infiltrator_2k

Forgive me, but I'm not that well informed with regards to DayZ. But unless the DayZ development team is fully self-funded from revenue generated from the sale of DayZ products then BIS would be sacrificing Arma's development to subsidise DayZ. IMO the financing and development of DayZ should have been an Arma 3 expansion like Operation Arrowhead was to Arma 2. I've heard it from the CEO that BIS have doubled its staff in size over the past 12 months alone, so who and what is paying for the development of DayZ? DayZ is only in its Early Access development stage so I'm guessing it's the sales of the Arma series and the premium DLC for a half-baked Arma 3 that's supporting it. That's not a rhetorical question but a genuine one. Unless the DayZ development is 100% self-funded by sales of its products then BIS have sold out on Arma fans. BIS still haven't fixed the Simulation Management Module and drone bug. An easy fix but months on and it still hasn't been addressed. The proof is in the pudding. There seems to be 'Team BIS' and 'Team Reality' on this thread. Just take a look at my build and I'm getting '20' FPS MP FFS! How can anyone defend BIS when there's irrefutable evidence that the Arma's a massively technically flawed game. There must be thousands of customers who cannot play this game online and BIS' answer was to start development on a zombie game what uses the Arma 3 engine??? Seriously.

So, just so we don't lose track, it's evident that BIS are focusing their attention on releasing premium DLC and developing DayZ rather than fixing Arma 3.

I have a friend with an inferior PC to mine yet he's getting over double the frame rate on the same server. With my build I'm only getting 20FPS MP and 30FPS SP. That's seriously messed up.

If BIS and its Devs fixed the game then there would be very few of these rants. I think customers who have purchased the game have a valid reason to be disgruntled a right to air their grievances. IMO Bez should not be made to feel as though he should have detracted from the comments he made. He aired his frustration and his valid reasons to why he's not prepared to buy another BIS game. Criticising him for saying it how it is will only deter other people from speaking out an airing the grievances. If people on this forum are made to feel that they cannot speak out from fear of criticism then this forum will be tainted by suppression. I built my gaming rig to play Arma 3. For the tower alone it cost me close to £2,000 FFS! Hosting my own dedicated server and playing on that hi-spec rig and I get like 30FPS? I've also spent hours creating a Takistan mission only to discover that the Simulation Manager Module and Drone bug has totally rendered the mission useless. Needless to say that was reported months ago and still it hasn't been fixed! Before BIS even anticipated releasing DLC they should have fixed the basic game first. Instead of Developers burying their heads in the sands by avoiding this forum they need to listen to the customers and address the issues; ignoring valid complaints will be their undoing. No company can expect to sell a flawed product and have a successful business in the future. If there's a valid reason to be disgruntled with BIS rest assured I have it. 2K gaming rig and 30FPS pfffffttt.... Sort it out BIS!!!

A ticket was raised regarding the simulation manager and drone bug but that hasn't been fixed and that was months ago, so I wouldn't hold your breath for a MP FPS fix.

Just to clear up any myths or misconceptions - I host a dedicated server with Server 2012 64bit with X58 - i7 920 @4.0Ghz - 12GB 1800Mhz DDR3 - OCZ Vertex II 120Gb SSD. The connection is a Fibre 40/10 totally unrestricted. When I connect to my server via WAN it pings around the 25 mark, and the rig I connect to my dedicated server with is an X99 Deluxe - DDR4 2800Mhz - i7 5820K - GTX 780ti - Vertex 4 150. I host Invade and Annex and get between 25-30 FPS even when the servers empty. Now that's pretty poor given my spec.

Sorry, but as a British ex-infanteer I can honestly say that when playing at least the 'Infantry Showcase' it's bull as far as realism is concerned. I've played A3 on-and-off since its Alpha launch, but when recently trying it infantry 'showcase' I can honestly say it bull given the accuracy of the Ai. I mean, I can't even cower behind a rock without being shot form some Ai dude from 150-200 meters away whist the Ai is in the stand-up position... That is utter bull! How can anyone let alone a company charge money for a product that's so flawed?

