Bryce23

Paintball Park By Bryce23 I have finished work on my paintball park mission for combined ops using the Cal.68 mod. Download Link: http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=13600 Features: -3 fields modeled after the fields i play on at my local field -2 Speedball fields -Woodsball field -Staging area -Dead box (where players are teleported when hit) -A referee who cannot be hit or carry a marker -14 Playable Players and 1 playable referee all in paintball gear -Realistic atmosphere Field info: The park features 2 speedball fields. They both have realistic air bunker layouts and are modeled after the speedball field i play at. The woodsball field is larger and features bunkers like sandbags, piles of timber and wrecked cars. All 3 fields have a yellow marked box at each end of the field. The two teams should start in these boxes facing the opposite direction of their opponents. Each field allows for a different type of play. Tips: -This mission should always be played on expert difficulty to remove the crosshairs and 3rd person. -You can equip a paintball mask by editing your glasses in your profile options when you have the cal.68 mod loaded. -Please read the notes in the map tabs ingame for more info and tips Requirements: -Cal.68 Paintball mod (http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=13569&highlight=PAINTBALL) -CBA (Required to run CAl.68) -Combined Operations (Arma 2 + OA) Credits: -The Cal.68 mod dev team for creating the awesome mod! -Bryce for making the mission -Josh for the screenshots -My clan for helping test the park I hope you all enjoy it. I love this mod and my clan had a great time playing at my park. Enjoy. And as always i would love to hear some constructive feedback. Thanks for downloading Screens:

The marksman challenge missions don't give you .45 ammo for your ACP, so you can only use your rifle until that's fixed. Also, I've noticed that when I right click to zoom in on the yellow targets during the marksman challenges my FPS drop pretty sharply. I get great FPS otherwise. When walking around the map since the beta I've also noticed some FPS drops when looking in certain directions. It doesn't happen very often but when it does it's really a killer. i haven't been able to figure out what it is that I'm looking towards that's making this happen though.

Doh. :blush: My mistake, I was very tired when I was checking that out and didn't read it properly. Very cool feature, indeed. Would be nice if there was some kind of message when you toggle it that says something along the lines of "Stream friendly UI enabled. Chat and server messages disabled." Or something like that. Seems like a fair amount of people, including myself, weren't too sure why our chat had disappeared or what that feature does.

I had the same issue today. It was because I had the "Steam friendly interface" (or w/e it's called) in the game options enabled. When I disabled it I was able to see chat and server messages again. I'd post this serious issue on the bug tracker but I haven't been able to log in on there since day 1.

You know when a a pbo has the RH prefix, it's some quality stuff. This pack is no exception. Love it. Would be nice if some of the guns had more realistic sounds, especially the Glocks. :)

Getting lots of pop up errors still. Also, some of the characters are still missing textures and thus are still invisible. When's this going to be fixed? I wouldn't play until this is fixed. It totally breaks the game.

Yes you will. You will just need to download and login to your steam account on your new PC

I can confirm this. A lot of the players' textures are missing, making them look invisible. I noticed it on the pilot and some other infantry characters. Hopefully they put up a hotfix for this soon, as this totally breaks the game. ---------- Post added at 12:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 PM ---------- I've also noticed that some of the sounds, like the hunter's engine, are extremely quiet. Almost to the point that you can't hear them unless the volume is turned up extremely loud. ---------- Post added at 01:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 PM ---------- Found another bug. When you put a silencer on any of the weapons, they no longer have a sound when shooting.

I have been posting about the performance issues of the game...I joined the forums 4 years ago and I've been playing Arma since Arma 1. Labeling everyone who is trying to voice their opinion about the awful performance issues of this game as "noobs who don't know what they're talking about" is childish, false, and unproductive. Nobody is denying that it's the best engine for a game like arma 3. It has extreme advantages, and without the engine a game like arma would probably not be possible. But it also has extreme disadvantages too. And they're the same ones that have plagued arma 1, arma 2, and operation arrowhead and now Arma 3. Asking why these issues are still present, and if they will be fixed or not, does not seem like a bad idea to me. If everyone had the mentality where issues should be brushed aside, justified or ignored, nothing would get done. I really do believe that BI is trying to fix these issues - hence the feedback tracker, sitreps, etc. But they have yet to give us a statement as to how the core performance issues will (or won't) be fixed and if some of you guys think that asking for an answer is stupid/pointless...then I guess everyone is not interested in seeing Arma 3 reach its full potential.

this.

