rscarrab

+1 @ OP. Ive been hoping for a 3D editor since A2. I adapted to RTE and build some lovely set pieces (fortified airfield & intricate starting FOB with a lot of attention to aesthetic detail). Unfortunately in RTE, once i placed an over-adunbance of units; some objects would not transfer out. So... I had to do each thing seperately. Fortifications and added building or scenery came first, then export save. Then specific placement of gear (crates) and vehicles, export, save, merge. Then place NPC's, on rooftops/second floor windows... or in specific areas of interest. Export, save, merge. This isnt without its own problems and niggles and who knows whether RTE will work with A3. Imho it just barely worked with Arma 2, as it was quite possible to screw up all the work you had done (eg. make a fob(place objects), then occupy with NPC's, give them a custom gear loadout). Object placement in the 2D editor is atrocious. Theres no two ways about it.

Im just curious; Would the new level of physics expected in Arma3 benefit an NPC's pathfinding ability in any way (in regards to driving vehicles)?

Let me break it down for you: There's your context. The rest is up to you. Good luck, im sure you'll be fine. :)

:j: Noones asking you to stop complaining. Unless of course its tone matches the same sarcastic drivel that you wrote above. In which case; yes, shutup and stop complaining.

I agree completely, a small one should do fine. I have a 60GB Vertex 2 SSD myself. I also agree that its important for those looking for more performance to explore the possibility of getting more RAM/SSD, if all other options have been exhausted. Before i played Arma2 i wasnt too bothered about what type of HDD i threw into my PC, as long it was at least 7,200rpm. After all the rigmarole, which i didnt fucking sign up for btw :p, the last place i found myself looking was at the HDD. I had covered everywhere else. Dont know much about harddrives, but i do know how to lurk the shit of the BI forums... so i knew what i needed. No, not more RAM. :D IO activity is pretty fucking gnarly, as pointed out earlier. I also heard this while shopping around for a server. Asked the admin quite a few questions cause i was pushing for something with a high clock speed, as opposed to what as offered. Ended up learning that the HDD is under constant stress too. SSD will definitely give a smoother experience. As per one of the side discussions, cross platform games from the same genre are a terrible benchmark for performance. A rig with an unstable overclock and a failing GPU can run and sustain one of those worthless multi-platform 'blockbuster' titles. The same way a bottlenecked low performance CPU in an SLi rig wouldnt cough up 'microstutter'. Unfortunately, in my case, those are both true stories. I guess thats why some of us go through that love/hate relationship phase with Arma (and possibly BI). Especially as the initial optimisations for Arma2 were being released. I found it hard to differentiate between it being the developers fault or my own lack of understanding, or both. When the game was regarded as playable, or optimised to an acceptable degree i guess it would have been then that i tried to fully understand what was causing the problems. Took me a while, mind you. Its taken me the best part of 3 years and 2 rigs. One thing i will say is that --now-- i dont have a problem optimising a new machine for Arma. If anything its a good litmus test for the machine itself. ;) About OPs 2nd concern. 'Fluency' in this context.... Sounds to me more like Animation Transitions, which im guessing shouldnt be a problem. Alternatively, if OP is reaching further; it is perfectly acceptable and logical to expect there to be an area inbetween the current state of Arma's fluidity in the movements department -and its real-life counterpart. An easily dilutable argument given the fact that someone can just say, "this isnt BF3/COD". A lot less so when shown clips of some of the funnier aspects of Arma. Im glad to see from another community member that this is regarded as flogging a dead horse. I believe there is a middleground, still with room for improvement and immersive features. Im heavily banking on the fact that this will come to fruition. Fingers and toes crossed.:)

One way to improve the controls --and ive heard this mentioned elsewhere in this forum before-- is to break them down into different categories. Infantry, Heli, Fixed Wing etc. Hop out of a heli/vehicle and your control scheme changes, nothing new -loads of games do it. This gives the opportunity to map controls based on the role rather than having an all round control scheme like there is now. Waaaay more space on the keyboard then. ;) This, to me, is the most realistic option.

Tbh, i quite like the sepia effect and the colour filter (desert filter?)... or whatever it is that makes me feel like grabbing some ice. ;) I asked another one of the lads i play with to post his screenies here too so hopefully if he does you can get more of an idea. He used Cherno for his test. Btw, the powerlines are still pretty much the same from distance. Closer up they do look nice, yes. :)

Yeah sure no problem, its the least i can do. :) Im uploading them to photobucket atm, i do hope they appear as thumbnails when i post them. ---------- Post added at 09:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 PM ---------- Nvidia GTX 570, driver version 280.26 Screenshots:

Hehe, no problem. Glad i could be of inadvertent assistance. ;) ---------- Post added at 08:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:53 PM ---------- Wow, im really impressed. Thanks for this. :)

Thankyou very much for the hasty reply EOOQE. No im not using the beta, though for piece of mind i did infact place the .dll file in there. I checked my .rpt straight away but had a feeling that it wouldnt help me much in this case. :rolleyes: So yeah, heres the contents of the log file! EDIT: and yes, the .dll file is present in both directories. Root and expansion/beta.

