Thunderbird

On the one hand, I agree with this statement but on the other hand, hardcoding some features allow a certain performance gain when it comes to huge battles (of course, if the C++ coding is well thought and well put). Regards, TB

W0lle, The only way to avoid repeating the same sentences within the next few hours is to spend a couple of extra-minutes to regroup all of "Ohara"'s statements and put'em into the first post of this topic. I'm sure this will save you some time in the future, heh. Regards, TB

This form of intolerance that starts everytime that OFP DR is mentioned within these boards should end now. The game seems to get a better shape everytime a video is released, thus showing an interesting competitor to our beloved and slightly buggy ArmA II, and being so "elitiste" won't make things evolve in a constructive manner. We are all here somehow partial to ArmA II but this should not stop us from giving a chance to OFP DR, doesn't matter what happened between BIS and CM previously. Now, don't call me a traitor. Regards, TB

Being not at home, I can't help you in details. But as far as I can recall: If you unpbo the concerned Addons done by Kju, you can increase the values of the concerned "type" of unit (Vehicle or Statics... etc). if it is "xxx=100" then put instead a higher value. you'd have to play with the values until you reach a "satisfying" result. However, I think that BIS hardcoded the "command" in question by establishing a sort of "highest value", so putting very high numbers might not change the result in-game, but I still have to get deeper within this field to confirm my statement. Regards, TB

First, thanks for the tools. I guess that the sample models (MLODs) won't take a hell of time to get released. Regarding the upcoming sample models, please get the kindness to introduce them all, including the plants/fooliage/Buildings/Blood splash (If it is a model and not a *couple of animated textures*.. etc That would be more than appreciated. FUEL can deliver such kind of large scale environments, it can compete with ArmA II in these regards (even if it is not a military simulator or a FPS). FUEL engine is quite solid even if it doesn't deliver the same environment quality than ArmA II. Cheers again, Regards, TB

First, glad to hear about the new expansion and about the solid support towards the community regarding the upcoming patching process. I hope the extra-forces available alongside with the US ones won't be limited to only 1 nation. Not that I'm trying to push my luck that far, but having multiple armies will be simply outstanding. Not only for us as players/modders but this game could have the potential to hit a bigger market than any of the previous BIS games did so far. Also, glad to hear that BIS does carefully follow people's feedback and complaints, Glad to hear about the new engine modifications. But please, get ride of these 8 years old bugs forever, focus your efforts on the engine optimizations, hardcode your features as much as you can. I know that time is the biggest DEV's enemy but you have to find the right balance to avoid repeating the same mistakes. And again, thank you for the dedication. Long live BIS. Regards, TB

I have an ATI 4890 too / Windows 7 32 B/ Catalyst 9.7 / Slightly overclocked and it works like a charm. Regards, TB

Indeed. Regarding the LOD issue, I wonder whether there will be a major FPS impact if we keep only the highest LODs and get ride of the lowest ones, just to make the "LOD Auto-Switching" less visible in-game. Regards, TB

Funny thing that I just finished tweaking this here and that you release the same thing in the same hour. Will give yours a go, cheers. Regards, TB

Blocking the AI view with the grass is technically possible, waiting for BIS MLODs to give it a little go. However, I'm still wondering why didn't BIS pay more attention to this aspect. Regards, TB

OFP: DR seems more and more interesting. However, they still need to seriously focus on the SFX and on the fooliage. I'm still getting the slight impression that something is damn screwed there. Regards, TB

I'm tired like hell trying to tweak my system to make the game run properly with the latest patch... Got ride of it and got back to 1.02 by reinstalling everything, I will live with the 1.02 until the 1.04 pops up. Regards, TB

I have a 4890 too and the problem is due to the patch 1.03, don't worry about your drivers. The only current available solution to enjoy a decent gameplay is to get back to the patch 1.02 until BIS figures out a solution for the problem. Regards, TB

The most frustrating thing is to know that BIS is able to fix the current major bugs and issues within ArmA II but they don't do it. They instead focus on secondary/less important bugs. But the game needs to be playable first, otherwise, things won't get better and to reach this, it is necessary to seriously focus on the following aspects: - Performance on all PC users hardware/Get ride of the 8 GB and ATI issues forever. - Fix that sh... textures loading/streaming issue. - Ensure that the campaign will be 100% playable. If these 3 aspects receive the necessary attention, then it will be a first solid step to get further. Regards, TB

This say it all, their motivation seems to be negatively affected. But I hope that this is just temporary. Hopefully, the future will get slightly better. Regards, TB

After a bunch of hours playing ArmA II with the latest patch, well, I have to unfortunately confirm all what has been said through this topic in terms of complaints/issues. I have experienced the same here (ATI 4890 1GB/ E7300/ 4GB RAM), and this is kind of sad. I'm getting the slight impression that BIS Main/Core Engine coders are way far from their office in Prague (This is the holidays period after all). As most of the patch 1.03 fixes are not that necessary in the first stance. ArmA II needs some DEEP core changes: It requires to be optimized, the performance is a serious problem at the moment because it does negatively affect the gameplay experience. There is a serious need to finally figure out a solution for the textures loading issue. The CTDs are a serious pain in a... to say the least Honestly, I really don't want to reinstall my OS just to play ArmA II properly, so please, take the time you want but get ride of these problems forever. Regards, TB

Overall, the patch improves many significant aspects of the game and this is more than appreciated. However, I can't hide my disappointment about 1 major point which in my judgement, have not received the necessary attention: - The vegetation streaming still requires more effort to make it look more real, as having bushes popping up when you advance through forrests is kind of frustrating and looks very unreal. I guess that this is due to the LOD switching and hope this will get fixed within the next incoming days. But the rest is very satisfying, including the performance. Regards, TB

ArmA II effects are quite decent and don't need to be that much changed. However, there are a few extra-effects which could be added and which would undoubtedly increase the immersion feeling in-game such as 'Blood Effects...' etc. Regards, TB

Glad to see the issue clarified, this somehow gives a serious lesson to some 'Uber-excited-self-proclaimed-Addons-Police-Officers', and I hope this issue will make things evolve for the future. And keep up the nice work Sarmat. Regards, TB

At least, you seem to have enough of time to spend by splitting posts into pieces and by providing an answer to each part of it, which makes no sense at all as you seem to miss the global point of the issue. What you don't get here is that you are going to war alone, you are playing the big hero but with no solid basis behind since the MOD in question hasn't released anything yet. You are even not sure whether it is their model or whether they started it from scratch, This is all about speculations as you have no solid proves behind. Regarding the issue about FFUR, it's rather funny to read this from you, trying to make a point by using some old issues which have changed ages ago. In other words, you make no valid point there. Seriously, get some hindsight and stop wasting your time and energy for something that won't result to anything except making you sound lacking humility. Regards, TB

RKSL-Rock, I understand your point and there are no doubts about your contribution towards the community through these years, but your attitude is kind of childlish, doesn't matter whether you are right or not, doesn't matter whether you are a 'good' plane modeler or not. The way you behave makes you sound silly, and truthfully, this is not the first time you act in a such manner. Does this model belong to you? or maybe do you have a sort of 'Addons Police Professional Card' which makes you different from the rest of us? or the fact that you released a bunch of Addons previously gives you a higher rank than the rest of us? Truthfully, people playing 'Addons Cops' are seriously hitting my nerves: What about this simple rule? - If the author of the model in question doesn't show any sign against the release of the Model, then just let it be. - If the author of the original model is against the use and the release of the Addon in question then just take out the link and disable any Media\Download link in order to make everyone happy. - Obviously, Asking the author's permission is more than necessary. People make no money from this stuff, if you are looking after some sort of 'glory' then just write below your 'Download Link' a little message mentioning in BOLD Char. that you did the whole thing from SCRATCH and be proud of it, I'm sure people won't miss it. People may agree or disagree but this is my 2 cents. Regards, TB

Nice post.

As we all have noticed, the AI in ArmA II needs much more CPU than before, I tried to figure out the reasons behind such an increase, then I found that: The first one is that the AI runs much more extra-scripts than before. The second point is that the AI uses new hard coded commands [A la 'nearestobject'] to behave more realistically, therefore, the AI requires much more CPU than before. Making the AI slightly dumber is the only way to make CPU friendly Large Battlefields with countless AI units. I hope that BIS fixes that with the upcoming patch without altering the AI current behaviour, otherwise, we would have to tweak this ourselves but the result might be not that satisfying. Regards, TB

That's what mainly causes the FPS hit, decreasing the viewdistance does seriously increase your framerate level in-game. Regards, TB

But the higher the value is, the more accurate the enemy is? or is there something wrong here? Doesn't 1 mean a high accuracy and 0 a very low one? Regards, TB