Covert_Death

???? no its not lol! our hardware is barely ever enough to keep up with the ArmA series and a performance hit like that that adds NO noticeable improvement or value to the game is just dumb. our hardware would be enough if this were COD or BF3 but its not and EVERY single FPS counts and only valueable or noticable things should be added if they take away from our FPS. ya'll are crazy haahah!!! you say it ads to realism but this is something that no one would even NOTICE. it would be in the notes somewhere that "the map is curved" and you would be all excited and happy but wouldn't notice a damn thing. you guys realize the horizon is really only noticeable at sea and in this game we will not be a sea, we will be at MOST a few miles off shore. nobody walks around IRL noticing the curvature of the earth and no one is going to notice it in game. hell it took humanity up until recently in our existence to even REALIZE the earth was curved. and to the fisheye suggestion. no because if you increase fisheye lense with height EVERYTHING will be affected, not just the earth, if a plane is flying at you and your both 30k feet up, your both gonna look really fuked up to eachother... NO NO NO LOOK if curvature is important to you, you must realize this... the ONLYYYYY way you would EVERRRRR notice the horizon would be out on sea in this game. and i don't think you will be looking 20km out to sea, from sea. thats just stupid. the terrain of the island is so varied with mountains and huge hills that the horizon is pointless. you WILL see something in your sight line before you see the horizon on this map. and to whoever said this adds to immersion please think about what your saying. it would actually take away from immersion by eating my FPS. the smoother the footage on my screen the more realistic it feels, you can add immersion but if it ends up eating 5-10 FPS overall its going to look MUCH less immersive. now. can we agree this idea is pointless???????

i just don't see the point for them to do it... now if they made the entire earth, then yes that way i could fly a jet all the way around the world and end up in the same spot, but i just don't see the logic in spending time and resources into "curving" the map when they could spend their time adding noticeable features. lets face it. NOBODY is going to notice weather the map is curved or flat, hell i look out my windows right now and the earth seems pretty flat from my perspective (obviously its not). it won't affect battle at all and no one is going to realize while running around " hey thats awesome the map is actually curved" ... they are going to instead focus on shooting the guy that is a couple hundred meters away who will be at the same elevation regardless if the map is curved or not

i think something ( a boat) that is, ohhhhh 100km out, would be a little too small to see on a monitor anyway i mean yea it would be cool but i think that would take WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much time to develop when they could just as easily set a 10k view distance and not worry about it at all

you know i was thinking and i think it would be VERRRRRY interesting to have civilians in the game, and if they are then also introduce terrorists. if would be pretty insane if you clearing a village and find 4 civi's, you job to protect them but once then get behind you you discover one is a terrorist and blows up a portion of your squad

as far as ArmA is concerned SSD's are a lot better because a lot of the information is kept on the Storage drive and NOT moved to the RAM, things like textures have to load from storage and an SSD is just blazing fast compared to a HDD... if you have arma2 and are running on a HDD, then go into a forest and spin around quickly, it will lag like nobodies ever seen but if you have an SSD it is drastically better

there IS ethical warfare... killing someone is FACTORS more ethical than using dirty bombs that kill people slowly and painfully over long periods of time... to say that killing with bullets is just as unethical as dropping a dirty bomb that radiates people to death over a period of days is just dumb. if we are on this subject though i think as far as weapons that could appear in game, i agree with the original post along the lines of dirty gas bombs that would introduce gas masks and such... lets have mustard gas for the OP For and if you get hit with it your character quickly looses vision to a very blurred state and movement is quickly impaired, still able to shoot though although not accurately and if not healed by a medic in .... say 5 minutes or so.... then they die

not sure which launcher you are referring too but "Play withSIX" the latest version of six launcher, is an AMAZINGLY simple launcher. you click the game, it gives you a list of mods, you click install on the ones you want and thats it, then from there you can click "Play" on the MODs you want to play and it will launch the game with that mod

ran perfect maxed out with GTX 460 in SLI. its not that high-end of a game. it has a great engine in it because it has to run on consoles as well. it doesn't mean much when you compare it to the arma series. like i said, GTX460 in SLI had bf3 set to ultra with 60+fps average. now with my gtx 670 arma2 still struggles to keep above 30-40. arma is a more demanding game for the PC than bf3 is, its just that simple, it's not designed to run on consoles and the scale just isn't even comparable to bf3.