Doesnt seem to work for me and im having trouble finding any solutions atm as no error messages pop-up. Before posting here i went ahead and updated my GFX drivers to the latest (using an Nvidia GTX570) as well as Directx (stated that i need not update/install due to current or newer version). As soon as i start up Arma, the boxes with the ticks appears; finishes and the screen flickers black for a moment... then back to desktop with no error (nor is arma2oa.exe still a running proccess in task manager). Any ideas? EDIT: Using the newest version 0.22b - havent used any previous versions

Bloom did tend to go a bit "full on" in regards to looking up a bit. One could almost find the exact point at which bloom would go full on, aim down a bit and it would dissipate very quickly. If it was a lot more gradual id welcome that, for sure. It would be nice to break up the PP features if that wasn't addressed. :)

Well it is a camera effect after all, which does its best to simulate head-strain coupled with fast movement. Slightly blurry vision (with good fps) is there to remove the constant "perfect focus" that is otherwise present. It is unacceptable for those that enjoy using this feature to turn it off in order to have a fair fight. I find that its far more acceptable to create the option for those of us that use it; to play amongst ourselves from time to time (and through an ingame setting; ensure that it is enforced). :)

In regards to you feeling aggravated and robotic, i told you already; you can agree to disagree if you so feel like it. You choose not to. :) I state that its biased because in your view you would not like to use a feature which is highly detrimental to your performance. You say it runs fine until you reach a battle yet it runs way below what i would expect even on a strained GPU with Fraps enabled @ 500 Visibility (not to mention all the other features turned either down/off). Of course i acknowledge the fact that a camera and a pair of eyes are both vastly different in regards to how they deal with processing of images, yes, though at the end of the day this is a feature employed by the developers to simulate the effect and because of this feature; game-wise, i ask that it become an optional parameter/requirement. Were a long way from a one-to-one copy of real-life, i think we can all agree on that. ;) BI arent creating 2 images and super-imposing them on top of each other in order to simulate two eyes; its done with one camera. Giving some weight to the head is the best that anyone can hope for, given the current state of GFX. That is what they are trying to portray since they cant actually walk into your humble abode, strap some heavy gear onto your back and push you down the stairs. The bottom line being that helmet cams are the only example in which to go by. Not only that, but i adamantly stand by the assumption that carrying such weight and being pushed to the peak of ones endurance can cause strain on ones neck, not necessarily the eyes themselves. What BI are obviously trying to do is give more immersion to the player; that can hinder them in a challenging way. The fatigue (screen warping), motion-blur, head-bob, bloom/blinding sun are all effects that are within the realm of visuals. These are a disadvantage to those that use them, but its something that is immersive and enjoyable. If your in a competitive PvP environment it is perfectly acceptable to suggest that there be some kind of standard here, at least an optional one. Arma being a sandbox may differ in what one man expects compared to the next man. To suggest such a feature is hardly blasphemy given that statement. You argue that this is a waste of time for the developers, when there is quite a significant number of people that like this effect --both soldiers and non-soldiers. The developers were the ones that took the time in the first place to develop this game and i believe they are more qualified than you or i to make the decision on whether it is appropriate to include this feature or not. The fact that they have included it already says something about what they are trying to do. Considering the fact that it is there, one can only assume that since they said they wont remove any features; it will either be improved upon or remain as-is. If it remains as-is and proves to be unacceptable to people with low-end GPU's then i would hope there is some option for a mission maker to enable it. I appreciate the linkage, as i havent seen that and will give it a watch later. In terms of watching an hour long video right now; i find it best to refer to shorter clips which show-off the feature that BI are trying to perfect. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZHrubLXGR8 --- As is said, BI included this feature -its there. They are the ones that decided during the development process to add this feature, i doubt it took them five minutes. To negate the developers decision as non-realistic or less immersive is your opinion, which i believe to be biased due to your performance constraints. As much as ive re-iterated my case i find that the disadvantage plus added immersion is a non-issue, the crux of my argument is that it be a parameter so that those of us who play with it have piece of mind knowing that everyone is on an even keel.

