Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by HaseDesTodes

  1. 4 minutes ago, x3kj said:

    I think thats intentional, to give the swirly effect of some real AT missiles


    Just now, Strike_NOR said:

    As far as i know, this is to make the missile more visible to the operator so you can better guide it. A nice and realistic touch


    i know the rotation thing is intentional (and looks cool).

    but i think the fire should come out of the end of the fin, not out of thin air

  2. 9M135 Vorona Missile

    some particles seem  a bit misaligned in flight





    Zamak MRL

    Spread is too low imo

    the spread is the same as with Sandstorm MLRS. (ballistics computer says 45m at 28km range)

    i'm no expert, but the Zamak seems like a more low-tech weapons system to me and i would expect it to perform worse.

    one thing i noticed, and like very much, was, that the Zamak MRL was much less stable when firing quick barrages than the Sandstorm, what has lead to most rockets landing in a cluster a bit away from the target




    the single impact on the runway is pretty much on target

    oh and distance was around 28km


    when waiting 5 sec between each rocket, the spread around the target


  3. Sorry for the "late" answer, but i didn't have the time to read the forums yesterday.


    On 27.2.2018 at 6:36 PM, PuFu said:

    you want them to develop their own distribution method for these 3rd party, different from Steam, just so everyone has that content distributed to them?


    how would that option work if you don't mind me asking? in pragmatic way not the theory....


    more theory. how would that work from a practical pov?



    A mod/DLC that has only BIS approved content (matches certain criteria, which are defined by BIS, and is part of the contract) could (if the creators wish so) be eligible to be added to the main data of Arma3 , that everyone has, but -just as the BIS DLC content- be protected by encryption and have limited access. It can then be bought, just as all the BIS-made DLCs on the Steam Store page.

    A mod/DLC that does not meet the defined criteria, or if the creator wishes otherwise, can be handled as a mod, that needs to be downloaded and activated separately. I don't know how they are planing to distribute the mods, but this would use the same way.


    Now we see, we already have one way that works for sure (normal DLC way) and the other one is planned anyways.

    Now you please explain to me, why you think using two different existing ways would cause to much trouble.





    On 27.2.2018 at 6:36 PM, PuFu said:

    b. again, as per this very thread, all marketing and PR will be handled by the 3rd party developer.



    i'll just answer with this quote from this thread:


    However, we will provide guidelines on technical and quality requirements, assist with the Quality Assurance process, help with promotion and deliver the tools for mastering.



    On 27.2.2018 at 6:36 PM, PuFu said:

    a. as a company, i would want to keep a certain distance from 3rd party product that i have little to no control over (no internal art direction, no control over copyright and possible IP infringements etc etc etc)




    2) Many items in modifications for the armaverse are actually copyright protected (but everybody looks away). What's with new content that might, or might not be copyright protected (oshkosh, colt, vehicle and firearms trademarks in general...)?

    3rd party should be able to acqure licence to all DLC content (sign contracts with contributors and copyright owners). 
    3) Who will handle legal questions if 3rd party rights beeing violated, either by the creator or the creators rights by others?

    BI legal department. 3rd party has to sign contract with BI.




    On 27.2.2018 at 6:36 PM, PuFu said:

    i actually consider it completely the other way - the feature updates are the main DLC, the content is the cheery on top


    I guess that depends on the the POV.

    since the feature updates have been distributed to all Arma3 owners, the actual DLC contents have to be the main feature if you buy the DLC, imo. But i guess that's a matter of definition.

    For the whole Arma community the feature updates probably have made the bigger difference. But as i said, you got them even without buying the DLCs, so for me that was a bonus.

    In case you didn't buy the DLCs, things might have looked differently.



    On 27.2.2018 at 6:36 PM, PuFu said:

    my point is that deeper changes into the engine are not gonna be possible via 3rd party DLC.


    I think we might agree on this.

    But just to make sure:

    I wan't that Mods like ACE³ have to remain outside the core files of Arma3 (so a mod), because as soon as you added those to the main game EVERYTING would change, and i guess it would cause lots of incompatibilities for existing mods.

