Will we ever see a stable multiplayer running at 50-60 fps?

[Llano 11]

I get 50 - 60 fps... in MP. Maybe your system is just shit?

rofl...

Just to stay on topic... yes, improved MP performance in A3 are needed but I'm sure we will get there...

/KC

I'm not that sure.. just look at Arma 2

[j4you 10]

Have you ever played DCS? compare them to any vehicle in any version of ArmA, now tell me again how ArmA is a simulator.

Not even bis devs call ArmA 3 a simulator, they call it a game with some simulation aspects.

To me ArmA is a tactical shooter with strategy aspects, and still somewhat arcady. But a Sim? I laugh. Compared to DCS not even Take On can be called a simulator.

A) ArmA it's not a Sim-Fly and you compare it to DCS?

I get DCS-Black Shark 2, and i come from by Fly Simulator like Falcon 4--Il 2 1946--Lock On...and go on.

But now tell me:

How do you think about the tanks in DCS?...They are credible like in Steel Beasts Pro PE game?...and the Veicols?..like in the Hummer 4x4 game?....so dont fool ourselves please!

B) Tell me another title where you can see something more SIM that in ArmA,about just in infantry way,that mind without claiming..Tanks SIM,,,Veicols SIM...Aircraft SIM....but,i repeat again, just Infantry in War.

C) If you're looking for a game with all these things together,that mind just a Real Simulation to 360° all inclusive, you must wait another life for enjoy whit it,and another PC of course!

To end.

ArmA it's so far to be perfect and i am the frist one to be disappoint,especially now whit this Hybrid Edition,but compare it whit BF or whit another SIM_Game like Hunter II ( i am wonder why still nobody has compared it whit the Submarine in ArmA III :rolleyes:) it's so ridicoul even whit a lot immagination.

But anyway...i dont understand why you become so angry if you dont accept what you get...nobody forbids you to play for another title like DCS, if you like just fly. :D

Edited April 11, 2014 by j4you

[ratszo 17]

rofl...

I'm not that sure.. just look at Arma 2

Arma 2 didn't have playable MP til v.1.62 --nearly 3 years into the title-- did you forget?

I'm lovin' MP koth right now, playing smooth up to 58 slots.

The 100+ slot server ain't here yet..., as Bis wants it, just like we do.

[j4you 10]

Arma 2 didn't have playable MP til v.1.62 --nearly 3 years into the title-- did you forget?

I'm lovin' MP koth right now, playing smooth up to 58 slots.

The 100+ slot server ain't here yet..., as Bis wants it, just like we do.

Wrong!

I think then you forget something!

ArmA II was playable in MP after the expansion Operation Arrowhead whit Patch vers. 1.09,this thx even to the textures less heavy as Chernarus Map in A2 to Takistan Map in OA,and step by step,or patch after patch,they have improved ArmA II + OA more and more,and then later on come back again to be playable also the A2 maps.

To confirmation of what reminded that the patch vers.1.62 it's only used to expansion OA and the vers. 1.12 to ArmA II.

If you play smooth whit 58 slots in CLI mode in ArmA III...tell me in whic server plz!

....just in case,for me smooth mind stable UP 45 FPS!

How you can see are not even too fussy!:o

Edited April 11, 2014 by j4you

[Llano 11]

Arma 2 didn't have playable MP til v.1.62 --nearly 3 years into the title-- did you forget?

I'm lovin' MP koth right now, playing smooth up to 58 slots.

The 100+ slot server ain't here yet..., as Bis wants it, just like we do.

Yes, and? Arma 2 performance is still bad, and so is Arma 3.

Considering the recent games in the series, it' hard to believe that they will fix the performance issues.

[CHB68 10]

Multiplayer optimization attempts are looking optimistic. The server-side algorithm that determines what messages to resend and to which clients, has been optimized and rewritten to use additional CPU cores. Together with a client-side optimization of network message computations, these changes should provide a noticeable boost to framerates in multiplayer sessions. The changes have to be carefully tested but they should be ready for the update after Zeus (1.18). You can already try them out on devbranch.....

....that's what we did yesterday. Benny BECTI 0.97 on this machine. Everything was fine up to 399 AIL. All cores more or less consitently busy, server FPS between 38 and 47. Client FPS accordingly. Just one more AI (400+) and the server FPS drop down to 16-17 and the client FPS follow accordingly.

You may say that up to 400 AI isn't that bad at all, but the overall server workload was between 25 and 30% when the FPS dropped down to 16.....

