nikiforos 450 Posted March 2, 2015 Am I the only one that have detected decreased performance with 0.3.6? I made several tests moving back and forth between 0.3.5 and 0.3.6 and I'm 100% that something has changed in the mod making it heavier on FPS. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
avfc 10 Posted March 2, 2015 Honestly I think the Russians have a far better approach to building military aircraft than most NATO nations. They built shit to LAST. Their migs are like flying tanks. I don't know if you've ever seen a Russian airbase. But most NATO officers would probably not even come near it with their aircraft. Debris everywhere, overgrown runways, flooded areas etc. Now you might think that is stupid but the thing is. If you want operational F-16 or F-15's somewhere you need a spotless runway. But in a real war scenario that might be very difficult if not impossible. In other words NATO aircraft are mostly designed as swiss watches, very intricate and very complicated and difficult to maintain. Yes they are very sexy, but Russian aircraft are built for war, and war time scenario's. So they might be ugly, but they're also very relyable and robust. Oh yes nobody doubts that, they know what they're doing. Dont want to take over the thread though, it was only a little joke about the Mil v12 :p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
soul_assassin 1750 Posted March 2, 2015 Am I the only one that have detected decreased performance with 0.3.6? I made several tests moving back and forth between 0.3.5 and 0.3.6 and I'm 100% that something has changed in the mod making it heavier on FPS. Is this perticularly visible with some new content that you inserted or just in general your game is running slower, even when you are not looking at a particular asset? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nikiforos 450 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) Well I need to try this out Soul_Assassin later and I report back to you about the results. Currently I changed back to 0.3.5 and keep in mind that I am an FPS junkie :) so I even notice minor changes easily. Edited March 2, 2015 by Nikiforos Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maquez 141 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) no difference in performance here. I consider you to build up a stronger computer seeing that you claim in many other threads about bad performance Edited March 2, 2015 by maquez typos Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zukov 490 Posted March 2, 2015 bouncing antennas and frontal skirt? ;) Finally! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
panimala 25 Posted March 2, 2015 Thanks for the latest update. Many great new additions, from things such as the PKM and AKM to the new vehicles to the smaller things such as the single-use flare launchers. :) Keep up the good work to everyone involved with the project. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
serjames 357 Posted March 2, 2015 ooo what has bouncing antennas ? I'm trying to get that working on something we're doing - could do with an good example ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zukov 490 Posted March 2, 2015 ooo what has bouncing antennas ? I'm trying to get that working on something we're doing - could do with an good example ! try the T80U Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damian90 697 Posted March 2, 2015 Every vehicle AFAIK have antennas animations. We are still working on further refining vehicles. ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
serjames 357 Posted March 2, 2015 Sounds great! We had been trying to get them to work on our Jackals and indeed on some our new radio packs. Will see if I can figure it out SJ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nsnipe 10 Posted March 2, 2015 Maybe it would be possible to change M2010 bolt action animation - that it wont move/rotate weapon itself while chambering. Now its almost impossible to do follow up shots or even see if target is hit and it looses its purpose as sniper rifle. Usually while chamberring rifle moves 1-2 mils (at max) off target but not completely out off sight. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
owmyeye 14 Posted March 2, 2015 Am I the only one that have detected decreased performance with 0.3.6? I made several tests moving back and forth between 0.3.5 and 0.3.6 and I'm 100% that something has changed in the mod making it heavier on FPS. YES! Now you mention it, YES I did. I actually rebooted my computer (something I don't do unless I need to update) thinking maybe I had some kind of app clutter going on (I often have chrome and other things left on while playing) but it made no difference. I started wondering if it was because I recently switched to dev build, but I also noted that the fps loss was detected on the first time I started the latest RHS build. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nikiforos 450 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) YES! Now you mention it, YES I did. I actually rebooted my computer (something I don't do unless I need to update) thinking maybe I had some kind of app clutter going on (I often have chrome and other things left on while playing) but it made no difference. I started wondering if it was because I recently switched to dev build, but I also noted that the fps loss was detected on the first time I started the latest RHS build. Thank you! I thought I was crazy but if people do enough tests we same scenarios but with differents builds 0.3.5 and 0.3.6 I'm sure everyone will notice the FPS difference. I wild guess might be that the team added some new FX like have a quite huge impact on FPS when there is an intensive battle going on. Is there a way to remove these changes? Edited March 2, 2015 by Nikiforos Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
soul_assassin 1750 Posted March 2, 2015 Thank you! I thought I was crazy but if people do enough tests we same scenarios but with differents builds 0.3.5 and 0.3.6 I'm sure everyone will notice the FPS difference. I wild guess might be that the team added some new FX like that have a quite huge impact on FPS when there is an intensive battle going on. Is there a way to remove these changes? If you could provide more information on assets used in mission it would be great. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nikiforos 450 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) If you could provide more information on assets used in mission it would be great. Well a quick description of the mission(editor) : Russian troops vs US troops outside Delfinaki , Altis. I used 3 BMPs for the Russians and two Bradley's for the US forces plus two Humvees. 4 infantry groups for each side without any scripting , just waypoints set. Keep in mind I also tried other scenarios to ensure my assesment. Edited March 2, 2015 by Nikiforos Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
soul_assassin 1750 Posted March 2, 2015 Well a quick description of the mission(editor) : Russian troops vs US troops outside Delfinaki , Altis. I used 3 BMPs for the Russians and two Bradley's for the US forces plus two Humvees. 4 infantry groups for each side without any scripting , just waypoints set. Keep in mind I also tried other scenarios to ensure my assesment. Which assets were in the other scenarios? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nikiforos 450 Posted March 2, 2015 Which assets were in the other scenarios? Slight changes but armored vehicles were involved as well. Can't remember exact number though. I will try to put infantry units against each other later this evening, without any vehicles though, and report back with a feedback. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakeryan760 10 Posted March 2, 2015 None of the attachments will work with the M249. None of the optics, muzzle attachments, or rail attachments. Looking forward to using the new brakes on the 249!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
garverick 1 Posted March 2, 2015 None of the attachments will work with the M249. None of the optics, muzzle attachments, or rail attachments. Looking forward to using the new brakes on the 249!!! Works fine for me, Just no muzzle attachments tho not sure if it has any or not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
instagoat 133 Posted March 2, 2015 Hey, I got a question regarding the reflex and holo sights. Because the reticule is rendered at a distance, in some guns it sits behind the front sight post (AR-15 style rifles as an example.) like this: My question now is this: is it technically possible to have the gun display in two lods at once in first person view? That way the front sight post from the 1st world LOD could be used while the gun itself (and the mounted sight) are Pilot lod, making the reticule render in front rather than behind the sight post. Minor issue, I just got out of the shower and wonder if I had a groundbreaking Idea here or something. As for the rest, I am in awe before all this content. The tanks especially are a beaut to play with: once the AI can keep up with armored warfare, the fun will still be doubled! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
soul_assassin 1750 Posted March 2, 2015 My question now is this: is it technically possible to have the gun display in two lods at once in first person view? That way the front sight post from the 1st world LOD could be used while the gun itself (and the mounted sight) are Pilot lod, making the reticule render in front rather than behind the sight post. lol how on earth did you think that could be possibly done :D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PuFu 4600 Posted March 2, 2015 My question now is this: is it technically possible to have the gun display in two lods at once in first person view? It isn't... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nart 12 Posted March 2, 2015 None of the attachments will work with the M249. None of the optics, muzzle attachments, or rail attachments. Looking forward to using the new brakes on the 249!!! Delete ASDG_JR_RHS.pbo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