    That should not be the desired outcome. So it has to be made sure, that, if it was possible to add 3rd party DLC content into the main game (as described),  content like this remains optional.



    If i missed any essential question you had asked me, please point me on it, i lost track writing this, and i'm already a bit tired.




    Yes i know (and i think i already wrote it), this discussion won't probably lead anywhere.

    But we were asked to give feedback, and i think the concept BIS has presented is not optimal, so i pointed it out.

    I have tired to make clear, why i think giving certain additional options could turn out positive for all parties.

    • Like 1

  4. 11 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

    Yes and I'm sure that just like a gun firing out of battery, a hole in a metal plate with explosives behind it will totally work as planned. /s


    Regardless as I said before, for in-game purposes there's probably very little difference between tank cannon shells and autocannon fire hitting the plates, it's still hit damage based after all.

    Though I hope non-penetrations will no longer deal damage to vehicles or components as they do now.


    at least (as i wrote before) 40mm HE (Marshal IFV) and 40mm GMG ammo didn't work (0 damage).

    40mm APFSDS did trigger the ERA. i think even 20mm APFSDS did.


    from what i read here, this is (somewhat) realistic. i think it might be realistic to deal at least some damage (idk, maybe 8-10% dmg per direct hit), so extensive use of smaller caliber HE shells could render ERA usless, for when the big guns start shooting (or maybe to prime the enemy tank for incoming Titan missiles).

    It might not always be wise to do so as an APC crew, because, as soon the tank shoots back, you're toast.

  5. My whole point, is that i think there are might be a better way for the premium 3rd party content, than is is announced.

    I try to give reasons on why distribution to everyone could be a wise thing to do in some cases. Although i think it should be an option, but not mandatory because that would cause trouble in some cases.


    5 minutes ago, PuFu said:

    It is the first time this thing was more visible to the average user, but this sort of business model is not new to the game industry in general or BI in particular (a lot of other content for A3 was made by external 3d artists (on individual basis) or external studios - you can check the credits if you want to


    Now what does this say about my concerns? BIS can't distribute 3rd party assets to everyone, because they did it in the past? Or is your point, that those artists had a different type of contract/payment?


    16 minutes ago, PuFu said:

    Jets DLC was part of their internal extended support roadmap for ArmA3. 3rd party DLC isn't, not sure why you compare the 2


    Because it had a great deal of work done by a 3rd party studio, and it was brought up in this context by BIS in the past already.



    As most of you probably already know, Arma 3 Jets DLC was the first opportunity for us to become familiar with third-party development partnerships. This DLC was developed together with BRAVO ZERO ONE STUDIOS (B01) - an external team led by Make Arma Not War winner Joshua "Saul" Carpenter. To put it simply, B01 developed the premium assets like the new jets and carrier, while our own development team took care of the related free platform features such as the sensor overhaul. It was a very challenging, but also satisfying and successful project. And even though we don't have the resources to directly support the development of any future third-party DLC (unlike the more cross-collaborative approach to Jets DLC), the overall experience has made us confident about extending this opportunity to other external developers.




    20 minutes ago, PuFu said:

    I am not pervy to what such a contract will contain, and what these permissions are going to be. I am pretty sure that will NOT force the developers to provide a free version though.


    i never said i demanded a free version of anything. All i said, was that the content creators should be given the OPTION to do so, and why i think that it can be a wise decision in SOME cases.


    27 minutes ago, PuFu said:

    i will give you a technical one: it will not be part of the main branch - it will surely be released separately on steam. 


    Only if they decide to do so. If they decided to go a different way, it wouldn't. Taking the fact that it is planned differently as a sole reason not to change the plan, is -imo- foolish.


    23 minutes ago, PuFu said:

    while i agree that the current DLC model in A3 is better than any DLC system in any other game, and MUCH MUCH better than the lite A2 model, you have to understand that such 3rd party DLC will have no engine improvements (which is the main reason behind the current DLC system for A3).


