Touch Off

Spot on Marcai

wow can't believe people are still debating this. I don't believe the game's main issue is going to be addressed from performance point of view at all. 3 years time you'll play the game so it feels fluid and runs well enough on whatever systems are out at that time. They knew what they were doing. It's a business and it's a very clever way of getting money out of people before the official release. It seems to be a trend at the moment. The die hard fans here aren't of benefit to the series. If only people expected more. The game is simply a graphics overhaul. Nothing more than that.

Same rig as you razorman. The game isn't running as well as it should given those spec.. Are you putting say 20-30+ AI down and watching your FPS fall? notice how when you lower the graphics settings there really isn't a huge impact? Same CPU. A very good CPU and it would seem ARMA3 isn't making the most of its power. I really can't see what the difference is with ARMA2 and this when it comes to CPU requirements. Graphically,yes...obviously...but the rest? Swimming? Fish? Animations? I'd probably be happy without the crappy ragdoll that's just poorly implemented and also without the 'improvements' to AI and just leave it as a graphical overhaul of ARMA2. The same highly annoying bugs that were in that (ARMA2) engine are still in this one. I'm sorry to say that these improvements aren't really all they're cracked up to be, for me. You can differ that's fine. I'm just voicing my opinion, like an arsehole that we all have. For me it's just better looking, that's all. nicer lighting. And lowering GPU settings leaves me with negligible difference in performance of the game compared to what I could be running in ARMA2 in terms of AI, with again, very subtle difference, if any, as to how intelligently the AI functions. Voice is better, yes, but not much. In a way I kinda like the stupid voice system of flashpoint. Animations...physics...I dunno, it's all highly overrated as to how much this is a wild improvement over the last game, yes it's early days but I've played this game for 10 years. I play the game how I believe it's meant to be played and create missions for myself and a few others using basic scripting alongside the general availability of what the editor has to offer with a few clicks. I miss a good story behind it, too. I don't think BIS know what the hell this game is meant to be now, evidenced by the seemingly bolted on aspects for improvements. That said............. .My point to this is I hope these are areas they're going to work on and polish and people with even the more moderate rigs that you feel are lacking in juice will be able to find that their systems were adequate, it was just the tweaking at the engine's core that was the issue and the finalising of the endeavour to fulfil their goals to create something special. At the moment, and I don't want money back or anything like that but, I'm just not convinced. nobody else does games like this, but that's where the competition element just might well have been what was needed over the last 4-5 years while this game was in development. Don't buy new rigs yet. Be patient. Mine is a good, mid to high end system and I'd bet money on the possibility that if BIS had reworked major parts of their code without concentrating on what is essentially just eye candy, this game would be running like a dream on these sorts of systems and damn well on lower/near spec PCs, too. How it feels when you're shooting a gun with only a few AI and all the gfx turned down is more enjoyable at the moment than having more AI and a moderate level of GFX. For me, that should be the goal. A balance between the things that make ArmA what it is, the ability to have a decent set up of infantry and vehicles and a visually respectable look and feel. I think they went for look and feel and it didn't quite work out due to the inherent difficulties in working with the engine as it is.

That's where I've been going wrong. Will penne do?

This all should have been fixed.

Good for you. Were the issues with your social life? Do you get out more as a result?

when you lot finish the game for BI, who gets the money?:rolleyes:

Early days? What are you on about? The game is on a engine with the same flaws as the previous titles, and I'm not talking about optimisation of mutli core CPUs. Early days...I appreciate your stance on a few matters, but they don't make sense. BIS are about making money ffs, wake up. Anyway this game isn't alpha. It's just the right word to use to market the game, sounds better than beta, or is that beta than better? Am I the only one who uses his brain? They make games about simulating war and they're a business out to make money. Which is fine.

Just turn it off. It doesn't look good at all.

What is that showing? That when the AI are seen out of cover, there is no suppressive fire, no movement out of there and if these are too much to ask, the soldier on the right is still just oblivious to what's going on and does nothing. Yeah, AI has come on leaps and bounds. I can see where all that processing power is going.

If it had been coded more efficiently, yes. As it isn't, then, no. I doubt your rig will run it smoothly. Unless you set the standard of 'smooth' as others do in these forums, ie load up a blank map, put one soldier down and run for 1 second and say 'yeh, that's smooth'.. Coz that's about as scientific as you need be and from there you will enjoy the fact your rig is perfectly adequate. Just don't put over 40 same old stupid AI down in the editor. This way you'll be able to run around at 60FPS with enough eye candy and nothing going on, outside your mind and in, for you to just enjoy it enough. Again, don't put anything in the editor that will try and use your processor, it's risking despondency.

