white

people already say this and considering arma 3 on ultra only uses 50% my gpu at any given time im pretty sure my gpu could handle that kind of physics running on physix.

i personally like playing an military simulator like i was playing tomb raider, this way i dont even have to buy the new tombraider to get a modern feel out of it.

because of your fanboy attitude that plagues a parcel of consumers and makes them blind, this issue wasnt addressed in arma 2 and ppl had to live with bad fps for years. and just now, maybe, on arma 3, it might be addressed, because there are enough complaints for them to recognize this as an serious issue. and not because of people like you. be the sixth to vote it down: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716

i could buy both right now, but i think it would be retarded to do so because of 1 game, since im completely fine with the 200+ others i own, playing all of them with above 50 fps. and the funny thing is, there are people with xeons and titans that have the same exact problem so the joke is still on you. ive even considered getting dual xeons for 3d rendering but guess what, even though they would be a lot more reliable, they would be slower while costing something like 6 times more. but anyway, since you didnt counter argument anything that ive said i guess you understood and agreed, so were good.

the computer is cpubound, with a better gfx card you will be able to increase quality settings but you will see no fps gain until they improve the engine. now, about those 20-30 fps. yes i played a lot of arma 2 and ive always been frustrated as hell because of the same low fps. my main interest on arma 3 was having better fps, which i didnt. low fps is bad anywhere, and to make my point, this is a post i made about it today: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?148691-Exeede-rec-specs-but-extreamly-poor-performance-on-arma-3-alpha&p=2339644&viewfull=1#post2339644 i urge you to download and watch the video i posted there. yes the fps you see ingame in your 20-30 range is as bad as the video, but you in particular only notice it in the video because theres a direct comparison. a lot of people are able to notice how bad it is without a side-by-side comparison because theyve dealt with it for years and years, and also because theyre used, like me, to play other games with 60 or higher fps.

and thats not lousy?

bohemia should ship some céramique on the retail just in case

thanks, i guess apparently i was wrong, the vishera performance surprised me there, to me thats good news (i expected those "halfcores" to perform worse in this particular game). and intel dual cores are there right next to them showing the lack of multicore in the engine. unrelated: imho this is what scaling with multicore support should look like: (duals then quads then 6 then 8) http://i.imgur.com/0nIkCAb.jpg

i also believe filters like AA which run entirely inside the gfx card also use a chunk of videoram. more AA, more videoram used.

everyones cpu is a bottleneck, so yes. the first core is all that matter, having that said, you need very high clocks for acceptable fps. check this out:

almost no game uses more than 3gb ram, so 32 bits if fine. unless they state that they could use a lot more considering the game being able to be huge and they cant because how they coded it. at least on arma 2 the max usable is 2047. again, at least in arma 2 the max usable vram is 2047 and ive not seen any dev stating that arma 3 can use more, so far. bf3 uses 1.5gb max if i recall correctly, and only on ultra. you probably found yourself a memory leak.

with my watercooler i rarely go over 50 degrees celsius with all 6 cores stressed and since arma barely uses my cpu or my videocard, both dont go much over 40 degrees celsius.

although i have an xfi for audio quality i believe almost all games nowdays run in software mode, since windows vista i believe. almost no game uses hardware accelerated sounds for a while, so it wont have any didferente in performance. not sure about ArmA 2-3, havent checked. i think windows 8 has directaudio again to make use of it but i dont believe any game uses it, perhaps older ones. there was a great article about it that ive read a few years back but i cant find it right now.

there really isnt an issue in using the same engine, theres an issue, and a history, of a big problem not beign addressed ever in the arma series. and btw, Rocket is changing a lot of the engine to be serverside like mmo´s. zombies that used AI like arma and were client sided aswell are going serverside only, which means is taking the load off the client side cpu. just that made the zombie count limit (performancewise) go from 400 to 4000. not to mention other enhancements they are making. i believe dayz will have a lot more performance and i have huge hope for it not because bohemia is behind it, but because Rocket wants the best game he can make to work great. and yeah, its the same engine. if the game performs well without going multicore, im completely fine with it. afterall there wont be a huge vehicle warfare on Dayz like on arma. when there was only the mod he kept saying he couldnt do much because the engine was limited, but now hes in control of what can be accomplished, but unfortunatly, only in Dayz. ---------- Post added at 22:13 ---------- Previous post was at 22:00 ---------- that my good Sir destroyed a lot of false arguments about multithread not scaling well. well done.

