dnk

It takes more than 1 month to solve this issue? Impossible. All things can be solved in 3 days if enough people complain about it.

Yeah, I'm going to be testing that out with AiA today probably. I will expect a much more "optimized" experience.@ white, Insanatrix This is not how it's running on my CPU throughout many tests. All 4 of my cores usually get an equal load. Although there is almost certainly some "waiting" issue, I clearly am not seeing it as being an issue with "1 thread ties up 1 core" since none of my cores regularly goes much above 50% and I still get clear CPU-lag with high AI counts doing heavy pathfinding.

Of course, I fully support both approaches that Old_Painless has brought up. These are two very doable solutions that need to be attempted. The old "sinking soldiers" is such a 90s solution, and that NK logic map thing would just make the game's true graphical highlight (massive, gorgeous terrains with huge viewdistances) all the better. Focus on your strong points and try to fix up your weakest ones, I say.

Basically. It doesn't run THAT much worse than OA, despite having more complex scenes, much improved graphics, and at least somewhat improved AI. Given how A2 was at launch, this is just fantastic for low to mid-end hardware. Seems like some mid- to high-end users are having issues with underperformance, and that's where the complaining is coming from mostly.

Quick, everyone jump on his Twitter feed and give him attention!

2-4 cores is what the game currently works well with - 6/8 should be fine, but don't expect extra performance from the extra cores. GHz will be important, so aim for 3GHz+. A newer i5/i7 would be best. AMDs supposedly have more issues than Intels. The devs may hammer out some of the thread issues by final release, though, so by then the 6/8 cores might be of more use. Probably a 4-core will suit you well enough anyway if it's fairly new and fast enough. I'm using a 3350P, and it runs fine CPU-wise (usually around 50%), though the GPU is another story... That i5 is a really good budget buy if you have a dedicated GPU, which I assume you do, and it can be upgraded to a better Ivy down the road, too, if in a couple years you find it wanting.

As has been stated, a significantly faster sprint (and proper animation) with shortened sprint durations would be the absolute ideal.

To be fair to blindfiring, I've seen at least 1 video of US soldiers (seemed like a full squad) doing it in a 150m+ engagement in Afghanistan. Didn't look terribly accurate/effective, but it was used. Still don't think it belongs in the game, but clearly it happens.

This points to what me and Insanitrix have been saying: AI routines are stalling DX output from the simulation on the CPU, and heavy streaming latency is stalling the GPU on the other end of the pipeline (perhaps also for the CPU). He explained that in effect your 6-core only has 3-core architecture with 6 processing units basically, and it's being bottlenecked because of it. He did a fairly good job of it imo, so you shouldn't just toss it out as "technical mumbo-jumbo". Here's the Tom's article on Bulldozer: LINKFrom that: "The decision to share only bites you in the butt when both threads need the same resources, at which point performance drops relative to chip-level multiprocessing. But AMD is optimistic: last August, when it started releasing architectural details at the Hot Chips conference, it estimated that a Bulldozer module could average 80% of two complete cores...." That's the company's statement on it. Your CPU is using a Piledriver architecture, which is basically a cleaned-up Bulldozer - the same issues will apply, just less so. It does well with heavily multithreaded tasks, but if there's a single thread that could hold things up, this architecture will feel it a good bit more than an Intel one, especially if it revolves around memory bandwidth or cache latency, which in a game with so much streaming and data going in and out is likely to be a big issue. Sorry for being technical about a technical problem. Other games don't suffer CPU bottlenecks like Arma does, for whatever reasons, so it's reasonable that your architecture wouldn't cause significant issues with them. Generally, CPUs are not as important for FPS games; this is one of the exceptions. I have - #1116, AI pathfinding is a huge issue. It can be more than one thing... AI pathfinding clearly is a huge issue. So is data streaming for highly complex scenes. You can have issues without AI, but AI will make it worse regardless. Otherwise, we agree For models/textures or for AI missions? For the latter, it could obviously be thread holdups that get cleared faster by faster clock cycles; the former would be a bit more difficult to explain by CPU speeds.

Well, I'm only aware of a single soundmod that's in its infancy. There are 2 specific forums for A3-specific addons...

Chammy's JSRS ACEX SM HiFi RWS

They clearly have noise textures applied in NK's picture and in other midrange texture replacement mods (which has been a major complaint of them, which NK is trying to correct). You should really work on your discussion skills, since I think this is the 3rd thread in a row I've responded to where you've managed to troll/annoy someone with an unnecessarily inflammatory remark (me this time: complaining to complain).

Because much of the community doesn't want them included? Because many play this series specifically for its realism (as they see it) and not because it's a BF3/COD copy with larger maps? Is this a new fallacy, the ad hollywoodem?Seamus (poorly) makes a good point that they have more important features to implement that are still unimplemented or undeveloped (bipod resting, the climbing anims), and these would add more to gameplay than an outright (and almost totally useless) jump. Really, with full gear and 40+ lbs of crap on, how far can someone realistically jump? A few feet? When are we ever going to use this feature? Look at Stratis - where can you use it? Cite even 3 example situations, and I might reconsider. Climbing up/over medium height obstacles, straddling over low obstactles, and perhaps a "climb down" anim for dropping down a level (compared to just falling in a standing anim) are all we really need, I think. Another thing I would like is a "slide to prone" anim (think baseball + switch to forward prone), which at least I use frequently in paintball/airsoft, and I think is again more commonly used than actual jumping in real combat (though I wouldn't know).

