I give up

:mad: Although, someone said this only applies to OEM licenses. So a retail license is bound to you, and OEM one to your device. Isn't DirectX 12 lovely? New hardware, new licence.

Arma 3 worth every cent. Only for the campaign worth to buy it. And after that we have countless hours of gameplay with / against AI with some nice missions built by the community. As a bonus we can play around with editor, which gives a quite good challenge. And of course it have several options as MP. No other game offers so much. I have 1073 hours on it, is mine most played game. My second most played game is America's Army 3 with 931 and the third is CS GO with 918, the fourth is CSS with 558. I have around 200 hours with some other games like Civilization V, Assetto Corsa, Insurgency or Arma 2 OA. If are considering to buy Arma 3, dont think twice. Get it. It is a great game for all the reasons above and much more.

It seems there is some difficulty to understand Microsoft strategy. In first place we cannot compare Windows 8 with Vista. With Vista there was real issues in matters on compatibility, drivers and performance. With Windows 8 is exactly the opposite, performs much better than Windows 7. With Windows 8 is only a matter of design and operation methods, while for social media and for mobile devices (notebook/laptop) is quite good, for gaming machines or even workstations there is no advantage in Windows 8, in fact in some circumstances there is a real disadvantage and on top of that, a huge privacy loss. While with Windows 7 we are able to disable all Microsoft "spyware" services, with Windows 8.1 we can't, even digging deep and killing this stuff, we see these services running randomly. Now, why all this? Because in fact there was no need for a new Operative System, so why? The answer is simple. While 10/15 years ago the real profit was coming from Operative System sales, today is not what happens. Today the real profit is coming from the services sold by Microsoft. The users need to be leaded to these services and Windows 8 is built under this concept, the user is basically forced to be part of Microsoft, sharing everything what happens in is computer. Microsoft grab this information and through a elaborated marketing strategy sells more services and products. Basically that's why Windows 8 was a flop, people (in general) understand this and stay way and also because in fact there was no valid reason to get Windows 8. In large part Windows 8 is being used by machines that are sold with Windows 8 installed. Windows 8 is being used by 18% of Windows users. But since basically the future of Microsoft (and other companies) is dependent of this business strategy something had to be made. So Microsoft renamed Windows 8 to Windows 10 and yes it is basically a name change, Windows 10 is the Windows 8, the main difference is more privacy loss and more dependency of Microsoft services. But this is not enough, obviously, under these conditions Windows 10 will follow Windows 8 on recycle bin. Microsoft know this, that's why they had to find a marketing strategy and honestly they found the best one. DirectX 12. Microsoft knows that everyone, hardware manufacturers, gaming studios, developers, brands and users will jump on this train with eyes closed and knows that DirectX 12 will be the key for success. In a couple of years no one will remember Windows 7 or 8. So yes, Windows 10 is going to be a sucess and for Microsoft was not that hard, basically they are using Xbox API renamed as DirectX 12 which basically has little or none dependency from CPU, relying mainly on GPU to operate. That's why DirectX 12 is so CPU "friendly", does not need it. Anyway, with DirectX 12 announcement no one cares anymore about Windows 10 features or design, when we see Windows 10 references what we get? DirectX 12. This is what separates average companies from successful ones. Good job Microsoft, well done.

Let's not forget the main reason for bottleneck in Arma 3 and is not even related with any API. Memory and file cache management. Arma 3 places (cache) a considerable amount of data in Hard Drive and use more RAM than any other application that I ever saw. The data placed in Hard Drive requires a continuous write and reading while RAM is being flushed. Unless in the upcoming times some one invent a Hard Drive that can have the same processing speed of a CPU/GPU/RAM, Arma 3 will always have bottleneck in the CPU, GPU and even RAM. DX12 maybe will bring some advantages in rendering stuff like foliage, shadows or reflections, but here Arma 3 already performs quite well (except PIP). The main situation is related with terrain and objects and the impact of these in system performance and this is not related by any way with rendering.

This is just the continuation of the battle OpenGL vs D3D. Just now is called Vulkan and it has a external OS (with a strong financial support) involved in the battle and for comercial purposes. Its public how how much Valve hates Microsoft, these 2 factors will bring this war to a different level, I have no doubts. In the same way, I have no doubts that Source games will be Vulkan based, also I have no doubts that Steam users (and source engine clients) will be "encouraged' to use SteamOS. So yes, Vulkan goal is to do what OpenGL was not able to do these last years. The chances are better now, since Steam is involved. But this subject is well known and widely debated already. Here is one article that basically says it all. http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/200836-next-generation-vulkan-api-could-be-valves-killer-advantage-in-battling-microsoft

This is total biased and fake information. I am sorry. If you want to compare Chernarus performance between DX9 and DX11, just grab Arma 2 and Arma 3. This is not cool.