[calin_banc 19]

May I ask how you know that?

Because they would have done it already.

The market that ARMA games appeal to is very small. Large developers can't make a decent sized profit from it and so stay away. Without competition ARMA is uncontested and can be as good or as bad as it wants, there is nothing threatening its position and so no urgency to take drastic action. Competition is healthy for consumers(us).

Until this changes (a competitor enters the market/ARMAs dominant position is threatened somehow), I feel core engine work (engine threading/netcode/AI/rendering/game simulation coupling with rendering) will never happen. We will only ever see small-scale fixes.

SOE already has a working F2P that will go against Day Z and it seems WAY better and judging by the performance in PS 2, will be on a whole new level compared to what Bohemia has. Also to be fair, a lot of the action in MP goes in Life, Wasteland, Zombies and so on.

Tell me another title where you can see something more SIM that in ArmA,about just in infantry way,that mind without claiming..Tanks SIM,,,Veicols SIM...Aircraft SIM....but,i repeat again, just Infantry in War.

C) If you're looking for a game with all these things together,that mind just a Real Simulation to 360° all inclusive, you must wait another life for enjoy whit it,and another PC of course!

My friend, I don't care how other games are, none is a sim for large scale combat. ArmA it has it's shades of realism but that's about it. Realistic, realism =/= simulation. I'm not absurd saying I want DCS kind of stuff, but I DO want IL 2 Sturmovik levels in it. I want Euphoria for the people, a proper medical system, a proper shooting mechanic, I want some decent physics and driving model for the vehicles and so on. What the guys from Star Citizen are doing with their ships, that's a level where you can talk about realism close to simulation - not just teleporting into the vehicle, not just a black screen with a small "window" to view outside, not just a basic destroyed model popping out of nowhere, I want a good AI that is not dumb as they come and so on.

Bottom line is that the engine is bad at the moment, pure and simple, it needs a lot of love to improve it or change it (SP and MP). It just doesn't work when you try play "the way it's meant to be played". As soon as complexity is increased, all breaks apart. Sure, some communities do get around the problem by digging on and on about what's ok to do and what not, optimizing their missions to the max, modding and so on. That's NOT ok.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying there are others that are doing a proper simulation, just that ArmA is a somewhat realistic military shooter. That's it.

[j4you 10]

Keep in mind, I'm not saying there are others that are doing a proper simulation, just that ArmA is a somewhat realistic military shooter. That's it.

Hi

I was enjoy whit ArmA II plus ACE Mods.

It was a nice compromise acceptable and enough credible and fun,always my opinion ;), for to be just a ....videogames of course.

ArmA was a somewhat realistic military shooter,or was in the right direction for it....that's problem my friend!

Rgds

Edited April 11, 2014 by j4you

[Tonci87 163]

SOE already has a working F2P that will go against Day Z and it seems WAY better and judging by the performance in PS 2, will be on a whole new level compared to what Bohemia has. Also to be fair, a lot of the action in MP goes in Life, Wasteland, Zombies and so on.

Yep there goes BIS Buisness strategy for the next years. Free to play? Scales much better with hardware? A rich crafting system? I see very much trouble incoming for DayZ.

Now it can happen what I predicted. BIS strategy to prioritize DayZ over Arma 3 might really hurt them if that thing by SOE is any good. And SOE definately has the money to make it good!

[KeyCat 131]

Because they would have done it already.

Sure.... Of course you are free to belive what you want but by blatantly posting BS like you did only results in people not taking you seriously but I'm sure you don't care!

Between, I'm waiting for your true "Mil-Sim" to be released, please send me a PM when it's going Beta.

/KC

[calin_banc 19]

Hi

I was enjoy whit ArmA II plus ACE Mods.

It was a nice compromise acceptable and enough credible and fun,always my opinion ;), for to be just a ....videogames of course.

ArmA was a somewhat realistic military shooter,or was in the right direction for it....that's problem my friend!

Rgds

Yup, it's quite fun to play after you add some mods to it, it's getting realistic, authentic, but not a sim. :)

Sure.... Of course you are free to belive what you want but by blatantly posting BS like you did only results in people not taking you seriously but I'm sure you don't care!

Between, I'm waiting for your true "Mil-Sim" to be released, please send me a PM when it's going Beta.

/KC

Ok, let's take it the other way around. If they have the resource to make this a polished game, why hasn't worked out already? Why we don't have some proper UI, some proper netcode and MP UI? Why the performance is terrible, both MP and SP side? Please, do express your opinion then, I'm open to new ideas regarding this.

