SandboxPlaya

Any word on DX12 support for Arma 3? It should help with this: http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/ARMA%20III%20Alpha/test/arma%203%20proz%20amd.jpg (120 kB) Look how awful core utilization the FX8 gets compared to that Phenom!! In theory, the FX8 should be comparable to Sandy Bridge.

Hello, I bought the ARMA 3 supporter edition during the alpha, but haven't had a chance to play it on my own PC (only occasionally at work on a CAD workstation :P and my friend's gaming notebook) because my PC is 8 years old. I'd like to build a new PC, but don't want to drop too much money on it because I don't think building an expensive killer PC right now sensible as everything currently on sale is outdated tech and new more powerful hardware coming in the next 2 years (stacked GPU RAM, Intel Skylake, AMD Zen) is going to make 4K gaming viable. Hence, my budget is limited for now: AMD Athlon X4 860K (OC to 4.5 Ghz) Nvidia GTX 960 8 GB RAM Do you think this CPU will be good enough for ARMA after overclocking? Does anybody have any experience running ARMA 3 on this CPU? NOTE: I would like to play multiplayer, mostly CTI (warfare), so lots of AI and lots of players.

Normally, I'm a gameplay > graphics person, but this is just mind-boggling. There's always been multitexturing in the series and obviously the quality of textures that appear when you're close to the ground has improved tremendously in ARMA 3. However, when you're looking at the terrain from slightly further away where the close range detail samples are no longer visible, then I'm sorry, the burry base texture are all that we can see and no amount of overgrowth is going to hide the fact that the they've become catastrophically blurry and perhaps of lower resotion as well? 12 years of evolution, ladies and gentlemen: Operation Flashpoin: Cold War Crisis a.k.a ARMA: Cold War Assault ARMA3 click images for high-res versions On average, our PC's have got 50 times more RAM than they had in 2001. So why do we textures like this in ARMA 3? So the questiong shouldn't be "Why are the base textures not on par with OF:CWC?", it should be "Why aren't the base textures many times better than in OF:CWC?" What's the deal with it? And can something be done about it at this point?

Is this even legal?

Ok, you guys are insane. In urban areas, I spray people down over medium ranges with ease and I do it more often than it should be done. If there's one thing ARMA 3 needs to have less of, it's spraying. Not the other way around.

He leans forward to press against the recoil with his body mass. In other words, he is trying hard to control it. You can't expect a gun to stay flat like that in the game without any input from your mouse at all. For another thing, shooting range is a different scenario. In combat, you're usually exhausted and can't afford to be in perfect-to-counter-recoil stance like that, exposing yourself to enemy fire. You want to see some real combat footage recoil? Check this one out: And that's 5.56mm

But it's quite controlable in ARMA 3, you just need to put some effort into manhandling it. Don't forget that it appears magnified when you zoom in. Full-auto isn't meant to be accurate over long distances.

Recoil overdone? Then why do realism modes like ACE always add more of it?

No, I'm totally aware of that. The thing is, with today's tech, you can do more repeating samples of wider variety and bigger size than in the past, so it shouldn't be all that apparent. Perhaps there should be 3 layers of textures, close-medium distance drawing repeating base texture samples like OFP and and sat mask only kicking from higher altitudes? Making transitions fluid would be tricky, though. That's not what I said or implied at any point. I think the problem with using sat mask isn't long distance at all. Stratis looks great from high altitude. Point blank texture quality is excellent as well. The problematic range is just close to medium distance where the base texture simply lacks detail (approximately 10-150 meters,).

It's an offial BI Arma 3 image. And the reason I posted it instead of PrtScr'ing my own is so that people wouldn't question if I had everything maxed out.

I'm getting tired of games where vehicles have health bars (like it's some kind of mmo or somethig), especially when there's no further sophistication on top of that. Usually (for example on tanks) you get some side/rear armour damage modfiers and that's about it. Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis (also known as Arma: Cold War Assault) had a pretty decent damage model for its time. You could blow tyres on any wheeled vehicle and all AFV's had separate hp for hull, tracks, turrets, main guns and most of them could even be disabled. But while all of that was considered to be good enough in 2001, it is not so great 12 years later. Personally, I'd like to see big improvements in this area. As for AFV's, I think the idea of having one overall health for the vehicle should be eliminated completely that should be broken down to multiple parts which should not represent the overal operating state of a vehicle. All vehicles should have more pieces of equipment with multiple levels of damage affecting their performance as well as the overall performance of a vehicle. (e.g. external equipment - optics, active defense systems, ERA; internal equipment - engine, hydraulics, ammo storage, fire control systems) This brings me onto another point and that would be ballistics. The game should simulate realistic hull penetration depending on the projectile energy (be it HE or KE), angle, hull thickness / integrity, determine remaining projectile energy after penetration and apply it to the equipment in the way (or crew). The only way to destroy a completely destroy an AFV without destroying all its parts individually would be to ignite its fuel tank or cause a catastrophic internal ammunition destruction. The damage model of aircraft has always been severely underdeveloped in the series. Taking down a helicopter a helicoper should be accomplished through damaging its rotors, flight control systems, turbines, killing the crew and so on. As for fixed wing aircraft, I think it's totally reasonable to expect the same levels of fidelity IL-2 Sturmovik had in 2001. I'd like to mention Iron Front: Liberation 1944 which improves upon ARMA II AFV's damage model quite a lot. Even modern real time strategies have sophisticated damage systems. For example, the following list of equipment malfunctions is from Wargame: Airland Battle: Because of the different nature of ARMA, (1st/3rd person shooter tend to be more detailed) I'd expect Arma 3 to do better than that^^. Please post further suggestions on the subject.

weaponmodelcollisionwithobjects 0

I'm an experienced Battlefield (and sandbox in general) gamer who knows where the standards have been set in the past and that dogsh*t called "Battlefield 3", you're preaching, isn't up to them. Still, I'd like you to elaborate on how BF3 movement is more fluid than Arma2.

