roshnak

No it doesn't. You know, if you wanted to research something before you posted, you could probably just open up the .pbos from both games and listen to the sound files outside of the game. You would probably notice that they sound the same inside the game as outside of it. There are several features of previous games' sound engines that are not in Arma 3, but nothing has ever made the sounds more or less "snappy." Edit: Ugh, this thread is like 3 months old. But seriously, why remove features from the sound engine?

I'm really not sure what this post means.

Haha, yeah, back in 2007.

He didn't say anything about RTI and wasn't responding to anyone who said anything about RTI, though? Nothing about his post suggests he is referring to RTI, and, in fact, also mentions BF4 in his post, which was never in any running to be adopted by any military. He made the blanket statement that Cryengine had failed, without any qualifiers, which is an absurd statement to make. It's no Unreal Engine, but Cryengine is still fairly popular, and has been used in several big budget games, while RV has been used in basically nothing except in-house projects at BIS. So, unless we are speaking strictly about who has had more success selling products to the US Army, then Cryengine has objectively not failed. I can't personally make any statements one way or the other about whether Cryengine has failed to do what RV does, because I am not familiar with any projects that have tried to do what RV does on Cryengine. The only thing I know is that some company has put out a few Youtube videos trying to sell software to the military. For all I know all they did was put some modern military assets into Crysis and make a video. I don't know anything about the team that was working on it, to what extent they modified the engine, or what the scope of their project was in the first place. I will grant you the point about most people not understanding what game engines do, though. It's a pretty huge problem from both sides of the argument, frankly. There seems to be a lot of posters on this forum who think that a game engine is just some static thing that you drop models and textures into and then it's a video game. Game engines are frequently extensively modified to suit the developers' needs. At the very least it seems a bit silly to make concrete statements about whether certain other engines can or cannot do what RV does, since, to my knowledge, no one else has ever tried to do what BIS does with Arma. Although this whole discussion is pointless, since there is no way that BIS is going to throw out an engine they have spent more than a decade developing and start all over from scratch. As a side note: Some posters on this forum display a great deal of hostility towards any game that is not Arma. You guys know you are allowed to like more than one thing, right?

Haha, what? Haha, what?! This is the epitome of fanboyism. I also like that you don't seem to even know what a game engine does, since it has nothing to do with "simulating the logistics of war," which Arma doesn't do, either, so I'm not sure why you think it's so important.

I wish they had said it had the combat of Mount & Blade. That combat system felt amazing and put every other melee system to shame.

Yeah, no way should this A-10C with an unprecedented amount of switchology for Arma 3 remind people of DCS. EDIT: Yeah, there's no way I have hundreds of hours in DCS: A-10C, DCS: Black Shark, Falcon 4.0, Falcon: AF, Open Falcon, Redviper, and BMS 4. It's also unthinkable that the level of interactivity in this addon was inspired by DCS in any way. I'm pretty sure no one here actually thinks this is literally going to be DCS: A-10C in Arma 3. I'm not sure what you guys are so worried about when this addon reminds people of DCS.

This is the thing that I have been trying to say. Potentially. It's also important to note that neither option will do much to improve general performance in the game, just reduce the little hiccups when new objects load.

None of this is good performance, by the way.

This would be a fair point if the people who were having performance issues were using old hardware. Also, who is comparing BF4 and COD to Arma 3? Edit: I still think it would be pretty cool if someone could actually name something that BIS tried to do that was too ambitious. I'll give you Java, but what else?

This is mostly right, but your HD is used more than you think. Everything isn't loaded at once in Arma. It's a streaming engine, so it loads on demand. Ugh, this is such a stupid argument. The simple fact is that you are overemphasizing the role RAM plays in Arma. The answer to the question "How important is RAM to Arma 3 performance?" is "Not very." Four more gigabytes of RAM will not necessarily solve the OP's problem. You are also de-emphasizing the role that the hard drive plays in Arma. An SSD is significantly faster than an HDD and, unlike many other games, Arma accesses your hard drive quite often. Every time a new kind of tree or rock loads, every time a new kind of house or a soldier wearing a different uniform or carrying a different gun loads, your hard drive is accessed. Stop saying that an additional 4 GB of RAM will solve the OP's problem when you know literally nothing about his or her system other than that he or she has 4 GB of RAM. Also your math on RAM usage does not add up to 8 GB. P.S. You keep mentioning Steam and VAC; how much RAM do you think those applications cost?

How much RAM did you have before you upgraded?

You guys are joking, right? Why should people not expect to be able to play games at a smooth, constant framerate? Since when is wanting a game to run at a framerate that doesn't induce headaches going too far? And what makes simulators so special that they don't have to run well? I suspect you are referring to civil flight sims, which are slower paced and do not involve players rapidly panning the camera, when low FPS becomes most evident. Then again, maybe I'm reading things wrong and you guys are actually being sarcastic.

What else are they supposed to play? This is the only game in town. Also, you might want to replay OFP. It doesn't hold up that well.

What part of "crap from Arma 2 will still be laying around the engine" and "we still haven't gotten a new door system" wasn't specific enough for you?

You should probably stop replying if you aren't going to read what anyone else posts. You've been doing nothing but making up arguments throughout this entire thread. On the other hand, congratulations, you have basically killed this thread by posting more than basically anyone else while simultaneously ignoring any post that does not support your views. I guess everyone just gave up on trying to have a discussion since every post was guaranteed to be quoted by you with some nonsensical rant about pink ponies attached to it.

That's why I said "unless you are running a whole bunch of applications in the background" in a previous post.

I don't think you understand. Arma can not use more than 3GB of RAM. It does not matter how much faster RAM is than an SSD because Arma can't use more than 3GB of RAM. It doesn't matter if you have 32GB of RAM because Arma can't use more than 3GB of RAM. Arma is a 32-bit application. 32-bit applications can't use more than 3GB of RAM. What you are experiencing is most likely a placebo. Edit: Also, SSDs can absolutely reduce stutter in Arma 3. Since Arma doesn't load every object at once, you can experience stutter when moving into new areas and loading new objects.

So getting off the topic of gender, what exactly do you guys think was too ambitious about Arma 3? Because, like I said before, the game doesn't seem that different from Arma 2 to me.

I actually thought that ACE struck a pretty good balance, and can't think of many things that were done just because it was realistic, but that's not really the topic of this thread. On the topic of armor implementation, if we have to work within the system we have now, my only suggestion would be get rid of it. There just isn't any way I can think of to properly implement an armor system without either more detailed hitboxes or some greater penalty to both players and the AI for being shot in the less armored extremities (preferably both). The system as it is now is neither authentic or fun or even usable, especially against AI. It's just a little ridiculous that I can't justify using anything less powerful than a 7.62 because it's the only way to kill the enemy AI before they kill me. The primary reason for deciding to use a higher caliber weapon should be extending effective range, not stopping power.

windows key -> dxdiag -> enter

Well this is great. You are great. Thanks for getting this out.

SAPI plates do not cover your entire torso. Anything that is not covered by the ceramic insert is just soft kevlar that is easily penetrable by rifle rounds. The current system does not allow for an authentic representation of body armor.

Since Arma can't even use the 4 GB you had originally, I don't know how that's possible. Unless you are running a whole bunch of applications in the background.

I don't think BIS has their ambitions too high, because their ambitions don't seem to be that high. Arma 3 isn't a revolution of the series, it's mostly tweaks and improvements.