ruhtraeel

I agree with the OP here. I honestly think BI should completely stop campaign/DLC development if needed, just to fix some critical things like object collision (ie. indoors), movement, animations clipping through things, being able to switch weapons while moving (instead of requiring a mod to do it), possibly put more furniture in houses, etc.

I'd have to agree with the miltiplayer. I get near 100 percent usage in single player, but that's it. There are certain things the community can fix, such as movement, sound and animations. However, this is one of the few things thay requires the source code to fix, and yet nothing has been done.

Hi, I thought of some easy fixes for ARMA 3 that I think people would like. 1. Being able to switch weapons while moving. The heavier the weapon, the slower you move while switching. 2. Tone down the volume for breathing. IMO, it's way too loud and unrealistic right now. 3. Put furniture and stuff in buildings (even DayZ standalone has more).

My point of view Pros: +Lighting looks much better +Buildings aren't as glitchy (still have some issues though) +Aiming down sights and walking doesn't make your gun move like you have Parkinson's like it did in Arma 2 +Overall feel is better In between: Mission editor is improved, but a 3D one like promised would be nice No underground structures previously mentioned, would be a nice addition Cons: -Empty buildings -Glitchy terrain textures that warp when you walk and look at them -Shoreline water textures look cut and pasted on instead of actual water -AI is inconsistent; they are retarded but have pinpoint accuracy -Can't move while switching weapons -Incredibly loud/unrealistic breathing -Doesn't feel as authentic as Arma 2 with injuries -Less content than Arma 2 -Performance issues in multiplayer due to outdated net architecture

I agree. There are a couple of glaring issues, but the potential is there. I'd say my top list of problems right now is performance, collision detection with walls, being able to switch weapons while moving, and not having as many guns/vehicles as ARMA 2.

Hello, I thought I would give my suggestions for ARMA 3 since the Alpha. 1. I think switching weapons while moving should be implemented into the game itself, instead of being a user-made addon. Like someone else said, I think the pace could be slowed to the tactical speed while switching weapons on the move, or slower (like a crawl) for things like launchers and heavy machine guns. It feels very cumbersome and flow-breaking when you have to completely stop and wait for the animation to finish before you can do anything else. 2. The textures in general are a bit buggy. To be more specific, textures seem to warp on the ground when I walk close, and sometimes the grass doesn't exactly seem to be on the ground (sometimes, maybe due to the warping, it seems like the grass is floating). Another texture issue that I noticed was with the shoreline, like the ones in the Scuba showcase. The water that goes on shore seems to be a texture itself instead of an actual object interacting with the ground. I say this because if I go slightly underwater near the shoreline, I can see that the "water-wash-on-shore" texture extends underwater, which makes it look like a slanted piece of paper on the ground. 3. Performance still seems a bit rough. I have a decent machine, but I'm still getting sub-30 FPS sometimes. 4. Building/object movement interaction is still a bit strange. I still get stuck on walls and stuff indoors, or I won't be able to turn because I am obstructed by something. I think overall that ARMA 3 still has a ways to go in "Beta" before it is ready to be released as a full game. I think, however, that if these issues above can be resolved, this game could end up being very polished and enjoyable.

Posting here because I like Canada, and mods with Canada too I guess

I read up until page 4, skipped all the pages and went to the last page knowing that there would be an argument or two at the end. Back on the topic (at least from what I've seen), I think ARMA 3's lighting is one of it's strongest points, especially as to how dynamic and striking it is (especially at night, too!) That being said, I agree that vegetation could be improved. I think the grass looks pretty good, but the trees and the bushes do indeed look a bit weird in my opinion. Another thing (probably the biggest thing in my opinion) is the detail at farther distances. Everything seems to blend into a smooth colour with a couple of specks after a distance that is too close in my opinion. I'm not entirely sure if this is me just having my object draw distance at 1k, but stuff seems to start looking lower quality closer than that (I think) I believe it is that and the sounds that take away from my immersion in the game.

