll say it again... On ultra settings at 1920x1080 this game uses MORE than 3GB of video ram! It does not matter what cpu or gpu core you have, if you do not have more than 3gb of video ram on the gpu, fps WILL suffer on ultra settings at any decent resolution. If you want to do some testing then run gpu-z in the background and see what the max video ram usage is, then adjust in-game settings so that it is not maxing your 2GB cards out. This would be a good start to trying to figure out any other genuine problems with the likes of cpu usage etc. btw, this is not a fault of the game. Just that you dont have the capable hardware to run all those large textures and AA settings. Weakest link in the chain and all that! Other games use similar amounts of v-ram when maxed.

My overclocked 2600k is using all 8 threads in game with quite balanced peaks of 50% on each thread and hyperthreading is working fine. What stuck out most was that gpuz was reporting that the game used a max of 3069MB of video memory in the short 10 minute test i did running at 1920x1080 and most things maxed, but not all. I have a 4GB GTX680. I`m guessing most people run with less than 3gb gpus so this will surely have some negative effect on them? Also gpu max usage was 84%. I started gpuz AFTER the game had loaded and while i was in the game playing. In game fps is not great with a best of probably 40 fps and a norm of about 25-30 and extreme dips to as low as 18 fps. The mission was CO 40 air cavalry 1.1. But i notice wild variations depending on what mission i`m running. Some run really well and some seem to run like crap. All above was tested by me opening up a small server game. My performance is far better when on someone else`s hosted game, like when my friend runs it on his 5.1ghz, 6 core intel rig. He reports a similar experience to my own. I`m on the latest beta drivers from nvidia (314.14).

Well yes, i now know that this is not an error and should be in community wishes. I apologize for thinking it was possibly a bug. :rolleyes: As for the rest. Lets agree to disagree.

I think we have a misunderstanding here with the use of the English language. I am saying that not using my available hardware is not fine and ok. It may be by design but that does not mean it is good. Fine and ok with me would be to make use of the available power of my gpu to take on that task. Otherwise it is wasted. Also, no one can predict what fps would be gained in Arma 3 by using a gpu dedicated to physx. At best it is only a guess.

I beg to differ. I have a nice 280 here that practically double my fps in other physx games when its in use, metro 2033 for example.

I have a gtx 680 as my main gpu and a gtx 280 installed and dedicated to physx in the nvidia control panel. I also have the 3D settings "show physx visual indicator", ticked When i start arma 3 alpha the nvidia driver overlay shows that the physx is being handled by my cpu. Nothing i do seems to change this. Was just wondering does anyone have the same problem or ideas on why this is happening. Is it a physx bug or an Arma 3 alpha bug?? My driver is the very latest available btw. I just checked.

I just got my my key emailed to me there, approx 18 hours after payment. Thanks guys! Hopefully this will help to put other peoples minds at rest.

Never mind the steam key. I would have been happy with just a confirmation e-mail telling me i had bought it from the store.bistudio.com. I got nothing so i phoned my credit card company and they checked and said yes, payment has gone through for €24.99. Be nice just to get that e-mail but still nothing. :(

Yay, I now see today that the Digital deluxe edition and Alpha versions are also available for purchase at store.bistudio.com!