Blastcore: Phoenix 2

[JamesSaga 1]

Great to hear, cant wait until I can turn it back on, arma is not the same with out your mod. :)

[-NL- Painfbat 10]

Cool news man, could I be so bold as to politely request that bullet impacts be larger and the dust from them last longer, it would make them easier to spot at distance and they'd look awesomely realistic.

YES, I second that! Bigger and longer lasting dust clouds, when you are firing from a prone position as well. It would add a whole new tactical element to them as in they could give your location away when you fire, but also show you where the enemy is firing from. And of course, it looks great.

[snowingjimbob 34]

Painfbat;2692857']YES' date=' I second that! Bigger and longer lasting dust clouds, when you are firing from a prone position as well. It would add a whole new tactical element to them as in they could give your location away when you fire, but also show you where the enemy is firing from. And of course, it looks great.[/quote']

Very much agree. Your "WarFX" for Arma II has amazing bullet impact effects... I find myself using that in Arma 3 more and more for that reason.

[CyclonicTuna 87]

You guys do have to keep in mind that "BIGGER", and "MORE" and "LONGER" is seriously going to affect preformance, something OS has been wanting to avoid more.

[stephsen 79]

Hey OS,

first ,thank you for this great mod and i found a few errors

I ve got two config-error messages in game : no entry bin\config.bin/CfgCloudlets.DirtBulletImpact4' and no config entry sparks from 25mm cannon and the artilleryrocket 230mm impact has no effect .

but the motar-impacts effects are amazing :ok:

Greetz Stephsen

Edited May 24, 2014 by stephsen

[darkxess 60]

There is no need for two mods. You can define different effects for each particle quality setting in the video options. But it means more work because you need to create more versions of given effect (or you can just simply disable any effect this way).

I was only a suggestion, and how is there no need? some people do not know much about coding/scripting etc so it would be easier for them who have low end computer to get the lighter version instead of the high end version. There is always a need for such things when having a big community like ArmA has you will always have different types of players who maybe dont like such high end effects too and would rather go with a lighter version.

I for one dont care, I was just suggesting as it is possible and it is worth it in every way.

[CyclonicTuna 87]

I was only a suggestion, and how is there no need? some people do not know much about coding/scripting etc so it would be easier for them who have low end computer to get the lighter version instead of the high end version. There is always a need for such things when having a big community like ArmA has you will always have different types of players who maybe dont like such high end effects too and would rather go with a lighter version.

I for one dont care, I was just suggesting as it is possible and it is worth it in every way.

If there really was a need then more people would ask, so far you're the only one. Secondly, even if there was a need, it would just mean more work for OS for something he probably isn't even interested in doing. This mod was made for people with more high end rigs, it makes sense that a visual enhancement mod requires more recources. Otherwise it wouldn't be a visual enhancement. You mentioned the Arma community, well for the most part the Arma community are hardcore gamers that devote a lot of time into making their hardware preform, so to say that there's a need for a Blastcore Light mod, is quite the oppesite of what is true. Most Arma gamers have a powerfull PC, and want something to look the par.

[artemas 1]

The issue though is if, as others have requested, OS does make even more particles, and thus lowers performance even more, those who are 'on the fence' between good hardware and bad hardware would inevitably get shafted. THEN, there would be a need for a blastcore lite.

As it is, my performance when there are lots of autocannons has become completely terrible. I don't remember this being the case earlier, so it might be an arma thing, or could be due to all the trees in cherno.

[kremator 1065]

Arma3 is for big rigs. Blastcore is for big rigs. Not got a big rig? Get one.

[gliptal 25]

I'm personally not playing ArmA III until I get a new CPU, precisely because I want to experience mods like these.

Yay!

[CyclonicTuna 87]

I'm personally not playing ArmA III until I get a new CPU, precisely because I want to experience mods like these.

Yay!

What are you running right now?

[DarkDruid 96]

I was only a suggestion, and how is there no need?

There is no need for two mods, because you can have two versions of Blastcore (=original and lighter version) in one mod and switching between them via particle quality in the video options. That is all what I was trying to say. :)

[gliptal 25]

What are you running right now?

AMD FX-4100, slightly OC'd. I think I'm seriously bottlenecked by the CPU (especially in ArmA), since my AMD ATI HD7850 performs quite well.

