Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It would be great if folks here complaining about performance loss would actually say what GPU, CPU they use, to make sure no one is running Arma 3 on a potato.

 

I was going enjoy my friday night playing Arma 3.

 

Why would you be on development branch if you want enjoy playing Arma 3 ?

 

 

I agree that I prefer the old look of the game but we need to give them some time to adjust the current lighting.

 

This. I am pretty sure the finaly result will be astonishing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be great if folks here complaining about performance loss would actually say what GPU, CPU they use, to make sure no one is running Arma 3 on a potato.

Actually I don't think that's terribly relevant to an already released title, performance should never go backwards for the same (or worse) IQ (certainly it's the last thing A3 needs). But if you must know i5-2400, 8GB AMD HD6950.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be great if folks here complaining about performance loss would actually say what GPU, CPU they use, to make sure no one is running Arma 3 on a potato.

 

Well I doesn't really matter , a decrease in FPS is a decrease regardless of setup..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This. I am pretty sure the finaly result will be astonishing.

Hopefully. Where I see this being tricky is that appears they've had to recolour the whole satmap to match the new colour-grading (or whatever it is) so it's hard to make a switchable option.

 

Has anyone taken screenshots of any custom or CUP terrains? I would but I've already switched back to Stable.

 

EDIT: I had earlier tried the new layers pbos with the Stable rendering (thinking the darker satmap might look quite good in that case). Couldn't get my head around why it looked brighter but the rvmat has also changed from

 

diffuse[] = {1.0,1.0,1.0,1};

 

to;

 

diffuse[] = {0.25,0.25,0.25,1};

 

Still not sure why that ends up being brighter, on the face of it I'd have thought just desaturated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed that when I have the launcher open and I move a larger mod to the file where the launcher reads my mods from it will start using 99%-100% of my CPU (AMD AM3+ 8350 8x4.0GhZ)

 

How to reproduce: Start the launcher and move a larger mod (+ 1GB) to the folder it reads from

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bout VBS 3 features - it look outstanding, but i think you have noticed A2 clouds there..... I wish we could set them available for A3 as well (very low setting).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's been a while but can we finally get information how to set up amphibious tracked vehicles as mentioned in 1.56 changelog?

 

Added: Amphibious engine simulation for vehicles using tankx simulation (http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=19911 - requires configuration first)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I don't think that's terribly relevant to an already released title, performance should never go backwards for the same (or worse) IQ (certainly it's the last thing A3 needs). But if you must know i5-2400, 8GB AMD HD6950.

 

It's not like it makes a huge difference anyway... I3; I5 and I7 just do as well with a similar clock speed and CPU is the limiting factor in the Real Virtuality.

 

 

a3.png14d0ce18-b2ea-47a2-9192-93040f3434bf.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the new feature? For me it looks worse (this vs this) and runs worse.

 

The new lighting remind me of an 'old picture' filter, where all colors are variants of brown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm not on dev-branch, so i can't say anything about performance,

 

but wanted to say that from the pictures the updated visuals look amazing.

i can not see, why anyone would prefer the older version.

 

What was the new feature? For me it looks worse (this vs this) and runs worse.

 

to be honest, i think on my calibrated monitor the new one looks way better. the stable/reallight version looks strangely over-contrasty.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "stable" picture is much closer from what the ground looks like under the sun.

 

 

-----------Edit:

for reference, you should rather use this and this pictures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are so many people coming here and trying to undermine constructive feedback regarding framerate? It adds nothing to the discussion and only serves to drown the reports that are actually worth something. When something is obviously wrong with the game, we come here and report it. Being undermined by other users who have nothing to say otherwise, is not appreciated at all. Sorry for the rant. I tried to report a lot of posts for being off topic, but that didn't seem to help, so there you go...

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's some issues with these buildings at night, they don't seem to receive ~any light before around 3:45 in the morning.

 

0lMRN8ys.jpg

n8S4gYx.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new lighting looks way better. Now you can finally see highlights on vehicles and weapons (as a modeller i immediately noticed this). In the old lighting setting you had to go ridiculously overboard with specularity and gloss to achieve any form of reflection on Altis/Stratis.
I remember there was a guy who made a tour to Altis on his motorcycle and he made pictures and compared the shots to the same A3 ones - the RL ones had much more color and "life" to them then the dusty old A3 lighting.

 

 

There's some issues with these buildings at night, they don't seem to receive ~any light before around 3:45 in the morning.

propably linked to the spam of rpt errors "blabla building wrong rvmat! repack data!"- something along those lines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are so many people coming here and trying to undermine constructive feedback regarding framerate? It adds nothing to the discussion and only serves to drown the reports that are actually worth something. When something is obviously wrong with the game, we come here and report it. Being undermined by other users who have nothing to say otherwise, is not appreciated at all. Sorry for the rant. I tried to report a lot of posts for being off topic, but that didn't seem to help, so there you go...

constructive would be posting your PC specs and GPU so that OTHERS can gauge if they're experiencing the same issue on machines with similar specs

constructive would be listing all the addons you have running during said "frame rate issues".

 

Other than that your own post is hardly constructive at all.

 

Like everything in the ARMA world, you can please some of the people some of the time, you can't please all of the people all of the time.

 

 

I'm running Windows 10, 16GB RAM, i5-4460, and GTX970 with 4GB RAM, frame rate drop on vanilla settings was negligible, and didn't notice a significant drop.

Don't seem to be able to get FRAP's to overlay any more.

Am I disillusioned and downhearted with the latest graphics upgrade? not really, am I prepared to see big hits on FPS with Tanoa finally released? Yes of course. 

There is a reason why people are on DEV Build, because it's NOT the finished product, but it wouldn't matter, as there's always something that blokes will find wrong and moan about it, personally I'm under no illusion that yesterdays release is geared up to the switch over to APEX, I like what I'm seeing, and if I have to knock the sliders back a little bit to regain lost FPS then it's no different from any other graphic intensive game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like what I'm seeing, and if I have to knock the sliders back a little bit to regain lost FPS then it's no different from any other graphic intensive game.

1) You don't prepare for a graphically demanding expansion by first making the original game run worse.

 

2) If my current rig can't run the expansion so be it, but there's no way I can accept that the upcoming expansion should undermine my ability to run the game I've already purchased.

 

Not salty at BIS, dev branch is for trying things but your logic is arse-backward.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes sense. But this update also brought new graphical options. Is the game really running worst even if you turn off the water reflection thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes sense. But this update also brought new graphical options. Is the game really running worst even if you turn off the water reflection thing?

Yes, said before, left water reflections off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chiming in for what it's worth, the possible performance impact on my rig is negligible without the reflections, 970gtx and a 2500K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I doesn't really matter , a decrease in FPS is a decrease regardless of setup..

 

That is not true. If the issue is GPU related, then the impact on a 980ti would be less than on a GTX260 for exampe. Additionally, it's important for the devs, because is could be a Nvida or AMD only issue and posting your system specs could show up a pattern there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, if smokes are still able to pass through walls, I hope it will be assigned for Apex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×