Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mbbird

Reality Check

Recommended Posts

It would be nice, but IMO it wouldn't be worth their effort. WIP comments become promises & eventually "cut content" in many people's eyes.

At least users would know if it's time to remove the game from the hd or not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Playable? Why do I crash on Altis when trying to test a multiplayer mission and have Steam ticket issues?

You mean, high quality recycled and cloned vehicles. Units are another story, they aren't terrible. Although vests are a bit cloned.

Two playgrounds are good, I give you that. Although Altis has a feel of a SATMAP from real life with some buildings popped on it.

Fully working and versatile mission editor... lol we've had that since OFP in 2001.

Campaign is on its way? What campaign! You mean the "Free DLC Episodes" that are going to be released? That's not a damn campaign.

Unbelievable. I give up.

I feel sorry that you can't enjoy the game, bad luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair Altis is not a bad map, do not get me wrong. One of the best in the series, my issue is it still feels like in some areas that it's just a satmap from google with some objects placed down, and then there's the random performance issues for people. Some people it's unplayable, others it is playable, and others its right in between.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My calling you optimistic does not immediately mean I disagree in a such a completely binary manner with every single one of your so righteous beliefs. Since you've stood it all up so nicely, allow me to knock it all down:

So yes, maybe I missed whatever magical point you were aiming for, but optimistic realists don't exist. If you really want a label, blind fanboy might be more fitting.

You really do like to look at the other side of the coin do you.

Well, I'll try again:

-It is playable. However it still has problems with fps in MP.

-It looks great. Texture resolution is one of the reasons. Lighting is way better compared to A2/OA ...did you ever play that at night? Clouds are also nice new thing to have.

-AI is better than ever. Dev version has experimented quite a bit, sometimes breaking things, to be fixed in next patches. Overall AI is definitely better than in AA/A2/OA.

-High quality units, yes. Obviously you disagree, but you do not actually explain yourself. What is HQ in your eyes? Were A2/OA units higher quality?

-Stratis has only one lil' town. Altis would be 60+ fps if it had only couple of lil' towns. But damn, people want more!

-Lets discuss the Editor. What is wrong with it? It has served loyally numerous mission makers. I didn't "ignore people conviniently", I have to work sometimes you know.

"Outdated joke" must be a joke.

-MP performance yes, could be better. Pretty sure BIS knows that too. And..how ever much they "optimize" Altis, it will remain heavy. You can't get Altis stutter free for average machines.

The last part of your message was hilariously stupid. And kind of sad.

I'd like to label you with a word that begins with A and ends with R, but that would be naughty.

Edited by Azzur33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't really fault the game performance wise, other areas of the game I can easily fault, but that's just one of those things, we all have our little favourites (cough.. AI);)

However:

Altis performs well, for me anyway, pics are from A3 on my A2 pc (see sig), so its running pretty optimised, from my point of view.

Arma 2 runs really well too, always has, never really had problem's with any of the series to be honest, performance wise.

Just keep your machine lean & clean, should be o.k. Check for background running processes especially when gaming online.

Same spot different view distance (same settings):

Around 1000

Around 1500

Around 2000

__

In town, both around 1000 vd, only really use that in town, 1200-1500vd out in the open, more in the air.

Here you can see the difference Terrain on 'High' against terrain on 'Standard' no hit for me really:

Town 2; Terrain = 'Standard'

Town 1; Terrain = 'High'

__

This is the difference I find between Terrain at 'Standard' or 'Ultra'. The other settings within this group I run at the highest, just terrain drops around 10fps for me, but as you can see from the pics, there is a massive difference to ground coverage out in the open:

Terrain = 'Standard'

Terrain = 'Ultra' all other settings are the same just altered terrain;

__

I usually play with 1200vd on heavy terrains, on the ground. In A2 with arid style terrains, I will up that to 3000vd on the ground. Of course you can have huge vd on the ground and in the air on arid terrains in A2 or A3, but to keep your AI sensible, its best to have plenty of reserve power for your cpu.

Here in A3 possibly 3000vd in the air at present.

Sniper type missions etc, up it again, depends on the terrain. But at the moment I don't really play A3 mission wise.

Using 'dvd' mod/addon can help, I use 'ivd', that is great for altering in-game, as you move along, but its manual, 'dvd' is auto.

Obviously these are for A2 but both seem to work o.k. in A3 so may help some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Runs better than Chernarus for me, and looks bloody awesome, i must one of the few lucky ones.

Of course it does. It's a lot less detailed than Chernarus. Grass and forests are much more demanding than half the grass density and no forests.

Funny how people compare the maps of totally different detail levels and say the performance is better. Takistan runs a lot better for me than Altis too - what can possibly be a reason?

Edited by metalcraze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course it does. It's a lot less detailed than Chernarus. Grass and forests are much more demanding than half the grass density and no forests.

Funny how people compare the maps of totally different detail levels and say the performance is better. Takistan runs a lot better for me than Altis too - what can possibly be a reason?

And yet how many times have you complained about the game not running smoothly for you? Contradiction much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also note that the vehicle-mounted HMG/GMG for the Hunter, Ifrit, Strider, armed speedboats, etc. are all reskinned as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also note that the vehicle-mounted HMG/GMG for the Hunter, Ifrit, Strider, armed speedboats, etc. are all reskinned as well.