Gave it a go a couple o days ago, no difference. Your post would have some validity if it wasn't guess work ffs. At the post by the developer. Analyse and fix what? Surely you could have realised this sooner, in the last I don't know, 10 years?

Yes, good faith and good customer support. Or they just rely on know-it alls to do their dirty work for free? The others issues that I've spoken about that were in ARMA2 and never resolved, they're not important to you, right? Guess they can count on your cash for future upgrades?

No, you don't understand.

As long as your moral compass is ok, I'm good with that. But if you learnt to read properly, I stated the reasons why I wanted that honesty. It wasn't necessarily to do with spending 20 quid. I bought the game with a high percentage of my intentions given to the fact I am loyal to purchasing games from BIS as a sign of support. It's not a huge amount of money but nonetheless it depends how you look at it. I've bought flashy twice, ARMA twice, ARMA2 twice and it's DLCs and I bought this game because I do enjoy it and the future it will hopefully have. When one pays money for a product and they have concerns for how it functions, that customer has a right to have a say. Sorry you don't feel like that. Good luck to you. It is free to my friends who I'll be sending invites to, but not to me. I made the choice to pay money for a title I believed would be enjoyable because I wanted the benefits of the non lite version. Can you understand that? In your world where everything that costs has a risk, although feel unable to justify any demands for a resolution if needed, it must get tough when something breaks or isn't fit for purpose or sold as advertised? Maybe this is why there are so many exploitative businesses and services out there because the consumer is just a voiceless cash dispenser. Certain people never feel like they can complain because, well, it's embarrassing or awkward or they just don't know why they should. I always try to make my feelings clear to any service I pay money for if I'm dissatisfied with the outcome. That way I achieve piece of mind knowing that I'm not someone who just keeps getting taken for a ride. Maybe that's not you, though and I digress. My point here is that I have, or possibly had high hopes for this title given the amount of time BIS have had at their disposal to rectify certain issues with the series. It is possible that it may well be the case that for all the eye candy and fairly shallow improvements to the game, there are still some rather outstanding faults that are now seemingly unlikely to be addressed. For me it's a concern but, not one that is held without understanding of the current alpha situation. More to the point, it is clarity and ownership of a given situation that every customer of a service should feel like they can expect. On the contrary, sometimes a forum can be an arena for people with some strange appropriation toward a pseudo moral high ground stance of defending a business no matter what happens, or what doesn't. Conversely, showing signs of critical thinking and higher expectations so that the money customers spend and the support they offer isn't taken for granted is of far greater importance to a business that wants to be successful. The feedback tracker is a symbol of this intention and it is why there is a growing significance that they reply to the many questions and concerns in a more specific and thorough manner that many of their customers are voicing. I'm not here to promote the game for BIS nor discredit their endeavour. I would like, if at all possible, for the developers to acknowledge these issues as repairable or fixable, or whether they don't believe there's a problem with how the game currently functions at a root level. Thanks, buddy. @ Myke. That makes sense to me and hopefully will be the case. I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate as I object to the dismissive comments from members who feel they have to defend what isn't necessarily in question. Make your own minds up as to what I mean by that, as you will. I have a decent rig and can get the game running at around 60-100 fps on whatever settings I chose, fine, and when starting a mission with 20-30 AI I'll drop to the mid 30s-70s in the more detailed areas. Game looks decent and the feel is adequate for me. I personally can't accept the game play when around mid 20fps and this can occur when adding another few squads each side, pushing the 50+ AI count. Lowering all graphics settings with 50+ up to 100 AI and seeing my system struggle with that is what I'd hoped wouldn't have such an impact, but I guess that the overhaul of the AI is to do with this and subsequently could be polished at a later date in order to allow performance to benefit. We'll see, I suppose and I can accept this but I'd like to think there can be improvements made, especially as currently I see only small difference with how the AI behave compared to ARMA2. I'll be patient and look toward seeing the progression with the performance side of things along with the rest of the features as they come. My main gripe is really to do with the AI walking through walls when constructing a base in the editor, among other stupid things the AI do, I'm disappointed that this still happens.