-=seany=-

Arma is mostly CPU limited so your graphics card usually has performance to spare. As you said, it only uses 50% of your GPU...so we can use the other 50% for 3D vision :) . Seriously though, I don't think it would be anymore demanding than it is with Arma2, which runs ok for me in 3d vision performance wise, there are just too many anomalies /artifacts etc to enjoy it properly.

http://www.arma3.com/news/report-in-borivoj-hlava-design#.UeguyZyNFqU Nice dev blog thanks. Always interesting to read.

This was a feature I was looking forward too, hope they can add it in after release. User created script is not an alternative (well, not for anyone who might want to use it online anyway).

In arma2 you cant change any interface colors. In arma3 you can change some interface colors, but not the user marker (it is white in Arma3- I would also like to change it's color here too.). http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=7055 http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11189 http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1328

I haven't experienced it yet but this does appear to be something that BIS like to do. I find it quite annoying. They did it all over the place in Arma2. You know the user marker you can place by pressing Shift and clicking the map- this fades when at the screen edges making it very hard to spot, they also pick terrible colors for it. It was green on Chernarus..... The squad leader/unit icons fade after a few moments so they are barley visible. Objective icons disappear/fade to almost invisible unless you open and close the map. I get what they are trying to do, but I find when I really need to find these things in the heat of battle I can't.

+1 for proper 3D Vision (or oculus) support if possible.

This is interesting to read. I get your point, but arnt there just some things that you (developers) must see the mod community do and say; "Wow, they really have thought that out better than we have and it works very well, why don't we implement it officially?" A perfect example here is ACE's Fire Control system for tanks etc. When some thing works so well, surely it is worth including? Thanks for answering some of our questions by the way, it's very appreciated. *Edit, and Dwarden thanks for that list its great to read...maybe even sticky material.

I think statements that Arma3 is worse than Arma2 are wrong and not helpful. I don't think there is any part that is more "dumbed down" I would agree with this ^ though. It is disappointing to see some of the old things that people have indeed been crying out for ignored and remain the same. My biggest gripe of this area would be modern vehicle gunnery (Gunships/ tanks/ apc/ planes etc). What baffles me is these things have been done perfectly by mods, so all they need to do is basically make an official version of these mods and there you go (tank FCS for example). Things are never as simple as they seem to the lay man I know, but I am sure it would not be that hard. Some things you can't just change because it will make the game very different, eg things like Fatigue and medical system. you can't just make these hardcore, it is unrealistic to expect so. You risk alienating a large portion of your fan base. But....with things like advanced advanced gunnery systems/ weapon resting etc. No one would complain about these additions so I wonder why they remain untouched and unimplemented. ( I believe they couldn't upgrade the helo physics due to an unacceptable performance hit?) Arma3 is fantastic, the visual changes to the game are immense. The environment feels and looks really nice. These alone are worth the admission for me. It is not surprising though to see people are a bit disappointed that core mechanics that have need a polish or an upgrade are going to remain as they have done for over a decade, in some cases.

About the Cicadas, I found that they are different since the Beta and I would say it's a bug (errr....programing error :) ). It seems like there are too many Cicada samples playing simultaneously.

tyl3r99: probably caused by your 690 gfx card. Multi gpu/SLI can cause that sort of problem with PiP displays in games. I too have found PIP to be a performance killer since the alpha, I have to turn it off.

I think the reason I felt sprint was more limited than Arma2 was the fact that Arma3's jog speed is a lot slower than Arma2's. The difference between Sprint and Jog in Arma2 is so slight that the animation change was enough to convince me I was moving faster. When in fact it was the same speed. However, as I mention, the jog speed in A3 being so much lower is still a considerable change to the series with regards realism, even with blur removed. Out of curiosity I did a test: In Arma2 it takes 2:43 to jog a kilometer (jog speed is constant throughout). In Arma3 it takes about 4:05. (that's with a basic soldier; Rifle, 6 mags, 4 throwables). Also Arma2 allows you to sprint again much quicker than Arma3. Your gun takes longer to steady in Arma3 as well. All more realism than we have had before. Again, I don't think anything is wrong with these limitations. I just don't think we need much more limitation to compensate the removal of blur. Nothing drastic anyway (forced walk for example). I think I would prefer more limited load outs than some thing like forced walk, if I had to choose. Or perhaps slower jog with very extreme loadouts.

I have never noticed being forced to slow down in arma2. The slow down in A2 was so minor it was unnoticeable. In Arma3 I can notice it quite easily..therefore to me it is more restrictive. Which is fine btw.

Even if they removed the blur and added nothing else, what we would be left with would still be more realistic and hardcore than we have ever had in the series before. When you read posts like Metal's (and some others) you would think that the game was hyper realistic before and now they are making the game way more unrealistic than it ever was. Not being able to sprint forever is a pretty big design change for the game compared to it's previous iterations. Well for me it is anyway Some people need to understand that the default game will never be like ACE, some people would like this, but I'm afraid the majority do not. It is best to leave the "hyper real" for a mod. This thread was initially about a PP effect that was disliked and turned into a thread about general fatigue (which is good) and then was hijacked into a thread demanding things way off the chart to what the series has ever done before.