I'd say the margin of error is pretty close to the actual differences, and no one's going to notice a 5% change in either direction, so being super accurate is pointless.

Basically, it seems to be due to AI pathfinding. I've done testing on the AI in missions, and that seems to be it, though it's difficult to be 100% on this. Post is HEREFeedback ticket HERE I'd say drop your VD down to the 300-500m that's the norm in FPS games, but that's impossible with the settings being low-capped at 600m. Is it due to your CPU or GPU? Yeah, the CPU might be going down, but is the GPU staying at 100%? What about the memory controller on the GPU? I've noticed that with my older GPU, that complex scenes cause FPS reduction due to the memory controller being underutilized, not due to the GPU core being underutilized. This may be due to the VRAM needing to stream large amounts of texture/model data from RAM (possibly disk given how much gets streamed from there, including plant/building files throughout gameplay), which causes high latency and reduced FPS despite the core running at 100%. Even if you could occlude large portions of the scene from needing to be rendered with advanced occlusion technologies, the GPU would still need to be streaming in a ton of data in complex scenes, making this a major performance killer. Post HEREThe biggest issue for VR4/A3's engine can be summed up thusly, I think: poor utilization of modern, 64-bit physical RAM resources, both system and graphics. But I'm not a computer/software engineer, so take that with a few pinches of salt. This limitation can be reduced by increasing your FOV, as the engine dynamically alters LODs/(mipmaps?) based not only on distance but FOV as well. Lower-res models/textures should make the loads faster and allow more to be held long-term in system RAM, requiring fewer disk reads. Well, I think "it's an alpha" needs to be included here. These sorts of graphical polishings aren't likely to get implemented before final release. Quoted so it doesn't get drowned out in the rest of this.

I did a vid comparison earlier. The results were: Crouch: 4% faster in A3 Run: 5% slower in A3 Tactical Pace: 30% slower in A3 Sprint: 5% faster in A3

1. Many of the texturing looks too noisy still. You really should consider nothing for certain ground types. It really is better sometimes (smooth dirt, concrete, asphalt should be pretty smooth at a distance). 2. Is there any way to get bump/displacement implemented to add to the sense of terrain depth/detail?

Went to paintball yesterday. I know it's not real combat by any means, but I'll just say this and assume it to be far more true when dealing with lead: Suppression was much stronger for me and others than in ACE2, despite the fact that there were fewer "gameplay" consequences. I mean, in ACE2, getting hit can easily mean 3-4 minutes out of action, plus shaky aim or the loss of your legs for an additional 3-4 mins while waiting for a corpsman; in this paintball game, it meant a 1 min turnaround for "respawning" and nothing else but some mild pain/bleeding. I'd say that when being suppressed it was hard to lay down accurate return fire, and usually I and most others would just hold behind cover until a few seconds after the shots stopped. If I were to return fire, it'd be with a poor sight picture and erratic, as I was less focused on getting a hit and less willing to put my body into a position where I could comfortably aim controlled shots, and more about suppressing the suppressor. How much that relates to real combat is not something I would know, but just saying: it's a stronger effect than in Arma, not just for me, but based on how other players were acting in the pb match and how other players normally act in ACE2 A2 when under fairly accurate fire (usually, don't move much, just start shooting back since only VERY close impacts have any real effect). And, yeah, this conforms to prior pb experiences too, so it just wasn't one group of turtles or something.

MSI Afterburner also lets you set FPS limits.

imo, need to work on increasing reverb and decreasing bass on the first one.

To be fair, the graphics are bad but the landscapes/feel are realistic. But there's a lot of eye candy that's missing that's been in games for years. God rays and volumetric lighting being one, good FX including spatial distortion, shockwaves, volumetric smoke and explosions, and good particle systems being another (even BlastCore wasn't that good, though it was a considerable improvement from vanilla A2/OA). As much as A3 looks better than A2, it's still a good ways behind games released at the time of A2 in terms of graphics being used. The visuals are still nice due to viewdistances, a much improved natural lighting/fog system, and nice terrains, and they get model lighting right, but all that extra candy is sorely missing. And, yeah, vegetation needs a big upgrade .

I did a video comparison, and the job/sprint/etc speeds were nearly 1:1 with OA. The only difference was that the tactical pace was much faster in OA. Silly for them to go through the process of altering it to something slower than OA, since it never felt off in that game.

Probably why they've offered the Alpha deal, to quickly capitalize on the DayZ boost of popularity before it died out. I imagine the reduced pricing was to further entice all the new players into buying it ahead of time, figuring they'd make more off of those guaranteed (and non-refundable) sales than they'd lose from their core "must buy" gamers, who now get it half-price. Right, because A3 wasn't announced over a year before DayZ went into development. A2 sold so poorly they didn't even release a full expansion or 3 DLCs... Thanks to DayZ the franchise has been saved from termination... /s

The bolded sounds good, but might be campaign-breaking - I didn't read the TLDR rest :)

Personally, I prefer a luma sharp filter, though not the FXAA one for some reason. A good luma sharpness increase really brings out highlights on objects/buildings that add an increased sense of dynamic range and realism to the picture that are lacking in the fairly dull, low contrast rendering of OA.Also, the various FXAA settings all have the same effect - low/ultra are the same, but it might be my old card (GTS 250 on W7, drivers are new).