Also, I didn't said there is another game out which can be called a military sim, I've only said ArmA isn't something like that. Realistic and somewhat authentic yeah, but a simulator no. You wanna call it that way? Fine, do that, but it won't magically turn it into more than it already is.

[KeyCat 131]

Ok, let's take it the other way around. If they have the resource to make this a polished game, why hasn't worked out already? Why we don't have some proper UI, some proper netcode and MP UI? Why the performance is terrible, both MP and SP side? Please, do express your opinion then, I'm open to new ideas regarding this.

My opinion is that you don't know nor do I know the reason to why things are like they are, only BIS does but they are not obliged to write an essay and explain this to none of us. You/we have no idea how knowledged the devs are or how easy/hard things is to fix or modify in the ArmA engine, what their resources are or why they decide to do things like they do.

Is ArmA perfect and free from problems? No, and it will probably never be... If you understand even a tiny bit of programming you will understand why. At least BIS are supporting their products for free years and years after release and to me thats worth alot.

Also, I didn't said there is another game out which can be called a military sim, I've only said ArmA isn't something like that. Realistic and somewhat authentic yeah, but a simulator no. You wanna call it that way? Fine, do that, but it won't magically turn it into more than it already is.

Fair enough. Personally I really don't care if it's called one or the other. Until there exists another large scale Combined Arms game/sim with sea/air/armour/infantry assets that beats ArmA I keep enjoying this.

/KC

[P0ci 10]

My opinion is that you don't know nor do I know the reason to why things are like they are, only BIS does but they are not obliged to write an essay and explain this to none of us. You/we have no idea how knowledged the devs are or how easy/hard things is to fix or modify in the ArmA engine, what their resources are or why they decide to do things like they do.

Is ArmA perfect and free from problems? No, and it will probably never be... If you understand even a tiny bit of programming you will understand why. At least BIS are supporting their products for free years and years after release and to me thats worth alot.

Fair enough. Personally I really don't care if it's called one or the other. Until there exists another large scale Combined Arms game/sim with sea/air/armour/infantry assets that beats ArmA I keep enjoying this.

/KC

No it doesn't even necesarilly mean you have to understand programming. What this game engine needs is to use more threads in terms of CPU usage. That's the problem with performance. And no im not a programmer, Im a hardware tech but I did study a bit of C++ programming and have a general idea of how it works. Now what I do understand is that coding for multithreaded appz is more complicated, but Im positive BI has the ability to do so, now whether they are too lazy to do so is on them. But it can be done as a major update and they would make the community a lot happier.

[roshnak 41]

Fair enough. Personally I really don't care if it's called one or the other. Until there exists another large scale Combined Arms game/sim with sea/air/armour/infantry assets that beats ArmA I keep enjoying this.

/KC

You're misreading calin_banc's point. He's not trying to dissuade people from playing the game, or saying there is a better game out there, he's specifically refuting j4you's argument that Arma has been "dumbed down" from it's previous incarnation as a tight, focused military simulator. It's always been a broader game than that. It has always been a tactical combined arms shooter with sandbox elements. That's what makes it such a good game. It's wide open for the user to make of it what they will.

j4you complains about zombie gamemodes and longs for the old days when Arma was a serious simulator, but there have always been zombie missions and rally car missions and all kinds of silly stuff that the community does with Arma.

Look at it this way: There are a number of games that have a more realistic simulation of small arms handling than Arma does. The most basic aspect of infantry combat is operating your gun, and Arma already isn't the most hardcore simulation out there.

[KeyCat 131]

No it doesn't even necesarilly mean you have to understand programming. What this game engine needs is to use more threads in terms of CPU usage. That's the problem with performance.

I'm not disagreeing with you and I'm sure BIS knows what the problem is since they designed the engine but fixing it is probably not as easy as some like to think without breaking large parts of other stuff in the process. What I meant was that if you know a tiny bit of programming you could better understand the complexity a project like ArmA must be. With all it's possibilities it will always have bugs and will never be perfect. I like everyone else hope they can improve the performance, especially in MP.

You're misreading calin_banc's point.

I was primarily reacting to this statement he made "...for a true "Mil-Sim", BiS doesn't have the resources and skill required to make such game" and I think it's wrong and ignorant to write something like that since none of us knows anything about their skills nor what resources they may have available.

Look at it this way: There are a number of games that have a more realistic simulation of small arms handling than Arma does. The most basic aspect of infantry combat is operating your gun, and Arma already isn't the most hardcore simulation out there.