And in my opinion at least, staying with the same broken game engine forever is also not an option. It either needs to be fixed, or scrapped in favor of a better game engine. Nobody is saying that everyone, regardless of the system specs, should get 60 FPS. My main issue is how the framerate is so inconsistent. For example, when I'm standing at the airport and looking towards the ocean I get a steady 60fps but If i turn around and look toward the buildings and mountains, it drops to about 40-45. The real issue with framerates is not necessarily that they're low all the time, it's that if your framerate is inconsistent it makes the game feel even choppier and it multiplies the effect of having low(er) FPS. One of the reasons I bought the GTX 670 FTW a couple weeks ago is its adaptive vsync feature. In every other game when I run vsync it locks my fps at 60. Never goes above or below. I love it. In arma 3, it struggles so much to keep the framereate steady. Again, what's making so many players upset is not only the performance issues. Nobody is expecting the game to be fully optimized yet. The issue, that has been stated many times in this thread and others, is that Bohemia has not acknowledged the issues and/or let the community know if they plan on fixing them or not. On another note, I plan on upgrading my OC'd i7920 to a Haswell 4670k next month (meaning I have to get a new mobo too) and overclocking it just for this game. It doesn't bother me that I have to upgrade my PC to play the newest games. But to spend a lot of money on the latest hardware to play the latest game only to find that the game has the same issues as it did 5 years ago and it won't even use a good portion of the hardware's power - that's worrisome to me. Saying "Use a 6Ghz CPU & GTX Titans in quad SLI or just deal with it" to the same problems we see time and time again is not a sustainable concept. *I really hate ranting. I'm just really passionate about being able to play my favorite game at an enjoyable framerate.

Another SPOTREP/full alpha update today. Seemingly no (noticeable) performance fixes or news on performance improvements to come. Getting the same performance as before the patch. :k: Would be nice if they fixed the game's core performance issues before adding new stuff like the fog.

I can't express how much I agree with the last two posts...:cool:

Couldn't agree more. I think it's too early to say that I'm disappointed with Arma 3's performance, but I'm definitely at the edge of my seat when it comes to hoping for performance fixes. I just bought a brand new GTX670 FTW, overclocked my i7 to 3.66 GHz and got some sweet new RAM and an SSD just for Arma 3. When I first played Arma 3 after installing these upgrades I immediately put the game on all ultra assuming it would play it just fine. Nope. Had to lower most things (terrain quality especially) to standard or high just for it to be playable. And have my view distance <3000 and object distance <2000. Very disappointing. I have played dozens of games on my new setup and I've been able to play every single one at their highest settings without my frames ever going below 60 (my monitor's refresh rate) I even overclocked my brand new, nearly $400 dollar GTX670 and barely got a performance boost. Performance is especially poor online, although that is something I have a bit more confidence in that it will improve as we don't have much battleye/dedicated server support at the moment. Fine. It really bothers me when people say "It's still an alpha, bro" or "You will get better performance in BF3 but it's so much more basic than Arma". Come on. Saying things like that is totally counter productive. And so is complaining a million times about the blatant and serious performance problems Arma 3 is currently is facing. I think what people want to see, and what would be more productive, is more of a response from Bohemia about exactly how they plan on fixing these issues. Their sitreps and what not are helpful but they don't seem to cover the major game engine issues. A few days ago I was reading a long thread about how A3's lack of multiple CPU core use and people seemed to be begging for answers, and others just used the "it's an alpha, just ignore the problem til the game is fully released" excuse. In my opinion at least, it's depressing to spend over 600 bucks on upgrading to the latest hardware and still not being able to play the game without having to deal with performance problems, let alone serious ones. You shouldn't have to have an 8 core processor running at 6Ghz with a GTX Titan in order to play the game (semi)smoothly. I'm desperately hoping these issues will be fixed but my hopes aren't too high because we're seeing the same issues that plagued Arma 1, 2, OA, etc. Arma is by far my favorite game and It's pretty much all I play since no other game can compare. But I want to enjoy it without having ridiculous performance issues.:pray: *crosses fingers and hopes for more info from the devs*

I have the same problem. Firing weapons, especially on full auto, is an FPS killer while the weapon is firing. You should post the issue on the feedback tracker. For some reason I've never been able to login to it :(

A few days ago I bought a GTX670FTW. Mostly to prepare for arma 3. But to be totally honest, I'm a bit disappointed with how insanely resource heavy the game is. When I have my viewdistance set to 2500 and everything maxed out (except PIP, shadows, and Antialiasing set to 4x) I still don't get a steady and acceptable framerate. I can play literally every game I have tried on max settings without dipping below 60 FPS. Playing arma3 online is a performance nightmare, when there are a lot of players or vehicles my FPS is in the 20's/30's. (I'm running an i7 920 @ 3.66 ghz). In single player it's usually around 40-50 but it's inconsistent. Very disappointing. I know the game will be better optimized upon release, but I'm skeptical. Long story short, because of this, when I saw your post it got me excited to try out your suggestion. So I did. I used the arma3 benchmark mission from armaholic to test it. Here were my results: As you can see, I got slightly better performance with the setting set to multi display performace. Even though I'm only playing on a single 1920x1080 monitor. Hope this helps. Even though your suggestion didn't work for me, I really appreciate it when people post about possible ways to improve on performance. :) My specs: GTX670 FTW i7 920 @ 3.66 ghz 8GB ddr3 1800 RAM