I was trying to complete the Infantry Showcase again last night, but instead of letting frustration getting the better of me I analysed the AI's movement and tactics. Little did I know that the AI were often flanking my position and shooting me in the back. It's amazing what the game allows you to see after you've been killed from the camera's third-person view. I also noted how the AI moved swiftly in a wedge formation hunting down any remaining adversaries. They appear to be a pre-programmed ultimate killing machine on that particular mission. On the plus side, the Infantry Showcase will undoubtedly improve players' skills. I think what players don't anticipate in the Infantry Showcase is the not only the AI's skill, but their courage level. I think we ideally expect and would want is AI's to respond like soldiers would in real life with self-preservation being a factor that determines the pace of the battle. Instead I've found the AI to act more like unstoppable terminators. But I think for BIS they must have been stuck between 'a rock and a hard place' with getting the balance right with regards to the AI's skill level.

I suffered from shin splints and it's bloody painful For years the British Army denied the condition even existed. The irony is it would be only the first one or two miles that I had an issue with. Once the legs warmed up and the endorphines kicked it it wasn't a problem. I haven't got an issue with Arma's fatigue as I can appreciate how if feels to carry all of that kit having done it. If the AI have similar attributes then it's balanced IMO.

I don't know. I guess I was very frustrated last night. I thought I'd get the showcases done as I haven't played Arma for a few weeks. I create missions and understand the Ai's skill attributes, it's just I expected better from BIS given it's its showcase and is suppose to be an insight into Arma. I understand there's a balance to be made as far as the Ai's skill is concerned, but last night's experience was ridiculous and extremely frustrating.

I've just purchased a new board, card, CPU, and some RAM, not to mention a new chassis, PSU and AIO loop cooler. The spec is in my sig below (ignore the old stuff). I was trying to get as much bang as possible for my buck. I done some homework and read a fair few reviews and benchmark tests on the hardware I've gone for and I was wondering what kind of settings I should expect to be able to use @1920x1200 with a decent FPS rate. Will I manage a truly maxed out Arma configuration? I'm not able to build the machine until the weekend as I'm away working so I can't test it myself :( I'd also like to know how I did. Was the hardware a good choice for a single card configuration? I ask this because a lot of you fellow system builders will know that there's nothing worst than purchasing components only to later discover that you could have got better for my money. The only real choice I was limited on was the chassis as the tower has to sit in an office and there's height and width constraints. Still, not a bad chassis. This is my first major upgrade since July 2009.. needless to say I'm eagerly anticipating getting home to build this rig.

Arma's current scoring system is let's be honest a little simplistic and outdated.. console like even. It doesn't reward other players who for example pilot aircraft or drive armed vehicles; the gunners are the only ones to rack up kills when it's a 50/50 effort by both the gunner/pilot/driver, so it begs the question why should the gunner solely be given the kill point. If BIS developed a more sophisticated scoring algorithm other than the current 1 kill = 1 point system it would without a shadow of a doubt totally change how people strategically play Arma. It would undoubtedly encourage a lot more team play and give people a more immersive gaming experience. Of course, snipers would be exempt... or would they? A sniper could be rewarded with a better score if they played alongside a spotter for example, and the spotter likewise could potentially score the same. In real life it's the spotter who plays a significant part on setting up that lethal shot. A scoring algorithm could potentially be as complex as BIS wanted it to be. Points could be dynamic, meaning points deducted for more than just a team kill. If for example a player decided to go lone wolf (out of a specific range) when part of a team, and as a result their actions left his team exposed thus killed. The absconder who caused the weak link so to speak could be deducted a 1/4 of a point say for every team member killed as a result of their actions. I'm sure percentages of a scoring point could be implemented through memory. What I'm saying is a potential new scoring mechanism could totally change the way every person played Arma and for the better IMHO. Could there be any downsides to this?