    As far as i understood it, the MAIN reason they went this way, was not to split up the playerbase.

    The feature updates were just the cherry-on-top.


    30 minutes ago, PuFu said:

    what if i my 3rd part DLC is or includes a terrain? how would i go about that one then?


    You would still have the option to limit the access to owner only. I personally can't think of how they could have made it better. Terrains are one of the reasons why it can't be mandatory.

    Btw: The Tanoa example was an introduction to my point in the next line, based on personal experience.


    32 minutes ago, PuFu said:

    Arma3 is a lot more than its MP part...


    Yes, and there are brilliant SP missions available (e.g. in the steam workshop). But i think most players have spent more of their time in the MP environment than in SP.

    So if you go for sales, you should ensure MP compatibility at least.


    36 minutes ago, PuFu said:

    again, engine changes like the ones available along the A3 life due to DLC improvements are surely not gonna happen.


    So whats your point? Mine was, that there are reasons for which modified data can't be distributed to everyone. And that it shouldn't be in those cases.


    38 minutes ago, PuFu said:

    how would you handle it then, considering these 3rd party DLCs (i am pretty sure there will be more than a couple) will be released separately on Steam? Sure, the author is free to create a demo for these, but as soon as these files are not part of the game data files, and are separate, you cannot have the "but content should be available free for everyone, just not usable by everyone..."


    What leads you to the assumption that having the 3rd party DLCs/Mods on the one hand and the BIS ones on the other HAS to be the way it goes? If they are flexible in the way how things are released, both ways should work at the same time.


    Full WW2 conversion: Publish as a mod, as it would break vanilla Arma3.

    Arma3 2035 Vehicle pack: Add as normal BIS-stlye DLC


    I would simply allow content creators on how they want their content to be handled. But at the same time, make sure, that this doesn't change the base functionalities of the game.

    I could even imagine the old Arma2 approach to be possible, and the premium Mod replaces the poor-quality assets. But that's not the best option imo.


    • Thanks 1

  6. 18 minutes ago, PuFu said:

    but what you fail to understand, is that:
    1. since BI isn't developing anything, there is nothing to continue in regards to the DLC policy, because it ISN'T a product made by BI

    2. BI will provide a seal of approval (or not) at some point closer to gold, and one will get approved based on a demo, pitch and roadmap provided. they will do some QA and make sure things are up to spec. they'll also figure out the % that are to be split after Steam takes its share. that's it. 



    Jets DLC was made by Bravo Zero One (or in cooperation with them), but it still gets treated just as normal BIS DLCs. Imo, the fact that BIS didn't make a DLC/Mod should be no reason to not allow the creators to distribute their product to everyone.

    If the creators decide they want to have their assets treated like normal BIS DLCs (and there are no other good reasons, especially technical ones), then why not.


    If i were a content creator that plans on making an Arma3 premium DLC/Mod, i would want to have as many players as possible buying my product (common sense i guess).

    I think that a good way to archive this, would be a big playerbase, even if only a smaller fraction of them buys the DLC at first.

    With more players, there would be a more reasons to use the assets in missions. And if the assets are used more often, players get more reasons to but the DLC/mod.


    I have heard a couple of times things like:

    "Oh sorry, we can't come to the event mission, we don't own Apex" (map was Tanoa). Things like those have led to a rarer use of Tanoa in those events.

    Now imagine the same with vehicle expansion packs. Would you use those assets in a mission, if you knew you'd have only 30% of the usual players? I wouldn't.

    And why would anyone buy a DLC/Mod, when it's rarely used at all?


    On the other hand there can be good reasons to limit access to owners only, especially if changes go deeper into the engine, than just adding some new assets.


    But in my opinion those cases should not be the reason to forbid it in the cases where it would be possible.



    Nevertheless, it seems like BIS has made their decisions already, and even if we (I) don't like it, there is no point in complaining anymore. I can just wait and see how things will turn out.