It's still a good rig anyway (around 40FPS @ 1920x1080 on Ultra in BF4 Multiplayer, around 30FPS @1920x1080 on Ultra in Metro LL).

Yay!

[CyclonicTuna 87]

AMD FX-4100, slightly OC'd. I think I'm seriously bottlenecked by the CPU (especially in ArmA), since my AMD ATI HD7850 performs quite well.

It's still a good rig anyway (around 40FPS @ 1920x1080 on Ultra in BF4 Multiplayer, around 30FPS @1920x1080 on Ultra in Metro LL).

Yay!

That's a quadcore 3.6 Ghz processor. Upgrading it will not matter that much. Arma is just a very poorly optimized game and takes very little advantage of the technology in modern GPU's. So I don't think you have to upgrade you're processor, its fine for the next 2 to 3 years rally. I run an i7 3770K, which in terms of Ghz is slower than yours, and blastcore runs fine in my PC. Besides, I don't know of any game that even scratches the 70% mark on modern CPU's, CPU's are needed for things like AI, pahtfinding, physics (to a certain degree), those things don't advance as quickly in gaming as graphics do. That's why we see a new videocard, or version of a videocard every month or so, and a new chipset every couple of years. You're videocard is fine too, its about the same as mine. I have an Asus GTX 680 which pretty much runs everything on ultra around 50 to 60 fps.

How much RAM memory do you have? I noticed in the past that can make quite a diffrence in Arma, I went from 6, to 16, which is a small investment in computer terms (about 200 dollars), and it worked miracles for me in Arma.

I know its tempting to try and install new hardware when things don't run as you would've expected. I have the same problem. According to Ubisoft, my PC should be able to run Watchdogs on Ultra settings no problem. But I've been playing it since yesterday and sometimes when I look in the derection of may lights and shaders my framerate drops, so I set everything to high instead of ultra, and now it runs fine. But to be honest, I can't actually see the diffrence :p

But I can't help but find myself searching for new GPU's on the internet whilst my current one isn't even a year old and runs just fine.

Edited May 28, 2014 by CyclonicTuna

[Battlefieldbully 10]

This would make sense if arma had 64-bit executable. OCing your ram can make a difference tho.

[John Kozak 14]

This would make sense if arma had 64-bit executable. OCing your ram can make a difference tho.

It does make sense now - ArmA uses memmapping of files, so pbos are effectively loaded to RAM beyond the 2gb limit. This was confirmed by devs here on the forums. So - it does make a difference.

/offtopic mode off

[Battlefieldbully 10]

It does make sense now - ArmA uses memmapping of files, so pbos are effectively loaded to RAM beyond the 2gb limit. This was confirmed by devs here on the forums. So - it does make a difference.

/offtopic mode off

That's good news!! Thanks for the heads up.

[darkxess 60]

If there really was a need then more people would ask, so far you're the only one. Secondly, even if there was a need, it would just mean more work for OS for something he probably isn't even interested in doing. This mod was made for people with more high end rigs, it makes sense that a visual enhancement mod requires more recources. Otherwise it wouldn't be a visual enhancement. You mentioned the Arma community, well for the most part the Arma community are hardcore gamers that devote a lot of time into making their hardware preform, so to say that there's a need for a Blastcore Light mod, is quite the oppesite of what is true. Most Arma gamers have a powerfull PC, and want something to look the par.

That's the problem now with the community here - there always has to be someone who sucks ass to get on the right side of people around here.

Like I said -it was my opinion! my suggestion! you don't like it then don't reply to me, simple as that isn't it?

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Blastcore is extra visual eye candy. If you looking to get a mod like this, it's worth expecting to better have a good rig, or, change up settings to account otherwise. The arguing is pointless, though, you are entitled to your opinions. It's the same thing with Minecraft. They have mods that make Minecraft look like Battlefield 4 graphics. Weather or not your willing to over heat your card for something like that, well, its completely up to you, or just get better graphics. Id love to be able to use Arma 3 on all Ultra with this but i cant. I got a simple GT650M and well... i just keep everything standard except for the things i like, such as clouds and lighting. Taking a look at your settings ounce in awhile makes all the difference. I was able to use Blastcore, 20000 view distance and like... 40 vehicles, and 100+ infantry in a CAS mission.

[CyclonicTuna 87]

That's the problem now with the community here - there always has to be someone who sucks ass to get on the right side of people around here.