IMO a cheap decent gaming build would be like http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=7640368&CatId=5294 http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX40872 and a hard drive of your choice. Would end up being around $600 and could probably play most games maxed out or close (maybe not ARMA 3 due to engine issues)

My friend and I both have Lenovo's; I have a Y470, and he has a Y580. We both haven't had any issues with our laptops. If anything, Lenovo makes incredibly beefy Thinkpads, but that may or may not transfer over to their multimedia laptops. But at $300 cheaper, they're pretty much uncontested.

Best budget gaming laptop for under $1000 (by far): Lenovo Y580 (i7 3630QM, GTX 660M) http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX42081 Most laptops (like the ones listed above) with similar specs cost at least $300 more than that one. Best gaming laptop for slightly over $1000 MSI GX60 (A10-4600M, mediocre processor, might struggle a bit with ARMA but the Radeon 7970M would annihilate everything else) http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX42874

You would see absolutely zero improvement. Right now, from every single youtube video I've seen, everyone gets around 25-45 FPS, depending on where they are. Anything from a GTX 660, to my rig, to a GTX 680, to crossfired 7970's, to a GTX Titan, they all get the same framerates from what I've seen. Hell, I even get the exact same framerate when I'm running everything at minimum as well as everything on maximum.

Hi, I'm currently playing ARMA 2 Reinforcements, but I have low FPS when post-processing is turned to max. Without it, it runs pretty much at a constant 40+, but when maxed, it runs at maybe 15. My rig is: i5 2500k @ 3.3 ghz ATI Radeon 5870 x2 Crossfire 1GB VRAM Windows 7 Ultimate 16GB DDR3 RAM 250 + 160 GB HDD What is wrong? Thanks

PvP is already massive. Props to whoever hosts the Blitzkrieg servers, they are fun, have lots of people and run really really well. Thumbs up

Progress! I look forward to the next patch. I get decent framerates with my machine right now, but not with all servers. I'd be happy with improved performance as well as apparently the foretold improvements when dedicated servers are up?

View distance for me seems to be the only thing that actually affects my FPS. With everything maxed out and default view distance, I got around 25-35 FPS in the showcases. I tried turning everything else to minimum while playing on multiplayer, and there was no difference in FPS. After I changed the view distance to around 1500-1700, however, I pretty much never get below 30 FPS now, except for the servers that have their view distance turned really high.

It's called the diy vidock or eGPU. If your PC has an expresscard slot, you can get a pe4h and ec2c and hook it up. If not, you need to use a mini pcie slot probably on the bottom of your laptop, and get a pm3n instead of an ec2c. You are going to run into bandwidth issues. If your laptop has optimus switchable graphics, you would get a x1 2.0 connection iirc. A desktop runs at x1 16 or 8. Optimus would give you around 75 percent of the performance of a desktop, and the option to run it on your laptop's screen instead of needing an external monitor. If it doesn't have optimus, you would be running a x1 1.0 connection, giving you about 50 percent of desktop performance, and also requiring an external monitor. Or you could use 2 mpcie slots, getting x2 2.0 bandwidth, but this means sacrificing your onboard wifi card.

I get around 25-40 FPS in MP. It's tolerable purely because this isn't that much of a camera twitch reflex game, and I don't find myself turning really fast that much.