I need to upgrade my GPU from my current HD5870. Should I get a GTX660Ti or an HD7950? This is the 7950 I'm looking at: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127667 and I'm not sure what 660Ti to get if I decide to get one. Which card can handle arma 3 better? And does getting an ATI card really make me miss out because it does not support physx? My system specs: Gigabyte ex58-ud3r mobo i7920 Overclocked to 3.3Ghz (When I buy the card I will also be getting new RAM so I can overclock to at least 3.5) XFX HD 5870 1GB Overclocked to 900Mhz GPU clock/1270Mhz memory clock 6GB Corsair 1333 RAM Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 7200 RPM HDD Single 1920x1080 Monitor

I've been running an HD5870 since late '09. Other than Arma3, it still runs nearly every game with great frames. However, when Arma 3 is fully released that will be about all I'll be playing and my HD5870 is not powerful enough to run it at ultra or high settings and get a respectable framerate...so I'm upgrading. My price range is about $320 max. Right now I can't make up my mind between the HD7950 and the GTX660Ti. Essentially, they're both the same exact price. The HD7950 comes with a "free" download of crysis 3 and bioshock infinite, but I wouldn't be interested in playing either of those games anyway. So here are the cards that I can't choose between: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127696 or http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202006 They're both about the same price and have great reviews. Although the GTX660Ti has over 200 reviews and a 5 star rating and that's impressive. Which card will run games faster in general and which one will be better for Arma 3 specifically? According to these arma 3 benchmarks (http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2306250) they're the same when it comes to arma 3 performance. Also, which one will handle overclocking better? I don't want to have to overclock the card until years after I buy it, but how well it handles overclocking is something that I consider. Will I be missing out on PhysX if I don't go with the nvidia card? Which one would you guys suggest I pick up? I really want to be able to play Arma3 on the highest settings with great FPS. I really love my XFX ATI card but I'm willing to switch to Nvidia if it's a better choice. My current system specs: Gigabyte ex58-ud3r mobo i7920 Overclocked to 3.3Ghz (When I buy the card I will also be getting new RAM so I can overclock to at least 3.5) XFX HD 5870 1GB Overclocked to 900Mhz GPU clock/1270Mhz memory clock 6GB Corsair 1333 RAM Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 7200 RPM HDD Single 1920x1080 Monitor I appreciate the help. I'm so indecisive when it comes to this stuff :confused:

I installed the arma 3 alpha on my laptop (max resolution of 1366x768) the day it came out. I just installed it on my desktop that's connected to an HD TV that's capable of 1920x1080 but for some reason the highest resolution I can select ingame on my desktop is 1366x768. Anyone know how I can fix the game on my desktop so I can play it in 1920x1080? Thanks ---------- Post added at 10:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 PM ---------- Update: I was able to get it to 1920x1080 by switching to to fullscreen windowed mode. However, fullscreen mode does not allow me to go any higher than 1366x768.

I too am having lots of problems with this. I loaded just this addon and the mag is always floating above the weapon. Also, when reloading, the game seems to think that the handle on the top is the mag and it disappears for a few seconds after I press the reload key. Here's a screenshot. http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww284/bryce2394/arma32013-03-1302-02-20-36_zpsd5a68bd2.jpg I know asked how to reproduce the problem, but all I did was pick it up and this happens. FYI my graphics settings are all either low or standard. Can't wait til it's fixed, It looks amazing and I love M4's :)

Thanks so much for this, Picolly! I hope the textures in the final version of Arma 3 are good enough that this isn't necessary, but at least we have a great community-made solution if that's not the case. :)

Come on, we've been dealing with horrible AI since Arma 1. Isn't it time for an upgrade? I was hoping they would be more intelligent, but they don't seem to be much different than Arma 2's AI. They still don't take cover in buildings, they are either horribly inaccurate or aimbots, they rarely use grenades, and the list goes on. Correct me if I'm wrong somehow, but the AI don't seem to be very much improved, if at all. Anyone have any thoughts about this? Having intelligent AI is a key aspect of a mil-sim game, it would really make the game so much better if they were more realistic.

I have been playing the alpha on my laptop. It's an Asus K55 with a GT630 and an i7 at 2.3ghz with 8 gigs of ram. It runs the alpha better than I thought it would. When all of my settings are either on low or standard with 2xAA turned on, I get about 25-40 fps. Although when there's a lot of AI in a mission, my FPS plummets to around 20-25 because of the (relatively) slow processor I have. It's totally playable though.

I noticed the same thing. Bullets seem to travel much faster in the A3 alpha than any previous arma game. Even pistols seem to have little to no drop bullet drop, even at hundres of yards away.

I agree, the bad textures really are a game killer at times. I'm sure they'll fix them though. Then again, the distant textures on Chernarus were terrible too, I could barely play that map without using that landtex mod that made them look much nicer. Lets hope history doesn't repeat itself here. :pray: