St. Jimmy

I believe you should: It always doesn't feel right in my opinion. There's also a blood trail bug in the end where the blood trail was stretched 50m.

I already tested just in case before saying yesterday (actually with the same values) and I still don't see difference in your video. Only difference is the fps and with low fps it might skip some frames. Then the clouds were bit different. Btw you can just write setViewdistance 32000 in the box and local execute it to change the view distances as you like. So you don't need to load the mission again with different clo ds. The fish eye and warping effect isn't that bad if you've the time frozen (in camera and time acceleration 0 for example). That's why you might think the effect gets fixed with higher view distance but that's likely just related to the fps drop.

It's really not a bug. It's a feature that they use. Arma 3 uses horizontally wrapped clouds. The view distance doesn't have any kind of effect on the clouds. The same fish eye or warp effect happens no matter what the view distance setting is. Also the clouds are rendered over the view distance so you don't see any more clouds with 1k than with 30k view distance.

361.92 and 362.00 should work well. 361.92 is the one that was released Arma 3 in mind and 362.00 is also reported to work very well.

To be honest I was expecting that happen before already. That increase was only possible through heavy rewrite of the engine. Arma AI was likely removed everywhere in the code, it was very deeply tied in the RV engine and new server-client architecture makes it possible that the server doesn't affect that much performance. Then the scripting will be bit different.So directly for Arma that kind of performance increase is impossible without heavily rewrite the engine or start to build on top of the Enfusion. That's likely 5+ years of work.

I forgot to ask about this when I read something about that in the dev-branch. Thanks for saying. I was about suggesting making it work that way but seems like BIS was faster. I might install my Steam now on HDD.

One of the bottlenecks I've noticed is that the ground textures don't always remain in the memory and they need to be loaded again. It would help the performance if the ground textures could be kept in memory in some forced way. One of the ways to load the textures "before" you start to do anything is to open the map and wait the tiles to load. Then zoom all around so you load the closer ground textures. Fresh restarted system they remain nicely in memory and you don't need to load them again for a while. That way flying with even high view distance is pretty smooth.After some time you likely need to load them again and the game stutters/loses fps.

I remember people complaining that it doesn't work.

Good move. I'll likely buy it in the first week.

Some performance guides in the internet internet recomnend using -malloc=system so that's likely one of the reasons of so many reports. Use the TBB4 or no allocator so which is the same as using TBB because that's the default one.

It just adds that little needed touch. Good job.

Just don't use any Malloc launch parameter. Pretty much if you don't know it you likely don't even use any and TBB4 is a default one so it's used.

Use Game Updater from Arma 3 tools and you don't need to override your Steam build. When you've installed it, just create a shortcut from that game folder's launcher or launch directly from the launcher.exe and you can play. With GU you can have as many copies as you want, anywhere in your computer. Check that the launcher uses and reads the mods from the same as your default one, so you won't get extra copies of your mods.

The "community" burst (well it wasn't really a community burst, just players looking to play DayZ) happened pretty much in the "end life" of Arma 2. DayZ pretty much just expanded that a bit. Things are just buried under the huge amount of KotH, Life, Exile, Wasteland, etc. servers. There really weren't THAT many even in Arma 2. Before DayZ you could find that stuff way more easily.

Well if it's about the custom malloc then remember next time mention that when you're asked about launch parameters :D

Try 362.00 or 361.92. There have been reports about the latest drivers not performing well.

What graphic drivers you've? Launch parameters?

Any chance to get bit same kind of improvement for weapon up/down animation? You now run some meters if you're already on the move or you can't move for a sec if you're standing still.

If someone wants to test clouds that are lower: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4_5-cwVlPT3dzVhOVFxRDJjVXc It's for Stratis. In my opinion it's an improvement.

I didn't test anything like some overcast has higher base level. Just put them on an even level. Without adding cloudBaseKm, then it was only the default weather that was affected. I guess someone has already made some experiments with this. I'm just going to test different overcast, different level if I can get it working. Well yeah the effect is bad but it doesn't get any worse with lowering the clouds.

Just watched some METAR and bit of SYNOP from Limnos aka. Altis from last June and when there was Cumulonimbus and Cumulus congestus their cloud base was around 1500-1800 feet which is around 450m-550m. Limnos airport is 5m above the sea level. When there's a nice weather cumulus/stratocumulus is usually around 1800-5000 feet which is 550m-1500m. So the numbers that I said in my earlier post aren't far away. If anyone wonders my main thing in military was to make METAR and SYNOPs :D I could be bit off-topic here but improved cloud lighting was said so why not tune the clouds a bit at the same time :P Lowering the clouds could also mean that their width needs to be toned down bit. Though I just looked and they looked pretty OK in my eyes so not much likely needed. It's a game afterall.

OK I've been wondering why the cloud base in the game is 2500m. That's pretty high when low clouds cloud base usually range from 200-1500m. Well in the configs it says cloudBaseKm = 0.85; but seems like it isn't the actual real value in the game. I put cloudBaseKm = 0.1; just to test things and I got the clouds around 550m from the sea level with some small fractus reaching 450m. Red is where the cloud base about is in the game when there is high amount of overcast: It's a rough image how clouds are. Of course weather, closer to tropic/arctic and the ground elevations make it bit different in different places. In my opinion cloud base should be lowered. And the more overcast there is the lower it should get, so low overcast maybe cloud base of 1500m and high overcast (so when there's rain clouds) cloud base of 600m could be a nice compromise.

In-game clouds are suitable for shower rain, the rain in the game acts like it and there's usually thunder so bit darker clouds could be more realistic. Cumulonimbus are thick and sun doesn't go through them as easily. //OK I actually haven't check how high the clouds are. If their height isn't much like only couple kilometers then they aren't that dark. But it's all about compromises and what you want it to look. There are as many cloud and ligthing conditions as there are opinions. We don't have three level cloud system in the game and the weather system like rain is only calculated from the overall overcast is very simple.

There's kind of free press but it's so corrupted or just a copy paste of CNN etc. or it's a copy paste of some real Russian troll where everything is on the other extreme end. Either the press is quiet about some truths, quoting awful amount of "pro-Western" media/headlines or it's shouting 99% of complete nonsense that the extreme right likes a lot. Yellow page headlines are so full of pro-US stuff in here that I don't know people that aren't sick about it. The Russian plane flying close of some US ship shows it again.

Hmm I've seen this happening couple of times when using the camera view in 2D editor. I thought that it might be related to only that but now you said that, the issue might be the same.But this issue might be better in some other topic.