Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

sethos

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    521

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by sethos

  1. Posted

    Yeah, the Alpha excuse doesn't hold up in court. This has nothing to do with the game being an Alpha. It's a core engine problem, it has always been there and it will always be there until the engine gets an overhaul.

    They can optimize by lowering the rendering / calculation done by that lonely one core doing all the work, that's about it. People who are expecting the game to be multi-core ready when it releases better brace themselves for a massive disappointment I'd say.

    Makes me cry looking at my top-end 6 Core CPU with cores running 4.5GHz and the game struggles with even basic environments.

  2. Posted

    damm...that is really disheartening :( so arma3 is really arma2.? same hooker new dress... correct me if I am wrong but it is my understanding that for TRUE multicore support and engine has tobe designed and built that way from the getgo and if arma3 is built on an old engine that was designed around a single core than there will no "fixing" of the CPU issue hence why they never fixed it in arma2 ...because they could not.

    Pretty much. The RV engine needed to be redesigned a long time ago but the just keep riding that poor old engine for everything it's worth. I'm still amazed that some developers just refuse to work with the technology available. You have 2,3, 4 and sometimes even more cores available on today's CPUs but they are just sitting idle, a massive waste of power. While I'm certainly no die hard advocate for next-generation consoles, they are going to bring a massive needed change to the gaming market; true multi-core support for multiplatform titles. Both consoles are x86 designs and have 8 cores running 1.6GHz. So they are basically PCs now unlike before. That means developers have to get their games to work on a load of cores, while slower there's enough of them to create a combined power output that can be amazing. We might reap the benefit when most developers move to that new train of development, our multi-core processors might also see a huge boost.

    HOWEVER, the exclusive PC scene is still so stuck in their old ways of just dumping every single major calculation on the primary core and then secondary small calculations like physics on another core. It's a gigantic waste of resources and it's starting to get annoying. Visually and performance wise, you might see consoles start to pull ahead in some aspects if developers don't start utilization the power of modern gaming PCs. Yes multi-core development can be a tough nut to crack for some but we're now in 2013 and most modern gaming PCs have quad cores or more ... What the hell is the point of all those extra cores when only a handful of games utilize them?

  7. Posted

    I quite enjoyed that candid play-through! A couple minor of glitches, etc, but overall, rather stable? :)

    Despite the fact you were 'ramboing', I really enjoyed the fact that you had to fall back and find cover at one point!

    Very stable and the improved controls are nothing short of amazing. Still trying to make them second nature but I'm slowly getting there.

    Oh and even the great Rambo has to fall back every now and again ;D

  12. Posted

    Not in a game where you need to use 100 buttons and not 10.

    Sure for many other games where your controls go barely beyond the usual WASD it will be sweet

    What game do you play that requires 100 buttons? I'm playing a lot of sims, including DCS A-10 and I rarely ever use my keyboard and the buttons I need, I know where are. Then again, I know how to blindtype.

  13. Posted

    It must be the most utterly useless device for ArmA3 once you think about it. Constantly taking it off and putting it back on to look at the keyboard or any other controller with lotsa buttons (like joystick/throttle)

    Taking it off to look at your keyboard? I thought most gamers could play without looking at their keyboard ...

  15. Posted

    Daniel left at the end of Oct. It took them till the middle of December to use that as an excuse, after months of nothing, to tell us it's "officially delayed"? We've known for half of 2012 that ArmA3 wasn't going to ship this year. That's not news.

    How about an update on the Community Alpha or how the Physx update is going or if anything at all is happening with ArmA3? I'm just gonna continue my assumption that ArmA3 is vaporware I guess. Heck, they didn't even say the game would come out in 2013, just that "release plans" would be "finalized" in 2013. Vaporware. The said the same thing last year too.

    I might not agree with the stance that the game is vaporware, however your overall position I stand fully behind.

    I've been a loyal customer ever since the release of Operation Flashpoint and the ability to fly upside down, I own every major product and DLC BIS has released and I've defended their games whenever possible yet this is the first time I feel a sort of animosity towards them. The information flow is completely laughable to the point where I question their interest in the consumer, stringing people along for an Alpha and when the time finally comes where some supposed information at least should be revealed it's just pushed further away with a 'December update' that appears to be written in record time. When people ask for any sort of information on the forum the threads are locked and removed or someone just heckles them by some blind BIS defence.

    Also at this point, public media in terms of videos and screenshots almost rivals Rockstar's bait'n'tease PR tactics.

    I don't even know whether ArmA 3 is actually still a primary focus project for BIS or they devoted tons of resources to work on DayZ. Perhaps the whole Greece situation has become an overshadowing factor. Their entire public face is about keeping people in the dark.

    Can we please for once get some substantial, honest information. Nobody is asking for an immediate release of the Alpha or the game just some actual information instead of these useless snippets of more delays and pushing things.