Not only the model but the amount of ammo and vision types (NV & TI).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And yet how many times have you complained about the game not running smoothly for you? Contradiction much?

To be fair, saying that something runs better than something else is not the same as saying that it runs good or "smoothly".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Op has a point..

FIA on BLUFOR = fail.

Sorry BIS it just doesn't feel ARMA, like the way ARMA 2 felt OFP. The game has no grounding, nothing to make you care or relate you to its setting or non-existent/not-yet-ready story. Its just two islands, and three almost identical factions, with an identically armed insurgent group. A sandbox with toys, but no reason to play.

A good campaign can save this, so I beg you not to fuck it up.

Edited by colonel stagler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Op has a point..

FIA on BLUFOR = fail.

Sorry BIS it just doesn't feel ARMA, like the way ARMA 2 felt OFP.

A good campaign can save this, so I beg you not to fuck it up.

Well maybe they aren't independent in the campaign. Maybe they are allies of and are funded by NATO. Maybe they fight against both Iran and the oppressive AAF. Ever thought of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Op has a point..

FIA on BLUFOR = fail.

Sorry BIS it just doesn't feel ARMA, like the way ARMA 2 felt OFP. The game has no grounding, nothing to make you care or relate you to its setting or non-existent/not-yet-ready story. Its just two islands, and three almost identical factions, with an identically armed insurgent group. A sandbox with toys, but no reason to play.

A good campaign can save this, so I beg you not to fuck it up.

You're still playing the beta. I think there will be plenty of things to relate to once the game goes live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're still playing the beta. I think there will be plenty of things to relate to once the game goes live.

ummm no...we on the DEV version are playing the release version...those playing the "stable" version are playing the BETA :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well maybe they aren't independent in the campaign. Maybe they are allies of and are funded by NATO. Maybe they fight against both Iran and the oppressive AAF. Ever thought of that?

Yeah in fact, if they wanted to be with the AAF, they would have directly joined it...

I see more the FIA like the Syrian Free Army and the AAF as the Syrian Army.

ummm no...we on the DEV version are playing the release version...those playing the "stable" version are playing the BETA :)

No one has said that. What we have in the dev branch is all the sandbox content, not the release version.

From SITREP 00024:

The current version on development branch is not representative of this review version entirely - that branch contains experimental changes and of course still lacks content. That is about to change however; tomorrow's devbranch update will add all sandbox release content - a week before the rest of the world gets to enjoy it all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well maybe they aren't independent in the campaign. Maybe they are allies of and are funded by NATO. Maybe they fight against both Iran and the oppressive AAF. Ever thought of that?

For the sake of mission makers everywhere, FIA needs to be back on INDFOR. Or at least, have insurgents as INDFOR with the BLUFOR ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one has said that. What we have in the dev branch is all the sandbox content, not the release version.

From SITREP 00024:

tomorrow's devbranch update will add all sandbox release content - a week before the rest of the world gets to enjoy it all!

what do you think is coming tomorrow? 64bit EXE? full parallel processing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the sake of mission makers everywhere, FIA needs to be back on INDFOR. Or at least, have insurgents as INDFOR with the BLUFOR ones.

I don't see the reason for that at all. In any case they should add some guerrilla fighters and / or PMC in each side. But FIA story wise should stay in BLUFOR ( I've been designing quite much missions about it ).

what do you think is coming tomorrow? 64bit EXE? full parallel processing?

I don't know ( only BI guys know ), but they have said in previous statements, that the actual dev branch it's not the same as the release version ( cuz the dev branch have some testing stuff ).

Probably fixes, missions and who know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why FIA is on Blufor is they need missions were the AAF and CSAT attack NATO and FIA and vice versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason why FIA is on Blufor is they need missions were the AAF and CSAT attack NATO and FIA and vice versa.

Yeah but what most people want is for the FIA to also be independent so they can utilize them in missions against Blufor as well as Opfor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah but what most people want is for the FIA to also be independent so they can utilize them in missions against Blufor as well as Opfor.

Why not have a copy of FIA on the independent side? In real life, factions like FIA can often have fighting with similar groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not have a copy of FIA on the independent side? In real life, factions like FIA can often have fighting with similar groups.

That is what people are pushing for, not exactly for the removal of them from blufor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're still playing the beta. I think there will be plenty of things to relate to once the game goes live.

yes, mods based on historical and resent real world conflicts. i mean how the hell are they going to work in ugv into the game in a non-idiotic fashion? why even put boots on ground when you cna send those things in and wreak havok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes, mods based on historical and resent real world conflicts. i mean how the hell are they going to work in ugv into the game in a non-idiotic fashion? why even put boots on ground when you cna send those things in and wreak havok?

Many reasons, and because what happens if the enemy get ahold of any Unmanned vehicles and starts using its tech?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to say what I feel here, but I will lay a disclaimer. I love this game, this franchise, and I have spent buckets of time on it.

But.

How is it possible that paid professionals who have been working on this game for so long have so little content. I have seen WIP for some amazing modded vehicles by people who are not paid to do that. It is what they like to do. It is disappointing to play from Alpha, to Beta, and now later tonight full release, and only get a few unique vehicles and a bunch of recycled models. It is such a let down to say the very least. I hope they continue to patch in new vehicles. But I seriously doubt that possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×