    • Thanks 1

  7. @Asheara


    do you think it might be possible to disable (manual) zeroing for cannons if the gun is broken

    i mean, when the gun is broken you can't change the elevation anymore, but zeroing still works.


    @ our tank experts


    what ammo should realistically be able to trigger the explosions of the ERA parts?

    i tried what happens when i shoot it with 40mm HE (Marshall) and 40mm GMG grenades and had no luck in the game. i would personally imagine them to be powerful enough to trigger the ERA.

    (.50 cal HMG and 12.7mm APDS (Lynx) didn't work either, but i guess that might be more realistic)

    • Like 1

  8. 23 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

    Either way, there should be some randomization to this effect. I guess it could best be done by varying the turret velocity between 0 m/s and about 5 m/s and some directional randomness. (At low velocities, the turret will just sit on top of the wreck/slightly misaligned - at higher velocities, it will visually leap off to the side, maybe even landing upside down.

    i guess it would be cool on the one hand, but i'm afraid more (physics enabled) wrecks randomly flying around could become annoying quite fast


    and 5 m/s (18 km/h) with arma physics...

    i can see ICBTT (inter-continental ballistic tank turrets) coming  :)




    i am currently doing some damage testing and i noticed some thing

    getAllHitPointsDamage for a T100 (didn't test anything else yet) gives me


    [["hitera_top_left_1","hitera_top_left_2","hitera_top_right_1","hitera_top_right_2","hithull","hitengine","hitfuel","hitltrack","hitrtrack","hitera_front","hitera_left_1","hitera_left_2","hitera_right_1","hitera_right_2","hitturret","hitgun","hitcomturret","hitcomgun","#light_l","#light_r","#light_l","#light_r"],["era_l_t_1_point","era_l_t_2_point","era_r_t_1_point","era_r_t_2_point","hit_hull_point","hit_engine_point","hit_fuel_point","hit_trackl_point",  -------->""<---------- ,"era_f_point","era_l_1_point","era_l_2_point","era_r_1_point","era_r_2_point","hit_main_turret_point","hit_main_gun_point","hit_com_turret_point","hit_com_gun_point","light_l","light_r","light_l","light_r"],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0]]

    there is a ' "" ' where a 'hit_trackr_point' is probably supposed to be

  9. 1 hour ago, lexx said:

    "Everybody gets it" is a bad approach here, because I - for example - do not want to download gigabytes of WW2 themed stuff that I will never use, and which would clutter up my 3den editor.


    i guess that pretty much depends on the mod/addon.

    imo, every new asset that fits into the Arma 2035 setting could be distributed to everyone, while total conversion like stuff, be opt-in mods.


    but i guess i wrote that a couple of times before, so writing it again probably won't change anything.


    we will just have to see how BIS will handle this, when the time comes.

    • Like 1

  10. 59 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

    This is not how laser guided bombs work in real life though.


    i guess keeping it this way (the way oukej said they will work) is the best way then.

    close to realistic, intuitive (bombs always act the same, regardless of target selected or not) and -very important- already/almost finished, if oukej didn't lie about that :) .


    1 hour ago, Strike_NOR said:

    Advanced bombs have a GPS/Laser hybrid. It uses laser as primary guidance, but if the signal is lost, it returns to the initial GPS position which was available at the time of launch


    do those advanced bombs "glide" like dumb bombs would or do they have increased gliding qualities?

    because that would be imo the ideal way bombs in Arma  could act.


    afaik in stable, you can drop bombs on targets further away, when you have the laser as sensor target, because the bomb will steer towards the target from the beginning. so the bomb has a more flat trajectory.

    idk, how realistic this is, but i could imagine this to be possible (even though, without extra wings, bombs should loose some speed this way)


    now if the bombs dropped at laser targets, headed towards the position, of the target at the moment of the launch and then LOAL, it would be a nice compromise between range extension and realism.

    it would be even better to randomize the position the bomb is headed towards a bit so you get 10-20m spread.

    heck then it could be even enabled for selected sensor targets, without 100% precision on static targets.