go read about them, i see no point of doing that for you. so its true, i thought it was the same because it looked similar, i guess thats the graphical designs "fault" then. but i believe them until proven otherwise, why? dozen, even hundreds of people that came in contact with the code and ppl would be able to recognize similar old code, they wouldnt be able to keep that a secret, just doesnt happen. same goes for the new engine from scratch that i mentioned, its new from scratch until proven otherwise. and you dont know better as much as you want to. noone change engines halfway? sir i present you 3dRealms, i believe they hold a record in doing that. --- and btw, Bf3 isnt a console game ported to pc, its one of the few games nowdays that were made for PC and then had a lower version ported to consoles. Dice knows their shit. and btwe Watch Dogs is following the same path.

its about needing it or not. arma 2 is a cpu intensive game that desperatly needs to be fed with more cpu cycles. most if not all other games run fine with great fps with how many cores they were designed with. because thats a design choice. why i mentioned arma 2? well arma 3 suffers from the exact same issue. theres no problem if a game runs with 60-120fps with 1 core or 2, none at all. but there is when it goes as low as 5-10fps. and that is the reason. and yeah most new triple a games do use multicore. udk, cryengine, source, frostbyte 2, all of them can use it, and they can for a reason.

gj om finding an article from almost a year before they came out saying it was a new engine, GENIUS. really? god damn. seriously. skyrim isnt a new engine, its an upgrade from fallout which is an upgrade from oblivion. everything even looks the same. skyrim without the mods looks like shit like forementioned games.

AI/FPS issues on a bug report that got rejected didnt go into detail as to why, but basically said they wouldnt fix it because it was too hard. and well, its the same engine.

arma 3 has fps issues even without any AI present on the mission, if it gets cpu intensive the 1 core bottlenecks and everything goes to hell, while ignoring all the unused cores. bf3 on the other hand on 64 player maps will devour every cpu cycle/core you throw at it and keep a decent minimum framerate. multiplayer with 64 people is the only scenario in which the cpu bottleneck becomes apparent on highend cpus, below that even dual cores can handle it and usually then the game becomes bottlenecked by the gpu.

considering people are getting 20% usage on 8 cores, 33% on 6 cores and 50 on quads i believe if it was addresses properly the gain would be much higher than that. ive disabled 4 of my 6 cores and had no performance loss, placed settings on ultra with 8x AA and had no performance loss. i took screenshots and ppl made videos about this. its been replicated all over. theres a huge amount of bottleneck in that 1 core right now and with an api monitor you can see the "1 thread that rules them all".

yes but the current situation is almost everything running in a highly bottlenecked core, that is not sustainable. then they throw in clouds and physics that do support multiple threads by themselves but have to go in line and wait for the first core, bottlenecking things even more. im sorry but thats bad coding. and need i to quote Soma again on why they dont address these issues properly? the only thing we all want is for them to address this, but their silence and evasive behaviour by not making it on the known issues/sit rep is painting a bad picture considering their past behavior on the same issue.

go back and read my first post, i know its difficult but read it again, i never said they should make a new engine. but i argued with the false statement that companies never make new engines from scratch, which was false, and i proved it with 2 seconds on google. you are buring yourself in an argument you created and only exists in your imagination. stick to reality please and take your time to read the posts properly, even if you need to read them a few times to understand them. again if you find it too difficult, heres what i previously stated: "that said, im fine with it being the same engine, im not fine with the major problems not having been addressed. LIKE MULTICORE WITH PROPER SUPPORT WITH SEVERAL THREADS FOR THE MAIN GAME/AI." god damn.

you guys really like circlejerking. i proved his statement wrong and you pull a lowly unusefull argument out of your ass just to try to somewhat justify him being wrong. he made an statement and i proved him wrong, thats it. try to understand logic and grow some balls already. btw, that game is being made FOR PC and its going to be PORTED to consoles so check your facts and dont try to guess what an unreleased game will be like, ull just be stating bullshit.