no use for a name

I found the problem for myself: Somehow my memory allocator got switched and was incompatible. After switching it back to default the game runs fine

Same for me, I've been playing since Alpha release and never have had this error. Now I get it when trying to run Exile. I went to try a different malloc in the advanced settings, but nothing showed up in the dropdown menu. My Win10 just updated today as well. edit: found the problem was that somehow the memory allocator got switched, so I changed it back to default and it works now

Have you tried going back to the stable build?

I don't think it's the lethality, it's more because there's no wounding mechanic in the game; so units that might be in the blast radius (but not killed) run off like nothing happened

This is an excellent report of why the AI tends to kill so soon: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=14905 Please vote!

Ever since the alpha, I noticed the total lack of a wounding system and visual feedback when infantry get shot. As it stands now, infantry only slightly 'twitch' when getting hit. And sometimes there's no reaction at all (usually when moving or during an action like healing). This is unacceptable IMO, it kills immersion and it's impossible to tell if your shots are landing on target, especially now since it usually takes multiple shots to take down infantry with small arms fire. All other previous titles in the series at least had a basic wounding system that would affect aim, breathing, and movement. Here some some of my ideas: When shot in the legs, movement speed is affected with limping, and a chance to force infantry to crawl until healed by a medic. When shot in the arms, aim is greatly affected When shot in the abdomen; breathing, aim, vision, and movement speed are negatively affected When shot in the upper torso/chest, breathing and vision is affected for a short time (due to not penetrating armor) Any time when shot (especially from multiple rounds), there's a chance for infantry to get stunned or get knocked down, making them stumble to the ground; allowing them to get to cover. Bullets that don't hit armor should create more blood visuals Obviously headshots still have a 99% chance to kill; but if they don't, it should negatively affect vision, aiming, breathing, and have a greater chance for stun/knockdown. I believe these are essential, and will add more elements to the game. Please, add a better wounding system and visual feedback to the game, at least to the standards of previous titles in the series! Please vote up on the feedback tracker: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=14537 Example videos of current system:

Well that's not really what this thread/ticket is about. It's more about the reaction/effects of getting shot. I'm not asking for a surgeon simulator and/or limbs flying off and guts hanging out, that's a whole separate issue/feature/request. I just want a basic wounding mechanic that's at least on par with previous Arma titles i.e. you get shot in the legs, you're forced crawl (until healed). If you get shot in the arms, aim is greatly affected, etc. My ideas were mainly to improve on the old system that's not even there any more

Yes I should have been clear that the pp effects would be temporary, and only for a few seconds at most. And as for the knockdown, it was more if you hit a target multiple times center mass and they somehow survive (which has happened on occasion), then there's a chance (not 100%) for them to be knocked to the ground. This would also help the "victim", as it would be harder for follow-up shots; and they would be able to move to cover. Then they'd have a chance to heal and "gather" their senses i.e. wait for the" side-effects" to subside. However, if they're knocked down, they could also quickly stand up and run to cover (using the prone "toggle"); but this will just make you an easier target for follow-up shots (if you fall somewhere without concealment/cover, then what have you got to loose :D )

The armor simulation is there, but the reaction/wounding isn't: How does someone take a bullet to the chest at near-point blank and "flinch" like they tripped over a curb? Vote! http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=14537

OK let me be more clear - Anyone have any VALUABLE input instead of the typical troll bullshit? Oh wait, that would take ACTUAL work!

oh and it is a shame to see the dev's get shit on in all the forums; they're obviously working on the issues, and trying to figure out ways to improve the game. Here's the key: Example - What good is it to spend 1000 man-hours to do something that will maybe add a slight performance increase? Especially when there's TONS of other things they could work on/fix instead i.e. bugs that have been there since OFP, or the new content that people keep crying about, etc. There just is no logic in that from a business standpoint. They will do all they can do (within reason) to improve the game, it's that simple. If you don't like that policy, then go play any other AAA title and HOPE that they fix the problems; much less have discussion's with the dev's and not some PR guy! Again, it's just the way I see it

object distance and terrain detail also have big impacts on CPU (at least for me) edit: back to the OP: For me, Arma is Arma, there's nothing else like it and I still have fun with it in it's current state. I play both SP and MP, and as long as it's not some giant every faction running around the whole island with 5000AI, it runs decent; and it's fun I always get more playtime out of this series than any other game I've bought; even more than the GTA series and TES/Fallout games. I get the most enjoyment/replayability out of Arma titles than any other game because missions will play out different every time (plus mods, new content, etc.). With every other game, they always play the same. In Arma I can play the same mission as a rifleman, AT soldier, or tank (or even the same unit over and over); and it will be different every time Even with the performance issues I would have still gladly paid $60 because I know BIS will continue to improve it, and I will get many hours from it This is all just IMO, of course

Uh, am I the only one that thinks this should be in the game? I just thought it would be a good idea, does anyone agree or not? I was hoping for more input

I just wanted to suggest either tweaking or even scrapping the automated presets in the game. There's 1000's of posts (mainly on other forums) of users complaining about poor performance because they think they have a kick-ass system and they instinctively choose the Ultra setting. I don't know how many times I've seen "I can run every other game maxed out except Arma bla bla" But they don't realize this isn't like 99% of other games that have VERY limited graphics options and VERY limited scaling. I think 50%+ of "This game needs more optimization"-type threads could be eliminated by just either having the presets set lower, or making people actually use the advanced options to find a balance. It just sickens me to see all this "Arma sucks because it's unoptimized" BS spread throughout the www because the people are too lazy/uneducated to click the "Advanced" button and change it themselves. I think it would shut a lot of people up who always complain about how they can't run this game on Ultra with an i5/gtx680/SSD because they have everything set to Ultra and a 3800m view distance I'd make a ticket in the feedback tracker but for some reason I can't log in anymore (I always get a "name already in use" error)

Well I can't argue with that, but if you looked at the link earlier in that post, you'd have seen that currently there's only so much they can do with adding multi-core support w/o breaking the game. I for one don't want to wait 2-3 years (or more) for a new engine...I may not even be alive by then. Actual optimization of the game is a whole other issue, but luckily the game scales decently with the amount of graphics options. That's why I was simply suggesting fixing the presets to at least give a good first impression to new players.

