Arma 3 Community Alpha - Announcement!

[NeuroFunker 11]

Unfortunately, I can't quote it since it comes from the talks I had with Zipper5 at Gamescom :)

lol no way, it being discussed over and over again, if you will have to preorder arma 3, to get arma 3 alpha, and somewhere end this summer, one of bi devs said: arma 3 alpha will be free and for everyone! And thats good so, so i can be sure, i'll try the alpha first, see if devs, havn't fuck'd it up with arma 3, like and then pre order of course. Not the other way...

[ddeo 10]

You see, that's weird because it would be called "demo", not "alpha" that way. I don't see any official statement regarding this, that's why I'm asking about it. Can you link that post by dev?

[purepassion 22]

Sorry man but you can always refer to other people's reviews if you don't feel comfortable spending money before. You have to understand that the money and work that is going to be put in the Alpha is crucial wether Arma 3 will be fucked up or not and everyone that wants to do more than just posting in request threads gets a fine option to do so.

You are not "Buying an unfinished product". You are buying the final product and you're given the opportunity to look at it while it's still being produced until it reaches the ultimate point of development you payed for.

The very first public Alpha will therefore not be representative of the final quality or the game we're calling "Arma 3" ;)

I think in your case it would better to wait for the Demo version so you can test it for free first, see if you like it and then buy the game.

[NeuroFunker 11]

lol its somewhere between first and 108 page, i think he told it after gamescom.

[purepassion 22]

We hope to be able to come up with smart combination of free and closed P&C Alpha of Arma 3.

Since "closed" is used as the opposite of "free" here, it does not refer to "free" in terms of not paying for it, but being free to be accessed by everyone.

"P&C" which means "Pay and Contribute" is not in question here.

Regarding its purpose, here is a official statement:

We call it the 'Community Alpha'. It's intended to enable people who'd like to try the game early on in development help us to shape it up - and make Arma 3 the greatest release of the series.

[NeuroFunker 11]

The Community Alpha is intended to be a public build of Arma 3, offering a limited subset of content and features, with the fundamental goal of improving Arma 3's full retail launch.

doesn't public mean: for everyone?

[purepassion 22]

yeah and that's exactly what it is ;) Everyone can access it by pre-ordering. That's what I said. :o

[ProfTournesol 956]

Since "closed" is used as the opposite of "free" here, it does not refer to "free" in terms of not paying for it, but being free to be accessed by everyone.

I really find Maruk's sentence confusing. While everybody understand "closed P&C", the "free" part isn't really clear for me.

[purepassion 22]

Yeah, I find it confusing as well but this interpretation meets the other statements and information

[NoRailgunner 0]

PurePassion since when intentions and interpretations are facts? Or are this just (again) rash thoughts?? Better wait for an official word/news update from BIS instead of spreading rumours and conclusions. Anything is possible @ BIS.... :p

[purepassion 22]

That was only meant to explain this particular statement by Marek. ;)

The information is still valid and meets all the rest that is available. A Pay and Contribute model seems like a very efficient idea and does not contradict a single statement.

I don't think Ryan would lie into someones eyes :)

Anything is possible @ BIS.... :p

Yeah, that is true nevertheless :p

[Minoza 11]

Free might easily refer to open alpha, means anyone who pre-order gets access.

[BuddLight 1]

first we need to free our dear developers guys,this is the main issue now, I would definetely preorder to participate alpha cause the work of those guys is definetely worth it :)

[ddeo 10]

Same here, I'm just curious if it will be open alpha. I will buy game anyway.

Edit: This is the video I've ment:

Also he says that release date is 2013, not 2012?

Edit2: This makes me to thinking if BIS are not maybe releasing game as alpha version in 2012, but final version will be released in 2013? Similar to DayZ.

Edited September 30, 2012 by ddeo

[NeuroFunker 11]

Same here, I'm just curious if it will be open alpha. I will buy game anyway.

Edit: This is the video I've ment:

Also he says that release date is 2013, not 2012?

Edit2: This makes me to thinking if BIS are not maybe releasing game as alpha version in 2012, but final version will be released in 2013? Similar to DayZ.

nothing new with that, arma 3 being delayed to 2013 is known, and alpha in 2012.

[maddogx 13]

I would like to point out that "public build" is merely a term from software development that means the software will be "released". (Basically the oppositve of "internal builds", which are not released.)

The phrase does not imply that the release will be given out to everyone for free, just that it will be available in some form (including purchase).

[mr burns 132]

hm, was looking forward to try the Alpha to see how fucked i really am with my old PC, if it´s at least capable for the same lowFPS gameplay i´m used to.

Now reading it´s for preorders only kills all hope. I won´t be able to see for myself, hence not going to spend, maybe not even on release. ArmA3 just moved so much further away..

[NeMeSiS 11]

hm, was looking forward to try the Alpha to see how fucked i really am with my old PC, if it´s at least capable for the same lowFPS gameplay i´m used to.

Now reading it´s for preorders only kills all hope. I won´t be able to see for myself, hence not going to spend, maybe not even on release. ArmA3 just moved so much further away..