  18. Posted

    I use FXAA and I have noticed texture sharpening rather than blurring.

    Because you are probably using a version where they added a sharpening filter as well, to counteract the blurring of FXAA which in terms also degrades the overall depth of the image.

    FXAA per default blurs the image, badly and is considered the worst of the PPAA options for its sheer IQ destroying nature.

  19. Posted

    Yet, somehow the 'lesser' ppaa solutions don't blur textures and destroy the artwork they are attempting to enhance.

    That's exactly what FXAA does, it's the worst of the lot. SMAA can also slightly blur textures but is considered the 'best' PPAA in terms of pure IQ. However TXAA is a further development of FXAA, the guy who made FXAA went over to develop TXAA which is the reason why FXAA 4 is MIA. However TXAA is extremely effective at all distances and creates an extremely good mix between FXAA and SMAA in terms of performance and quality, yet goes beyond both of them in sheer full-scene effectiveness. Also removes shimmering and is the closest thing available to a full blown movie esque anti-aliasing solution.

  20. Posted · Edited by Sethos

    I am well aware of what you speak. TXAA is not all that. A3 is not a "today" engine. There is a SMAA option you can mess with in A2OA. I prefer FXAA with sharpener in A2. Less Blury shit is better.

    Yes, it is all that if you actually knew what it was.

    FXAA with Sharpening just ruins the IQ and SMAA's effectiveness varies wildly. They are good alternatives to regular MSAA but TXAA is very effective at a slightly higher performance indent compared to the lesser PPAA solutions. Especially in a game like ArmA with a lot of aliasing. Can even remove shimmering from a scene.

    And an engine's age or relevance isn't based on when it was conceived but the amount of support and the updates it had. Every advanced engine today is an iteration of an older engine, so Real Virtuality is as much a "today" engine as CryEngine 3 just with a different use and scope.

  22. Posted

    as i have repeated myself many times on this subject i cut it short

    NVIDIA and AMD must provide support for SLI/Crossfire , it's driver driven profile feature

    not standard or something with API/SDK ...

    Actually, it's not unusual for the actual game developers to make the profiles and send them in for certification.

    Example: Latest Cliffs of Dover Beta Patch - http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34902

    "Note about NVidia SLI:

    The patch must go through official NVidia accreditation for SLI support to be officially enabled in drivers. The patch will only go through the process once it’s officially released on steam."

    Followed by an explanation of how to manually add the SLI bits before they are added to the official drivers.

    With that said however, main problem with ArmA 2 isn't GPU limitations but the game riding the CPU, hard. I'm struggling to get 50FPS in some areas with a moderate view distance, even with my high-end CPU. I need to turn the view distance all the way down to 1600 ish to get a steady 60 everywhere. However, seeing as ArmA 3 already employs more GPU intensive stuff, SLI and CF needs to be spot-on for release. They should definitely work with Nvidia to get that ready before the game is out, like most game developers do.

  23. Posted

    Even if it's alpha, by then I already expect the biggest bugs to at least be funny instead of game-breaking... if the community alpha were any more "janky" than the Gamescom build I'd be hitting the panic button, and I don't even mind "missing features"... what matters is "is there a worthy core underneath, a diamond in the rough?" and your comments implied "no". I do apologize if you in fact like me have more faith now in ARMA 3 post-Gamescom than back in early June, that "yes there is (FINALLY) a diamond in the rough". (The direction in ARMA 3 in 2011 was far less appealing, RiE deserves much credit for focusing on promoting the elements that got me to come around on the game.)

    I think you should read up what an Alpha is because your arguments are downright stupid. An Alpha can easily move backwards if developers decide to try out new features or technology, implement a different approach or a graphical feature.

    Alphas are NOT demos and they shouldn't be in the hands of every Joe who doesn't know what an Alpha is, as that'll defeat the purpose and work against them.

  24. Posted

    (Admittedly it helps that the wider DayZ player base may not have completely absorbed the news that the standalone will use an "Arma 2.5" style engine. ;) )Whereas I see the goal of the alpha besides playtesting (since they can do that internally) is to prove that those problems are gone, which IS a PR move... as for the boldfaced part, I take offense at the claim that only the monetarily invested and thus presumable long-time ARMA fanatic should be permitted to decide the development of ARMA 3, when they are the least suited to help the devs achieve the intended ARMA 3 "newbie friendly" direction. Time to quote Mondkalb again:I like -Coulum-'s response as well:* That is, not "oh here's what the engine can do" but rather "here's what you can do"... I really liked that about the E3/GC presentations.

    This doesn't make sense. ALPHA means the game is far from done, a product with lots of bugs and missing features - You think that's a platform to prove people 'problems are gone' and it's a PR move to entice people to buy it?

    What am I reading.

×