-=seany=-

Watch those temps, 95c is very high. The Max temp for the 560 is 99C. For the older 400 200 series it was 105C. The core will slow down at these temps. But, I would not consider it safe to let the GPU get to this slowdown temp as even getting close to this temperature can destroy a card..I know from experience.

That was my first though when seeing this thread. I don't believe they do. But..perhaps the op would like more ambience for divers? It would be kinda cool to see Anchors and chains when you where under water.

Only thing you can do is be a tad more patient I'm afraid. It takes roughly 30secs then you have full control, just let it do it's thing. When you join, watch the Flashing button, when you see it properly flashing then you can interact with the lobby as normal. Until then, make a cup of coffee, or have a smoke :D I'm sure they will fix it in good time.

Have a look to make sure Steam is fully minimized to the system tray . I have noticed if it is maximized in the background, it can cause stutter.

I quite liked the initial release speeds. But maybe they (optics view) where a bit too fast, I could have lived with it though, it felt nice. I wouldn't make them any slower than they are now. I think comparing speed and movements to Arma2 is not a good idea. This (Arma3) is a new take on how we move around and interact with the world. An attempt to retain realism while removing "clunkyness". As I said, I think they did a good job with the way it was in the initial release. It only needs very slight refining. Most of the things that I felt needed changing where related to animations transitions and animations in general.

Are you guys only getting this Online, or does it happen offline too (eg in the editor or SinglePlayer scenario)? If it is Online, do you ever see a "Yellow Chain" icon appear briefly after the lag/spike has passed? I am having a similar problem, but it is only online. I am pretty sure it is being caused by BattlEye.

Nice update. Love the new prone stance positions.

That's a very nice idea. You should submit a ticket so we can vote for it.

I think by 2031, our time, there will be a lot more robotics and remotely controlled weapons and vehicles than in Arma3. There are already many making there way onto the battle field now for testing. Carrier born, pilotless aircraft are already being tested. by 2031 I think will definitely see the concept of 1 human + 4 UAV fighters operating as normal procedure. Maybe even without a human escort. I think it would have been nice to see a BigDog type robot included. Or other types of robotics/ remotely controlled vehicles. Maybe there will be some though, who knows.

I have been using SLi for a long time and never found SFR to be that great, any game I tried it on, the result where not very good compared to the AFR's. It may actually be possible that you could still use inspector to fix this flicker problem though. One of the (many) Sli compatibility bits would probably be the key. The only problem is the time it takes to go through all the settings, having to reload Arma and bench mark every time, pain in the butt :). There was a similar problem with DCS:Blackshark/A10 with clouds and PinP displays that was fixed using one of the compatibility bits. I am sure though that Nvidia will fix this with an updated profile for Arma3. Hopefully that is not too far away. I don't know if its my imagination, but have any of you noticed that the flicker seems to happen less than it was initially? Some vehicles I get in now (boats), and there is no flicker on the PiP monitors.

I like the way we can change the colour of our HUD items now, like the Virtual crosshair etc. Currently, the User Map Marker (Left Shift + Left Click on map) is white and can not have it's colour changed, I tend to loose it's position quite often as it fades and blends into the scenery very easily. I would like to see it use the same color that is used for the Virtual Cross hair. In the attached screen shot I have my Crosshair ("Active Elements", as the game calls it) set to red. You can see the User Marker (circled in blue) is quite hard to see and is white. I would like to see the User Marker included with the "Active Elements" colour setting. http://feedback.arma3.com/file_download.php?file_id=2312&type=bug Issue tracker report: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=7055

Nice work, the example pic looks pretty impressive.

Nothing to do with the FCS, revisions or otherwise was mentioned in any change log as far as I can see. And the only time anyone has "explained" anything to do with the questions I asked was in this thread. I would like to see the change log that lists these changes and the Explanation that I "failed to accept", because I have no idea where these are. They are not here: http://www.arma2.com/downloads/update/beta/ARMA2_OA_Build_103718.log or here: https://dev-heaven.net/versions/1391 . Where is the change log entry, for example, that says that AutoguideAT is enabled by default in all Difficulty settings? There is a bug tracker ticket for it of course, but I haven't seen it mentioned in any change log. Other than making AutoGuideAT enabled by default in all difficulties, I don't see what else was "reverted". I politely asked if more could be done to accommodate users who might like to play with AutoGuideAT=disabled and got no response. When I load and test Arma with the current beta, right click Autorange is still broken when I switch AutoGuideAt to disabled. As far as I can see the problem still exists. So of course i am going to pursue a solution or compromise to the problem, as it is pretty much exactly the same as when it was first implemented. Unless there is something seriously wrong with my Arma install...Possible, but I don't think so. Thanks, that alone is the most clear information I have been given for this whole time.

