pd3

That's not the issue, but thanks for trying to misrepresent my words. They're not relevant to the subject at hand, but it does seem like childish propagandizing instead of having a legitimate discussion. That's an outright falsehood, how old are the people in this thread?

That's a false dichotomy, and nowhere am I advocating for that, if anything the opposite holds true. There is no way one can rationalize the idea that advocating the ability to "opt out" is depriving anyone of anything. Legacy codes are not a viable long-term solution especially considering 1.56 has suffered the same fate as 1.58. I don't know where you're going with this, my position is there should be a legitimate way of avoiding disruptive updates, and there isn't. Also, what's with all the completely non-relevant shill posts?

What would I suggest? Enough with the forced updates, I've already pointed out how the argument of forced updates as another layer of DRM is accomplishing nothing but punishing the consumer. I honestly could have waited for any of those updates in a completely new product, however the 3d editor comes to mind in particular. I have also thought about the fact that perhaps some changes may well affect systems differently and instead of forcing people to accept an "unhappy medium" in which middle ground is reached where nobody is happy, I would have just as simply been okay with no longer updating the game and backing up A3 in the particular version I liked and left it at that. I believe as a paying customer I should have that option, it's the same reason why beyond a certain point updating your graphics drivers has diminishing returns, as the drivers themselves may end up not being as optimal for your hardware as newer hardware comes out. I've been rocking the same drivers for some time, and the potential of a slightly increase in performance is simply not worth the very likelihood that newer drivers may well make my now older hardware not run as optimally as I've experienced in the past. I should have that same option with A3. This is also why I have no faith at all in Apex, I am very suspicious that the final version will not sit performance wise at it's peak, but somewhere pretty far down into "compromise valley", and that's complete B.S in forcing your customers to accept. The game is getting older now, and I know for myself and likely many other people don't like seeing an increase in performance of a previous version only to have it taken away and for some utterly useless sophistry to explain why that had to happen. There is no logically sound justification for it, had I the agency to simply unplug from the steady stream of updates, I wouldn't be complaining right now, in fact, I suspect a large number of people who paid for the game wouldn't be, especially in the online community as I suspect they would value stability over shiny new things that entirely cock the whole thing up for them. And the thing is, I've played A3 when there were some really really BAD framerates, and that does not even compare in annoyance to the stuttering that seems to be a problem so late in the game. I can deal with consistently less than optimal framerates, what I cannot abide by is this stuttering, it always happens at the most critical points in the game, effectively handicapping the player well beneath their ability, that shit IS game breaking without question. We have decent framerates now but the stuttering is just terrible when it happens, I'll take less than optimal framerates over whatever is causing that. If it comes down to different machines responding to differently, that simply contributes all the more to the case of allowing people to choose what version they wish to run, there's no reason to not at this stage, BI has mostly made their money, anything that comes beyond this point, especially if it results in difficulties for end users, is money made at their expense, at least that's how I see it. "wait and see" or " accept whatever BI does to the game" is an extraordinarily patronizing deflection, I shouldn't have to, why should I have to give up a version that performs to my liking? There's no logical or moral justification against it.

And that's why people are complaining, at some point people get tired of the instability, now I have the very real fear that the wretched stuttering that plagues certain instances of the game now (post spotrep) is just going to be standard. I had a few hours worth of playing 1.58 to enjoy the non-stuttering of 1.56 before I was presented with this. I'm tired of it, enough. As I've said, meaningless platitudes like "This is how it goes when you make the game better" -is not a sound justification, those are empty words. Human beings have a finite lifespan and a finite amount of time to devote to various activities, at some point there has to be a "good enough", and I'm very concerned that BI's "good enough" will performance wise, be appreciably well over the peak of the bell curve.

