ddeo

For me, only annoying at night is lack of dynamic lights, too much light effects from fire and blue sky. Also flashlights were better for client before. I like less pitch black nights, but I also think that light could be slightly toned down to make night darker (not as much as before though).

Me too. :) In previous arma3 build night looked like in arma2, now it is improved, but it still needs to be tweaked, especially blue sky.

Right now it depends on moon lighting, before night was just dark black. I think it is nice improvement, but sky color needs to be fixed, it is too blue. Also if you want to have dark black night you can still have it in your mission, just set proper time of the year. Point is, it is still work in progress, no need to hate it. BIS made huge improvement to the lighting system, but now they need to tweak it to make it look correctly. I think you're too conservative, just let them do their job. :) And no, old lighting system was not better at all.

I'm really happy that Smookie is looking into climbing ladders animations, it's one of 2 animation issues for me in Arma3. Second is reloading grenade launcher animation. There is no grenade in the hand, but I believe it will be fixed together with rocket for launchers, but for me main issue is that weapon model is statc. Chamber doesn't open in animation and I can't image thrusting grenade through the weapon model. Just take a look how I imagine it should be (not the best examples, but you will get idea): In above animations chamber/barrel is opening, I believe MX rifle series would be enough modern to use above reloading grenade launcher system. Of course there are also other grenade launchers, which can be reloaded this way: and this is only what we have currently in arma3 (type of animation). GL (weapon) doesn't need to be animated itself, only the hand for this kind of launchers. But I would like to see other underbarrel grenade launchers animated well too.

My friend told me that they added better SLI support (don't know about crossfire) for graphic cards. There was no difference using single or multi gpu before. Yesterday he showed me screenshots with fps with single and multi graphic card. Difference in fps was hudge, with single graphic card he had around 40 fps, while he enabled second graphic card he got around 75fps, so almost twice more. Would be nice if somebody could confirm this.

I know, point is I would need to spend more money to buy better gfx than I have right now, additionally I have bad experience with my last processor bottlenecking my graphic card, I don't think my new cpu would handle much better graphic card well. I had a chance to buy second 3850 very cheap, I'll see the results with arma3 especially when I'm playing on high resolution (1920x1080) and ati graphic card in crossfire love high resolutions. If crossfire is/will be supported by Arma3 then I have chance to have performance increased by even 40, or 60 %. I was expecting to run smooth Arma 3 on lowest details, with grass on and slightly better view distance. I can run it already with medium details, which was unexpected by me. :) But I agree, 1 better gfx > 2 graphic cards in sli/crossfire.

Hey, I'll quote myself from old thread and answer the question: Game run even when my processor was 2ghz, not 2,4 minimal requirements. I could run the game smooth on single player lowest graphic settings and lowest draw distance, but in MP grass and higher view distance are forced, so my game was lagging and fps were dropping, sometimes drastically. Additionally I couldn't host games, because AI were not opening fire in MP (in SP everything worked fine). I've got today my intel core 2 duo Q9300 and I can run game on medium (standard) details smooth, but I can play with "high" or even "very high/ultra" texture settings, probably thanks to my 6gb ram. FPS are dropping when I'm looking at the forest or many vegetation from close distance, lowering graphic settings even to minimum doesn't help. Overall I'm happy with current optimization of the game. My PC is 6 years old and can run the game fine. Recently I bought to it only 4gb ddr2 memory so I have 6gb total now, and today new processor arrived. I'm waiting for graphic card, second radeon 3850 so I'll try the game in crossfire (I'll see if it works, if not hopefully to see some support for it soon :P). For second graphic card and new processor I havent paid more than 50euro total. Cheers!