Again, DirectX 12 is merely a marketing action performed by Microsoft motivated by financial and economic reasons. And a very smart one, I have to say. After the Windows 8 flop, only 18% of Windows clients are using Windows 8 (that's why is a flop) Microsoft had to do something. Dam.. what to do now without admitting the failure and lose more money? Simple solution came to their minds (for bright minds there is always a solution). Let's grab Xbox API and let's call it DirectX 12, let's grab Windows 8 and call it Windows 10. Everyone will be drooling after hearing DirectX 12 reference and they will run to grab Windows 10 and its a win. Like I said the guy(s) who had this idea deserve a statue in Wall Street, it's just brilliant. Now for common people, its good or bad? Probably (just probably) in matters of performance will be positive but in matters of quality it will be a pure deception. The last guy who was able to make miracles (for free) died 2000 years ago.

The truth is. Vulkan and SteamOS. The goal of SteamOS and Machine is to grab a market quota that now belongs to Xbox and Playstation. Steam machine basically is a console and Vulkan is competing directly with Xbox. Vulkan main goal (under every aspect) is for console games type. PC games and DirectX (Windows). DirectX 12 is nothing more than Xbox API. Basically means that in short time instead of 2 APIs (1 for console and 1 for PC) we will have 1 API that will be shared between PC and console. Also means that a game for console or pc will have exactly the same architecture, So, basically in short time we will have only 2 APIs shared by all platforms. Vulkan for SteamOS, Steam machine and Playstation (console) and DirectX 12 for Windows, Xbox (PC and console). This is good news for game studios, it will require much less investment to create and develop multi platform games. Wich one is better? Well, the smell is different but the crap is the same. It's a only a fight for a market quota and profit increase. Game studios will decide which one to use and is not easy to decide. SteamOS and become Valve dependant? Or Windows and still having Valve as option for comercial distribution? Obvioulsy Valve may start to distribute only SteamOS based games, but I dont believe in this, Valve do not want to lose the profit coming from Windows games.. Microsoft will always have a broader market and this may have some weight in game studios decision.

Me too, me too. I think this one fits perfectly.

there is no pessimism. just opinions.

In current gameplay, and in over thousands hours of experience playing exclusively with AI.

Probably it will fit well with some civilian gameplay, maybe Tanoa Life. From my side is not what I am looking, I only play with AI and in these scenarios with dense vegetation AI gameplay is not something feasible.

when we start with 180 degrees turns it looks like that we are a bit lost.

Agreed. Tigers is what Arma 3 needs, if is ok for WWF.

You are all wrong. This is a photoshopped picture from Mare Erythraeum, in Mars. Here is the story. In 2035 traveling in space has become a reality, now is possible to reach Mars in a few weeks. Nato has decided to establish a military base there but, SURPRISE!! Mars is already occupied by CSAT forces because in fact CSAT forces are Martians (that's why their uniforms are like that). At this point Nato realises that the war with CSAT forces was in fact an Alien invasion attempt and decide to fight back, conquer Mars is now the objective. This is War.

Wwise or FMOD are great APIs for effects or environmental sound but in matters of 3D sound are pretty weak when compared with DS3D. Still looking at current sound conditions, one of these could bring improvements.

The animations in Arma 3 are not that bad, in my opinion are quite good. Also we cant compare Arma 3 animations with BF4 or GTA 5 animations. With those games the concept is different, while with Arma 3 this kind of stuff is handled basically by the CPU with those games is handled by the GPU. And my guess is that BIS had to lower the number of "bones" to avoid an excessive CPU usage with animations. Now, I agree that Arma 3 should be more similar to those games in matters of how the game engine operate, should be more GPU instead of CPU. This would give a better output in matters of performance avoiding the CPU bottleneck caused by graphics rendering because of DirectX 11 limitations in matters of multi core/threading. The proof is that GTA 5 and BF4 have basically the same performance with whatever CPU (from i3 to i7) while the power of the GPU is decisive. If those games were like Arma 3 (highly dependent of CPU) most likely the players would be also complaining about lack of multicore support with its engines.

You are correct, was the best. But the reason for current sound in games to be a disgrace in matters of 3D is not game studios fault, in fact is Microsoft fault. The good old sound API named DirectSound3D (DS3D), also known as DirectX Audio, was present in DirectX 8 and 9. But it was replaced by Microsoft after DirectX 10 and 11 (Windows Vista and 7) for the API used in Xbox and Windows phone, and it's called XAudio. And the truth is, XAudio is a complete garbage in matters of 3D sound when compared with DirectSound3D and about this game developers cant do nothing. Why Microsoft did this? Probably was matter of economics since consoles are a much more interesting market in matters of games when compared with PCs.

