-=seany=-

Yep, it's is a really nice environment to "be in".

Thanks for the new Dev blog! Interesting reading.

I think the colors look fine. In fact they look the best since any Bis release.

Hi, welcome to arma/forums. It sounds like the game is loading with a resolution or refresh rate that your monitor can't display. When you say the game is "Fully functional" do you mean you can still see the game on screen as well as the the Our of range message? Normally (in my experience) when you see this message the whole screen is black. Anyway, you can change the screen resolution outside of the game by going into MyDocuments/Arma 3 Alpha/ and opening Arma3Alpha.cfg Look for these lines about half way down: fullScreenWidth=1680; fullScreenHeight=1050; refresh=120; Put your monitors native resolution in these sections. E.g. you can see mine here is 1680x1050 with a refresh rate of 120hz. Check your Windows display settings to find your native resolution for you monitor. It will probably be the same resolution as what your desktop is running.

Agreed, this is really annoying and makes no sense. They should work like a weapon with regards optics switching.

Just watched the Jay Crowe A3 interview, really enjoyed it. Thanks! Cant wait for beta!

Visually and environmental, I would say it's as big as the change from OFP to Arma1. It really impresses me, particularly the clouds and new lighting.

Take On Mars, I think if it's a less cartoony type of Kerbal with orbits, gravity and rocketry etc, then it will do pretty well.

urrr never mind then.... People have different opinions, lets just leave it at that I guess :)

Nvidia forced Anisotropic filtering looks better than Arma's if you force it to X16. I'd love to know why it is we can no longer set our own AA in Nvidia Control panel. I would love to try using SGSSAA through NV inspector while forcing Nvidia AA, but you don't seem to be able to do this with Arma any more.

Or a guitar plec in my case. :D For walking I don't really mind, but for vehicles it would really be nice. It is not at all uncommon for work vehicles to have a "Cruise Control", I'm guessing that includes military vehicles. I don't think its implementation is nearly as complex as all that^. eg press ALT + your move forward key until you are at the speed you want to cruise at. Then to return to manual, press your forward or back key and it cancels the cruise. It would be great for example; for maintaining a constant 3-5mph for your gunner/commander while he scans an area, or while approaching carefully toward/through a hostile area. And obviously yes, it would be more likely a change for Arma3, but it's a good suggestion none the less.

Yeah, cruise control would be nice, I agree.

Exactly, using Mp to test performance differences between patches etc is a really bad idea. Make your own simple benchmark test missions in the editor and then once you have seen how they run, try out MP.

Not sure when it changed (I don't get to play and test that often), but I do not like the new fatigue system. I hate the way that even if you just normal jog your screen starts to go blurry and darkens at the edges (you can also get rid of the blur by turning off PP so whats the point in it?) . I think the fact that sprint has been severely limited is enough of a limit/change compared to the previous games. If the fatigue system is left as it currently is, we will be looking at a screen that is always blurring and darkening at the edges. Most of OPF/Arma has been about jogging long distances from A-B (hell it used to be sprinting, but we cant do that now either [which I don't mind so much about, it was unrealistic]). I am not a fan of too many Visual type analogues of representing stress or exhaustion, most of the time the are just irritating, unless they are very subtle. Things like shaking guns sights are fine, and brief PP effects. Again, Jogging should not be limited in anyway, visually or otherwise. I believe we should be able to jog from one side of the map to the other with no penalty. The fact that Full sprint has been heavily limited is enough. Honestly, I'd rather be able to sprint for a bit longer but have the visual penalties currently applied to jogging applied to Sprint. That would make more sense to me. (PS, not running the dev build)

Are you sure? I have never noticed any restriction or slowing down of sprint or jogging speed in OFP/Arma1/Arma2. You can jog or run forever in these games. The only thing added was in the Arma2/OA era, where they included a post process wavey screen effect when you sprinted for a long time.

A brake disc squeak or squealing sound would be nice.

I, personally, thought it was interesting to hear different peoples opinion.