I think, for now anyway, that Kinect can't compete with TrackIR as its resolution is not as high enough for smooth accurate tracking. It will be good when it can though, as that will create some competition in the head tracking field. Oculus Rift will be in there too.

Feel better now? Why do you want to insult me? I'll be the first to state that I am no programer and some times I miss things or misunderstand things that may seem obvious to you' date=' which I am sorry for. I even said that in my last post. But, you don't help the issue with your childish behavior of flat out refusing to communicate with me. This fix, I already commented on in that ticket, which I stated that it is the bare minimum of compromise and that I thought we could do better. Why does the FCS have to be broken at all with AutoguideAT disabled? But you, again, ignored me. This fix' date=' I am afraid I must be too stupid to understand it I guess, as from what I can see, it (currently) makes no difference to anything regarding Autorange and AutoGuideAT being disabled. Either that or it has not yet been implemented. Any info on the progress? I guess you wont answer that though, as you seem unwilling to answer even the most basic of questions that I ask. Anytime I asked in the beta patch or CCP thread about the status of the FCS, you could have pointed me to that ticket, but instead you just ignore. I'm not telepathic. It's unfortunate if the CCP has been stopped (though many changes have been made and are in the Beta, which means they will be in the patch, so don't get too melodramatic...), but I am afraid you partly brought this on yourself by not just sticking with outline of the CCP, which was to fix minor bugs and issues with the game that the devs did not have time to fix. You are the one who was unable to restrain themselves from adding in gameplay changing features that broke other aspects of the game, then ignoring queries from concerned players about the change. So you needn't bother trying to put the blame on me. Lets just read the introduction to the CCP again: Seems pretty clear to me However, to end, I'd would like to again say sorry for not having understood the change to default setting. And I thank you KJU for adding this. Regardless you think of me, I still think that you are a good asset to the community and do a lot of good work in many areas. I don't see why we must be at each other's throats, we are both fans of the same game trying to make it better, we both ultimately want the same things. I am not completely unreasonable but I do get pretty annoyed when I am being ignored for no good reason, when I am try to help or preserve features of the game that other players use and don't want to see removed if there is a possibility to save them.

Ok, I see. AutoGuideAT is enabled by default in every Difficulty setting now. A bit of an odd compromise, but I guess it is better than nothing. Sorry for not understanding initially. You are the first person to point out that this change was implemented. I still think that there is plenty of reason to give some compromise for the loss of the Auto range when AutoGuideAT is disabled, though. What is the difficulty with giving us some extra Zeroing controls at the very least? And how come the people who would like an option to remove TAB lock don't care about loosing this AutoRange feature also? Wouldn't it be a good time to implement a fully functional FCS anyway? We would have none of these ^ problems in that case. We could be done with TAB locking and pseudo Auto range systems for good if a system like the one used in ACE was implemented. It could also then be used in Arma3, which from what I have seen of the Alpha is going to use the same system that OA uses (prior to the CCP), which is a bit disappointing. I would have liked to see an upgrade/improvement in this area. I guess it is still possible though. Thank you for the small compromise and apologies again for not understanding. As I said, no one explained this change before. Please also consider the FCS upgrades, everyone would appreciate it.

