tremanarch

I want exactly these machines!! what are their showcase specs?

wow it runs so smooooooth :) hmmmm yammy

Any news on streams or interviews?

interesting yett, I didnt know this... I just guess the Devs have their reasons for their implementation of certain things...

If ArmA III is as optimized as ArmA II is now, I am very happy! but memory isnt really the problem here... I would like an option to load everything into ram before playing, even if it takes 5 minutes and takes 8 GB, but after this nothing would be needed.. Could be an option... So I could start maps and missions without loading ^^

but ArmA clearly renders only what you see. Because when I move my view the frames get higher or lower.. just look in the sky and you have 200 fps cause it does not render all the rest....

I get now ~50 - 60 fps without AA when zoomed in on CHernarus.. in Takistan I am about ~80 fps.. thats is really fun to play this way... I just wished for better AA, but I only have the 560 TI - will definately upgrade to a 670 or 680 try these Settings: http://s1.directupload.net/images/120605/miz6qbw3.jpg hoch = high sehr = very niedr.. = low

How should it be calculated then? ? Or did you mean the soldier textures or something? Maybe you should watch the quakecon video I posted first!

My knowledge is based off a conference from the Doom Developer (just forgot the name, the one with the red hair: edit: John Carmack). There he went into details why consoles work so different and what they do to optimise etc. I guess it was this Video: It is not the same to optimise a game for PC or console. I guess a AAA* title is 95% optimised for consoles and only 5% of money goes into the port or sth. (just a wild guess but you get the tendency). They optimise it in other ways you may think, they use tricks etc. Just play a modern Console game (like BF3) and look good: you see most textures are quite low (lower than ArmAII) but you dont realize it when playing only when looking for it. They optimise this way players dont notice stuff. Its very complicated. They put so much money in optimising it for 512 MB millions of dollars.. you cant just scale that to a 8 GB RAM PC.. it is sth very different. It doesnt work that way. There is no: Optimised and unoptimised Game. There is a game optimised for console or optimised for PC or optimised for X MB of RAM etc.. It doesnt make sense to optimise it just for 4 GB of RAM when porting to a PC, cause there are very many different PC configurations out there. And clearly Developers like BIS dont have millions of dollars just to optimise their game, this money is needed for the game itself. Only triple A titles get that kind of optimisation. The most money of todays triple A titles goes into this optimisation. It is not like a weekend with 4 Devs or sth. It is like: this is the real Development nowadays. The rest: Story setting etc this is the minor part who can be done in 4 weeks by 5 people... People just dont realize this..

Okay I tweeted to the Games magazines I know good :)

So how does this work? Do we search the inet for ArmA 3 related E3 infos? Or does someone knows someone .. who has a stream or post pictures? just curious. thx in advance!

definately looking forward to this moment!!!!

I am looking forward to the new setting: Hot Summer, dry dusty roads, cold clear nights.. Oohh I am really beginning to like that. The next Setting could maybe be a jungle -- like Vietnam Setting, that I havent seen in any Arma Game. (Maybe to complex and performance hungry with all that plants.. they need a trick to do this..)

Most games you play are console ports. they are optmised to run that way. arma 2 is a pc game - thats sth. completely different. try anno series for example or other pc games. frames are dropping faster there. they dont cut everything down for a 512 MB xbox console in pc games. but these tricks like very optimised textures you think are 3d but arent and such stuff, is expensive in manhours. look at BF3, this runs on a 512 MB crap console.. with their optimisations they could maybe run quarter of chernarus map in BF3 graphic for PC's, but they didnt.. or the scaling is just that bad. you cant compare arma to any other game, cause no other game has such a big map. And I must say I like the arma 2 graphic more than BF3, and I think it looks better! (it just lacks some ground objects and little physx Effect to be fully rival of BF3-ish graphics , but then it would easily beat BF3 to the ground.. DOnt get me wrong I also liked BF3 a lot..) pc games are often sandbox like, simulation like. the dont are a narrow corridor where every designer could make it to ~60fps... in pc games unexpectet stuff happens etc..

I had to pause BF3 for 2 moths.. it was too boring. Tried to play some gulf of oman rounds yesterday and couldnt do it. Too freakin small. And the Graphics just isnt soo good like I remeber them... Really sad.

will buy it!!!!! edit: preordered already hehe WHat else could I do? An Addon for my favorite game? Must buy

thx for the detailed reply got me thinking. I use a 2500K running at 4.5 GHZ and a GTX560TI also ~10% Overclocked, 8 GB Ram (is enough I guess). My Windows is streamlined, so I guess plenty of ressources for Arma. I am just curious what is better for improving frames., I guess it is the VGA like in every game? but then there is all that AI Stuff going on, so I asked this here. ArmA is literally the last true really true PC Game out there, so it could be that it needs a good - a real good CPU I guess.. for about ~ 400$ I can double my VGA Performance or increase 80% on my CPU Performance, what did you do? As it stands now I will maybe buy a 680 or 670 for ArmA III... or should I go for a new 2011 CPU? for every other game out on the market I would blindly go for the 680.. but ArmA? I am not sure... # but when I buy a new 680 / 670 I can dedicate the old 560 for Physx maybe...

great work on the transition! WOW!!

football we say in germany too but in english its soccer? dunno EM is german too, didnt know how to translate it. it stands roughly for European Mastership..

What do you guys think has more impact on FPS in ArmA III based on your knowledge on ArmA II: CPU or GFX?

yes, but i dont know whats more important: 8 cores or a gtx 680...

nice one... ArmA III will BLAST its way Through all those magazines :)

i dont think so with many people having onboard sound and a USB headset... that makes 2 sound devices already... and with some onboard soundcards you have 4 channels also.. that would make 3 stereo channels.. and many people have already a gaming soundcard so in reality most gamers have already 4 mono or 2 stereo channels they can use.. I guess most of you have 6 or 8 channels but not knowing it I guess. (And sometimes the Device SW forbid it to use them separately)

the only thing that would do good in ArmA would be an Idiots Tutorial. for real idiots really. And this is not meant to punish or sth. the new dayz and cod crowd. I was once also an idiot years ago, and I bite myself through, but I had been so happy for an idiots guide ^^ and when we startet learning with OFP it wasnt all so complicated. Imagine how ppl feel like when they buy arma II as their first tactical shooter what they feel like! and even ofp wasnt so hard, cause i was an experienced rainbow six player who was used to think before shoot gameplay all the way.. we had so much good pc games in 1998 - 2002 the ppl of today only know run and gun. give them some time.

"in the old rainbow / ghost recon games, where your view moves fast but it takes a while for the weapon to get on target." this I would like to have..