    and if i extend this concept, vehicles with radar could even calculate a lead for moving targets


    let me dream a bit

  11. 47 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

    Unless I'm mistaking. The Wipeout has no radar. It has a "visual" sensor though.


    yes, target had to be spotted by visual sensor, i didn't heat it up, so it couldn't be thermal.

    what i mean't was, that even though the bombs shouldn't be able to lock-on anything but laser targets, that bomb did.

    the ai noticed that it had been locked and pops smoke.



    so i understand this now this way:

    regardless of if a target is selected by the vehicle sensors or not, bombs will always drop like a dumb bomb then use LOAL.

    would it be possible, to make bombs dropped on a selected LASER target, to have it locked from the beginning?


    or a even more sophisticated approach:

    laser target selected

    bomb dropped as dump bomb, wait 1 sec, then try to acquire laser target

    if target is visible, lock

    if not proceed as normal (LOAL)


  12. 3 hours ago, HaseDesTodes said:


    i did some (more) testing.

      Reveal hidden contents

    VR; 500m altitude; 2 targets in flight path, approximately 20m distance between the targets, CCIP drop on the 2nd target

    with this setup, the 1st target should be closer to the bomb when the target is selected, but the bomb always selected the second target

    when i dropped the bombs with the laser targets selected in my vehicle's sensors, the bombs would not auto home in on the target area.

    but when i did the same with the vehicle selected it did.


    looks like they fixed it already

    wanted to make a video, and it now both work the same way



    2 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

    I would expect that the bombs do NOT auto-home to the target area, unless there is a laser target there, and the bomb can visually see it within sensor field of view/range. (sounds like locking the target with vehicle sensors, somehow influenced bomb target tracking too, if I understand you correctly).


    look what happens when you drop a bomb with the vehicle selected by the sensors only (no laser used)



    the AI even uses smoke, so there is some kind of weapon lock involved

    (you might not see notice it at first, i later drop the remaining 3 bombs, and they all hit the target as well)




    logistical issues day, but for some reason, my client did 2 updates today

  13. 2 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

    Who's laser will the bomb hit?


    i did some (more) testing.


    VR; 500m altitude; 2 targets in flight path, approximately 20m distance between the targets, CCIP drop on the 2nd target

    with this setup, the 1st target should be closer to the bomb when the target is selected, but the bomb always selected the second target


    the bomb will lock on the laser that is closest to the point of impact (CCIP). this might change, haven't tested (and should be hard to get reproducible results) this with moving targets/lasers, so with the target selection Monkey has described it could change.


    some more things, as blufor, i (same for my bomb with LOAL) was able to get locks on BLU and IND targets, as long as IND was an ally, so i would say you can lock on all friendly laser targets.

    i was not able to see IR strobes on my vehicles sensors and in the targeting camera (marked as x, like the other targets), but my bombs were able to lock themselves on them. so they might cause some confusion for bombs.


    when i dropped the bombs with the laser targets selected in my vehicle's sensors, the bombs would not auto home in on the target area.

    but when i did the same with the vehicle selected it did.

  14. i found a similar issue to the overshooting one. i don't know if it's new, but:

    when using PCML in straight mode, at 500m in VR (targeted from the side)

    it hits the ground around ca. 130m before the target (Gorgon)

    it hits the ground around ca. 200m before the target (Quad Bike)


    overfly mode works fine.


    there might be more targets that cause this issue, i will report back if i find more.


    i tested all (hope i missed none) basic versions of the ground vehicles (transport covered for trucks, unarmed for cars) and i found the same issue with

    Prowler, MB 4WD, Cart, Hatchback


    I also noticed, some damage anomalies (eg. SUV didnt take any (noticable) damage in straight flight), but i guess damage will be worked on later.