For me thats a moot point since what I'm looking for is a game/sim (call it what you wan't) that includes Combined Arms with air/sea/armour/infantry/you-get-it in an large scale open environment. As already discussed above there are several games/sims that does the flying part much better than ArmA and I belive you when you say there are more realistic small arms games/sims but none of them offer all combined

/KC

Edited April 11, 2014 by KeyCat

[roshnak 41]

I'm not disagreeing with you and I'm sure BIS knows what the problem is since they designed the engine but fixing it is probably not as easy as some like to think without breaking large parts of other stuff in the process. What I meant was that if you know a tiny bit of programming you could better understand the complexity a project like ArmA must be. With all it's possibilities it will always have bugs and will never be perfect. I like everyone else hope they can improve the performance, especially in MP.

See, here's the part where I am getting confused: There are two options here. Either BIS is a small company doing they best they can with an enormously complex game and limited manpower and budget, or they are fulling capable of fixing the problems and they just don't care.

No one is saying that developing a game of Arma's scale is easy. It's not an insult to say that BIS doesn't have enough manpower to deal with all the issues that have been with this series as quickly as we would like, because the alternative is that they don't want to deal with those issues.

I'm going to give BIS the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are trying, but are limited by manpower, time, and money.

For me thats a moot point since what I'm looking for is a game/sim (call it what you wan't) that includes Combined Arms with air/sea/armour/infantry/you-get-it in an large scale open environment. As already discussed above there are several games/sims that does the flying part much better than ArmA and I belive you when you say there are more realistic small arms games/sims but none of them offer all combined

/KC

This is the problem. Some people keep throwing around the terms "simulator" and "realistic" like they are interchangable. They aren't. A game doesn't have to be a simulator to be realistic.

If you look at simulators in the driving and flying genres, you'll see that they are much deeper and more detailed looks into specific mechanical systems. You'll also notice that they are almost invariably very narrow in scope. That's because to create a depiction of something with that much depth and complexity is a huge undertaking.

There are a few reasons I don't like when people use the term "simulator" to describe Arma. One of them is that it creates unreasonable expectations that the game can't hope to live up to. The game is so broad in scope that it can't possibly hope to cover every aspect to a simulation level of detail. It doesn't try to and it never has. It gives a pretty good approximation of combined arms combat, though, and that's really all it has ever tried to do.

Basically, labeling Arma a simulator opens it up to a whole host of criticisms that it doesn't deserve.

[calin_banc 19]

I was primarily reacting to this statement he made "...for a true "Mil-Sim", BiS doesn't have the resources and skill required to make such game" and I think it's wrong and ignorant to writes omething like that since none of us knows anything about their skills nor what resources they may have available.

For me thats a moot point since what I'm looking for is a game/sim (call it what you wan't) that includes Combined Arms with

air/sea/armour/infantry/you-get-it in an large scale open environment. As already discussed above there are several games/sims that does the

flying part much better than ArmA and I belive you when you say there are more realistic small arms games/sims but none of them offer all combined

/KC

First, thank you for calling me ignorant, that's new. :)

Second, when the resources or skill (knowledge) are not what keeps you from making something, there are only other 2 options left: 1. you don't want to and 2, it can't be done... yet.

Like roshank said, it's not an insult to say they don't have the resources or knowledge required for such a task, it's simply stating a possibility (like you said, it's a lot of work involved). However, even Dslyecxi, the guy that makes the promo videos for BiS was pointing towards something from ArmA and OPF that didn't change AT ALL, like the UI/Action menu -

. Also, someone higher up, if I remember correctly, said that concurrency isn't a goal, only performance and he nicely avoided the fact that lack of proper concurrency is EXACTLY what is wrong with some parts of this series/engine, just as lack of concurrency is a major problem on the render part, where Mantle and DX12 will fix just that in the future.

And because you've mentioned what you like in a game, Planet Side 2 does all that, granted, in SF environment. More so, BF and PS may be smaller map wise, but they have A LOT of stuff going on (PS on highly important points, battles take quite some time), almost all at once, where in ArmA, firefights are scarcer and not simultaneous.

