jurrasstoil

Well, it shouldn't, because arma uses CPU based PhysX and not GPU based. New or updated GPU drivers should have no influence on that.

Yeah, Arma3 is using the CPU based PhysX afaik. So doesn't matter whether you are running with NV or AMD/ATI.

Yup, same here. Game crashes at least every hour, sometimes way less. Running -nologs atm so no logs (duh...), but I'm too lazy and tired to fire the game up again and wait for it to crash. Might post an .rpt tomorrow after running w/o -nologs. For now, my best guess is that the PhysX3_x86.dll error returned - at least that's what windows tells. Although it switches between faulting PhysX3_x86.dll and just arma3.exe for the crashes.

I decided to rerun this test after today's patch which is supposed to improve performance with AI on Altis. Unfortunately I changed my settings since the last test and didn't write the old ones down. However, the impact from the AI fighting inside the city was quite noticable and the GPU usage dropped along with the fps and the CPU power became the limiting factor (it seems that way at least). I can say that - for me, personally - it seems like the patch did indeed improve the performance. While you can see that pre-patch my fps dropped from around 60 to 35 the closer the AI units came to the city and actual enemy contact, it seems that the drop in GPU usage appears a lot later now and is less severe which also keeps the fps a slight bit higher (from 60 down to 45ish). CPU Usage seems to be about the same. Oh, and to quote the changelog post:

The game/alpha isn't out yet, not even in closed public alpha, so there is no way of knowing if this is actually going to work or even fix the problem. In theory, it sounds good, but so do a lot of things.

The same place where you sign the petition to get BI to pay attention to that petition.

Yeah, this isn't really a problem, just normal windows behavior. Once you close a window or file, focus switches to the file or window that has been selected before. e.g. if you are currently using your browser window, then open a windows explorer window, the focus will switch from the browser to the explorer window. Once you close the explorer window it will switch back to the browser. So, either give something else focus after tabbing out and before opening/focusing the mission file or use windowed mode since the cursor isn't restricted inside the ARMA window's boundaries (except when ingame and not in the inventory/map screen).

Not sure which mouse you bought, but even cheap G300/G400 will do just fine. Get a mousepad (like a steelseries qpad for example) and turn the mouse smoothing and acceleration to 0.

What do you mean with "custom rig"? Every rig is "custom", welcome to PC gaming.

singleplayer, maybe, but on low settings and not that great. multiplayer, no chance in hell most likely.

Vishera heavily relies on multicore support and that's where most of the work on their architecture went. A Haswell at 3.4ghz offers about 50-70% more performance compared to a 4ghz Vishera if you only use a single core. A 4 year old Phenom II X4 has the exact same single core perfomance as the Vishera in fact. The Visheras (or the FX-8320 to be precise) offer really great value when your main applications have multicore support for more than 4 cores. Stuff like encoding, rendering, etc. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of games or engines out there that can make use of any more than 4 cores. Cry Engine is one of the very few that actually utilizes 8 cores effectively. The rest barely uses 4 if at all. Most of the time you won't see a big difference between a dual and a quad core with the same clock and from the same generation. Arma's RV engine however, relies mostly on raw single core power and draws some benefits from up to 4 cores. This is why the AMD's see poor performance or at least significantly worse performance compared to current (3rd and 4th) gen intels.

Yeah, those can't be zeroed with PgUp PgDown. I assume it had the (A)RCO sight? Here is a video on how to use it:

If you are upgrading for A3 exclusively: take the 4570. The 4430 is terrible value compared to the 4570. Here is why: Both have a Turbo mode. But the 4430 only overclocks a single core from 3.0ghz to 3.2ghz. If there is load on all cores, it stays at stock 3.0ghz. The 4570 overclocks all cores from 3.2ghz to 3.4ghz or one core to 3.6ghz. Price difference should only be like 10 bucks. The 8350 (the 8320, which you can overclock yourself, is way better value by the way) is a good CPU, but it needs multicore support to shine. Arma has terrible multicore support, so what counts is good singlecore performance. The 4570 beats the 8350 by about 50% in that aspect.

Yeah, I made a similar observation in a previous thread: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?162894-re-Beyond-recommended-requirements-Terrible-Performance&p=2497669&viewfull=1#post2497669 If you let the AI fight in an open field, the impact will be smaller.

That won't help. You can set everything down to low and play in 640x480 and it won't improve your frames. Even lower settings won't do anything. The CPU doesn't get bogged down by the graphics, but by other things like AI, pathfinding and god knows what.

I'm not sure how it was in the beta and alpha (had no time to play during the beta phase), but it's the same for me. I have to get the crosshair right on the target i want to lock on to, otherwise it won't lock on.

Err, yeah... that's what I'm saying. Buying the i3 is pointless. It won't perform any better in Arma than the i5. But the i5 is a lot better than the i3 for everything else that can make use of more than 2 cores. Considering that there's only like a 30€ price difference between them, it would be even more foolish to buy the i3.

The i3 4340 is the fastet dual core you can buy. It runs at 3.6ghz and has hyper-threading (which Arma won't use of course). The i5 4570 runs at 3.2ghz, has 4 cores and turbo which overclocks one core to 3.6ghz (heavy load on a single core) or all cores to 3.4ghz (heavy load on more than one core). If an application can make use of only 2 cores, both CPUs will perform about the same (difference of 2-5% tops).

That probably beats the guy who thought that a 6mbit internet connection wasn't enough to play this game...

Theoretically the performance will scale linearly. So, if you overclock it by 20%, you get 20% more performance.

Make sure to get the boxed version tho. Better warranty.

Short answer: no. Long answer: noooooooooooooooooooooooo. except for some placebo changes that don't fix the problems that lie deep within the engine.

Typo? Cause thats not too good, considering thats a hypothetical Alright... if you honestly think that 6mbit isn't enough to run arma, you have no clue what you are talking about. Monitor your net traffic while playing Arma. It rarely exceeds 512kbit/s downstream and 128kbit/s upstream.

Yeah, I've heard that one before. When Arma 2 was released. This has absolutely nothing to do with drivers... The bottleneck(s?) the engine creates with AI, the netcode and how it handles objects limits the GPU usage. Drivers will do jack squat to fix this. The only thing optimized drivers will improve is the fps when there is no artificial CPU bottleneck.

I think the AA Missiles are in the Irfit that is parked near the base.