  15. 49 minutes ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

    Why not just lock onto the laser at that point?


    not exactly sure what point (of time) you mean, but i assume you mean the point, at which you drop the bomb.

    as already said by Strike and Monkey a very important reason is, to make sure the enemy has less time to react, but an other important thing for me, is that you can drop bombs from ranges/altitudes, that do not allow your vehicle sensors to pick up the targets, so locking is not possible.

    e.g. when i was testing, i dropped a bomb from 5000m altitude from around 9000m (laser) distance (insert trigonometric calculation for real distance here :) ).with CCIP and great view distances, it's at least possible to get the bomb close enough to find the laser target while you stay far away from enemy aa systems.

    • Like 2

  16. Quote

    Tweaked: Laser-guided bombs are now fully LOAL (lock-on after launch) and no longer lock on targets 


    just tested the LOAD a bit and it looks really nice. you can now drop bombs from extreme distances into the target area, and it will hit the target.


    i also tested without the laser, and you can still drop bombs on static targets with 100% accuracy.

    can we expect this to change to a more balanced method?

  17. 12 minutes ago, teabagginpeople said:


    ok all games except arma running fine. probably cancels driver issue. 



    if only this was true...

    drivers can sometimes be stupid


    21 minutes ago, KingAlectheFirst said:

    And if I did have this driver issue how do I fix it?


    i think, if it's actually a driver issues it should be similar to this one (https://feedback.bistudio.com/T121965) (DayZ SA)


    so the things to test would be:

    1. in Nvidia control panel, set the global setting to use high performance GPU.

    if you get better fps now, revert it to what you had before


    2. manually add the Arma3_x64.exe and set the GPU to the dedicated GPU


    if 1. doesn't work you might still try 2.


    in the case no one here can help you you should file a ticket in the feedback tracker. 


  18. 9 hours ago, GuthixAwesome said:

    Back to the original topic, do all of my specs look fine?

    Motherboard: MSI Z370-A PRO
    CPU:  I7-8700K 3.70 GHZ

    GPU: GTX 1080 8GB

    16 GB [8 GB x2] DDR4-3200 Memory Module - GSKILL Ripjaws
    PSU: 750 Watts Platinum
    HD: 500GB SSD and 1TB.
    Monitor: Sceptre E248W-19206C LED
    Fans: 3x 120mm case fans



    CPU, GPU, PSU, HDD, SSD are all good.


    RAM: i guess if you get your PC built you can't specify if more than that, so it will have to do.

    there are some variants of that memory i saw, that are not listed on the QVL, so it's not ensured to be fully compatible. nevertheless it should cause no troubles, as the builders should be smart enough to only use compatible parts in order to minimize compatibility issues = work for the customer support.

    If you had the choice you should (at least) go for 3600MHz modules. The price differences i found for modules listed on the QVL was like 10-15€.

    (there was  even a discussion about RAM impact on the top of this/the last page:




    Cooling: 3 case fans are good. more interesting would be your CPU cooling.

    anyhow you might want to get some dust filters for all sucking fans (if not included). they should ensure that not to much dust gets into you case.

    you will still have to clean it from time to time as Gunter has mentioned already. especially the filters will need regular maintenance. otherwise the airflow can get significantly reduced.




    I don't think a 100$ monitor would be a good long term investment. But since you already mentioned, that you want it only as a temporary solution, i'd say it might do the job.

    you should still expect pale colors, an unfirm case and generally a bad quality.

  19. 1 hour ago, oldbear said:

    I can't clearly understand why you want to use a G-Sync monitor in order to play Arma3.

    Of course, if you are playing other games more GPU dependant ...

    When I am looking for a monitor , my main concern is about display response time under 2 ms.


    from my experience arma often suffers providing stable/high fps. (it might be my i5 4770k that is getting old)

    the point with gsync and freesync is, that the image gets smoother, especially at low fps (or unstable frametimes).

    i have the impression, that since i use a 144Hz freesyn monitor, arma feels (a bit) less slugish (especially in CQB), and since i don't have a ultra fast GPU+CPU, i don't think the 144Hz made the difference.

    i guess i should experiment on how it feels with 60Hz+freesync and 144Hz+no sync

    it might not be necessary with the i7 8700k, i can't tell.