So I thought I would share my first impressions of this alpha, seeing as how I paid 33 bucks for it (I very rarely buy games that are over 30 dollars, the last one being Borderlands 2). Pros: -Amazing overall quantity of content. There is so much diversity in this game; even moreso than many "triple A" titles out there. Everything from game modes to weapon customization to vehicles to the map editor itself, anything that I could imagine in the portrayed setting is already there. -User moddability. I was just playing on two vastly different servers, one with 300m+ engagements in a valley, and another in a dark and stormy night with NV goggles and very close quarters combat. This adds to the already vast amount of content out there. -Great graphics. This really really helps the immersion for me. The realistic look really engages me into the setting, unlike the cinematic Hollywood looking games such as Battlefield 3 (although they have their place too) -Certain sounds are very satisfying to hear, especially ambient sounds. -Movement was improved SO MUCH! CQB is actually incredibly engaging now, and movement of your own character and control of your gun feels amazing, especially with the combat stance. Cons: -Performance. I get 25-40 FPS in most places, regardless of what settings I use. Hopefully this will be fixed during alpha/beta. -Water is a bit glitchy. Sometimes you can get into this weird pseudo-underwater state where the seabed below you is the same colour as the ground above water, without the blue tint. Also, your player doesn't have a swimming animation yet. You also seem to stick to rocks if you touch the top of them, as if you are briefly standing on them (maybe this was intended?) -Certain sounds are less immersive, such as some of the gun sounds. I think games like Battlefield really do this well, at least for things such as the echoes of your gun in an enclosed space. Also, it might be just me, or do your own footstep sounds seem a bit off in terms of direction? -Movement can still be a bit weird at times. Prone through doorways is still very glitchy, and you can occasionally get stuck on the odd piece of debris, but the latter is very minor and hardly noticeable. Suggestions: -Larger naval units available as well? Possibly a movable version of the ArmA 2 aircraft carrier on the intro screen, or maybe a battleship? -Community: Maybe an actual large city with streetlights/apartments/malls/skyscrapers... I'm fantasizing now. Verdict: Probably the best money for a game I've ever spent since Total Annihilation (released in 1997, got for $5 in a bargain bin at The Hudson Bay Company). There's just so much diversity and content in this game. One important point is that even though this is jam packed with content, it's not like it is rough around the edges to the point of unplayability; something ArmA 2 struggled with at times. Because the core game mechanics are all there, anything built around it is going to benefit from the existing components. It may have it's fair share of bugs (client crashing when turning towards an explosion as well as connectivity issues to servers), but I'm truly hard pressed to find legitimate criticisms about decisions made in the game's content itself. Hats off to BI for creating a shooter that has filled almost every single wish and expectation of mine, and I look forward to the finished product. I would like to hear the community's opinions so far as well. What does everyone else think/like/dislike about the game?

That's true, but it should still get pretty high. For example, I am currently compiling the entire linux 2.6 kernel with a makefile with -j 4 parameters to use all 4 cores (for an operating systems computer science course). The usage of the cpu is still 100 percent for at least one core most of the time. If the process niceness algorithm in the os is decent, we should still be seeing decent speed even with all the context switches and stuff. Unless the paging is messed up and we end up page faulting constantly and waste time looking for the page in disk, which doesn't seem to be the case because people with ssd's still get this problem. From what I read of that last paragraph, I wouldn't say that using the cpu is as simple as spawning a bunch of threads and spinning them in an infinite loop. Firstly, the os wouldn't let that one process take up all the cpu's time; it's not running a fifo process management algorithm or anything (that would be disastrous for concurrency). High cpu usage should mean that each process is running its fair share of time on the cpu, then being switched out for another process depending on its niceness value. Even with the overhead of finishing the process on the primary cpu shouldn't mean the cpu idles and it's usage tanks; it should immediately load another process in there to work on

Regardless of how it stacks up, me and a lot of people should be getting higher framerates. You can see people here with even more powerful rigs like 2 4gb version 680's who are getting similar framerates with me. I would gladly upgrade my PC once the radeon 8xxx series comes out because AMD now has a set performance to beat (gtx Titan), but if upgrading to a beast card like a lot of people have here doesn't even help the performance, I know it's not the card's fault and upgrading would be useless. This is really an amazing game as it is; it's just the performance could be better. Here's to hoping that BI can resolve these issues so that the entire community can enjoy the game.

Hi, So at 1500 view distance, other distances at default, standard SMAA, 2xAA, Post Processing at Low and with everything else maxed out I get around 30-45 FPS in the showcases. When I played multiplayer, I got around 20-25 FPS. I cranked down all the settings to as low as they would go, and I still got around 20-25 FPS. Is this game really that CPU bound? Does this give me a reason to overclock my CPU?

My GPUs are getting older, but it still should run better than how it's doing right now. Two of my GPUs runs similarly to a 7970, losing some games and winning some games.

Does your FPS also stay the same regardless of what settings you use in multiplayer? If so, then something is seriously wrong.

The performance is a bit ridiculous. I have a decent machine, and with most stuff maxed out and a 1.5k view distance, I average around 30-45 FPS in the showcases. When I play multiplayer, I get 20-25 FPS, regardless of WHATEVER settings I am using. I literally tried maxing the game out, and then putting everything to minimum, and there was almost no difference in performance at all.