Sandy*

A free game would bring tenfolds more players. A good example of this are the "free weekends" in Steam which usually mean the game in question gets flooded with newbies causing chaos, mayhem and teamkilling left and right :) Having free access for 3 days is a lot better marketing strategy than 3+ months though, and yes, a 30$ pricetag is a huge barrier compared to freebies...

Your OP is nothing but crying about the very existence of DayZ servers in the game's server list. And random people blowing everything up has always been the scourge of public servers.

Yeah like how dare people play mods that they like but I don't!

No, you've understood this wrong. The OP wants the unit slot (class) selection screen to be after briefing. Gear (loadout) are still selected in the briefing screen just like in Arma 2 and before. It's kind of fundamental that it's this way, since depending on the mission the briefing can be completely different for different units. Not to mention TvT missions where players choose different sides. An OPFOR player can't be briefed on BLUFOR's grand battle plan, now can it?

But then you couldn't be given unit/squad/etc specific briefing/tasks.

Three point fifty-six.

Of course it had to be something so simple. It works now - my dearest thanks

_trg = createTrigger ["EmptyDetector", _pickupSpot]; _trg setTriggerArea [200,200,0,false]; _trg setTriggerActivation ["VEHICLE","PRESENT",false]; _trg setTriggerStatements ["this", "{_x assignAsCargo transport1; [_x] orderGetIn true;} foreach units _blugroup;", ""]; _trg triggerAttachVehicle [transport1]; I'm trying to set up a trigger so that once a vehicle named transport1 arrives at the trigger area, an AI group of infantry (_blugroup) would board it. I'm not exactly sure though what's wrong here, if I run the assignAsCargo/orderGetIn commands outside the trigger they work - the infantry will board the vehicle. I've also tested the trigger by placing a "hint 'test'" command in the activation field and transport1 will trigger it succesfully. But with the above script, nothing happens. I have a feeling this is some simple syntax error or wrong use of commands so feel free to facepalm at me ;)

Sorry I typoed that, let me rephrase - can you give me examples of games that run AI, gameplay physics or any similar tasks (that Arma3 runs on the CPU) on the GPU? ---------- Post added at 14:45 ---------- Previous post was at 14:41 ---------- What? A large number of AI units (and their physics) are a huge strain on performance in Arma.

Can you give me examples of games that run AI, gameplay physics or any other tasks that Arma 3 runs on the CPU?

If you're trying to spawn a unit from a side that has no units placed in the editor, this might be the classic editor/scripting problem where the side is missing a so called "center". Try placing some east unit on the map and then try running the script.

Afaik parachutes are not in the alpha yet so it might be that the supply drop is disabled due to that.

Don't know about changing the game's time compression, but you can easily bypass your editing software's restriction by rendering the rendered video to an even shorter one.

Are you launching your mission as a preview from the editor? The editor always skips the briefing screen. Edit: I haven't taken a look at Arma 3's task system yet but in A2 you had to manually script task hints with taskHint.

Troll posts? The point here is that it's entirely possible for BIS to optimize the current engine to use GPU better in rendering graphics, that is something that is probably a lot more cheaper resources-wise than developing a new engine from scratch, not to mention the flood of new problems brought by such. As for these "hypothetical changes", none has been mentioned. GPUs will surely be utilized in many new ways for games in the future but right now the practical examples are quite simple and not really something that Arma could benefit from. GPU AI and such have been mentioned, but the solutions for stuff like that will probably come from the GPU manufacturers instead of BIS allocating resources and running into dead ends.

The way he keeps flinging the name "nVidia Titan" around suggests his arguments are based on said manufacturer's marketing speech.

Have you skipped everything that's been posted on this thread? A lot of CPU tasks are ill-suited for the GPU in a game. Naturally I can't predict what they come up with in the future, but with current hardware this fantasy of yours about CPU tasks being magically offloaded for the GPU to process just simply isn't happening. Humor me.

And they need to work on them. Scrapping the engine and starting from square 1 would be idiocy.

It's very simple. You have an explosion sending rubble around. This rubble doesn't collide with any gameplay-interactive things in the game, hence a GPU can calculate them and simply draw them on your screen. But if you'd want that rubble to hit and kill the player, it affects a lot of things and is no longer just eyecandy, so the CPU needs to know about it (synchronized to the CPU).

You really aren't grapsing things. Of course ballistics affect gameplay, and hence aren't suitable for GPU. Edit: naturally, the ballistics for useless rubble from explosions could be done on the GPU, as I said, but I take it you mean bullet ballistics and such. Edit 2: But the topic about the engine, and it also serves as good example against your posts. GPU physics in video games today mostly serve to add graphical fidelity instead of being a powerhouse for gameplay physics. Edit 3: My point regarding Arma 3 is that this whole CPU/GPU thing is just a matter of optimization that BIS can work on if they want to - it is not some huge fault of an old engine architecture.

And here we go again. GPU physics used in games are mostly for eyecandy - debris/rubble/particles/destruction that doesn't need to collide with say, the player unit for example, so they play no role in gameplay and hence don't need to be synchronized with the CPU. Running Arma's vehicle physics on the GPU for example, wouldn't work that way.

But what would be the point of offloading something to the GPU if the CPU does it faster? Besides, games today don't usually even take advantage of all the CPU cores people have, the issue in coding multicore stuff being synchronization. While this article mentions several good uses for GPUs, could you point out the spot where it says GPUs are more powerful than CPUs in general? :)

You didn't even read what I wrote, and you're pulling these "facts" out of your ass. No, a GPU is not "more powerful" than a CPU. A GPU can execute loads of more instructions per clock, but the clockspeeds are nowhere near CPUs. Hence a GPU wins a CPU only when it comes to doing massive amounts of simple calculations. This is great when you're doing graphical tricks, but if you're doing something that needs to have an immediate effect on gameplay you'll need to sync it with the CPU, and oops, all that speed and power is lost. And that thing I put in bold really gives the impression you know even less about this stuff than I do.

You can't magically offload CPU's tasks to GPUs for "better performance". GPUs excel in doing lots and lots of parallel calculations, but in practice this power is mostly useful in doing nice graphics & eyecandy tricks that don't affect gameplay, as gameplay affecting stuff would still need to be synchronized between the CPU & GPU and that is slow. And what would you win with a 64-bit executable apart from killing a loading screen or two? CPU/GPU optimization isn't the best in Arma 3, that is true, but you're barking at the wrong things.

Should have? They bought a game called "Arma 3: Alpha" with loads of description about it being an early test version and it wasn't obvious enough?