probably a 680 SLI with a 3770k or something stupid.... and an SSD if past ARMA is any hint, thats a lot of texture to load and arma loads it off the HDD so make SURE you have an SSD if you even think about triple monitor

yes it is a difficult process to do BUT it is necessary at this day and age. 4 core CPU is the AVERAGE nowadays for gaming rigs, with 6-8 being the norm in the very near future. we have gotten to a point in time where we have maxed out what a core can do so we add more to get that added horsepower. its hard yes but its mandatory that companies work WITH these multi-core CPU's and code so that all of them can be used. its just a part of staying relevant and sticking with the times, its not always the easiest thing to do but it is necessary

why honor the arma X owners??? Ive got every arma release since release day except arma X because.... i don't need it, if they are going to praise any previous purchased titles the only one it shouldn't be is arma x

when i had both of my GTX 460's in SLI arma2 and OA ran perfectly fine... in my opinion though your always better off going with a single card, it will work GUARANTEED with every game out there AND it gives you upgrade options in the future... in my case i just got a single 670 and that will be enough for now but in time when i need an upgrade all i need to do is buy another 670 to ADD to my performance instead of completely replacing my GPU system because it was capped out in SLI from day 1 of purchase. get this single card in my opinion

a "soldiers survival pack" would be kinda cool... include a map/compass/ and custom cantina ..... I would buy this package without hesitation

here you go, hope this helps. i built TWO builds for you, one AMD the other Intel. both have great parts in them without cutting corners and hit just under $1k AMD: http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=28130948 Intel: http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=28130928 the biggest difference in my PERSONAL opinion is the AMD has a better upgrade path for you, its a stronger MotherBoard (990FX so you have SLI options and better futurability with it) and the socket AM3+ will be supported for a few more generations so you can upgrade the CPU in a few years without having to buy another mother board. the Intel board on the other hand hits the same price but is pretty much the end of the line as far as chip upgrades. you can through a better chip of the same family (i5 gen 3) in there but you wont have the option of throwing a newer chip in there in the future. If i were buying a build for 1k TODAY, i would buy the AMD build up i posted. the intel build is a LITTLE bit stronger RIGHT NOW, but the AMD has greater potential for less upgrade cost down the road. take a look and let me know what you think!

your build looks pretty solid but without knowing your budget its hard to suggest changes... my recomendations for sprucing things up are in order below 1. Graphics: look at a 560 Ti at the minimum, preferably a 660 Ti if you can 2. possibly look at the motherboard too, a 970 is nice but if your slapping a 8150 in there and plan on ever OCing it, look at a 990FX board instead 3. Hard Drive - just a suggestion, if you know your NOT going to fill up 1TB, i recommend looking into a 64Gb -128Gb SSD for a boot Drive then get a 500-750Gb HDD for mass storage 4. the power supply you have is in the right range for Wattage but, at least for me, the PSU is the #1 component NOT to skimp on. If i were you i would look at this 650w http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139020 or this 750w by Corsair: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139040 again these are just suggestions that I produced off the top of my head with no knowledge of your budget or anything... if you want, throw us a $$ amount and I'm sure we could come up with some alternate builds / better parts suggestions!!!!

as far as what you can get now yes, that card should do fine! i have a 670 and have no doubt it will handle arma3... just don't go in expecting to throw "ultra" settings at it, no computer for the next few years will be able to handle that if its anything like arma2. you have a great card there lol not sure why your even asking

really?! i thought the GC previews was beautiful compared to anything on arma2 especially

my thoughts exactly... for the most part the x4 955 is fine in arma2, but there are a few campaign missions where it struggles to keep up and my FPS drop to the 20's...

