chrisb

Yes, I would agree with the post above.. If you see vanilla AI doing anything remotely intelligent, report it.. It will most definitely be a bug. ;) Tongue in cheek (with a pinch of truth).

Lets say there are 20,000 members here to the forum/board (possibly, was much smaller years ago but what with dayz etc). Lets say 50% of those post regular (probably much lower). Of those 50% lets say 50% are unhappy with performance. That's 5000 players unhappy, I think that's far too many 'here', but lets be conservative. Now these players go across all titles in the series, but giving the benefit of the doubt to you and those that struggle to run the game, lets stick with those figures '5000'. Lets say BI have sold 3 million across the titles (more I would think), so what is the percentage that complain regards performance. If my maths do me correct its one sixth of one percent (don't hold me to that, I've not had my tablets yet :wacko: ) So your probably right, its a known fact Arma can't run above 30fps... No, not really. :rolleyes: Yes, to those that can't run the game, it will and does feel that way, but in reality that's not the case. Well lets say its highly unlikely. ;) I would add, that's probably the case for the vast majority of players that play the series, they don't have too many issues based on what they want from the game.

I can't see this Steam policing, is ever going to work. :(

The age old concern regards performance for this series. Many players have pondered on this very subject, but its un-answerable isn't it. Because its down to the players expectations, the server they use, the amount of players and AI there are etc. BI make the game as a sandbox, then let the players make the 'game-play'. I know its old tech, but it hasn't really given many players that much of a problem over the years, yes it could be better, but name a game that you could say is perfect.. Will this new idea or that new idea make a difference, no not really, until they change the engine, some players will cry-out. Well yes, they go ahead and change the engine, then we'll get the reaction of 'well it won't do this, or it won't do that', why! Because its a sandbox and the players set out the table.

There are some mods that go into this in some detail, but I'm not sure regards A3 mods. It is much better to set factions and units up to have varying skills, but of course its also time consuming, but once done, it only needs tweaking from time to time as the factions grow. But yes it is possible, but in mods only, for any in-depth detail really. :)

Or indeed from the German perspective. Its an idea many have thought about for Arma, indeed there is still a mod in A2 that is still being developed (on&off), for WW1, it has some nice content that you can play with, although its limited a little. I have wondered about that type of game or in-fact any type of war game done in a voxel type format. Whereas you could dig under enemy lines and explosions would make a difference to the terrain. But, before anyone shouts its not possible for some reason, I don't know because I don't make games. :P But it would probably feel much more realistic than it does already, bomb craters, trenches as the OP mentions etc, all making a difference to the environment. I know VBS has a limited version of underground in the newer additions. But yes OP its a good thought, have a look at the WW1 mod for A2, even if its just for what players can do and imagine in the series. ;)

Looking great.

Unfortunately your going to have to mod the game to get it better. That has always been the case, just a waste of time waiting around. They will, and do, fix things, but it takes a long time and you might as well use mods until they get around to your problems, if they ever do. Regards your original post concerning A2 still being played. Your right, it is played widely by many groups, because to many players, its simply a better game. Arma 3 vanilla AI, if your video is recent, the AI still looks to act as it has done for years now. I never use vanilla AI, can't put up with it. Just mod the game, really its part of the Arma series now, mods can and in many cases are, so much better at progressing the game. There again, I don't play much A3.

You see that's the problem, most of these players will turn down core settings. I run a 290 and just turn down VD, all the other core settings remain on the highest. It is what your running whole setup wise, if your having bad performance with your setup, look inwards at what else is running whilst your trying to play MP. Or, indeed look at using a better or private server. Real world can only guide from spec, then you show your pics and fps, which I have many times on these forums, others never do.

http://www.hwcompare.com/18034/geforce-gtx-970-vs-radeon-r9-290/ http://www.hwcompare.com/18224/geforce-gtx-980-vs-radeon-r9-290/

Thanks for sharing and your hard work.

That is just misleading, the 290 is probably better than the 980, plus its a whole lot more financially worthwhile.

I think OP you would be better to look at Kerbal Space Program or Space Engineers, these are games that can be used to teach and indeed are in some places. VBS is a training tool that can be used as a game, not a very good one it has to be said (game I mean). So vbs comes from the other direction. Arma isn't that type of game, you couldn't learn anything other than social skills in interacting with others really. I wouldn't want an Army to go out and fight for 'real', based on the fact they had played Arma. Your really in the wrong games forum, you might be better off in the VBS section, although as said, that isn't a game first, its a training tool, that is or has been, used as a game in some circles. I understand what your question is, but its just in the wrong place. There are many ways you can use the word serious, I think you are using it in the literal sense, therefore coming to an FPS games forum, isn't really going to find you an answer. On the other hand, if you want to know if players play the game 'seriously' then that is a different thing.. no..

Very true. You couldn't play this series if you didn't turn a blind eye to certain things. Just except and play. Also thanks for the update, I really enjoy this content.

Its all down to the players, but the game that wins out in the end, for me, plus gives the most satisfaction, is the one that gives the most varied content for the player to use. Can't think of any other game that does that as well as this series for this genre. However, then you have to look at which one in the series is the best for that. That all comes down to personal choice and what content is available for which version. That is a whole different argument. ;) Is Arma 3, or any other game, a serious game.. not sure.. lets see who's playing ! and is it being played the way I/you like, because serious, is far too wide of a subject to say who is, and who isn't, right or wrong, we all play differently. Its an impossible thing to answer. Oh, and I would add, I enjoyed that video. (live shoutcast, that is) :)

You did read the post, I'm assuming you didn't.. Then try again and tell me how you arrived at that response ?