Well, like it or not people do refer to CAPS as shouting; when typing on the internet. That was my interpretation of aggravated in this case. There's no need to get into something as mundane as this lol. It is biased because you cant experience said feature the way it was intended to be experienced. Your low frame-rate turns it into a hindrance. Head-bob effects motion-blur as in both effects compliment each other -"part-and-parcel". This can affect ones opinion of motion-blur if head-bob is non-existent. Like in your case. You state there is no motion-blur when your running forward, yet you have head-bob turned completely off so that your head is in essence almost floating. How realistic is that? Look at a few helmet-cam clips; you'll notice that whenever running/jogging the soldier in question is a lot closer to what i describe than to what you show (in your youtube video); if your looking for realism then you have it backwards. Your completely disregarding the fact that a soldier at any one time can be carrying 80lb's of equipment and when under duress --trying to avoid bullets, lugging heavy gear, chin-strapped helmet etc-- it can "feel like trying to move your head forward in a rocket" -as my esteemed colleague points out. I dont care if your Linford Christie; its still a far cry from your average 8 mile run up a dirt road. From what i gather you prefer performance and cant afford the added realism. It is because of people in your situation that i suggest this as being an optional feature available to mission makers. Not an across the board -forced feature. And lol... This whole defeat thing, to quote yourself, is "really funny" considering you were the one that started yelling troll. :rolleyes:

Lol, thanks for the english lesson. Im not referring to any second meaning, you just spoke with a LOT OF CAPITALS. (capitals can be interpreted as shouting, shouting can be interpreted as being agitated) :p There's not much more to say about settings, after the upload of the video i was able to get a glimpse at what type of performance you were getting and with roughly what FPS. Your understanding of the settings were diluted imo; mainly due to the fact that you had head-bob off. Im not suggesting that your delusional per-say, more-so that you are incapable of running all of said settings with a desirable framerate. Myself and Carl pointed out before that low FPS can make motion-blur a lot more pronounced; giving an undesirable effect in comparison to how its intended to be interpreted. Im of the impression that your opinion is heavily biased in that regard. I originally pointed out that i want to segregate these features so as to even the playing field, to suggest that i suddenly saw defeat is obnoxiously wrong considering the fact that i proposed this idea from the start. :)

10%, 5%... Your numbers baffle me. I never said you have screen tearing, but you seem to think that v-sync is a hard for someone like myself to grasp, thats laughable. Just because your agitated does not automatically mean im trying to troll. :rolleyes: If you want to play Arma2 with barely any of the visual features available then i put forward the valid suggestion to give the mission maker the option to force a few of these features, so those of us that prefer the added immersion can play together knowing that everyone is in the same boat so to speak. I came in here and suggested this, you replied to my comment and disagreed. I have every right to defend my point of view. You have every right to disagree. If that is your definition of trolling then you need to look that up too. :) If you dont feel like taking part in this discussion anymore than your more than welcome to "agree to disagree".

I agree with you there Rik, ive had to remove SYLVIE because custom made bases tend to get fucked up sometimes because of it. Any objects (like large bases/fortification) that are placed in the editor should be recognised by not only SYLVIE but AI as well. Too many times have i seen AI just run straight through pre-placed h-barriers. :(

Lol, i think your the one that needs to look up v-sync. There's such a thing as screen tearing, as Carl points out in so many words. :rolleyes: Count yourself fortunate that you dont notice screen-tearing; which funnily enough makes you the one who isn't well versed in the usefulness of v-sync. Guess why i've got D3DOverrider running atm (cryptic clue: for games that dont support v-sync -ie Metro 2033 when it first came out). Your right, we all have arma; but im not the one that feels the need to create subjective video's on youtube (ie with headbob removed). The low FPS that you are experiencing is woeful, its blatantly obvious that fraps is only adding to that. I play arma no problem @ 25FPS+ with PP on, if you want to book a flight from the US over to Dublin and watch me play your more than welcome to. FYI the vimeo video was made using Fraps. You say you turned on head-bob to max, "small difference"... just like motion-blur is "almost noticable". Combine the two and you get "quite noticable". TBH i believe your downplaying the significance of the both combined. Of course in RL Joe civilian's head doesnt bob as much as that; its an effect created by the developers, for soldiers. As i pointed out before; soldiers in the field have to carry around a lot of heavy equipment and when they are attacked they have to move quicker. Its hard to keep your head level like that when under duress, with such heavy weight pushing down on your back; going for a run can be challenging. The whole point of this feature is to simulate that. Your gpu is weak and cannot withstand the punishment that v-sync, AA, PP, shadows etc. dish out. So you've convinced yourself that you dont need these features and that they are in-effect, useless. Hence im not surprised in the slightest that you have no idea what challenge im referring to. So to summarise; Its either; an ALMOST noticable difference (PP), a SMALL difference (headbob) or a RARE case (shadows). Get a better system and play the game in all its glory, otherwise --let me re-iterate; "...accept the fact that you like to play with a lot of features turned down or off completely and that due to this you arent experiencing the added challenge that i describe."

