jiltedjock

A 32 Bit executable can use 4GB of address space on 64 Bit Windows.

There is nothing in Haswell that will make it run better than on Sandybridge.

The other solution - if you have a quad core or greater - is to play your missions as multiplayer missions on a dedicated server instance running on your box, so that the AI is offloaded to the server executable instead (and thus is processed on a core not being used by your client).

I would expect the AI to be able to reverse a vehicle or use a building for cover in next gen Arma. Is next gen hardware going to be single core CPUs running at 7 or 8 Ghz? Because that is what Arma 4 will need to run well, because the engine will basically be Arma 3 plus 4 years of patches.

Also recommended for anyone with a good quad core to run a dedicated server and client on the same box. Export your missions as multiplayer and play them as single player, the AI will now be offloaded to the server and you'll get better, more stable FPS on your client.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?163640-Arma3-and-the-LARGEADDRESSAWARE-flag-(memory-allocation-gt-2GB) http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?177454-a-simple-registry-tweak-for-increased-performance these two combined have given me the highest, most stable FPS I've had in Arma (x64, 16GB RAM)

Fred41's large pages malloc certainly seems to result in higher, more stable FPS, I am using it to good effect in Arma 2.

Especially since they have been doing it this way since OFP.

After 320, having the frame limit set in the Nvidia profiler stops vsync from working, and vice versa. this is by design, as apparently the fps limiter was interfering with vsync, however I never noticed this in any of the earlier drivers where I would sometimes limit frames below 60 to keep GPU temps down or to prevent spikes

Isn't it obvious that this is caused by AI simulation being downgraded during fast forward? => less CPU work => more FPS.

Any 32Bit app can use up to 4GB on x64 Windows, and up to 3GB on 32 bit OS with the /3GB switch, as long as the application is Large Address Aware (which Arma 3 is).

You are full of it. Where did I say the code is not optimized? I said the application architecture is not optimal' date=' and offered the example of moving the AI processing to a spare core, which [b']does[/b] improve the client performance. And with Fred's changes, I have not seen anyone report worse performance whereas some users are seeing 10 or 15% more FPS. You are saying, definitively, that the code is optimized. With what evidence do you say this? Are you a programmer? Do you have access to the source code? To be frank, I don't even know what you think you mean by optimized. Do you mean you don't think the code can get any better? On what evidence? Throughout this thread you have not accepted anyone offering the opinion that the code is not optimized, unless they have access to the source code. Well the reverse is true too - how can you say it is optimized, without access to the source code? Wouldn't it, in fact, be better if you just stuck to saying that you are satisfied with performance on your PC and leave it at that?