I have a friend who's a bit of an Arma addict. He'll play for hours on end. He's like myself older and has been playing games since the very early release of computer games. But what strikes me is his ability to exploit Arma's AI. The AI in Arma has come on leaps and bounds, but being able to board a Blackfoot and single handedly wipe out the AI whilst evading all the AI's AA (low altitude flying) kind of exposes a huge weakness in the game. Isn't it about time aircraft in Arma are made more realistic - making the weapons systems more challenging to operate? The fact scripts have been written to restrict players from hopping into aircraft and single handedly completing half the mission underlines the need to make aircraft more challenging to fly IMHO. Having the 'inability' to flare whilst flying the Blackfoot lone wolf doesn't stop this lame gaming tactic.

I believe the more sophisticated the scoring algorithm the less relevance scoring will become to even the most competitive of players. Having to calculate a number of factors before being awarded points will become a tedious and cumbersome process to exploit such a system - if not impossible. With an easy and simple understanding to all that you'll accumulate more points if you play as a team oppose to going off and doing your own thing, I'm convinced it will change how even the most over-competitive players play and the game that much more enjoyable for all. BIS could develop such a system based on military tactics and reward/penalise players for their actions or lack of actions. If a player could have been seen as indirectly responsible for the death of his comrade due to negligence in a military tribunal, why not deduct a point or percentage of a point in the virtual world? There are so many scenarios where this could be implemented. Let's say player A was engaged by an enemy rifleman but ignored the threat so he could kill 4 easier enemies a short distance away to gain more points. But as a result his comrade behind him was killed by the threat he chose to ignore. Of course, it might have been an honest mistake or a genuine tactic to eliminate a bigger threat. Which is why a sophisticated algorithm would need to be developed. If for example the game saw this was a regular occurrence it could retrospectively penalise a player by deducting a point or fraction of a point for his or her action(s) that happened earlier on in the game. IMO it would totally change how player played and ironically enough it would also make the most selfish and completive of players look out more for their team players knowing they'll not risk losing points by looking out for them. No doubt there will be many who are justifiably sceptical of such as system and who'll claim it won't be fair or manageable. But such a system will be as good as the algorithm and it would undoubtedly be rigorously trialled and tested before being released. When you think about it most of the work has already been done as the engine knows where each player is and when a player is engaged and by who and what. If such a system is 90% accurate I'm sure it'll be a welcomed replacement to the current crude and outdated scoring method. If BIS released an update that gave the server a choice of using something quirky like D.I.S (Dynamic Intelligent Scoring) or traditional scoring what would you chose?

BlackPixxel, this isn't about 'you'. This is about a scoring system that rewards and gives recognition to players overall who are team players, oppose to the current scoring system that overall seems to reward the selfish who's main objective is to achieve the highest score. The very reason why 'team players' play on regular/clan servers is to evade the over-competitive selfish; the ones who will step all over other players and sabotage a team's strategy merely to achieve that top score they seem to 'think' matters. Creating a "sophisticated scoring algorithm" that reflects a player's participation as a team player rather than just how many kills/deaths they've managed to rack up would change how 'over-competitive' players played overnight. Anyone who says it wouldn't make any difference, or the score doesn't matter to them are denying that competitiveness exists. Arma is all about competing - if not against each other it's against the AI.

'YOU' are the very reason why a new scoring system is needed and deserves to be implemented.

Anyone like myself who's an ex-grunt or even anyone who's watched television war dramas such as 'Band of Brothers' or 'The Pacific' will know that platoons operate as a close knit unit and soldiers value their comrade's lives as much as their own, if not more. Both recent and historical events have shown us that soldiers have sacrificed themselves in order to save their comrades lives, so I think a scoring system that rewards Arma players for a team effort and their willingness to sacrifice their virtual lives to save others would be welcomed by all. I honestly do believe that a "more sophisticated scoring algorithm" would add a lot more immersion and dimension to the game and rewarding the selfless whilst penalising selfish can only be a good thing.