Performance trumps all of that IMO, yeah, that's a great minor feature, but if you were to ask me whether I wanted it or whether I want the game to perform decently consistently, I would opt for consistency of performance every single time. That's what I'm getting at, there is no greater consideration than performance, I have no idea how change-while-running has anything to do with negative performance issues at any rate, it seems like a red herring to me. I'm not really interested in my position being represented as a false dichotomy either, that simply isn't the case, I just have no interest in sacrificing performance for anything at this point, there is no rationalization that is not inherently shallow in its foundation of logic that can be applied to justify it, especially if it's something that should seemingly not impact performance outside of poor QA. I'm not arguing major updates here, just the minor ones that somehow, amazingly, find a way to bork the game up somehow and throw a wrench in the consistency of it's performance. Are there time constraints here we're not privy to that prevent updates from being fully evaluated before being unleashed on the public? Other people might be forgiving of having the little time they have to use the product they paid for in a manner that does not feel hamstrung taken from them, but I'm not anymore, especially once a peak level of performance has been achieved for it to simply evaporate for "reasons". It's just annoying to anticipate enjoying something I paid for and be faced with the realization that the experience I had previously is not attainable for no justifiable reason. "look at all the shinies" - is not a justifiable reason, that's a shallow rationalization and I don't even believe most features that are implemented could be associated with the problems we're seeing.

So much effing this. I can immediately tell when something's gone wrong (or right, as in the case of un-spot-repped 1.58) from one patch to the next, and to have somebody tell you that what you're noticing is not real especially when you're somebody like myself, who does not play with a lot of variation but a lot of consistent variables is very discouraging. It's as if the issues leap out at me, and here I am facing insinuations or outright claims that it isn't happening. I don't even know why these updates are happening if they're not fixing things and making things better, I'm not trying to shit on anyone, but it would be nice to just play the game and not get yanked about from problem to problem. Features are great, drastic alterations to how the game plays is not. This as well, now every time I see that blue "update queued" text in steam my stomach turns in a few knots, especially if I've set aside some time to enjoy playing Arma with the crazy expectation of you know, enjoying it. Good god no, there are some people who don't have the time to babysit and monitor changes that fundamentally alter the game, I think it's a way for BI to rationalize the costs of not starting a new project, at the expense of the end user. I just want to make use of what opportunities in my life that I have to play and actually ENJOY IT as opposed to trying to figure out how the game was screwed around and why a scenario I made the previous patch runs like total garbage now, that constitutes a tremendous amount of disrespect to the consumer IMO. Features are great, don't get me wrong, but at some point I would absolutely prefer consistency beyond a certain point instead of playing each iteration of the game as if the next update will render my present experience of unachievable. You end up feeling as if something is being pointlessly taken away from you and if there is no apparent good reason, it makes somebody who paid money for the experience feel like their enjoyment of the product does not matter. This would not be an issue if we did not have updates forced upon us, and why is that anyhow? Is it because of piracy? Because it seems entirely counterintuitive to deprive a paying customer of the ability to get off the update train when it no longer serves to benefit them and have that ability ostensibly facilitated for those who don't pay for the game at all. There is no way any other company would get away with a-priori rationalizing why somebody who bought a game at 1.0 release who cannot play it now, or does so with a dramatic reduction in performance because so many changes were made. That's pants-on-head insane.

I've posted my system specs in a thread dedicated to the stuttering issue of the previous version. And yes, I had reset my computer once before, I've tried it again and there is no improvement. To more clearly describe the problem, it does not appear to be processor or framerate related, so that would be useless, had I been getting performance consistent with the framerate I'm getting this wouldn't be a problem. There now appears to be a threshold at which the game no longer runs smoothly, but it is completely irrespective of frame rate. This is a consistent and periodic pausing when there appears to be a certain amount of activity going on which previously was not an issue. I haven't used a custom malloc for some time, so that wouldn't be an issue, however the details of this most recent spotrep indicate that the memory allocation for the game has changed. That fact is a point of interest because the performance issues I'm experiencing seem to be explicitly related to memory access in some way. There is no degradation in performance until something happens or some threshold is hit that causes the game to start pausing, especially if you try to do anything even as simple as change view perspectives or switch from the map. I would say it possibly has something to do with the amount of AI activity but my framerate is not the problem in fact it's really good for my machine, it's definitely acting as if the game at some point simply gets overwhelmed by something previously trivial and refuses to load specific resources as smoothly and flat out stops and skips. This especially if you attempt to do anything in a quick manner (turning, moving, etc) the pausing gets worse. However this pausing can happen whether or not my framerate is good or bad, that's the puzzling part. It's worst when you're flying in an aircraft, which I might add was not the slightest bit of a problem before this spotrep. The missions I'm using are of my own creation except a port of urban conquest I made to Isla Duala, which has been extensively played unchanged since 1.56. That mission itself can get quite busy and for some reason doesn't suffer the problem as much and runs quite well, however once more, if I get into a helicopter, even if I'm not flying around quickly, all of a sudden the game starts to stutter and pause frequently, I was very curious about 1.58's performance on this mission and I was pleasantly surprised when there were no major problems, post this recent update it seems the stuttering from late 1.56 has returned for me. The rest of the missions I've created take place on altis and are also similarly unchanged and extensively played since 1.56, no addons used. I'm running 16gb ram, AMD 980 black ed 3.7ghz quad core and a 7200 rpm sata2 hd Crossfired radeon 6970s