    3 hours ago, GuthixAwesome said:

    So what would be a good monitor to get with G-sync under 300$? I made the power 750 Platinum like you and oldbear stating, however, I'd prefer not to buy my first monitor for over 300$, and I would upgrade it probably in a year to a year and a half.


    under 300$? there is no G-Sync monitor i see below 350€. it's nVidia so you will have to pay extra money for that (but that aside, you can be quite sure every Gsync monitor is performing very well).

    if you plan to upgrade the monitor anyways there is no need to go for a gsync right now.

  20. 10 hours ago, GuthixAwesome said:

    Would 1000 Watts 80 Bronze+ like I originally stated be fine for Arma 3, never really focused on buying a power for I've been using a Laptop? Or does changing it to Platinum 750 make a big difference, as the 1000 Watt is fairly cheap? Building isn't something I can do currently.

    Would there be a big difference between downgrading between the GTX 1070 Ti and GTX 1080 for Arma 3? As I could downgrade to the 1070 Ti and upgrade the power.

    Also on the Monitor, I wish to buy one and the one I selected was the ASUS VG248QE 24, quite frankly quite new to buying a monitor(due to using a Laptop), and wish to know is there one to buy that's cheaper, as the monitor is what bumps up my monthly cost around 30$. Would there really be a big differnce between a 60Hz and a 144Hz for Arma 3, or is a little to no differnce.
    Just wish to run Arma 3 with mods above 40 FPS. Without mods around 60.

    My Laptop specs can't do so and it's erm...pretty bad specs. 5 year old laptop.



    About PSUs:

    The reasons for which i would go for (and for which i have) high efficiency PSUs are, 


    1. (obvious) saving power: 

    Lets say your PC hardware demands 500W

    With a 1000W 80+ Bronze PSU (peak efficiency is 85% at 50% load=500W) your PSU will use 588W

    Now you have 88W wasted and transformed into heat.

    With a 1000W 80+ Platinum PSU (peak efficiency is 94% at 50% load) your PSU will use 532W

    that might only be a difference of 56W so not much for a moment.

    Let's assume you play 5h a day for a year (wishful thinking for a working person) and your PC needs those 500W when you do.

    That would be 0.056kW*5h*365= 99.68kWh (not sure about prices in the US, but i found a price of 0.12$/kWh).

    that would be a difference of around 12$ for a year of powergaming. now with a lifespan for a good PSU of about 10 years (i think my old one was about this age (maybe only 7 years, idk) and it still worked when i replaced it)

    you would have a difference of 120$ between a Bronze and a Platinum grade PSU.

    I have to admit, the numbers i gave you a (much) higher than what would be realistic for an average player, but it should make one thing clear:

    The long-term savings can turn out so high, that you should take them into consideration.


    2. heat

    if we stick to the example from above you have a difference of 56W of produced heat inside your case.

    a slightly weaker CPU has a TDP of 65W, so the wasted power is almost as much as a CPU at full load.

    that heat will have to be transported out of the case or it will affect the other components. so it will usually mean either a higher noise level, or higher temperatures or even a bit of both.




    you said you were currently unable to build a PC. Why is that so, did you borrow your only screwdriver to a friend? because it shouldn't take much more than that.



    PSU max power:

    Core i7-8700k: 95W TDP

    GTX 1080: 180W TDP


    Mobo: 20W

    SSD+HDD: 20W

    RAM: 10W

    USB devices: max 30W (probably much less)

    other devices (fans, lights, etc.): 15W

    peak multipler (CPU,GPU,MoBo,RAM) : 1.2

    OC multiplier (CPU,GPU,MoBo,RAM): 1.3 


    total maximum power consumption:

    OC+Peak load: (95+180+20+10)*1.2*1.3+20+30+15= 541[W]

    OC, non peak: 461W

    normal max. power: 95+180+20+20+10+30+15= 370 [W]


    now. even with those REALLY high values+ multipliers you would not need more than 650W (so 1000W would be unreasonably high)

    even a 500W PSU should be sufficient, because (good) PSUs can provide more power for a moment, so peak consumptions don't cause a system crash/shutdown.


    on the other if you plan using more than one GPU in your system at some point; you will need a higher power PSU by that point.




