roshnak

This is not a particularly well informed thing to say when talking about a game series that has notorious performance problems.

You can't just say this stuff like it's a given. It's not. A "simulation game" isn't necessarily more taxing than any other game. What is going on in Arma (other than AI) that you think is so much more demanding or complex than any other game? And what does it have to do with people getting worse performance in MP than in SP? If you're going to keep posting this stuff you should probably have a better understanding of both how Arma and other multiplayer games work. You keep bringing up RAM and servers that aren't running a lot of scripts. Since Arma isn't a 64-bit application, it doesn't matter if you have 8, 16, or 48 GB of RAM. It won't use it. Poorly optimized missions are not the only factor that could cause a server to run poorly. Bad servers are a universal aspect of online video games. Servers are often misconfigured or running on overloaded machines. A server running an extremely light mission might still be a bad server that runs poorly.

"Did it very well" in what sense? Not worse than 32-bit versions? DICE's Frostbite 2 is a 64-bit only engine. Ubisoft's Dunia 2 has 64-bit support, and Far Cry 4 requires a 64-bit OS and recommends 8GB of RAM. The new Call of Duty game requires a 64-bit OS. This is irrelevant. Added complexity is not a justification for your game running poorly. Do you think that other studios couldn't make extremely complex games that don't run well? Optimization and making sure your game has playable performance is part of making video games. Also, AI is pretty much the only thing in your list that other games don't have. It would be nice if people would stop asserting that Arma is some super in depth simulator just because you can drive cars and bullets aren't hitscan. Are you saying that fuller CPU utilization would not improve performance?

First of all, it can't possibly be a problem of perspective or expectations or whatever, since we're talking about a 90% performance loss. No one is conditioned to expect that, regardless of how old their hardware is. If someone were only getting 30 FPS and experienced the same performance drop the OP did, their frame rate would sink to 3 FPS in multiplayer. Secondly, as someone with newer hardware, I can say that I am not experiencing the same performance loss that the OP is. I definitely get worse performance in MP than in SP, but I'm not dropping to a single digit frame rate at any point. While it's true that there were a bunch of people who were acting like overly defensive fanboys in the earlier stages of the thread, my point was that it does not seem unreasonable to think that, in the OP's case, there is something going on besides the game just being poorly optimized. If everyone were experiencing a performance loss similar to the OP's in MP, or even close to it, multiplayer would be completely dead. Those frame rates are completely unplayable for even the most low-FPS tolerant players.

Arma 3 widely acknowledged performance problems, especially regarding modern hardware utilization and multiplayer. I doubt that anyone would deny this. However, all of the things you reference here could certainly be contributing factors or exacerbate the already existing performance problems. The OP is describing a 90% drop in framerate when going from SP to MP. Are you saying that this is a common occurence?

Surely you understand how this is an incredibly flawed line of thought?

Yeah, this thread is way more productive than all those rants people are posting all the time.

What kind of evidence that he didn't cheat did you have in mind?

There's not even a real (good) animation for getting into or out of vehicles.

In that case, while your idea is interesting, I'm not sure it's necessarily the right solution for Arma 3. One of the primary complaints (not from me) following the removal of turn rate limits with the release of Arma 3, was that players could now turn around too quickly, and your suggestion wouldn't really do anything to address that. I definitely think there are things that could be done to improve the intertia system, though. A move to a more acceleration based model might help with tracking ability and encourage players to make smoother movements, while punishing sudden or jerky ones. I also think that the amount of inertia penalty added by equipping fore-end attachments like flashlights, IR pointers, and suppressors is a bit too high. I'm also not a fan of the way that sway kicks in following a turn.

I had a whole thing typed here, but instead I'm just going to start off with this: How do you think that weapon sway should behave? For the record, the second video (and possibly the first) was recorded immediately following the Bootcamp update -- before the sway nerf -- so it should theoretically be even easier to do this now.

How do you think this would impact long distance shooting with regular rifles? I can only imagine it would make it significantly easier. Also, do you envision this as a replacement for weapon sway, inertia, or both?

Which ones? The trained shooters that agree with you or the ones that disagree with you?

Yes, my intention was to show that the AI cannot, in fact, see you when you are behind them. Although, I will say that hearing probably shouldn't tell the AI what side you belong to, which I believe that it currently does. During the recording of that video, the AI heard me several times when I moved too aggressively and turned around while already shooting at me. Ideally, hearing (footsteps, at least) would only tell the AI that something is behind them, and they would have to turn around and see the target before learning its faction.

Difficulty regular, skill 0.60, precision 0.50.