Anyway, I thnik a little bit of all from the above is at work: they don't have the time and manpower and the knowledge on how to fix it yet, some parts don't want to change (that action menu and user interface in general should have been long gone) and some just can't yet (mostly because of the 1st and 2nd - resources skill). Oh, and by a "true sim" I mean a simulation done right as flight, driving, physics, medical and so on. Until that will happen, if ever, the current state of the game has to improve; and probably will in a year or two time after Day Z is done. :)

[KeyCat 131]

First, thank you for calling me ignorant, that's new. :)

No problems mate... English aren't my first language so I may be wrong but AFAIK it means "uninformed or unaware" so nothing personal. :)

Second, when the resources or skill (knowledge) are not what keeps you from making something, there are only other 2 options left: 1. you don't want to and 2, it can't be done... yet.

Like roshank said, it's not an insult to say they don't have the resources or knowledge required for such a task, it's simply stating a possibility (like you said, it's a lot of work involved). However, even Dslyecxi, the guy that makes the promo videos for BiS was pointing towards something from ArmA and OPF that didn't change AT ALL, like the UI/Action menu -

. Also, someone higher up, if I remember correctly, said that concurrency isn't a goal, only performance and he nicely avoided the fact that lack of proper concurrency is EXACTLY what is wrong with some parts of this series/engine, just as lack of concurrency is a major problem on the render part, where Mantle and DX12 will fix just that in the future.

Considering that the RV engine used in ArmA series is also used in VBS that pretty much is as hardcore and realistic a military sim gets with todays HW I still think it's wrong to put out a blanket statement like you did above but to end this "debate" lets just agree to disagree.

And because you've mentioned what you like in a game, Planet Side 2 does all that, granted, in SF environment. More so, BF and PS may be smaller map wise, but they have A LOT of stuff going on (PS on highly important points, battles take quite some time), almost all at once, where in ArmA, firefights are scarcer and not simultaneous.

Tried them both and both are uninstalled. None of them are IMO not as good as A3 when it comes to CA in a war like environment. Things like map size, landscape fidelity, their openess (including scripting/modding). Even if PS2 had good numbers fighting on-line at once it's SciFi theme doesn't attract me.

Funny you should mention BFx since in my previous post I was thinking to add "pls do not say BFx" ;) I played BF2 quite a bit and like everything else it had it's pro's and con's. Tested BF3 for a few hours before uninstalling it, nice graphics but in addition to the above I could not stand running/jumping around like on meth - rinse and repeat.

Anyway, I thnik a little bit of all from the above is at work: they don't have the time and manpower and the knowledge on how to fix it yet, some parts don't want to change (that action menu and user interface in general should have been long gone) and some just can't yet (mostly because of the 1st and 2nd - resources skill).

Oh, and by a "true sim" I mean a simulation done right as flight, driving, physics, medical and so on. Until that will happen, if ever, the current state of the game has to improve; and probably will in a year or two time after Day Z is done. :)

I get what you mean but to me the term "simulation" is quite subjective. To give an example, we know ArmA calculates and simulate bullet trajectories and penetration for every bullet fired, likewise it's simulating an environment including wind, clouds etc. so in a sense ArmA is simulating at least something, right?

DCS-series calculate and simulate the flight model and avionics in planes/helicopters just that they are doing those parts with much higher fidelity than A3. IMO both can be called simulators (or games!) depending on how you look at it, again this is just how I see it and I'm sure some of you see it in other ways and thats OK.

/KC

Edited April 12, 2014 by KeyCat

[bonham 10]

Excuse me if this has been asked before, after all this is one of those "but VBS has it"-questions: In one of the recent VBS3 videos there is a feature that allows a very high viewdistance and a very high object draw distance. I would like to know how they achieved that, there must be a catch somewhere since Arma 3 would profit immensely from it. Nothing increases / decreases performance more especially in MP matches than object draw distance (for me).

[calin_banc 19]

KeyCat,

BF and PS I've mention just from a tech stand point. Both have a lot going on, although, smaller in size, there is a lot more stuff going on at the same time.

As far as I know, it's not quite the same engine, but they are similar indeed. Even if they are, it doesn't matter if features aren't used. In VBS I think still they don't take into consideration the bullet on the chamber on a so called "tactical reload" for instance.

But anyway, a simulation must have as many elements that work as they would have worked in real life, where here everything screams arcade. And even the so mighty engine that "does more than others can do", we still can't shoot from vehicles, rappel down from choppers or buildings, climb them on ropes, do a nice small jump or vaulting over small obstacles while moving, the player still full stops to running or walking if he hits some higher degree of slope or downhill inclination or even on stairs, it still cannot stop an animation once started (like healing) and you are getting killed because of that, it still can't simulate a proper armor, helmet whatever and does the whole head, arms, body, legs all in one hitbox, etc., the vehicles don't have complex mechanisms working together and damage states and so on. Best example I could give you right now, are the spaceships from Star Citizen/Squadron 42 for a proper "good enough" starting point. Add Euphoria for infantry and some sort of anatomical functions, pixel/subpixel whatever accuracy etc.