Also use a Xonar with Sennheiser HD 558 and I can say that the sound in game at this point is not ok, with stereo or virtual surround. Sound samples are not ok, directional/positional sound is not working properly and sound distance is completely messed. In fact is the sound that is making me to take a break from Arma..

With all AI in general still depending of AI it may vary, for instance with RHS Mod this situation is more pronounced.

I spawn easily on my computer (or in my server) around 200 AI units at same time maintaining stable 60 FPS. In fact all the missions that I play (I only play with AI (team/enemy) I chose to spawn all the AI at mission start to avoid the lag spikes caused by the AI spawning when detected. BUT, soon in have I have couple on sight the FPS severely drops, this leads me to conclude that the issues with AI are not related with CPU, it is related with graphics rendering (probably caused by the insane amount of detail that has to be rendered individualy (with DX11)).

In matters of memory (RAM) needs, it seems there are no limits. I am not sure if is because of the "breaking 32 bit barrier" but Arma 3 has a huge memory leak and most likely is related with this "On a 64 bit OS the data is slowly written to the page file, but it's not actually removed from memory until you run out of space. This trick allows for memory use above the 32 bit address space limit". Since I started to use 3 GPUs in triple crossfire, the game keeps caching memory basically until exhausting all memory available in system. Looking at Arma3.exe is loading around 2.5GB, sometimes reach 3GB but in total the memory loaded is around 12GB and looking at system monitor it says that I have about 10GB cached. Since the only applications that I am running are Arma 3 and Steam, there is much no doubts about this insane RAM usage is coming. The main issue is that after 5.5GB loaded (approximately) the game becomes unplayable with a insane struggling and stuttering. Also, if we set the startup parameter -maxMem= to let's say 2GB the Arma3.exe process it stays bellow 2GB RAM usage, but still the game keeps caching memory in the same way until exhausting all memory available in system. This was not happening when I was using a single GPU (Nvidia) it started with multiple GPUs connected. I suspect that the RAM usage is somehow connected with GPU memory (I have more GPU memory available than whatever game needs, including Arma 3), from what I can see the game loads tons of data (probably all what it can) into GPU memory and try to do the same with RAM in attempt to compensate all the data loaded in to GPU but since it seems there are no limits ("breaking 32 bit barrier") easily exhaust all the memory (RAM) available in the system (in Altis is a matter of seconds). Setting my system with triple crossfire simply prevented me from playing Arma 3 and should it have been exactly the opposite. I hope that some one from Development can address this issue because I would like to play Arma 3 again.

Yes, in a mission playing as team leader. Besides the normal targets (units/vehicles) if I choose more (at bottom) I have hundreds of targets named as "ground position". This with 3 GPUs. With 1 GPU I dont have any target named "ground position". Most likely here is the reason for the huge amount of data loaded in to RAM and system cache, if I have hundreds of targets related with terrain I have the entire Altis loaded in to my system. Edit. With 3 GPUs also texture quality settings that we chose in game graphics options severely affect the amount of data loaded in to RAM (and system cache). From Standard to Ultra it duplicates the RAM usage, With Ultra I have aproximadelty 20GB of RAM in use (more the data loaded in to Page File which is around 12GB).

Not what I am saying. I enjoy Arma 3 even when I play on my laptop. Read again.

Luckily, we have several very well informed and valid theories about CPU/GPU (and vice versa) operation with Arma 3 engine. As a "forumer" and based in my experience I also have mine theory, mainly about the called "cpu bottleneck", so here she goes. With Arma 3 the relation between CPU and GPU in matters of usage/workload is not different from any other game engine, basically CPU workload is dependant of GPU needs. What is the main limiting/demanding factor for GPU and consequently for CPU usage/workload? Frames per Second. According to my theory most of "cpu bottleneck" claims are because they are running the game at very low Frames per Second (60 or bellow) due to GPU limitations, in these circumstances is not a surprise to see the CPU with low utilization, in fact is quite normal and common to every game engine. Why I am having this theory? Because when I run Arma 3 at stable 144 Frames per Second I have a quite decent CPU (cores) usage and similar to any other game engine in same circumstances. When I run Arma 3 at 60 Frames per Second, my CPU is usage is low which is quite normal and similar to any other game engine. In conclusion for my theory, if we have GPU power enough to unleash Arma 3 we will see the CPU "smoking hot". I will leave AI out of this equation, because I have for it some other theory and is not related with hardware. So to OP, instead of overclocking your Titan, get a second one and you will feel the power of Arma 3. Also, getting a second Titan, be sure that you have at least 32GB of RAM and at least 2 SSDs (preferably RAMDISK) in RAID0.