Hi and Welcome to Arma Juicymarmalade! Try playing a mission or two offline or have a play about in the editor. You will get far better performance and it will be a much better setting for testing your rig and graphics settings (you will most likely be able to max everything except view distance). If you want to play online, be prepared to spend a while looking around for playable servers. This is what was causing your initial experience of 20fps. If the server you join is not using powerful enough hardware for the mission they are running, or the amount of people they allow on to the server, the server will run badly and at low FPS. As a result all the Clients on the server will also get bad performance and Low fps, regardless of what kind of powerful monster of a PC they have. Basically, your online performance is dictated by the servers performance.

Yes, I can see where you are coming from with this. I would agree.

With Post Process at it's highest setting, yes? Thanks for that nice table Ceeeb.

Well put, thanks. Metal, you must see that you cant just make the game as hyper real as possible, or you will make it not fun to play, there has to be balance, like all the previous games had. They could have added much more restrictive and more "realistic" movement and encumbrance in the previous games, but they choose not to for good reasons. It's easy to start to turn the game into a chore if you go over board with this stuff. Again, I'm not against upgrades to the encumbrance, fatigue system. I just don't want to be too heavily punished (especially with annoying visuals)when doing the kind of standard hoofing it from A to B that we always are doing in these games. (telling some one to "just use a vehicle" is also not very helpful and shows a lack of interest in even trying to understand the situation from other players point of view) yes, blur does disappear with with PP on low, which also makes it pointless. Why have it at all if you can just exploit it and force it off by using low PP. I want to use all my nice Graphical environment effects and don't want to be forced to turn it off to get rid (some) of the visual penalty for jogging. I think extreme realism should be covered by mods like ACE. Although, I know there is no reasoning with you...Your opinions on this stuff are very strong, I'm sure you'll agree (as real as possible and game-play, playability come 2nd). Some times it might be better to not get involved in threads like this when your are so against gameplay and enjoyment type balancing. We all know how you feel and the threads always go the same way. It has been interesting to see different opinions on the matter, though.

Nice update thanks, looking forward to hearing them. Also, 60 % is a massive gain!

I have not actually experienced being forced to a walk from jogging or sprinting too long, so I cant say if that exists or not (tbh I wouldn't be a fan of such a thing either). The main thing I don't like was the Visual additions of darkening screen corners and pulsing blur after what felt like a pretty short jog. The slight blurring and wobbly post process affect was pretty cool from arma2 when you full sprinted for a long period. But these sort of visual penalties for jogging are not needed, you are constantly jogging in arma, so it will just be an annoyance. Your screen will be dark in the corners and blurred for a large portion of your game play time.

Yes, there is a fine line between realism and making frustrating game play, it is after all still a game. We didn't need this much restriction in OFP, Arma1, Arma 2 or OA. I don't see why we need it now. I had thought that the Alpha was mainly to show case infantry, so one would believe that it was pretty close to how the devs wanted it when they first release it. It's quite surprising to me now how different (restricted) infantry movement is now compared to the initial release of the Alpha. Initially the alpha was a bit too fast moving and "Console shootery", but only a little. It only need minor tweaking in my view. I think the restrictions have gone too far, mainly for jogging. I would accept restrictions to sprint for Arma3. There are some people who will always bark "realism" and quote real army stats and infantry weights and distances (pretty subjective anyway). Trouble is, a verbatim copy of how a human can move about with weight would not be much fun in a game. I think they got the balance pretty right in the previous games. I like to see these kind of levels of realism in ACE etc, but not for the main game. It didn't matter for (or detract from) the first 3 versions of the most realistic PC shooter game, and I don't think it matters now.

I had this problem (well, similar anyway) for a long time (3-4 months with the rare period of it working for a bit), but over the past 2 weeks (before 1.194) I have not seen it occur. The symptoms of the other posters here are similar, but I guess we may be having slightly different problems? Any idea if some thing else was changed prior to 1.194 that might have fixed my problem $able? Updated the Dev heaven ticket https://dev-heaven.net/issues/70609 Thanks