With that said, yes, ArmA does a pretty good enough job at representing what's going on during a firefight and due to size, it's fun to play. But coming back to performance, seeing how it does bad for no apparent reason, just adds to frustration and I always end up leaving after a few hours or days spent in it, still hoping for something to change in the future. And maybe it will.

bonham, they probably use RAM drive or SSD + some 30fps and the like.

[roshnak 41]

I get what you mean but to me the term "simulation" is quite subjective. To give an example, we know ArmA calculates and simulate bullet trajectories and penetration for every bullet fired, likewise it's simulating an environment including wind, clouds etc. so in a sense ArmA is simulating at least something, right?

DCS-series calculate and simulate the flight model and avionics in planes/helicopters just that they are doing those parts with much higher fidelity than A3. IMO both can be called simulators (or games!) depending on how you look at it, again this is just how I see it and I'm sure some of you see it in other ways and thats OK.

/KC

By this definition almost every game ever made is a simulator.

[Sneakson 1]

The Sims is a simulator...

However I would argue that a game is not a military simulator unless it is actually used by the military or it is accurate enough for a soldier to train in.

ARMA3 is definitely not a good training simulator for infantry. Doesn’t accurately simulate cold, heat, wetness, stamina, health is very basic and so on.

And even more definitely ARMA3 cannot be used as an instructional tool to help you learn how to fly or command any of the different vehicles included.

The most accurate flight simulators on the other hand can and are used by actual pilots.

But there are other increments of simulations. Various vehicle simulators have been around since at least the early 90s and back then they were only meant to place you in a certain situation and simulate it as accurately as possible.

Nowadays I would say there are simulators that don't simulate everything in as great detail as it possible and then there are those that do.

ARMA3 definitely doesn't simulate everything in the greatest possible detail while I would argue the world-leading flight sims certainly do.

[KeyCat 131]

By this definition almost every game ever made is a simulator.

Probably, depending on how you look at it. Does it really matter if it's called game or sim? Not really, at least not for me.

Also, what yesterday was called a "hardcore" sim is by todays standards most likely seen as a "game". Looking at the Falcon 3 box still on my shelf I can only smile and be amazed how far we come since then! Belive me, Falcon 3 was along with Su-27 Flanker and a few other as "hardcore" as you could get back then (talking early 90's).

More info here if you are interested how things looked back in the dark ages...

http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/falcon-30

Anyway, maybe we should return to this threads original topic before we get spanked by the mods ;)

/KC

Edited April 12, 2014 by KeyCat

[roshnak 41]

Probably, depending on how you look at it. Does it really matter if it's called game or sim?

Yeah, it does. A substantial part of a post I wrote on the last page was dealing with just that.

On topic, BIS doesn't seem to want Arma to run at 50-60 FPS. For every performance improvement they make, they expand the game such that it always kind of runs the same.

[j4you 10]

If i understand well, there is not reason to say anything too negative or too critical about this title because the company is too small and the title too ambitious for their finances and their ability to developers.

Excuse me but, if I have to be honest, i have never heard so many sufferance made ​​by the same customers for a product not exactly finished as in this case...and it's talking about one that follows BIS over 13 years.

Everybody of us get some problems, and i could even understand the many difficulties related to this title, but this does not justify their indifference to any kind of intervention on the basis of the product itself, that is ArmA III, and not the development about....DLC that are only secondary to other problems much more important,and since the their amount of staff are not exactly that of the UBISOFT or EA, it's one more reason why they had to focus on the optimizing about MP mode,and maybe in that case,the users could also close an eye on thousands of issues that afflicting this product,as indeed we have always done.

But the thing that annoys me most it's not the game, are the same players of the title, who make a proper exposure of a problem in a thread, a cause to deviate completely responses in an endless maze,and not finding us agree even on the things that are obvious and without a shadow of a doubt.

So if a developer about this company come here, and he read these threads,surely he will smile without worrying too much about that post, as indeed there will be someone who wants free agency to say otherwise...which in fact occurs,so i am not surprised that much of their actions is far from any logic to support priority.

But for heaven's sake!...that's okay!

Rgds

Edited April 15, 2014 by j4you