PRE

Working on my PC build for Arma 3.... on the topic of SSD's Crucial M4 64gb 75.00$ 128gb 125.00$ 256gb 215.00$ Would you purchase 1 256gb SSD and put the OS and arma on that drive? Or should I get a combination of 2 SSD's, one being the 64gb drive for Arma, and another drive for the OS and other programs? Is there a benifit in having an independent drive for arma?, and is it practical to set up 2 drives in this manner, in other words how difficult is it to make this configuration- I've never had 2 HD drives. Thanks

AA3's medical system is ok. When you check a wounded soldier it will tell you his symptoms, which are 1 of 4 things, then you select the proper treatment which is also 1 of 4 things. It's pretty simplistic, but I dont mind that since the game is first and foremost a FPS. The graphics aren't really too good, and you can't see any gore or visual signs of the downed soldiers possible symptoms. I havent used ACE 2 so I can't compare. I voted yes to full gore, but on second thought, I think a realistic view of the bloody mess of a war would not be good for people to emerse themselves in. Rape and torture is part of war too, but we're not going to want it simulated in the game. I would like to see some blood or whatever, a good animation, something that looks like X player got shot, but I think x players head and guts should stay in one place.

If I have the choice I'd rather not have my game on Steam .I know it's supposed to make things easier and give you some added features, but some of the allure of pc gaming (for me anyway) is figuring it out, downloading and installing mods/patches, and- or just getting the pc game to run on my system( as most games don't ever run well on my systems first go). I guess what I'm saying is I don't want the convenience that steam supposedly gives you, I don't want another program on my computer I dont need,I don't need adds and special offers, I dont want another password to remember. Similarly I dont want an apple computer with apps that make everything easier than a pc. It seems to me I have more control and understanding of the files and folders when a game runs by itself,and I get enjoyment (for the most part) from figuring it out. I know thats because I just dont know enough about how steam is organized in my files, but Why do I need steam? For the leaderboard? No thanks.

PvP, not deathmatch, 20 vs 20 or whatever, with an objective. It completely depends on the "map" or "area played" and objective part. For example: in America's Army 3 "The Bridge" - i feel is a good example of what PvP should be like. Unless your working as a team the "map" just isn't any fun, and when your on a good team vs a good team, the gameplay is great..."The Ranch" however, would be an example of how something that is supposed to be team play can too easily turn into "run and gun". I can't give any other FPS examples as America's Army3 is the only one I play. I dont think a well thought out PvP senario would attract the wrong players or dumb the game down. The key here is (well- thought- out,) and I'd like to see that out of the box. With the scope and size of ARMA, someone should be able to create a mindblowing PVP senario better than any other FPS. Will it compete with BF or COD? I doubt it, and like others have said it's different, let them have EA Dice stuff and I'll take ARMA3.

From this thread I didn't get a positive yes or no---Will Arma 3 make use of hyperthreading? Seems like people kind of disagree on this, from my web browsing I'd say the "majority" say gaming in general does not make use of hyperthreading. My questions to those here who know alot more than me on this subject is...If you were to upgrade your cpu today, wouldn't you go ahead with the i7 (about 100$ more than an i5) which supports hyperthreading? It can't hurt right? You can always disable hyperthreading if performance issues arise?---is that easy? I'm not trying to divert this thread to system requirements I've already read that one. Thanks.