Like I said -it was my opinion! my suggestion! you don't like it then don't reply to me, simple as that isn't it?

And this is my opinion, I'm not sucking ass. You don't like it then don't reply to me, simple as that isn't it?

[thx1137 10]

That's a quadcore 3.6 Ghz processor. Upgrading it will not matter that much. Arma is just a very poorly optimized game and takes very little advantage of the technology in modern GPU's. So I don't think you have to upgrade you're processor, its fine for the next 2 to 3 years rally. I run an i7 3770K, which in terms of Ghz is slower than yours, and blastcore runs fine in my PC. Besides

"Arma is just a very poorly optimized game and takes very little advantage of the technology in modern GPU's". Your not a programmer are you.

Anyway. The GHZ rating between an AMD chip and a Intel chip has no correlation because they are not the same architecture. The AMD chips have always been and are still very poor for high end gaming. They are cheap and quick for basic games and desktop work but never have been any good for CPU intensive games.

Moving from a AMD 3.6Ghz to a current I5 or I7 at 3.6Ghz will definitely improve performance. Just manage expectations. My 3770k at 4.2ghz gives me 45-60fps (GTX 780 GPU at ultra, my 660ti gave me 30-45 at very high) is most of my missions because I take care in reducing the amount of path-finding the AI does to it's minimum. Path-finding in a sandbox game like ARMA is very expensive CPU wise. My 120 AI bush bash mission gives me 45-60fps. My 40 AI Kavala mission gives me 20 to 27fps. Oh, 60 is the cap because I use VSync.

Just don't get a Celeron, those are basically as bad as the AMDs though maybe even a bit worse.

[gliptal 25]

That's a quadcore 3.6 Ghz processor. Upgrading it will not matter that much. Arma is just a very poorly optimized game and takes very little advantage of the technology in modern GPU's. So I don't think you have to upgrade you're processor, its fine for the next 2 to 3 years rally. I run an i7 3770K, which in terms of Ghz is slower than yours, and blastcore runs fine in my PC. Besides, I don't know of any game that even scratches the 70% mark on modern CPU's, CPU's are needed for things like AI, pahtfinding, physics (to a certain degree), those things don't advance as quickly in gaming as graphics do. That's why we see a new videocard, or version of a videocard every month or so, and a new chipset every couple of years. You're videocard is fine too, its about the same as mine. I have an Asus GTX 680 which pretty much runs everything on ultra around 50 to 60 fps.

How much RAM memory do you have? I noticed in the past that can make quite a diffrence in Arma, I went from 6, to 16, which is a small investment in computer terms (about 200 dollars), and it worked miracles for me in Arma.

I know its tempting to try and install new hardware when things don't run as you would've expected. I have the same problem. According to Ubisoft, my PC should be able to run Watchdogs on Ultra settings no problem. But I've been playing it since yesterday and sometimes when I look in the derection of may lights and shaders my framerate drops, so I set everything to high instead of ultra, and now it runs fine. But to be honest, I can't actually see the diffrence :p

But I can't help but find myself searching for new GPU's on the internet whilst my current one isn't even a year old and runs just fine.

Sheer Ghz is just a fraction of what a CPU is about, and I say this as a Computer Science university student. :p

Yay!

[CyclonicTuna 87]

Sheer Ghz is just a fraction of what a CPU is about, and I say this as a Computer Science university student. :p

Yay!

Well the point I was trying to make is that your CPU isn't all that old, and likely it won't matter a whole lot to replace it.

---------- Post added at 03:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 PM ----------

"Arma is just a very poorly optimized game and takes very little advantage of the technology in modern GPU's". Your not a programmer are you.

Anyway...

So what is the point you were trying to make, I'm not a programmer because?...

[phronk 898]

To back CyclonicTuna, I agree with the GPU comment. Terrain (i.e. grass and the edges of the terrain's surface) is handled by CPU, not GPU. If you want proof, ensure you have a very good video card (I have a GTX 770) and observe the drop in frames when you increase terrain quality on Altis.

In more related discussion to this thread, will the size of fire be reduced? Campfires look like gargantuan bonfires with BlastCore enabled :O The rest is vary naize!

[kremator 1065]

Hmmm perhaps we need an Nvidia DLC where things like this are handed off to the GPU. I'd pay for it !