I'm glad you see that way. Seriously, I really am. But for some players it's all about scoring the most points no matter how they go about it, and it's those over-completive players with that kind of mentality who spoil the gameplay for everyone else.

Yeah, the custom server he plays recently made those changes but he said he soon adapted :/ He's literally racked up hundreds of kills with no deaths. Other players have asked him how he survives if he cannot flare, but it's the low altitude flying that allows him to survive. The fact he won't even go near Franze's and NoUnit's AH-64 when playing my custom made mission sums it up.

In today's modern warfare a drone's role and participation on the battlefield is equally as much as an integral part of a fighting force's weapon's arsenal as a soldier's firearm. Drones save lives, eliminate threats and acquire valuable intelligence; the flaw should have taken priority in being fixed IMO. Many of the fixes that BIS have implemented since that ticket had been raised are pretty petty when you weigh up how much impact the drone flaw has on the game. I'm more of a contributor. My scripting skills are very limited ATM, but I'll spend countless hours creating missions for others to enjoy, so I expect just as much dedication when employees and their company are making money from selling us their product. Rest assured if I had the knowhow I would have done the fix myself, regardless how long it would have taken. Overall I'm impressed with BIS' commitment on fixing Arma. But outstanding issues like these infuriate me and the fact I personally can't rectify the issue myself is just damn frustrating.

Just messing with drones tonight on my Takistan map with CAF units and I noticed at least a dart drone cannot see Opfor units on the ground. However, I've found if I place a Blufor unit nearby the Opfor units they're seen by the dart drone. Any idea?

TBH Das I'm wondering why I'm putting hours into creating missions when it's evident that BIS aren't even bothered with fixing Arma. How long has this flaw been an issue? How long will it be until it's resolved? BIS get your sh*t together and fix the god damn game! I'm sick with having to rely on the community for the abundance of missing content and workarounds. When you alone put hours upon hours into creating missions the least you can expect is for a BIS coder to have the decency to write a few lines of code to fix a bug that has such a big impact on gameplay.

I'm not using a cache script Das. I'm using the simulation manager module and it turns out that drones aren't recognised as being present to cancel out the simulation manager. It's a big flaw IMO as it defeats the object of having drones for long distance surveillance/targeting. I suspect it's because the drone is non-playable; if I add an 'unplayable' Blufor unit within the simulation manager's radius it too doesn't cancel the simulation manager. The units appear to have to be 'playable'. Are there any workarounds for this? I found this: http://feedback.arma3.com/print_bug_page.php?bug_id=18336

I've got nothing against people who play third-person either, but I don't personally play with it enabled as IMHO it's totally unrealistic and gives players a ridiculous view of the battlefield, not to mention it kills the immersion. I think Arma 3's genre is an ambiguous one. It's neither this or that. It certainly isn't a military simulator when you have third-person and enemy locations turned on. I create my own missions using scripts and add-ons to host realistic scenarios. It gives the players a sense of what sh*t our servicemen and woman have to go through when on tour in places like Afghan. People are eager to want to fly helos and jets but they hate having to do the power up sequence? It's not like they've had to do several years flight school. Five minutes in the readme file and a couple of minutes to take off that's all. But when people are permitted to hop into a helo or jet and just press the 'Q' key to get going I question BIS' claim of Arma being "authentic combat". Jumping into tens of millions of dollars worth of aircraft that takes a single keystroke to start it is "console arcade" sh*t. Like I said I've got nothing against people play third-person and have a laugh playing humorous games, but sometimes I wish BIS would make Arma one or the other because without mods, add-ons and scripts it's a mutant and it leaves players like myself who want a realistic military simulator frustrated.

So what's next? An equivalent BTC Revive system? BTW, I've just added VA to my mission and so far I'm liking it - albeit aesthetically. I don't know if BIS have added the 'restriction' option yet but for me it's restrictions is a must have. The Nightstalker IMO is way too powerful, especially when locating Taliban snipers in Takistan. It kind of kills the whole gameplay.