Hi. I did not want to start another thread. I have question regarding people experience with SLI/crossfire on Arma 3 Alpha. I've bought alpha, but my fps drop drastically in multiplayer. I know it is not thread about specs but still I will mention what I have: motherboard Asus P5K, Intel E2180 2ghz dual core and Radeon 3850 with asus cooler. Point is, I'm going to upgrade my PC slightly, not to run Arma 3 on full details, or even med, but to run it smooth on low/low-mid details. I've already bought new processor (intel core 2 duo Q9300), because my current is bottlenecking my graphic card from what I've experienced in other games and Arma 3. Point is I don't want to spend to much money on old PC (5/6 years old), so instead of getting new graphic card I've decided to buy second Radeon 3850 and use crossfire, this GFX is very cheap nowadays and from tests I've seen it's performance can rise even 100% when using crossfire with high resolutions in games (I use 1920x1080 for my 23 inch screen). Question is not what to buy, because I've already bought it and I'm waiting for my package. Question is, how is Your experience with Arma 3 Alpha using dual graphic cards, SLI or crossfire? Did you tested it guys already, do you see difference while running game with 1, or 2 graphic cards, or I will be the first one who will test it out? :) I'm hoping at lest for 20% performance boost, but I'm little scared that since it is alpha and amd/ati did not release any new drivers for arma 3 yet, so it might give me nothing. Cheers!

I'll buy Alpha, the only interesting things in other versions for me are soundtrack and future dlc's. I'll buy DLC's when BIS will release them.

I think I'm one of few who are happy that alpha won't be released at this weekend...why? 12hours of studies in saturday from 8am to 8pm, and 9 in sunday from 9am to 6pm. :D Studies would be more painful if I would know that I could be playing Arma 3... :)

I was thinking about it for longer time already, we have many informations about minimal system requierments for Arma3, but I don't know which one is official. When I look at some I see that I will be able to run the game, especially when BI are concentrating on optimization of the game, but when I look at some other websites and "can you run it" website it says no for my processor and graphic card. I was able to run very smooth Arma2 on low/med graphics with my specs: Graphic card: ASUS HD3850 512ddr3 (it's ati/amd radeon) with shader 4.1 and dx10.1 support. Processor: Intel E2180 dual core (2,2ghz) Ram: 6gb ddr2 Motherboard: ASUS P5K OS: win7 64bit pro I'm not expecting to run the game as good as Arma2, but low/very low would be fine also. The only game I couldn't run on my PC is Planetside 2 so far, it was because of no support for my graphic card. Thanks for replay and cheers!

I wish for any new info, media, single screenshots from the game. :) But seriously now. :) I don't see it on the list and I really would like to play free roam mission with random objectives. I know people are making these kind of missions already in Arma2, but that's community work. I wonder how cool would it be if it would be made by BIS. I think it could be nice advertisement for the game itself too, there are not many games in which you can walk across huge, detailed landscape with friends in coop and do what you want. Games from Arma series are designed for it, I really would like to see BIS making this time this kind of mission.

Maybe someone can confirm this, I've found on polish shop website that release date will be 1st March 2013. There: http://www.3kropki.pl/p/6/4/1/arma_3.php They've changed date from 13 November 2012 some time ago. We will see...

It works in PR. Forcing players to work together, or atleast incentivize players as you said to work together will make game more interesting. There will be always somebody who will say "no" and will not agree with something. PVP in ArmA is not as popular as in other games, because it's not fun and satisfying for most people picking up the game, people are mostly quiet on the servers, so new players don't feel their teams, they just run around. COOP is more popular because you know you can stand against AI with few friends, what if you play MP against clan? Especially on public server. It's happening often in PR, but people, even if they are not in the clan they work as a team, they listen to the leader mostly, because it's not only more fun, but it is always better if you're new into game and somebody can tell you what to do, that way you enjoy game even more because you know you're actually helping your team. Hope you get what I mean. :)

From what I remember in CTI players could lead the AI, this is a little stupid when you think about MP. MP should be about players vs players only, no AI. Also players should be FORCED to work together more. I'm playing Project Reality for BF2, but I heard PR for ArmA2 is good as well, if BI will aim for such gamestyle the MP could be more popular. It was discussed here anyway: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?136343-Multiplayer-Balancing-Will-Arma3-s-MP-be-balanced