dmarkwick 261 Posted August 11, 2012 I would pick well textured low poly box modeled buildings vs super detailed unplayable skipLag 'any day' Sounds like what you want is a flight sim not an infantry sim... :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
50.cal 10 Posted August 11, 2012 really it makes no sense at all to compare things that are not comparable... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalcraze 290 Posted August 11, 2012 DCS draws thousands of trees and buildings, with a view distance of hundreds of kilometers (might I remind you that past 4000m, ArmA draws only straight land textures and nothing else). Sometimes it does, sometimes it's just a flat texture. However a tree that DCS draws has the same polygonal complexity as a single piece of grass on Chernarus. Like ArmA, the performance is often somewhat disappointing given what you get, and there are plenty of complaints about the series in that regard. Computer technology is still extremely limited. Don't expect your PC to do more than it can (especially with games where you can go wild with settings and content) and there will be no disappointments. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nodunit 397 Posted August 11, 2012 Sometimes it does, sometimes it's just a flat texture. However a tree that DCS draws has the same polygonal complexity as a single piece of grass on Chernarus.. When the focus is high air combat what's so bad about that? Having a close LOD where the tree is more 3D at most but otherwise it would be wasted processing that could better serve another aspect of the sim. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chortles 263 Posted August 11, 2012 (edited) Sometimes it does, sometimes it's just a flat texture. However a tree that DCS draws has the same polygonal complexity as a single piece of grass on Chernarus.That's not necessarily a good thing on Real Virtuality's part. :p As NodUnit said, "it would be wasted processing that could better serve another aspect of the sim," but I mean that in this context too.I do have to say, re: "don't expect your PC to do more than it can," I like how Ivan make a remark that they should rename the settings to be more clear about this, with the idea of 'ultra' being renamed to "stupid"... \/ Worse yet, he's "bound to defend" the current take on ARMA (minus the AI of course) instead of the markedly improved directions ARMA 3 seems to be going at. Edited August 11, 2012 by Chortles Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maturin 12 Posted August 11, 2012 Computer technology is still extremely limited. Don't expect your PC to do more than it can (especially with games where you can go wild with settings and content) and there will be no disappointments. You know that's bullshit. There are literally thousands of threads where people with top-of-the-line PCs get 15fps in ArmA, a game where settings often have little effect on performance. ArmA is a flexible, durable, scalable piece of notoriously temperamental software. Edit: DCS is also heavily CPU-limited. But I see you're bound to defend ArmA from invisible demons no matter what, and reject all comparisons between one occasionally-choppy content-focused game and another. I do personally find DCS' engine to be a pain in the ass, though. No other game crashes simply for the crime of having a 32bit system. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CyclonicTuna 87 Posted August 11, 2012 We should really create a new internet law, similar to Godwins law:Spanel's Law The cycle can not be broken... Lol, I really didn't mean for an all out fanboy war or something, it was by pure conisidence that I picked the CryEngine for this discussion. It might as well been Outerra or Frostbite. Again, I would like to stress that I just started this thread because besides some fancy new lighting effects and volumetric clouds there hasn't been much in depth information released about the new engine, as far as I know. So this is to anyone (dev's maybe) who could tell me a little bit more. For instance about the AI, or inhanced destruction in A3. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueWolf 1 Posted August 11, 2012 I'm not sure you know what lag means. Just like I'm not sure you know the differences between rendering a bunch of empty low poly hills without trees or buildings and a highly detailed vegetation and villages on a much more detailed terrain among many other things.In that case you are always free to install older ArmA or even OFP if upgrading your PC to keep up with modern offerings is out of the question. They will have much better FPS than ArmA3 at much lesser detail. Problem solved. perhaps you are the one who needs to try something else to compare this nightmare to? Happy News.. Finally some Arma competition is out there you may want to have a serious look.. as for my preferences I have changed over & finally can say arma 2 series is henceforth deleted & banned from my computer. DCS: Combined Arms Preview Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
onlyrazor 11 Posted August 11, 2012 Have fun paying for updates, and probably subpar infantry and land vehicle simulation. Other than that, it does look kind of nice. Also, reeeeal mature: Thank You DCS Developers, because of your Awesome efforts: ArmA II CO/RFT is deleted and henceforth banned from my computer. *flicks off then moons Bohemia Interactive Developers* First comment below the video as of this post. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmarkwick 261 Posted August 11, 2012 Sometimes it does, sometimes it's just a flat texture. However a tree that DCS draws has the same polygonal complexity as a single piece of grass on Chernarus. ...and has exactly the same ingame impact. Trees in DCS have no collision geometry and do not provide concealment. They are literally eye-candy with no ingame use. When the focus is high air combat what's so bad about that? Having a close LOD where the tree is more 3D at most but otherwise it would be wasted processing that could better serve another aspect of the sim. When your DCS aircraft is a helo... then it's a big deal IMO. perhaps you are the one who needs to try something else to compare this nightmare to?Happy News.. Finally some Arma competition is out there you may want to have a serious look.. ArmA focusses on the infantry aspect. It looks like ArmA wasn't the game you were looking for. as for my preferences I have changed over & finally can say arma 2 series is henceforth deleted & banned from my computer. Good for you. And us by the sounds of it :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
noubernou 77 Posted August 11, 2012 Competition is always good in game dev, especially in a niche title area like Arma. Thats all I'd want to contribute to this conversation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