Wow, this is incredibly confusing for some thing so simple.... What makes you think this? That will not happen. Most servers are already using the Beta and have not switched it on. Obviously I understand this. You still don't seem to understand that I don't care if TAB lock is removed. I can't believe I am still having to explain that fact. I just want to be able to keep the ability to use the AUTO RANGE /Fire Control Computer that was added in Operation Arrowhead. If you use AutoGuideAT=Disabled, then you loose this ability. It's that simple. This makes no sense. How can I change a setting that is forced by the Server? If the server plays with AutoGuidedAT=Disabled, all the Clients do too. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you cant see any change then you are not loading the game with the most recent beta correctly. Plus, you need to test with AutoGuideAT=Disabled in difficulty settings. I just tested with the latest beta and it's as expected, AutoGuideAT=Disabled removes the ability to use the AutoRange in vehicles (and also TAB lock, which again, I don't care about) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have no idea what this means. What default? Default settings have been changed. Default before the CCP meant that you could Use Tab Lock and Auto Range by right click when AutoGuideAT was Enabled or Disabled. ? No feedback I gave was ever acknowledged or acted on, I have no idea where you got that from. The way it is now is the exact same way it was when it was implemented initially. It was implemented, and it broke the Fire Control/Auto Zeroing from day 1 when you played with AutoGuideAT=Disabled. Telling people to just play with AutoGuideAT=Enabled is not a solution because no server plays with this setting on. Also, I still don't understand why some players who would like to play with TAB lock disabled would also want to loose the perfectly realistic function of modern armor's Fire Control System/ballistic computer. Why would anyone want to loose this feature when we don't have to, and a simple compromise could be put in? Like giving us more manual zeroing controls. Or even taking the opportunity to implement a more complex and realistic FCS. I just don't understand it. It's totally illogical to want to implement a "more realistic" feature (Removal of TAB locking), while at the same time unintentionally breaking another unrelated feature (the ballistic computer/FCS) that is perfectly realistic. And also to not care that you have broken some vehicles at the same time (Stryker MGS), and greatly reduced the ability of others (M2a3, M1a2, Warrior, Linebacker,etc, etc.) Dwarden, would it possible for you to have a quick test of these things in the editor? I feel you have been mislead about what has changed. And what "compromises" the CCP team gave (none). Understand that the person in charge is purposely ignoring me, so it's not too extreme to imagine they are misleading you about what is going on with this AutoRange/FCS/TAB lock problem. What I am asking is not some crazy irrational thing, many other players do (and will) want this fixed too.

So you are saying that there will be no compromise to the loss of BIS's FCS when AutoGuideAT=Disabled? What feedback? It was implemented and if you didn't like the fact it broke another unrealted feature, tough luck, you where ignored. The server I play on regularly has not started to play with AutoGuideAT=Enabled, just as I feared. Meaning I (and everyone else) have lost a lot of functionality in tanks and vehicles (MGS Stryker is useless now). All for a change that is not even related to the FCS. No server plays with AutoGuideAT=Enabled Coop, PVP or whatever game mode. What is the problem with giving us even the most basic of compromises? It's like a dirty question or something to even mention it. I just don't understand the brick wall I face every time I bring up this perfectly legitimate request. I feel the sad thing for the community is that if someone else, other than me, had of brought this to the attention of the CCP team first, it probably would have been addressed by now.

Dwarden, please; About the Fire Control System. Any word on what is happening with this? Is it possible we can get some compromise for the loss of it, even some thing as simple as increased manual zeroing range? And Zeroing for vehicles like the MGS Stryker that have none at the moment. If the Developers decide it's not important, could I at least be given the decency of being told so? I obviously will stop asking if I am told that there is no intention of including a compromise for it. After all what else could I do? I would ask and follow it up through the CCP channel, but I just get (purposely) ignored by KJU, for no reason. :( Thanks

Yes, its a shame we cant just use the dev version as a mod folder or something, like the Arma2 betas.

Yes, I also would like to know the reason for that change (all weapons/ammo not loaded by default in vehicles) and the link to the ticket/"bug" report that explains it.

I'm not quite sure what you mean ^. I have noticed that when I now get into some vehicles, like the Bradley, that I have reload the TOW and Bushmaster before I can use them, even though the vehicle has not been used yet. Is this the same thing you are describing? I'm not sure what was causing that behavior.

Additionally with A3, I have found that some times a server is running badly and I ALT TAB back to the Desktop and Steam is maximized. Minimizing it to the system tray has fixed similar problems for me.

Unsurprisingly I voted no. I think this would be extremely frustrating and awkward to keep having to raise your weapon manually every other minute. Currently the animation for soldiers running and jogging has the weapon lowered anyway, so it looks fine from what I have seen. Some actions that you perform in real life don't need to be simulated in a game, as in real life they are second nature and a reflex action. When you try to simulate these things in a game they just frustrate the player and make the game feel clunky an unintuitive. Having to manually raise your gun all the time is one of these type of actions, I feel. It would be like making the player use a command to put their weapon on their back before they could board a vehicle. Or making the player lower their gun before they could use the "M" key to open the map, it's just unnecessary.

I think Arma3 samples are pretty nice, I really like the rifle sounds the most. The way the sounds are used and processed for the environment however does not have a patch on JSRS. The audio scape is confusing with relation to distance and positioning, eg I hear foot steps behind my player when in 1st person that are my own. Helos are also hard to tell their distance and they appear and disappear way too abruptly. Hopefully this is just because it is in Alpha stage. But BIS should really take a good look at JSRS and see why it is so popular. Jarhead for Sound president!