kabong

From the 09-09-2014 Dev branch change log (game EXE rev.127101): Changed: SUV survivability should be in par with Hatchbacks What does this mean? Are SUVs now even MORE fragile?! Vote! 0019283

From the 28-07-2014 Change Log (game EXE rev. 126163): "Fixed: Adjusted durability of rear glass of SUV" What about the durability of the rest of the SUV? If they can tweak the durability of the rear glass, why can't they tweak the durability of the tires and body? Vote! 0019283

People - could we please vote this issue up so it gets the developer's attention? Link to Feedback tracker report in post #37 above.

Feedback tracker report added - see 0019283 for anyone who still cares about this issue. Would have done something sooner but have been disabled for a few months with half my left hand paralyzed due to a nerve issue (could not play game or type very well). I have had surgery to correct and can finally play again. I hope the Feedback report helps to solve the issue.

Zeus is done. Can the devs PLEASE now look at this issue? Today they posted changes to the fixed wing flight model in the development build, but still no love for vehicle collision damage modeling. <sigh>

Whatever the so-called real world specs might be, can't we just have a more forgiving/less frustrating object collision damage model on vehicles? It is, after all, still just a game intended to provide ENTERTAINMENT. If BIS are really that serious about (trying to) model real world behavior, there's a ton of other stuff that should get this treatment before vehicle object collision under relatively normal (i.e. typical offroad) driving conditions. <gives head a BIG shake> ---------- Post added at 05:56 ---------- Previous post was at 05:31 ---------- If I remember correctly, I believe Arma 2 OA did model flat tires (I think the affected tire just sank into the ground) and the player had the ability to repair them. Since Arma 3 is an evolution of the Arma 2 OA engine, why wasn't the feature carried forward?

Maybe BIS could just fix the game. :P and @Cpkeyes: If we don't vote with our pocket book, nothing will ever get done. Money talks. ;)

I would take that over having them break on the slightest bump - at least they remain useable (even if slow).

MRAPs? Tanks? OMG - what is BIS thinking? In RL, these are intended to be DURABLE vehicles specifically intended for use in rough terrain. If this is the case, then Arma 3 is still seriously broken. Like I did when I shelved it first time due to poor performance, this one is going back on the shelf again. What a waste of money. BIS - you can be assured I will not spend a DIME on future DLC for Arma 3 if this is the best you can do on a supposedly "completed" game (now that Win has been released). <shakes head> Thank God I still have Arma 2 installed.

I put Arma 3 away for a while earlier in development because of poor performance on my rig. Thankfully it seems to be performing better now that the code has matured more and been better optimized (thank you BIS - see, this thread isn't ALL bad). However, I am now working on the Adapt episode and just finished the Supply Network mission, which was maddeningly difficult because the SUV is so ridiculously fragile. Bump into a fence and a wheel is blown (and unlike Arma 2, it appears the player cannot make a temporary repair). Bump into a tree and the SUV is essentially destroyed. I had to restart the mission several times in order to finish because of this stupid flaw. The SUVs in Arma 2 were never this fragile and, after all, they are OFFROAD vehicles - they ought to be able to take a beating and keep running. C'mon BIS, what's up with this nonsense? Using development build 116348.

Minor break through: I had forgotten that a long time ago (in a galaxy far, far away) I had moved my video card from my x16 PCIe slot (x16 mode) to my x16 PCIe slot (x4 mode) to avoid a noisy PCIe sound card (it was causing mouse tracking to be heard). This was several video cards ago when it didn't really matter that it was only running in x4 mode. I moved it back to the x16 mode slot and now my FPS is in the 20's with FSAA at 4x, plus the mouse tracking noise is gone (the sound card drivers were since updated which may have taken care of that problem). While I'm not getting the 60+ FPS DanielV is reporting above (how in the world does that happen?), at least it's playable again. There is still room for improvement though and I'm hoping that BIS continues to optimize the engine. JumpingHubert: clocks are as follows during game play: Each CPU core is running at 3498.0 MHz GPU is running at 1215 MHz (stock out of the box - I have an EVGA superclocked GTX 760) Reducing the clock on either or both reduces my FPS.

What was tweaked in the guide with the v1.02 patch?

KrIxXuS, I will graciously accept your offer of the ram - thanks so much! Please pm me with details and how we can connect. I am in Chicago, IL btw. For the others who are wondering what I mean by decent FPS, I would be happy with high 20s to low 30s on a consistent basis, but am stuck in the teens running BIS missions with not overly ambitious settings. For example: Sampling: 100% Textures: Very high Objects: Standard Terrain: Standard Shadows: Ultra Particles: High Clouds: High PIP: Standard HDR: Standard Dynamic lights: Very high Visibility: 1600 Resolution: 1680x1050 (native) Vsync: Disabled Bloom: 30 Radial blur: off Rotational blur: off Depth of field: 30 SSAO: Disabled Caustics: Enabled FSAA: 4x ATOC: Disabled PPAA: SMAA standard Aniso Filtering: Standard Development build: 110425 As a test, I start the Armed Assault showcase, exit the Panther, turn east, advance a few meters, then bring up video options and I'm staring at 16 FPS. Yes, I could squeeze out a few more FPS by disabling FSAA (which looks ugly and kills fine detail in the distance) and reducing view distance to 1000 (which leaves me staring a wall of fog only a click away - not very becoming for an arid Mediterranean island) but it is not going to get me to the stable FPS range I'm looking for with reasonable visual quality, and getting into a discussion of settings was not the intention of my post - there are plenty of other posts that already do that. The point is that I wish BIS would focus more on core game performance than minor cosmetics like adjusting character textures or replacing Jay Crowe placeholder voicing for British soldiers (examples from recent change logs - who cares?). It's a wonderful game, but until they improve performance I won't be spending much time enjoying it (or spending money on future DLC).

Arma 3 is going back in the box. I have a spent ton of time reading performance threads, tweaking and messing with settings but nothing produces fluid frame rates without making the game look crappy and the view distance unacceptably short. I don't think I have a poor system spec: i7-930 Quad Core CPU (stock 2.8 GHz overclocked to 3.3 GHz) Asus P6T motherboard 6 GB RAM Nvidia GTX 760 2GB superclocked video card (v327.23 drivers) Windows 7 64-bit Yes my CPU/motherboard/RAM are getting old but I don't have the cash right now to upgrade. I'm also reluctant to overclock any further for fear of burning up a CPU I can't afford to replace. I've therefore decided I'm not going to spend any more time or money on Arma 3 until BIS fixes it (i.e. drastically improves game performance). I have better things to do than trying to cope with laggy aiming and choppy frame rates. The really odd thing is that performance actually seemed to be better under the Alpha and Beta than the current build (including the development branch, which I update daily). Shouldn't performance be getting better as BIS refines the code? Back to Arma 2 for me. Edit: Minor break through - see post #35 in this thread for details

Update: In my case it was a bad video card. I recently upgraded to an Nvidia GTX 760, which worked fine for about a week and a half before the problems started. Exchanged the card for a new one and the crashing has stopped.