I would refer to that video as showcasing what it looks like with head-bob turned off. :rolleyes: I would also like to point out that it is a well known fact that if you dont have a solid frame-rate to support motion-blur it makes the effect a lot more pronounced and incredibly unbearable. In that video the frames are too low to support motion-blur without it becoming a nuance. Judging by the settings displayed it must be a fairly weak gpu if it is to suffer with; AA off, Shadows off, vsync off when trying to display full PP. Though not the best example, this is a video i made of a few of us goofing about (PP is on very high)(also, there is a slight bit of ghosting which is due to the video conversion); http://vimeo.com/24603290 --- Of course if the head is not moving you wont get any motion-blur. Turn on head-bob, then re-upload another vid to youtube. :) Otherwise accept the fact that you like to play with a lot of features turned down or off completely and that due to this you arent experiencing the added challenge that i describe.

Your test wasnt very concise considering that statement is incorrect. Its quite existent. You dont have to do like an ostrich, just dont join said game. Im not suggesting that it be forced across the board.

If you were to stop or walk with your weapon raised as i pointed out before you wouldnt have that problem with motion-blur activated. From what ive been told; this is something that has to be done in real-life. Carrying heavy equipment on your back adds strain which can make it harder to keep your focus when moving fast. You say you move quickly and like to check the edges of your screen, seems more like a play-style that your not willing to change. If you were to implement motion-blur you would have to adapt your play-style. The advantage that you state in regards to moving up resolutions; can help alright (as i stated before). The difference is that resolution and monitors dont exist solely to impede the player. Which is why i make the argument that they arent in the same league. A lower/higher resolution is something that is universally accepted and isnt a feature privy to just one game. The way motion-blur has been employed is specific to Arma2; other games use it very subtly and it serves no real purpose. In Arma it does. Bohemia decided to add this feature to this game, they made that conscious decision. Now that the option to use it is there; just like the guy with 3 monitors; im hardly going to not use it. But if someone was to join my PvP mission (still hypothetically speaking here) i wouldn't like for him to not face the same challenge that myself or others that i play with face. Simple as that. :)

Roll your eyes all you want. :) Point is that 3 monitors aren't designed by the developers to challenge the players ability to spot contacts, cause --yes your right-- blur is a setting. My whole point has been the fact that they are 2 seperate things and should be treated as such -in regards to this debate. I don't believe the advantage of 3 screens is greater than that of motion-blur being off; to the point where i couldnt care less if someone has 9 screens. As long as they have 2 eyes its all good. Turning off motion-blur removes a key part of the immersion which Arma offers in the visuals dept. I asked one of my arma buddies earlier this evening about his opinion on this (he served in the British army). He stated that the motion-blur that is included in Arma2 is most definitely a feature which he himself would not play without. Why? Because of the challenge which comes part-and-parcel with said effect; in real-life he and the men he has served with suffer from a similar disadvantage. I asked him for his opinion because i wanted to find out if the effect is over-done or even valid in regards to the challenges that a soldier faces. When it came to resolution, the numbers that you cited were well off and after correcting yourself it clearly isnt as much of an advantage --pixel-wise-- as you would have liked to have made out. Similarly i would prescribe to the opinion that your 3 monitors argument holds a lot less water than that of what iam pointing out. Tbh i simply do not believe that there is no difference between motion-blur on/off, in regards to spotting enemies. From what i gather you just dont like the feature; it "gives you a headache". Whether its a case of severe corneal oedema or not; is anyones guess. :rolleyes:

Hypothetical situation; Ive made a PvP mission, one of the requirements to join is that you have motion-blur activated. No-one is forcing you to join, its your choice. You can keep blur off and play another mission on another server. Lets say we know you and want you to join, because we'd feel slightly guilty otherwise. No problem, just restart the mission and change the parameter "Force Blur" to off. Its optional. --- Motion-blur admittedly does cause a performance drop. Though the same could be said about AA. Actually as a matter of fact AA can cause a greater performance drop in comparison (on an nvidia card, i believe Ati handle it better tbh). Other features can be turned down to compensate. I run my game without AA in order to take advantage of other immersive features. I will admit i miss the smoother edges, doesnt look nice in screenshots but its look fine in practice. Im not going to go on and on about it, ive made my case in that the features are intended to A. add a more realistic immersive effect and B. at the same time handicap the player (added challenge). Ive tried to separate post processing effects away from personally subjective tweaks (ie. mouse, keyboards, TrackIR, more monitors and resolution) while at the same time taking into account the predicament that some people face when trying to get the best performance out of Arma. To suggest that somebody must be forced to play with certain settings is obviously not acceptable. But i dont see why it shouldnt be if its an optional feature. :)

The same can be said conversely; 3 monitors does not take away the dis-advantage of motion blur.