That's usually a problem with a terrain detail setting that's too low, but unfortunately it's controlled by the server. If it seems to happen in a specific location, you might take some screenshots and coordinates and make a ticket at the Feedback tracker to help BIS possibly fix it

It confuses me also why these haven't been implemented yet...Thank you TMR!

I would love this! Similar to Ghost Recon

If you have Vista/Win7/8, click on the start button and type "resmon" into the search box. That will open up the Resource Monitor where you can look at your disk(s) and see what files are loaded and how fast the data xfer is to make sure it's working

I guess I should be clear - I don't think that my suggestion will magically 'fix' everyones complaints about performance; but it will at least calm down the ones who complain that they can't run the game on settings too high for their PC. And I never said VD was the only factor in performance...I also said Object Distance, FSAA, and SSAO all had drastic effects on performance as well (which Ultra setting max automatically). Also, I know the game has performance issues; that's why I've spent more time in Arma3 tweaking/optimizing instead of actually playing lol. I even started a thread about the AI and how even after they're dead FPS still doesn't go up. This looked very strange (and inefficient) so I posted a thread but got ONE response as it seems no one cares ( http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?160374-GPU-CPU-useage-decreases-as-AI-increase ). The only way I could fix it was to make a simple clear body script that would clean the dead bodies, then FPS went back up. As for using more threads/better 'optimization', I think this pretty much sums it up: http://steamcommunity.com/app/107410/discussions/0/864972620657742456/#c864972620869327834 We're not going to get milk from a turnip as they say, so while there may be future improvements I wouldn't expect anything super-drastic. People that are hoping for some magical fix to make the game run so good that everyone can run max settings are going to be VERY disappointed (hope I'm wrong tho) My thread was just a simple solution to a common problem with this game...new players expecting Arma to perform like 99% of other games (which it won't, ever)

On Ultra the VD is set to 3800, and the object distance is set to 3200m...that's insane! Those are the two biggest FPS killers besides FSAA and SSAO (which it sets both to max even on my old 560 Ti 2GB). Everyone is basing game performance off of games (mostly console ports) that don't have NEAR the scale, and then expect it to run smooth with everything jacked up? Even if the game is unoptimized like people have been crying for years, BIS isn't just going to build a new engine from scratch for Arma 3; so if people aren't willing to compromise instead of saying "My pc can run every single game maxxxxed out!!!! plz fixxxx!!!" then they just wasted $45 or whatever they paid, and they start spamming forums about how crap the game is Well until there's another game that lets you set terrain/objects past 2-3km with all the bells and whistles, how can you compare optimization? Flight sims come to mind; but then most don't have the up-close detail and objects that Arma does, and in DCS when I max out my draw distance and object detail it also chugs Skyrim also comes to mind; but it's handled totally different (it pre-loads blocks of terrain instead of full streaming like Arma), not to mention the max view distance for the terrain is maybe 1km. Try increasing view distance and object distance to Arma standards and see how well that runs (if it runs at all) See what I'm getting at?? People whine about optimization when there's nothing to compare it to! I guarantee that if everyone had say Skyrim settings (view/object distances) then there would be a fraction of the "game isn't optimized" threads.

maybe it's because most people realize that we were never promised anything, and that anyone is free to make all the aircraft they want for the game. You're hyperbolic statement of fans kissing BIS's ass is asinine and just troll bait. From what I've seen, the fans are the biggest critics. It's just that they tend not to rattle off stupid posts and insults, and instead follow the proper procedures to get the dev's attention.

What about restrictions in other countries? They could loose playerbases in countries that don't allow that content.

It might be the best answer with the current setup, but it doesn't add to the discussion in any way. The current browser is lacking a lot of features that new games have. Judging from the responses for the campaign delay, it seems pretty obvious that most people buy the game for MP. Don't you think it would be in BIS's best interest to improve this?

I noticed that both my CPU/GPU use will consistently go down as the number of AI increases. In an empty map, My CPU is ~50% (~100% on core1, ~40-50% on the other 7). My GPU is pinned at 100% load. Now after ~10 AI are added, my CPU goes down to ~40% avg. while my GPU drops to ~88%. And as I add more, they both keep going down. I also made a test mission that had hundreds of AI infantry fighting (obviously something that you wouldn't most likely see in a mission). My performance stayed low (~20% CPU and 40% GPU @ 20fps) until I made a trigger that cleaned up dead bodies, then my performance spiked (depending on how many AI are still alive). Why would dead AI still need to take up so much resources? It seems there's a severe bottleneck either in the hardware (I/O or bus speeds); or on software side of things; but either way it seems to revolve around the AI. the GPU throttling like that seems to be the reason for low FPS, not an overworked CPU. I just wanted to know if anyone else noticed this, or if there's already been a discussion about it before I dig deeper. If there's a way to improve the AI performance then there would be less "arma is poorly optimized" type threads flooding the forums