This is not how you confirm something. It wouldn't be that hard to set up a test to make sure that what you are describing is actually happening. Although, it really couldn't be, since bullets don't pass through terrain, and when they pass through walls/objects their trajectories are altered in way that would make any sort of exceptional accuracy that the AI has pretty much irrelevant (with the exception of high caliber weapons). I agree with Greenfist. The system is broken, but probably not in the ways that you think it is.

tremanarch, are you absolutely certain that you're actually walking in the game? Becuase the walk speed in Arma 3 is roughly 5.15 kph, which is only slightly above average walking speed, and actually below average for young, fit adults (http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Walking.html). Reducing that speed to 1/3 would equal a walking speed of 1.7 kph or 1 mile per hour. That would be very, very slow.

Last time I tested it, it appeared after roughly 20 minutes in the vehicle. It wiped across the screen once and then was gone. As far as I can tell, you kind of have to make an effort to get the checkerboard to show up. When Karts was released, it appeared after 2-5 minutes and stayed on the screen pretty much forever. It was animated, too.

Fair enough.

Probably. It's not that crazy that someone would rather not be able to use content that they aren't interested in in the first place than be able to use it and have to deal with ads even though they don't want it. It kind of is, since they developed the system, and the whole system is designed around the idea of allowing players to use their DLC content with those who don't have it at the expense of advertising and feature locks for players who do not own the DLC. Unless, of course, you hit Shift-P for some reason, which is permanently bound to bring up the DLC purchase screen. It's not a super likely scenario for players using conventional control bindings, but not everyone is.

Can you prove that? I haven't seen any fullscreen overlays when sitting in the passenger seat of DLC vehicles, and I haven't seen any screenshots that show this happening, either. I don't really use DLC content that much, so I could be wrong, but I haven't seen any evidence that what you're saying is the case, either. I was under the impression that you currently only see ads when actually using the DLC content. Is this not the case for you? I agree that it would be nice if the server browser showed whether or not a server was running a mission with DLC content in it.

The ads are not all the same in passenger seats, as far as I am aware. I believe that you only get the icon in the bottom corner of the screen when in the passenger seats, not the full screen overlays. What confusion? It is forced advertising. I doubt that there are very many people who don't understand that purchasing the DLC will get rid of the prompts to buy the DLC.

Yeah, you're in the gunner seat. The gunner seat is a crew seat and thus triggers the ads. You shouldn't experience that if you are just sitting in a cargo position. I'm curious as to how you are even getting in those seats, since they are locked and display a message if you try to get in them without scripting/setting the seat as the player in the editor. Ignore this. I am dumb, you're clearly in the pilot seat. Although the point remains, you clearly aren't intended to be flying the helicopters during normal gameplay if you haven't purchased the DLC. I am of the opinion that door gunner seats shouldn't trigger ads, but they do, so there you go. I also don't really think they need to delay your disconnecting from a server in addition to having in-game ads. It just seems over the top in terms of advertising. If there wasn't a special keybind for bringing up the Steam Store page for purchasing the DLC in game, then it might be okay to have the additional ad on disconnect, but as it is, no one is going to not notice the huge icon in the corner of their screen prompting them to hit a key combination (without description of what it does) that takes control of the game to open up the Steam overlay and bring them to a store page, and also need to be reminded again when they disconnect from the server. It would be nice if BIS would just pick one of the methods (preferably a method that doesn't bring up the Steam Store from within a game session). I understand that the Lite version of the DLC may not have worked as well as they wanted, but BIS really seems to have taken it to the other extreme with advertising for DLC within the game. To BIS's credit, though, the in-game ads seem to have been toned down quite a bit from their initial implementation in Karts. The animated overlays used to pop up after about 2 minutes and then animate on your screen continuously. Now it seems to take up to 15 minutes of usage for the overlays to appear and it's just a quick screen wipe that goes away within a few seconds.

I haven't played Epoch, but that's not the behavior I'm getting in vanilla multiplayer. I would guess that it's not intended behavior, either. You definitely shouldn't be getting the screen effects if you aren't using any DLC content. It might be something on Epoch's end?

People need to stop complaining about balancing as much, if not more, than they need to stop complaining about the setting. Balancing does not necessarily mean that all sides get equipment that is 1:1 balanced against each other. It could just as easily mean that each side has unique strengths and weaknesses that can be exploited in order to win. Besides, I'm almost positive that BIS has already come out as saying that people misunderstood what they meant by balancing, and that they were actually referring to ensuring that the AI is able to use equipment properly and effectively (but probably not too effectively). Whether this was meant in a players vs AI scenario or AI vs AI scenario, I don't know. It was a tank killing machine in the 1970s. You are not going to be knocking out tanks and causing catastrophic explosions with the cannon on an A-10 in the year 2014, much less 2035. Mobility kills and damaged guns are pretty much what you can expect to achieve against modern tanks with the gun on the A-10. But I honestly doubt that the railgun tank was cut for balance or realism reasons. It was probably cut because they couldn't find out a way to implement it properly (due to engine limitations or whatever) while also differentiating it substantially from conventionally armed tanks. Basically, the same reason that shotguns were cut.