onlyrazor 11 Posted August 11, 2012 Competition is always good in game dev, especially in a niche title area like Arma. Thats all I'd want to contribute to this conversation. Still, it's kind of sad to see people instantly begin dissing 'rival' titles once competition appears. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fraczek 4 Posted August 11, 2012 Given the scale, it does. What's more, ArmA II is still the most photo-realistic game on PC, especially in the woodland part of Chernarus. ;) No! It lacks the "advanced lens flare"... Give us more lens flare! ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cwivey 1 Posted August 11, 2012 Lense flair is so last decade, what you want it oversaturation followed up by high contrast mixed in with OTT depth of field blur. Speant a while today just watching through all the GameStar DE videos. I'd say ArmAIII is going to shape up very well, especialy on the movement side of things. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nodunit 397 Posted August 11, 2012 Lense flair is so last decade, what you want it oversaturation followed up by high contrast mixed in with OTT depth of field blur.Speant a while today just watching through all the GameStar DE videos. I'd say ArmAIII is going to shape up very well, especialy on the movement side of things. No it's DEsaturation, making colors less colorful than giving them more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeuroFunker 11 Posted August 11, 2012 perhaps you are the one who needs to try something else to compare this nightmare to?Happy News.. Finally some Arma competition is out there you may want to have a serious look.. as for my preferences I have changed over & finally can say arma 2 series is henceforth deleted & banned from my computer. DCS: Combined Arms Preview well hello DCS dev then? Graphicaly it's on flashpoint 1 (arma: cold war crisis) look, real time map feature, might be only thing is interesting. But doesn't make me want uninstall arma, sell my car, shave my head and make a DCS tattoo on my back. Just saying... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iroquois Pliskin 0 Posted August 11, 2012 (edited) Regarding the original topic: Where's the competition? Crysis 2/3? LOL The engine is irrelevant if no real games for it exist; no number of tech demos will change that, unless developers start creating epic games and not fucking console corridor shooters. No! It lacks the "advanced lens flare"... Give us more lens flare! ;) My eye can't simulate that. :( Edited August 11, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
onlyrazor 11 Posted August 11, 2012 Where's the competition? Crysis 2/3? LOLThe engine is irrelevant if no real games for it exist; no number of tech demos will change that unless developers start creating epic games and not fucking console corridor shooters. Actually I was talking about DCS: Combined Arms, but whatever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iroquois Pliskin 0 Posted August 11, 2012 (edited) Actually I was talking about DCS: Combined Arms, but whatever. Yes, I apologise, I edited after you hit reply. :( Good to see the discussion evolving into DCS space, maybe the thread should include that in the title. P.S. SSQ6vfbIfyg Let's say that it looks like first OFP and leave it at that. :) :) :) Edited August 11, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roshnak 41 Posted August 12, 2012 Looks pretty great for a flight sim engine. Also OFP was way uglier than that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeuroFunker 11 Posted August 12, 2012 (edited) well, with ffur85 or 2007 + dxdll, flashpoint looks still way better. :) RV4 engine?*dream on* i hope it looks like it in arma 4*dream off* :) Edited August 12, 2012 by NeuroFunker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CyclonicTuna 87 Posted August 12, 2012 (edited) perhaps you are the one who needs to try something else to compare this nightmare to?Happy News.. Finally some Arma competition is out there you may want to have a serious look.. as for my preferences I have changed over & finally can say arma 2 series is henceforth deleted & banned from my computer. DCS: Combined Arms Preview DCS combined arms is a beta for an RTS. It simulates war on a massive scale with hundreds of vehicles envolved based on a flight sim engine. You'll be spending most of your time in the map commanding blocks around (in singleplayer that is). Like metalcraze said, there are about as much polygons in a DCS tree as there are in a finger of a soldier in Arma II, and an entire mountain range in DCS has the same pixelcount as a single rock in Arma. You just can't compare the two that easily. Arma is an all out warfare simulation with the focus on infrantry, DCS is an all out warfare sim with focus on commanding around hundreds of vehicles. I'm not slashing on DCS in any manner, as a matter of fact I can't wait to play it myself. But if you think DCS is a replacement, or a competitor for Arma II. You're gonna be very disappointed. Edited August 12, 2012 by CyclonicTuna Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
noubernou 77 Posted August 12, 2012 DCS CA seems to be what Steel Beasts is to tanks. You can do a lot of strategic level play, on huge areas, and one part of the system is simulated extremely accurately (Tanks in SB, A-10/Blackshark in DCS) but the rest is sort of left up to a more generic simulation when playing as those units. Arma is to infantry as DCS is to aircraft, as SB is to tanks. They all serve their niche, and do it well, and its pointless to compare them all. The real money maker would be a consumer level implementation of HLA so all these awesome sims can talk to each other and exist in the same game world! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
On_Sabbatical 11 Posted August 15, 2012 CRYSIS is a like a blonde ... beautiful but stupid ! :D And,besides ,as stated above CRYTEK never keeps promises with their engines ... it's always half of what's being shown on trailers ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maturin 12 Posted August 15, 2012 DCS CA seems to be what Steel Beasts is to tanks. You can do a lot of strategic level play, on huge areas, and one part of the system is simulated extremely accurately (Tanks in SB, A-10/Blackshark in DCS) but the rest is sort of left up to a more generic simulation when playing as those units.Arma is to infantry as DCS is to aircraft, as SB is to tanks. They all serve their niche, and do it well, and its pointless to compare them all. The real money maker would be a consumer level implementation of HLA so all these awesome sims can talk to each other and exist in the same game world! But honestly, tanks in DCS are more realistic than tanks in vanilla ArmA. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites