wasserkool

I understand that due to engine limitation, the bullet protection for pilots in armoured cockpits are not rendered properly. For example, most of the larger calibre weapons can easily take out the pilot in the Mi 24 hind, KA52 or the Cobra... I am wondering in real life, how much protection are there for pilots in these helos?

Did you guys use the air burst cluster shell? I was able to clear the entire town using two salvos lol and they cover a LARGE area!

Out of all missions, I loved this one the best. I didn't have to send a SINGLE troop into the town to win this mission. All you have to do is climb up the TALL solar towers which will give you a COMPLETE view of the down. Once you are up there, you will find a dead enemy sniper and use his weapon to pick off some of the infantries. Your laser designator with IR vision will tell you where all the enemies are and call in the arty! First use the shell burst which will take care of the majority of the soft target. Next use HE shells to finish the rest. As for the attack heli, the moment you see the armor rolling in, call in the heli and the guided missiles will take care of them!

Can the developer comment on this? I am really running out of ideas on how to make this game "playable" in scenarios involving large number of AIs and heavy firefights. With around 50 to 100 AIs and all settings at ultra and 5KM view distance, my PC is able to muster at least 50 FPS. If I double or triple the number of AIs and a firefight begins, everything slows to a crawl to less than 20 FPS no matter what graphics settings and view distance. This seems like the engine is struggling to cope with the large number of bullets and ballistics simulation? Is there anything I can do to improve this?

I understand, but I have a spare i7 980X box so as an experiment, I am running the dedicated server on that box to maximize the performance on both the client and server.

How many AI's are you having on the map/mission? What I find with this game is I can run everything maxed out with 10KM view distance with minimal AI but anytime when firefights get busy with 100+ AIs things slow down to a crawl.

I am in the quest of shelling it all out for this game and if you see my thread here - http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?173533-Large-Number-of-AI-and-heavy-firefight-physic-simulation-and-game-engine-limitation I am frustrated by the fact that large number of AIs simply brings my machine down to a crawl...even for a i7 3970X at 4.2 Ghz... It seems that dedicated server + headless client is the way to go and I've seen youtube clips showing missions with 500+ AIs @_@. Before I buy another copy of Arma 3, will headless client + dedicated server work for SP missions and the campaigns? The server will be strictly inside my LAN (home) and will not be a public server. The dedicated server is a i7-980x @ 4 Ghz.

I think running dedicated server + headless client and playing the game on the same box will further decrease the performance as your CPU and IO system are taxed with multiple tasks. What I am trying to do is to push this game to the extreme and hence running the server and headless client on a separate box.

I used the server name but still getting steam kicks :(

Thanks for the post and I am trying to get HC started and I am getting steam kicks. The LocalHost name should be the name of server that is running the HC or the PC that I am playing the game from?

Are you hosting both the dedicated server and playing the game on the same box?

I've been reading articles and guides on how to increase the CPU core usage on the server side without luck :( Flags such as -cpuCount=6 -exThreads=7 doesn't seem to help... I guess i have to buy another copy of Arma and try the headless client route...

I just played the same mission via dedicated server and there is a minor improvement. Although on the dedicated server, only one CPU core is maxed out and the rest is idle @_@

I and others want more AI because of the expansive map and unlimited freedom for movement! That is the whole point of the game to simulate large scale war as accurately as possible. I hope the dedicated server route will be improve things!

I am going to try the dedicated server approach and see how it works. I have a i7-980X box sitting unused and it will do great as an Arma 3 server!

Thanks for the feedback and I am disappointed to see that the AIs are all calculate on one thread. My CPU is already top of the line and as a matter of fact my entire system is built to run Arma 3 as smooth as possible. I tried running the CPU at 5 Ghz but the improvement is minimal at sub 35 FPS and decided to tune down the overclock as the heat and extra voltage will affect the longevity of the chip.

Arma 3 is pretty much the only PC game that I play on a regular basis and I've been an ARMA fan since the operation flashpoint days. My system spec in the signature below and this game runs sub 20FPS when action is hot ie - more than 100 AIs in a mission/map. All my settings are defaulted to high with 5000 M viewdistance which I think is the minimum for a truly inmersive game play. I'v read pretty much every tweaking guides out there without avail :( For example, one of my favorite Steam Workshop title is Surrounded where you and a few squad of AIs defend camp maxwell against 3 waves of attackers. It is alot of close quarter combat and it is not playable at all.

I can't do much about the resolution as that is the native res for 30 inch monitors. Maybe 5000M viewdistance is simply too much? The last option would be to upgrade to R9 290X but it does not guarantee the game will not choke during heavy firefights with lots of AIs.

Happy to see that many tier 1 reviewers are including ARma 3 in their latest reviews for the R9 290X. The performance is simply breathtaking and I can't wait to get 2 of them for the ULTIMATE Arma3 experience! Right now my two Radeon 7970s can run Arma 3 okay with some custom tweaking at 2560X1200 with a viewdistance of 4500M. The 290X might finally allow me to crank everything up and keep the same view distance! To be honest, I was a bit tempted to get the Geforce TITAN but looking back I am glad I waited and didn't have to pay the STUPID NVIDIA TAX! This game is also GODSEND for PC hardware manufacturers as it is estimated fans will spend $800 MILLION to upgrade their rigs for Arma 3: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2046151/report-one-pc-shooter-will-drive-800-million-in-hardware-purchases.html HARDOCP - http://hardocp.com/article/2013/10/23/amd_radeon_r9_290x_video_card_review/7#.UmnALRAn2lA Tomshardware - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-290x-hawaii-review,3650-8.html http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/4167/2iy2.jpg (224 kB)

WOW...how high are you flying? Is that the curvature of the earth? Did you basically max out the viewdistance to 10KM and fly as high as possible? I am going to try this and see if there are any texture streaming issues since my Arma 3 runs on the 4XSSD RAID 0.

The TITAN uses a huge chip at 7.1 billion transistor and according to the rumors, with a low yield so any price cuts will seriously erode their margins and make the product barely profitable. This is why the TITAN chip was initially only used on the quadro professional cards which cost $3000+. I think the ONLY way to run Arma 3 in ultra with 10KM viewdistance is through some serious LN2 OC on the CPU and the GPU...maybe 6GHZ on an i7 will do it :D ---------- Post added at 22:03 ---------- Previous post was at 22:00 ---------- It really depends on how you planned your initial gaming PC build, I know many people who are still gaming fine on their X58 intel platform with the first generation i7! I have a X58 based system with the classic i7-980X as my living room gaming PC and it plays all of the latest game without a problem.

Nope....not possible at this moment...

The GTX 690 is a dual GPU card and you can't really compare that with the 290X. As for those saying the 290X having higher power consumption and heat than the titan, while this is true but we are only looking at less than 100W or so difference. The NVIDIA TAX of $500+ you paid to purchase the Titan can pay for the extra AC or Powerbills for many many months over...unless of course if you load your GPU 100% 24/7 for folding or mining. ---------- Post added at 07:55 ---------- Previous post was at 07:53 ---------- Like i said earlier, they should've tested the game with an SSD and the dip is probably caused by stuttering.

Thats why I'll wait for the non-reference models to come out before getting them. Either way, the 290X is now the reining champ in single card performance and has really dethroned the TITAN, especially at 2560X1200 and above! ---------- Post added at 01:19 ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 ---------- Maybe that 10 FPS is caused by the game stuttering as the HardOCP test system is running a 7200RPM WD Caviar Black HDD. This game really needs an SSD or even SSD RAID to truly shine!

But with the price of one TITAN, you can almost get TWO R9 290X and based on their new crossfire bridgeless architecture, the scaling is close to 100% And why limit to 2K viewdistance. the ultimate goal is to have the FULL 10K viewdistance hehe...which is what everyone is trying to achieve. I am diehard ARMA player started with OFP and this is the only game that I invest in top of the line hardware for! Check out this review - http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_290X_CrossFire/23.html Priced just 10 percent higher than a single NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN graphics card, AMD's Radeon R9 290X CrossFire is an interesting high-end graphics option if you're willing to overlook a few things. At 2560x1600 and in its "Uber" mode, the R9 290X CrossFire offers 30% higher performance than the GTX TITAN and 26% higher performance than the GTX 690, a dual-GPU graphics cards priced around the $1000 mark. So the R9 290X "Uber" CrossFire configuration is a great deal from a price-performance perspective. Please note that we are discussing 2560x1600 here because it is the absolute minimum resolution you should use for 290X CrossFire. Serious CF performance scaling only happens at that resolution and beyond.