Dingo8

Oh, I see... Another troll.

You can't determine how efficient an engine is simply by how many threads/cycles it uses: http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/91-real-virtuality-going-multicore

Source?

To qualify for the community alpha, first you have to learn to use the forum search function. :)

Read the confirmed features list on the first post in this thread. The RAH-66 Comanche is the main attack helicopter for BLUFOR.

You're right, it's fictional. The photo is of an Mi-28 and meant to show what inspired the design for the Mi-48.

Can someone confirm this with a source? I think I've heard in a tech demo that the CPU has to regularily process and pass info about polys to the GPU and that hence it can become a bottleneck in high poly scenes, whereas tessellation allows more polys to be added to an existing mesh on the GPU without needing to "bother" the CPU much. I'm not exactly an expert on the topic though, so I may have completely misinterpreted everything. :p

Ah, my bad. I thought it was part of PhysX.

VBS is for an entirely different audience. They don't have to worry about fracturing the multiplayer community by making core features optional, right?

In some games where it's purely for eye candy, you can switch PhysX off completely. In others it performs some core functions plus eye candy, and only the latter can be switched off. Arma 3 will definitely use PhysX for vehicles, ragdolls and objects such as crates. There may also be additional eye candy that otherwise doesn't affect gameplay. I think it's highly unlikely they'd allow anything but the eye candy to be switched off, if it's implemented, especially given that it'd break multiplayer compatibility.

I'm going to assume you either misread what I wrote or are trolling.

And if you reduce the bottleneck, it may allow you to utilize more of your GPU's power, which means there could be room for improved graphics.

If they manage to make the code running on the CPU (which often causes a bottleneck) efficient enough, many people could get better looking graphics without performance loss.

Usually more polygons means more stress on the CPU, but tesselation gives relief to the CPU by letting the GPU add more detail. As a bonus it does very smooth LOD transitions. So don't worry; It may in fact IMPROVE performance on your system by lessening the CPU bottleneck, while at the same time making things prettier.

I know, I was being sarcastic. :p

Ruhtraeel nailed it. I prefer the RAM disk method because it ensures the files you want are really loaded from RAM and not flushed from the cache in the middle of the game because of some other background HDD activity. Plus there is free RAM disk software out there.

As he wrote: This will load relatively quickly and the performance benefits should outweigh the disadvantage of the wait before game launch. Someone mentioned having lots of spare RAM for Arma to use, so I suggested using a RAM disk as an alternative to SSD to improve performance.

Depends on the capabilities of the RAM disk software you're using.

In one of the E3 videos one of the devs mentioned they're experimenting with tesselation. This would be another great way to increase both performance and visual quality, as it lets the CPU handle only a relatively low-poly mesh and then add most of the fine detail via GPU.

Cloth simulation, mesh deformation, extra destruction particles, etc. Probably purely eye candy, otherwise as you wrote it would break multiplayer compatibility.

But I thought Alpha = Demo. :rolleyes:

Yeah, it's likely your internet connection then. In case you're using wifi, that may be significantly adding to your ping too if there's too much interference from other devices like cordless phones, microwaves and wireless cameras, regardless of how many bars your reception indicator shows.

By copying the game files into a RAM disk on boot you save the system from having to load it while you're actually playing the game, meaning less stuttering caused by the system waiting for the hard drive to respond. You can choose which files you want to stream from RAM disk. And if you have enough RAM it won't even matter if you copy over stuff you won't need. It won't take long for the files to copy into the RAM disk, and if it's streaming from there while the game is running there'll be far less stuttering because there's no need to wait for a hard drive to respond with its slow moving parts. Note that the stuttering that RAM disk or SSDs resolves is most severe with a long view distance.

We're talking about copying some of the game files, which would otherwise be streamed from the hard drive, into a RAM disk so the game performs much faster when it's run later. Left to its own devices Windows would only load the files into disk cache automatically AFTER the game first tried accessing them, meaning there'd still be stuttering.