So fast movement + having a massive gun swaying in your FOV while sprinting and displaying some fancy animation of your legs when vaulting over obstacles (despite vaulting itself is pretty clunky) is considered the best/fluid movement now? What the hell am I reading? Best Sound? What about it? It's just good, nothing more. BF2 mods did a far better job, even BF2 itself. Animations? Again, what? They're by far the worst of any game ever released recently. Changing posture on the move makes the characters look like seals. 3rd person recoil animations look too busy, CoD-like and totally do not representing the 1st person ones. Having only one 3rd person reload animation for all weapons regardless of their actual reload time is an extremely lazy piss poor job by DICE. Furthermore, 3rd person models aren't tailored to 1st person vertical axis positioning at all. What a fail! Battlefield 3 also has the worst netcode, visual art direction, vehicular gameplay and gunplay of any game ever made. But that's a topic for another day.

It's just an illusion. BF3 is a pile of rotten garbage. Apparently you don't have enough experience with fps. There is nothing wrong with ARMA2 movement apart from not being able to interrupt certain actions like walking over obstacles, weapon/binocs switching, etc. Oh please! BF2 animations were better even without that.

Let's try space combat with everything it can possibly have - large capital ships with dozens of usable positions ("Man your stations!"), smaller capital ships(cruisers, battlecruisers, gunboats, gunships), fighters, bombers and boarding vessels (to transport marines to enemy capital ships in order to try and take over them)... ...plus, having ground battles raging on the planetary surface below this mess^^. Both teams fighting for available resources and using them to build powerful planetary weapons (missile silos, maybe some energy cannons) in an attempt to target and destroy enemy capital ships on the orbit, thus influencing the output of battle, vehicle&equipment-manufacturing buildings, power plants, defensive turrets and so on.

And that makes SuperOverpowered in multiplayer. Also, its 100% perfect shoulder-fired accuracy turning it into a great CQB shotgun makes everything exponentially worse. Sniper rifles shouldn't have a crosshair at all IMO.

I stopped reading there. Go back to BF3, please.

*I mean "unaimed shoulder firing" Personally, this has always been bugging me in Arma/OP:CWC. I'm not a "realism geek", but I think we can all agree that this feature is not realistic so we've got that backed up. No, the reason why I don't like it is because it heavily impacts the balance in PvP multiplayer modes. For instance, in an urban environemnt, I can run around with A .50 Barret sniper rifle and blast people from the hip at close range, I experienced situations where I was able to outgun players using sub-machine guns in a direct confrontation, they got a couple of shots on me, hurt me, but I survived, the same can't be said about my .50 bullets which knocked them down instantly. I hate to say this, but this is one of the things which mainstream games do better(no crosshair, deviation). For the sake of roleplaying, at least sniper rifles should have no crosshair when not aiming. I believe it's common sense that when you pick a long-range weapon, you should be effective at long range and this feature allows you to be effective everywhere. There are some other reasons why I consider it to be out of place too. What's your take on this issue? EDIT: Some people are still not getting the point. I don't care whether it's shoulder firing or hip firing. The thing is, scoped weapons dominate in ARMA as they are because of huge maps and very long line of sights. Scoped weapons are powerful as they are, there's hardly ever a situation when iron sights and aim points come to their own. And yet, this mechanics makes things easier for them even more. As a result, when people are choosing their loadouts, everybody goes for some sort of magnification, be it a sniper rifle or an assault rifle with an Acog. And even if you choose a loadout like this, your CQB abilities don't get compromised. You just aren't at any sort of disadvantage against weapons not having any scopes on them when you enter a CQB engagement mainly because everything can shoot accurately without aiming. And that's wrong. Specalisations matter. When choosing your loadout, you should be forced to choose the right kit for the job you're about to do. Scoped weapons shouldn't be the ultimate GO-2 choice no matter what. There shouldn't be any jack-of-all-traders, master-of-them-all option. Now, I'm not saying that crosshairs should be removed from all weapons by default, it doesn't change a lot if weapons with iron sights have them or not. But there's just no justification for scoped weapons to come with crosshairs. Simply put: Urban area ahead? Use a gun with iron sights or aiming recticles. Large open area ahead? Use optics. ^^ that's the philosophy I'm after and it's not the case in Arma1&2, scoped weapons > ALL, no matter what situation. As for this being a server option, there are way too many. I don't think that most server owners even realise how much of a problem this is. IMO they should be able to choose whether weapons without optics have or have no crosshair. Scoped weapons should never be allowed to have one, though.

I believe there should be mobile spawn points deployed by vehicles or team leaders like rally points in Project Reality. While travelling in Arma is enjoyable, repetitive travelling after getting killed over and over is what creates frustration and makes it boring.

You guys make it look as if I was asking for help. Whether this is hip-firing or shoulder-firing isn't important here. OP edited to clear some things up.

You guys are telling me no news. The thing is, most servers have it on so you don't get much to choose from. Therefore, don't you think it should be off by default? As it's rather gamebreaking.

That's something you can barely ever affect so shouldn't it be standard?

Haven't you guys seen this?