    144Hz alone will make no significant difference for Arma3 because you will rarely (if at all) get enough fps to notice the smoother image.

    G-Sync: should make a much greater difference, because the image gets much smoother, especially at lower fps.

    display resolution: with the GPU you plan buying you should be able to go for higher resolutions than 1920x1080 (full HD), but if you dont have the money you could also turn up the rendering resolution to 150%.

    but as with the PSU, you should keep in mind, that a monitor will accompany you for many years, if you threat it well, so buying a worse one now, might mean that you will have to buy a new one in a few years, or live with an inferior model.

    i know money plays a great deal, but going for such a good PC and then getting a low-midrange monitior doesn't seem reasonable to me.

  21. 15 hours ago, GuthixAwesome said:

    Trying to make my price under 200$ a month as I tend to pay this out in increments over a year time using ibuypower.com why I wanted to use this site.
    Editing my specs on this page^ If you find a better page or somewhere else I could have the same system or a little bit downgraded but cost less then please do tell me.


    the Ibuypoower Rig how the link has set it up for me:

    CPU: Intel® Core™ i7-8700K Processor (6x 3.70GHz/12MB L3 Cache)

    Mobo: MSI Z370-A PRO

    RAM: 16GB Major Brand Gaming Memory DDR4-3000 Memory

    upgrade to DDR4-3200 Memory +60$

    GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 - 8GB

    updgrade to NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti EVGA GAMING 8GB +72$

    or NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 - 8GB (GDDR5X) (VR-Ready) +130$

    Case: iBUYPOWER Element Gaming Case (Front & Side Glass Panel)

    SSD: 250GB WD Blue SSD

    upgrade to 500GB WD Blue SSD +41$

    HDD: 1 TB Hard Drive -- 32MB Cache, 7200RPM, 6.0Gb/s 

    PSU: 600W Standard 80 PLUS Bronze

    Processor Cooling: Asetek 550LC 120mm Liquid CPU Cooler


    i assume you are from the US:

    =1479$ (+tax?)

    with max upgrades: 1710$

    with +RAM and +SSD +1070TI = 1652$ (+8% VAT ca. 1785$)



    why don't you build it yourself?

    CPU: Core i7-8700k 370€

    MoBo: ASRock Z370 Pro4 110€

    RAM: G.Skill Trident Z 16GB(F4-4133C19D-16GTZKW) 260€

    GPU: for example MSI GeForce GTX 1070 Ti Armor 8G 500€

    Case (depends much on personal taste, but for example this one: Sharkoon VG4-V (ca. 35€)) 30-50€ (or more if you want)

    SSD: Crucial MX500 500GB 130€

    HDD: for example Seagate BarraCuda Compute 4TB 100€

    PSU: for example Seasonic Focus Plus Platinum 750W ATX 2.4 (SSR-750PX) (80+ Platinum) 120€

    (even 750W seems over the top for me with this setup, so no need to go for 1000W unless you want to use SLI)

    Processor Cooling for example (be sure to get one that works with your case):

    Water: Cooler Master MasterLiquid Lite 120 ca 50€

    Air: 10-40€ for  example: Cooler Master Hyper TX3 Evo ca. 20-25€


    you could save on getting cheaper RAM, but even going for the slower (and i wouldn't go below 3200MHz)

    Kingston HyperX Predator (3200MHz) (HX432C16PB3K2/16) from the QVL it would only be 50€ (60$)



    =1675€ including taxes (prices from german shops)

    according to google that's 2051$ (i'm a bit shocked how strong the € got again)

    maybe the components are cheaper if you buy them in the US , i don't know about that.

    (they are for sure, if compare them with EU prices + shipping + US taxes)


    overall the ibuypower offer seems okay, but especially the PSU (only 80+ Bronze) and the RAM (could be faster, especially for Arma) don't seem to good to me