I had a chance to test the new version of the UH-1Y Not to be an annoyance, but the AI are still sitting on benches when you command them to move into gunner positions, it must be some kind of bug. I'm not expecting a quick fix or anything, just letting you know that it's still happening for some reason.

@EricJ Very much appreciated. Good luck with your current RL challenges.

Is it at all possible for the first two positions the AI enters on the UH-1Y be the actual mounted gun positions? For some reason the ai wants to take up two bench seats before the actual guns.

Pretty much, it isn't the actual frame rate that seems to be the problem as mine can range from 50 to 85 in some circumstances I officially have update fatigue, I'm done, I want off this train. Whatever happened with the recent update (not eden, the one that happened more recently) f'ed things up, the game was running as acceptably as I can expect for my older system specs, not fantastic yet not terrible. I just want to play the game I bought in the most optimal manner I can instead of constantly having updates forced upon me that screw with my ability to enjoy the game. There are people who bought this 2 + years ago who have not merely upgraded their systems because of planned DLC. I just want to enjoy the the game, ARMA 3 devs pls no bully. AMD 980 black ed @ 3.7ghz 16 gb ram 2x radeon 6970 windows 7 system managed page file 7200rpm SATA 2 HD

Yeah, I'm noticing this as an issue. I'm assuming there are ways around this for multiplayer (databases and whatnot), but not SP?

I agree, and that's pretty normal, it will happen at predictable points and then it will calm down for a while. As of recent it's just been an inexplicable onslaught that doesn't seem to follow a predictable pattern.

Last friday I noticed a new update, not sure what it did, but my performance was uncharacteristically bad, especially considering the previous update had things running so well. I've experienced a few crashes, but I simply haven't been playing it in earnest for long periods of time because I'm not satisfied with the performance enough to do so now.

Was there not a recent spotrep or some kind of update then? Somewhere between late march and apr 1st there was an update for arma 3 that I had to download last friday, and that's what prompted this whole foray into the dev branch. My performance seemed "off", checked dev branch, performance was far worse, and I freaked because neither instances were conducive to me being able to continue playing Arma 3 with this machine. I'm in the process of checking everything to make sure my HD is not malfunctioning and that the update didn't corrupt my installation of A3, I'm not even sure that could cause the problems I was experiencing, but I really have few options left.

Was that most recent 1.56 update in the last week or so? I was away from my pc for close to a week and when I decided to fire it up for arma 3 this weekend there was an update and that's what prompted me to try out the dev branch as the most recent 1.56 update that was installed was not performing well for me, so I decided to check the dev branch to see if it was any better, much to my dismay. What exactly was optimized in the most recent 1.56 update? because I noticed it chugs along more slowly although not to the extent that anything upcoming will.

We don't have access to the 1.56 build now do we? I tried the other night and I believe it is only 1.54, pre eden update. Had I known that an update was coming so soon and that it would completely decimate my performance I would have made a more thorough documentation of my performance with 1.56, I simply wasn't expecting this. Secondly, it does not appear at least in my case to be as clear-cut an issue such as frame rate. In fact when I've checked there does not superficially appear to be a difference when talking about simple numbers. However actual performance has gotten considerably worse, it is a stutter and the appearance of constant loading of resources that seems to be the issue. It would be an extremely sleazy argument to make in saying: "well if the actual fps values haven't changed there's nothing wrong". Such a claim would be absolute B.S, post 1.58, the game is now not playable for me due to the frequent resource loading interruptions. The fact remains the game ran as perfectly as I could expect such a game would with my hardware with the 1.56 build, so whatever has changed and contributed to the stuttering is the culprit. All I can do is relay what is happening on my end and unfortunately it isn't as simple as a disparity in a specific set of values unless you know of some monitoring software that offers more insight than fps numbers, perhaps then I could offer better information.

Has it been since the 1.58 upgrade? If so, I am experiencing the exact same thing. I get a range of framerates depending on what I'm doing and previously those framerates were fairly representative of what my quality of performance was like, but now this stuttering is just completely throwing everything off. It can say I have a framerate of 60fps, but the stuttering is causing a degradation that feels more like 20 half the time. I have no idea what BI did, but it has made the game unplayable for me.

I didn't even notice to be frank, everything looked pretty much the same, however I noticed right off the mark that the performance had taken a heavy hit and it only got worse the more I played. I'm too busy actually playing the game to notice those little visual details, I notice fluidity of play more than any of that, and now I don't have that at all. For me it feels far worse than a -5 reduction in my frame rate even though at rare times it feels "higher" than it was in 1.96. Something's gone seriously wrong with how my computer now handles the game, and whatever momentary gains I might experience, most of the time it struggles now, and for what? IMO 1.96 had the best performance out of any build and to go from that to this was a pretty big disappointment. In terms of screwing around with the core game, we're getting into George Lucas territory here. At some point aside from generating new content, you just need to accept that until a new game is made, the existing game will have to be "good enough".

I know there's been some talk about ALIVE and saving multiplayer games as of late, however I can't seem to save singleplayer missions now. Is there any reason for that or is it just something wrong on my end?

Yup, I was going to say, my performance is absolute trash now, lots of lovely stuttering on missions that were previously quite smooth. I suppose it is too much to ask to have at least some level of consistency in which if we don't see any optimizations, we at least don't run the risk of performance downgrades, especially ones as bad as I'm experiencing. I was going enjoy my friday night playing Arma 3. I'm not now. EDIT One more thing I've noticed is that while my framerates appear to be "high", they're not "stable" frame rates, at a designated 61 fps, it doesn't feel like it, there's this wretched stuttering like the game is just constantly and unnecessarily loading all the time now. "Standing still" loading, loading, loading, loading "Whoops, I turned my head too fast, looks like things gotta load all over again" "Ohh, I pressed the 'm' key! Looks like the map screen is going to have to chug hard and load like it's the most detailed thing my computer has ever had to render" "Doh! I pressed the 3rd person view button, now the game has to pause an entire two seconds and the frame rate takes a tumble while everything renders!" I can feel the instability of the performance as compared to the previous version where things would load and then they would stop and you'd be able to play normally, but now it's just perpetual loading, I don't know if it has something to do with the shaders or what, but things are definitely not performing as well as the previous version. I'm going to downgrade to the previous version and get my playing in before my machine can't play a game I paid money for two years ago. :rolleyes:

Yes! Something that is desperately needed to expand the usefulness of aircraft. Thanks for your efforts.

They look awesome, are there any CSAT suit variants as well? I think the futuristic look of them would work well with that camo.

Thanks much, I appreciate it.

Yeah, it has listed all of the types of artillery as well as a text field that specifies a specific type of unit, does that field basically define which units in general that will/should apply to? EDIT Okay I was screwing it up, the artillery module needs to be synced with the player combat support module, the artillery pieces are then placed where the module is, just like the CAS modules placing helos. So I think it will work now, the only problem for myself at least is that one is stuck with no options for how many artillery pieces you have, it defaults to 3 which is more than I really need. So I guess placing down a manual artillery piece and using these init commands: this setvariable ["CS_TYPE","ARTY"];this setvariable ["CS_CALLSIGN","FOX SEVEN"] and syncing it physically to the player combat support module, etc basically exempts the unit from being controlled by the artillery module and from what I can tell basically turns it into something akin to a disposable razor in that when it has no more ammo, you can't really do anything with it. I thought I was on to something when I found out there was a variable that you could use to manually modify the amount of ammunition carried but when "this setvariable ["CS_ARTILLERY_HE",50];" is entered into the initstring of the artillery piece I can't seem to access the combat support module, very strange.