I chuckled at the 'its a return to its roots' comment, if you believe that, then that's o.k. with me. I don't for one minute, certainly not from our gameplay point of view, but still, your very entitled to your view and from your gameplay style it might be the case, we all play differently. There again, you alluded to something with your other comments, regards broader applications. That sort of said something to me as a player. Now as I said, from a business point of view, why not. From a players point of view, especially for our gameplay style, its not a good thing. Regards the improvements in AI, I did say that in the post. But they're not vast improvements, they are however better and much appreciated. But getting AI into, and using, buildings would be a big (vast) step forward. Also having them use heavily wooded areas really well, would be good too. Lets face it, with this new terrain, the AI are going to need to know how to move around in a confined wooded area, whilst doing it really well. Should be fun watching it. On the other hand buildings have been sorted... I don't play A3 much, I really only sightsee & tinker in the editor from time to time, in here. Also don't get me wrong, many players don't even notice the AI, they're quite happy to just run around and kill as many as possible, perhaps that's their game, which is also fine, more do it now than ever in the series. But there are many players and groups out there, that don't play that way, many never have in this series, They/we would much rather kill few and have realistic gameplay, whereas the AI are a real challenge. But at the moment, that's not in the Vanilla game, unfortunately it never really has been. Closing buildings won't get us any nearer either, just a plaster fix.

Furniture has never bothered me. I think A2OA struck a very good balance where furniture was concerned, there was enough to feel that there was life on the terrain but not too much to interfere with AI. I have always used mods that use buildings and use them fairly well. So I would be very disappointed to have too many closed buildings, as in A2 Chernarus and so on. I find it hard to believe the resources aren't available to do a better job with buildings or indeed furniture. I think this could be an excuse and more down to the inability for the devs to have vanilla AI use the buildings and use them well. Whereas mods have had them using buildings for many years now. Using cover street to street (outside) with vanilla AI is not too bad now. That started to improve towards the end of A2OA and they do it quite well. Indeed some mods simply enhance that ability to improve that side for the AI. But regards interior building use, that is really left more to the mod community. Who lets face it, have managed, depending on which mod or setup you use, to have AI use buildings reasonably well. But of course there is a reluctance to use scripts more and have it all in the engine, so that may be the issue. My personal thing when playing is the AI. It has to be very good and believable, also coop is pointless against it, unless you use AI mods. We have always used mods that are very capable at making the game far more realistic. Irrespective of your view on scripts, its the gameplay and realistic nature of that gameplay, that the player see's in the final situation when gaming. Many players associate scripts with repetitive AI performance and style. For me, this isn't the case though and I see it as a narrow view to take. If BI took the time to.. and this is not going to be a popular comment.. but to employ devs that understand AI more and are willing to use crossover technics, whereby scripts can play their part and work alongside engine capabilities for AI to perform and work well. Then the problem will never get sorted out for vanilla AI. This is the brunt of the AI problem as I and many I know, see it. This new terrain will be a backward step for the mil side, they're enclosing the terrain more and now the buildings too. Vanilla AI can't handle jungle well, nevermind buildings. The game doesn't take the AI that seriously and indeed I have believed for some time that BI views the future as MP or the game in other forms i.e. Zombies, Life, Dino's or other styles of gaming that the series is turning more and more too (via mods really). BI will use a mod to its advantage, there is nothing wrong with that, the game can lend itself to many play styles and types (its a sandbox after all). But the initial bottom line 'was' military sim style. That went with A3, very much so, in my view. Just the way its going, but I think this has always been intended since A3 changed direction a little. Financially its very worth while to do this to the game, but that leaves many gamers, not here on this forum perhaps, but out there, very disappointed. But we're perhaps the smaller minority and therefore I do understand to some degree, that this type of player is getting more and more ignored. Why bother with them, when the money takes you elsewhere, that's business I've done it myself in the past, you always leave people behind that prefer the initial product, far more than the current. Just life in general. Sorry OP it went into a rant a little, well not a rant, you have to get a little angry and animated to rant, which I'm not. Its just a calm view I have. But it seems to me that it all means the same thing, what that is, I'll leave for others to decide, for me its pretty clear.

Steam Early Access I have been looking at this game. It goes early access June 2nd. It looks really nice graphically, hoping the content matches that. What do players think ? :)

I suppose it could be res, but its full width on mine. But there again, I'm only viewing in 1920x1080, it might be different for higher res monitors, not sure. __ Also to the forum builders; maybe it might be better to go back to, one sig per page. Therefore saving page space, repeating sigs for posters such as myself and many other that have sig's, can take up lots of space. Before there was only one sig per page allowed, I think that was a better idea.

Well I'm looking at a full width board and its really good. Just the fact I can read it without my glasses is a plus for me ;). If this is a permanent setting (full width) then I'm very happy to see it back. :)

That looks good, but I don't use Chrome. :) I always have browser on widescreen. There again at my age, all text needs to be larger to get read. Still, I can get the reading glasses out I suppose. :(

Yep, I'm looking forward to playing this. It was touted a while back that September this year was for release. But as we all know its game development and the rule is to be at least a few months if not years late. But here's hoping it isn't too long for release. It is supposed to be going to pc at the same time as console now, whereas earlier it was said to be going to console first then followed later by pc. But I read somewhere they are doing both releases together. Although I'm not absolutely sure. I'll wait for pc version anyway.

How would we feel if it were able to stretch to fit widescreen properly. My guess is some, if not most of us, would rather have the board fill the screen.

I agree with others, the new larger font or maybe just more pronounced font, is better. However, I still think stretching the board out to fit widescreen displays is a must, or even the option to do that. There is no need for these narrow sites anymore, just seems a waste of space to each side. I hope there isn't the intention to fill these spaces down each side with ads, that would be really bad news, if its the case. But there are improvements and that is a good thing. :) Oh, and great just noticed the 'Like This' option has gone from our own posts, another improvement.