You can always cancel the preorder :p

[purepassion 22]

Or wait for the free demo or perhaps even BETA release ;) It's patience vs not wanting to spend money ^^

[chortles 263]

There's no guarantee though that there'll even be a demo, much less that it'd be even vaguely representative of the actual game if ARMA 2's is anything to go by. :p

[Bee8190 10]

hm, was looking forward to try the Alpha to see how fucked i really am with my old PC, if it´s at least capable for the same lowFPS gameplay i´m used to.

Now reading it´s for preorders only kills all hope. I won´t be able to see for myself, hence not going to spend, maybe not even on release. ArmA3 just moved so much further away..

I personally am very optimistic about arma's 3 performance but my opinion doesn't weight all that much momentarily but what makes you think you won't be able to enjoy A3 if you can play A2 already?

I'm positive GFX will be the mostly needed upgrade for A3, unless the CPU itself is too outdated that it would heavily bottleneck upgraded GFX already.

What are your HW specs?

[mr burns 132]

I personally am very optimistic about arma's 3 performance but my opinion doesn't weight all that much momentarily but what makes you think you won't be able to enjoy A3 if you can play A2 already?

I'm positive GFX will be the mostly needed upgrade for A3, unless the CPU itself is too outdated that it would heavily bottleneck upgraded GFX already.

What are your HW specs?

Because of the system specs used at gamescom which were superoverthetop and yet didn´t manage to get a crisp 40+ FPS mark, plus BI´s long standing reputation for not efficiently optimizing their games.

One of the few last dual core users here (E8200 @3.21 Ghz, with a 250 GS gfx card). I wont complain as i´ve read from other BI Forum users who are still on single core.

And plz dont tell me that this is ancient. The biggest influence in my "non-optimized" sentiment might be remembering how shitty even ArmA1 ran on this same system, until the magical final patch arrived and suddenly being able to crank everything up + 10k viewdistance w/o any noticeable drop in performance.

You possibly can imagine how hard believing in the better is when a frickin i7 with latest product line NVIDIA card caps at 25 FPS and still drops horribly as soon as the dreaded particle effects show up (as seen in various E³ & gamescom videos). Full of negative thinking, thats me. In that sense, no alpha without buying means no remedy of those fears in the long run.

[chortles 263]

That I can get -- I believe the reputation re: poor optimization is that performance as measured by a consistent framerate didn't scale well even with high end hardware, such as the aforementioned E3 and Gamescom systems... and as Mr Burns reported, they couldn't even hit 60 fps much less consistently stay above 25 fps?

[Bee8190 10]

Well, I feel I need to highlight again that the game is not quite finished and the sneak peak at gamescom IMO more represented the ''mechanics'' of the game rather it's final performance. I think all that work or focus on AI hopefully suggest that performance is somewhere on top of their list, or so I hope.

Nonetheless, your CPU is few generations behind but I don't think that would be huge problem in MP. I think you'd see smoother performance with GTX 550Ti than with the 250 GS as they should be give or take, available for grabs at close or similar price but again, numerous AI would spoil it.

Have you tried to overclock the CPU any higher? I'm sure the E8200 would go to 3.7Ghz without much sweat?

[.kju 3245]

What most people dont seem to get is that pretty much all games are optimized also for a target FPS range.

This is mostly 30 FPS due to consoles nowadays.

This means when the game drops below 30, it reduces automatically complexity to achieve the 30.

But also the other way round, as long as its above 30, it adds/allows more complexity.

I believe (without having evidence) that Arma has it set to 25 or 30. Remember the setting in OFP for framerate?

Now another key element most people have no idea about that rendering and simulation are one part in every engine.

You cannot magically get visuals at 60 or more FPS, and have the simulation do lots of work at the same time.

They are both of one frame. The length of the frame determines the FPS = frames per second.

The longer the frame, the less per second. The more frames, the less calculation done (can be done) per frame.

No magic possible here - just pure hard work and clever design trying to optimize the pipeline.

Only to a small(er) degree you can decouple those, yet it is very complex and lots of work.

Check out these page or the pictures at least to get a basic idea:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2463/threading_3d_game_engine_basics.php

http://www.tweakoz.com/michael/wordpress/?p=251

Bottom line is only when your CPU+GPU+rest of the system is fast enough to do the calculation at max complexity without sweet,

you will get above the target frame limit. At the same time any too complex scene (too many (different) rendering objects) or

scenario (too many game/AI entities), will drag down almost every powerful system given how it all works.

What makes it even more complex is that in the Arma engine every computer does the simulation for all objects.

So if you throw too many AI entities into a mission, or have too many players in the mix, every computer needs to tackle that.

Of course the engine has countless ways of optimization, like locality to have non owners calculate less, or less calculation for units

at (large) distances.

In any case my say is that the game/BI should be open about the target framerate to make people aware of it, and if possible

similar to OFP make the target framerate changeable (most likely impossible nowadays/with the given design).

The other side would be to make the game more configurable in many ways. Also but not limited to GPU (affecting) settings,

but also to simulation and AI. The users/server admins/mission designers should get (more) power to adjust it.

PS: Not all what I said is most likely fully true, yet the overall picture should be correct.

Edited October 1, 2012 by .kju [PvPscene]