I just ordered at GTX670 to replace a 460 SLI setup. hoping that this will be enough. my CPU is a Phenom II x4 @ 4.0 Ghz, my hope is with all the "optimization" speak, that this will be enough... holding out until at least community alpha to see whether this needs an upgrade too. anyone have any opinions to offer on my situation???

play for a day and decide whether or not I need to upgrade my PII x4 955 @4.0Ghz to a piledriver CPU (praying my upgrade to a 670 will be enough for this "optimized" game though) and if so buy one

I like the idea of having some suppression feature when being shot at. mentioned earlier in the thread someone said when they were under fire in RL they had "tunnel vision" this is true even in paintball or airsoft. when under fire your eyes focus in the center and your senses ignore what is around you as you focus on what is firing at you. I would propose the game have these features for sound and sight. when you are being suppressed it would make sense for your vision to tunnel, just make a circle and blur out the outside (similar to how NV works) as for sound I am sure there would be a way to heighten the sound that is in the direction of where your character is looking while at the same time greatly reducing the sound to your sides and behind you. i think this would make for a more realistic scenario. how many times have we seen in war movies the soldier comes under fire, everything else goes quiet as his focus is solely on the shooter??? just something to think about

Way too much misinformation going on here. 1. i5 vs i7 is going to make NO difference in arma3, hyperthreading will not be used therefore your i7 turns into its equivalent i5, so if your going intel, get i5 and save your money for the GPU. 2. an AMD CPU would be fine, i have a 955 OC'd to 4.1Ghz and it blazes A2 at 40fps with an SLI gtx460 setup. if you have the money an intel would be BETTER but and AMD (not bulldozer for christ sake) will do the job just fine, especially a 6 core (which core per core is the exact same as a 4 core so all this 6 cores is slower cause it can't use all 6 is just you people talking out your a$$) 3. GPU, get an Nvidia, driver support is far superior, i would suggest a 560Ti MINIMUM for a3, perhaps a 570 or a 660Ti depending on price when they release. my overall suggestion, wait until a3 is closer. there are a lot of changes coming fairly soon. for starters the new nvidia GPU's will be out soon and you will kick yourself when they do even if you buy a 5 series because those prices will drop the day the 6's release. Second is the AMD piledriver CPU's are supposed to be out before A3, don't hold your breathe, but there is a chance they COULD be a good CPU for the money and you may want to drop on that. bottom line just wait, unless you absolutely HAVE to build it right now, in which case just do your homework and pick wisely, you shouldn't go wrong with this information.

okay so now i become even more confused... i have ran the benchmark test using the EXACT settings you told, EXCEPT i used 1680x1050 resolution since it is my monitors native. these are the test that i ran: ( i used fraps to watch for max and min FPS values but am reporting the AVG FPS as what the game told me) Benchmark 01: AVG FPS = 53 with a min of 39 and a max of 95 Benchmark 02: AVG FPS = 20 with a min of 12 and a max of 28 Benchmark 08: AVG FPS = 66 with a min of 40 and a max of 90 these results are way better than what i am seeing in campaign... now what in the world could be going on?!?! in campaign after changing to these settings and AFTER these benchmarks i am STILL unable to break 30. i am able to crank up my graphics and keep the SAME FPS. i turned AA on 4x and objects to high as well as pp to normal and view distance to 2500. my GPU usage shoots up to 95-98% when in contact with the enemy but still stays at a steady 25-28FPS... what does this mean??? now the thing that makes the LEAST amount of sense to me, when im sitting at the menu and the camera is panning across the terrain and buildings and animals, my GPU usage shoots up to 100% and i get 80FPS... why do i get such good preformance at the main menu and WHY does my GPU remain at only half use when im running around in campaign? when i do the armory i get great FPS as well. ~75-80... as you can tell im very frustrated haha

not sure how to do this benchmarck thing, i will post back if i figure it out

im just going to add to the frustrated list here lol... someone PLEASE tell me how to get better preformance. my system: CPU: AMD PhenomII x4 955 3.2Ghz (OC'd to 3.5Ghz) RAM: 6Gb DDR3 @ 1600 9-9-9-24 GPU: GTX 460 (800, 1600, 2000) = (core, shader, memory) HDD: 500Gb @7200rpm MoBo: Asus 870 i have all settings on NORMAL except for video memory = high and AA = OFF, my view distance is 2500 and im running a resolution of 1680x1050. i am only gettings 25-30 FPS MAX. i know i should be getting better preformance than this but am not sure what i am doing wrong. any advice is greatly one thing i notice is that looking at EVGA precision, it tells me that my GPU is only being 50-60% used while in missions but then when i hit ESC and go to menu, the FPS shoots up to near 70 and the GPU % goes up to 97-98 on precision..... is the game just not using my GPU correctly or what? i found this very odd.