clydefrog

What do you call acceptable performance? Because I doubt the vast majority of people who get fps between 20 and 40 and even down into the teens (no matter what settings they try) on most of these servers with good PC's call that acceptable. As an aside I was playing Arma 2 Domination Fallujah on a multiplayer server before with a constant fps of around 80 - 90 with max settings except PP and View Distance. I don't see that happening in Arma 3 any time soon and on a game that supposedly "runs better than Arma 2".

There's always one of these guys in every performance thread, you're either living in dreamland, lying or you've hardly been on any multiplayer servers.

As has been discussed a lot on here though, it seems like there are limitations when it comes to e.g. the hardware interaction side of it, and surely that will be what eventually makes it an obsolete engine.

project reality for BF3/4 shame it will never happen I don't think it's ever had the mission making abilities for the community Arma does though which is pretty much what Arma lives off.

Well the best solution would obviously be that they develop their own again wouldn't it, not rely on some other company's engine. But I am aware doing something like that would take a huge amount of time and cost millions.

I've played plenty of Arma multiplayer games with civilians in them. Arma multiplayer isn't all about Domination, Invade and Annex and Wasteland you know, maybe when you've played it for more than 10 minutes you might realise that.

Well I think stealth is a gimmick in Arma 3 as it doesn't even do anything, so there is no point in making up a stealth plane. I'd love for it to be an F-15 (the F-15E is my favourite US aircraft) or an F-16 though. I just hope they are some real top of the line CAS aircraft though and not more little jets like the buzzard.

How come there is so much of that banding in Arma 2/3 Dwarden? It's really noticable at night, I always just see loads of stripes/hoops when I look at the sky. I take it there is nothing that can be done about that?

Also now they've announced this with nothing set up, you may now get people holding back mods they're working on for a long time until this idea is a reality and in place so they can sell them then rather than releasing them for free earlier. Yeah this is just a bad idea.

The runway lights at night don't really seem fixed at all. They are still just a mess of flickering lights (most of which you can't see) and don't become properly visible until you've nearly landed, and even then you see them flickering like they're going on and off.

So you're saying that the game is fine and it's just hardware isn't good enough for it yet? Very funny. Arma 3's engine can't make proper use of current hardware so what makes you think it will utilise future hardware properly. So we need better hardware? What like CPU's with even more cores that Arma has no use for? The problem isn't that hardware isn't good enough, the problem is the game isn't using it to its potential. I also don't remember them putting "massively overclocked CPU and GPU that don't even exist yet" in the recommended system specs, somebody correct me on that if I'm wrong .

Yeah I realised this long before now but ah well. And yes I think he probably permanently looks like the smilie in his sig. Well dumbing down for most people in this scenario isn't about AI difficulty, and it is more about what I said. Here's some quotes of the meaning of dumbing down for you, so you know what it means as you currently don't: or in other words, make it simpler for people who don't understand it. Do you understand yet or shall I dumb it down for you?

So, if I understand you correctly, you think they are right to make things more basic such as what people are complaining about in here (the first aid system etc.) to make it easier for people new to the game? So you've gone from saying it's not dumbed down to agreeing with dumbing down by saying it should be so it's easier for people? I think you're not even thinking about what you're saying and are just blindly defending everything for some odd reason.

Simplified basically, made to be more easy/simple/in some cases less realistic perhaps to make it more accessible. It's not me who's saying things are dumbed down, I'm just telling you that just because IGN said it's hard to learn that doesn't mean that parts of it aren't more simplified than Arma 2.

That's kind of what I was thinking too. Unless it's become acceptable to release games in such a state.

V-22 isn't big enough to carry any armoured vehicles, which I think is what people (me anyways) would like as well as troop transport. With a "large fixed wing transport aircraft" you want the ability to transport APC's etc. around the map instead of having to drive them all the way there.

So what? Just because they think it's hard to learn doesn't mean parts of it aren't more simple or "dumbed down" than they were in Arma 2.

Oh right, well then that must mean it's impossible for anybody anywhere else in the world to have bad internet in 2013 mustn't it. :icon_rolleyes:

That would be good and definitely be possible as you see it in jets when you slow down.

And that is a problem, BI have no competition to push them to do things better.

I'd like to know what the "alpha is alpha" and "beta is beta" people have for an excuse these days.

If we got those I would cry.

Is that you in your sig? By the way, people shouldn't have to massively overclock already good CPU's to get good performance out of this game. I use a stock 2500k and a GTX570 in Arma 2 CO with everything set to max apart from view distance and post processing and get good framerate including using ACE mods etc. These performance issues are new to Arma 3.

Zero, and unless they make a new engine for Arma 4 (if there is one) then zero for that too. But you say "utilizes the CPU rather than the GPU?". It doesn't utilise the CPU rather than the GPU. It uses both, the CPU is more important in Arma but a good graphics card still makes a big difference to performance.

I've got an amazing idea, why not create a new cockpit for a new aircraft!? I think I better let them know of this amazing idea I've had. But seriously, since they have done this with for example the Ghost Hawk I am hoping this could be down to a lack of time to implement it so far, but my head tells me it's staying like it is and they just haven't made and have no plans to make a new cockpit for it. I hope I am wrong but this game involves a lot of recycling in almost all departments.