Here is a ticket about FCS that apparently the Devs are looking at. I added suggestion about using the ACE system and the example video. Give some votes if you like. http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=4834

Here is a ticket about FCS that apparently the Devs are looking at. I added suggestion about using the ACE system and the example video. Give some votes if you like. http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=4834

See Metal, it's scathing, blown out of proportion statements like this that means we can never have a rational discussion about these things with you. Unfortunate really. You want it to be painfully realistic to the point of punishment. Most of us just want it to be similar levels of realism that have been in the franchise all along. Small improvements along the way. Like this new BIS fatigue, that happens to have a Blur post effect that is a bit too strong. Not adding a hyper realistic fatigue system is not suddenly going to make it another Battlefield, any more than it already is. Unless you think that it currently is like another Battlefield?

I added a bit more to my last post on the last page. Tone it down a bit eh? I don't think you understand. The game has never had encumbrance (OFP, Arma1, Arma2) So how could not implementing this change suddenly make the game more like Battlefield (I really cringe at that analogy). Well the game has never been a full milsim, there has always been that pickup and play element. Realism to a certain level, but not anal. I think the mods can deal with that extra hardcore level. But again, I would actually like to try your suggestion in game to see what it is like. I am pretty open about compromise and coming around to new methods.

If it can be disabled then why are we having this thread at all? Maybe some people want a reasonable middle ground encumbrance/Fatigue. The BIS encumbrance/fatigue is good, it's just the Blur that's a bit OTT. That's what this thread was about initially. Maybe we need another thread about needing a third, MilSim level of fatigue? Ahem, or wait for ACE (just kidding :) ) Masharra -I mostly play Domination/ Insurgency and the odd offline missions on LAN (CTI etc) I will admit it is easy to put your back up against these changes, when you first hear about them/ try them. I was very against BIS's encumbrance initially, but I have come around to it a bit more. I still think the blur is over done, but I don't mind not be able to sprint forever anymore etc. I wonder if they could add your suggestions Smurf, as an alternate to see what it's like. It is hard to imagine what game play would be like simply be reading it. maybe it would not be as bad as i imagine. or maybe it would. The only way would be to test it I guess.

Heh, I'm sure the irony of this statement is not lost on other players here either. :)

No forced walk. You can't force public servers/ wasteland domination etc to play the way a tactical properly run private server works. Things like forced walk will become annoying very quickly. It's not a matter of "making people think twice about leaving base with an empty vehicle". It's about playing in a chaotic (but fun) public server (as all public servers are) where the Newbie Pilot crashes 2km out side an AO so you now have to force walk to the objective. I don't have all night to play Arma and spend 20 minutes walking to an objective. Like I said earlier, we could pretty much sprint indefinitely in Arma2. In Arma 3 sprint is very limited and you are forced to a jog. To me this has already gone a long way to restricting movement. I don't see why we need forced walk or ott PP effects to simulate encumbrance/fatigue. I would be happy with a slight variation in jog speed based on load out and the current restrictions to sprint, but that is it. To be honest I would rather the blur than forced walk. In fact now I think about it more, maybe we should just stick with the dev version with blur etc (maybe reduce the effect a little). I personally think I need more time playing Arma3 to see how I feel about this current system.

As I made the last thread about not liking Blur effects,its pretty obvious where I stand on the issue. I wouldn't say the number of negative reactions are any more than when I created the last thread about this. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?154557-Not-liking-the-new-Fatigue-system-Jogging-should-not-be-penalised 28 pages long! Anyway, again, I don't like having visual post effects to simulate exhaustion. Even the "wavy" exhausting effect in Arma2 was more liveable than the intense Arma3 blur and dark screen edges. It needs to be toned down a lot or removed. As for alternatives? Sprinting in Arma3 has been severely limited compared to Arma2. To me this is enough. Maybe slight running speed changes for different levels of gear weight/quantity. But...you should never be forced to walk either. I would put up with blur over forced walk any day. People should be careful when suggesting Forced walk.. really think about it. It is one of the most frustrating things in a game to be forced to a low speed on foot.

I would really, really love an ACE type FCS. It works so damn well. As much as I love Arma3, it is disappointing to see that they have not really done anything to improve this area. I am pretty surprised as it is an obvious area for overhaul. I am guessing the fact we are out of ALPHA also probably means that we wont see any more new features like this implemented now? ACE first gave us many things which where so good and well received BIS added their own versions in Arma2 OA. The same could be said about the ACE FCS. It is so good and is so much more rewarding to use than mouse/tab lock, there is no question that it should be added, no one would object. Tab/ Click Lock for FCS has many problems, one of which is network lag. You have be playing on LAN to be able to reliably use Click lock for FCS. Any kind of teleporting of units or even slight warping causes rounds to miss. With the ACE FCS, the server can be as laggy as hell and the FCS still works perfectly. This is just one reason of many it is better. Is there a ticket up for this or some thing similar any one know? For anyone who has never seen the ACE FireControlSystem here is an example video: Bo5UnOhUrbY

This sort of talk helps no one. Would it be nice to have full 3d interiors? Yes of course. Is it anything new for BIS to only include interiors for some vehicles? No.