clydefrog

protip: learn to read, it helps you understand the message people are trying to put across I'll spell that out and simplify it for you since you seem to have selective reading: IF they STILL CAN'T get it to use multicore processors properly AFTER 12 YEARS it's not suitable anymore. IF they CAN get it to use multicore processors properly AFTER 12 YEARS it would be fine. And I don't see BF having problems with this with its even older engine core, so nobody cares how old it is as there is no issue with it.

The age isn't the point, I wouldn't care if the engine was 50 years old if it could still utilise modern CPU's properly like the "next gen shit" and not have some of the same problems it did from the start.

That's because the engine is ancient and they should have decided to use a new one after having RV over 10 years. It's obviously completely outdated as far as hardware standards go and it's always had other problems apart from performance anyways. If even now 12 years later they can't get it to use multicore processors properly they should get rid of it and develop something else because it's clearly not suitable anymore.

How would they be redeeming themselves by charging us extra for the load of stuff that was left out of the original game? That would make it even worse.

I came here for a laugh? Where did I say that? If that's what you got from what I said you have a big comprehension problem. I came here to read the thread and found a paranoid clown who thinks people who aren't happy are EA agents. :Oo:

Really??? Are you being serious??? jesus christ A lot of the bitching people here including myself are Arma fans who've played it for years and are disappointed because so far this game is a big let down for them for various reasons, and every day they find out something else about it that they don't like. The sad thing is it probably could have all been avoided if they actually decided to invest more in it and hire more people to help them do more and to a higher standard in the 3+ years they've been developing this game for. And don't think that they can't afford to do that. Also some of the arguments I've seen defending the game on here have been the funniest out of all the positive and negative things I've read so far (especially things like it's more balanced now because blufor and opfor have an equal arsenal (because some of their vehicles are identical)), but yours is probably the funniest yet.

So the air intake goes in the back of the aircraft on the other end of it's engine in the future does it BI? Ok. Here's what is meant to be in the back by the way, in case you want to fix that:

Yeah I don't know how programming for CPU works, most people don't know how programming for CPU works. What I do know is games that perform very well and are well optimised use a lot more of it. Or maybe you meant that as in someone who works for BIS has no idea how programming for CPU works, especially multicore CPUs.

Yeah right, like they'd simulate that in Arma.

You know, if they had made another game set in the modern day against well known enemies and it wasn't as fictional as Arma 3 is, they wouldn't have been able to get away with all this copy and paste stuff on vehicles and giving different sides the same assets. Makes you wonder if part of the reason they picked a setting like they have is so they can do something like that and get away with it more easily, not that they are really getting away with it since so many people are pissed off about it.

You really should not be reaching 90C with your graphics card, you might wanna check that out before it melts. ---------- Post added at 17:58 ---------- Previous post was at 17:55 ---------- Could this be because the game only uses about 60% of your CPU? This is completely the games fault as is it not well optimised. Nobody should be having to overclock their CPU because the game can't even use it properly.

Well they shouldn't using weapons or driving cars anyways. :P

Female stances and animations? What like they did in Arma 2? But can't be bothered doing it for Arma 3 as well as making different vehicle weapons etc. etc. for each side? There are many things in this game that just come across as laziness, this is another one of those things unless they do actually plan to do it all at some point and not just leave it like that (and that doesn't include making it DLC that they charge for).

yes, rocket science

That's the one I'm talking about, it can't reach that altitude and can't get above the clouds. max ceiling seems to be 4600.

That jet can't even reach 5000 metres, and you can't fly above the clouds, more disappointment.

I think they have used explosion sound effects for the tank cannon firing, also the gun on the jet, seriously, what is that. Really good job there is JSRS because without it...

All I really want personally is it to run well for multiplayer (it runs well enough in the editor, but clearly not on MP) and for the AI to not be morons, that's it. What is the biggest use of Arma by it's playerbase? Multiplayer COOP. Where does this game fail the most at the moment? Multiplayer COOP by having bad performance and poor AI.

It's not my pc, it's arma 3 multiplayer. In the editor I would have no problem doing that. Saying that, a couple of those big persistent missions (I won't mention their names as I don't want to insult the people who make them) generally seem to run quite badly, but I don't think that's the only reason for such big drops in gpu usage in multiplayer. Also as you probably know as nearly everybody here does, Arma 3 only uses up to about 65% (in my case with an i5 2500k) of your CPU which is funny since it is said to be such a "CPU intensive" game.

I'm pretty sure one of them replied addressing why bipods and resting was left out, and they said it was because of "poor decisions" or something like that.

There is a big problem with hovering 2km away from the AO with an attack helicopter on multiplayer in this game. That is you have to put your object draw distance up very high to actually see anything on the ground and then you get about 10fps.

When you put it like that, what is actually realistic about Arma 3 that most other military fps games don't have? I'm trying to think of one thing. lol Ok I thought of one: You can look about while you're running anything else? I'm semi serious but I'm actually finding it hard to think of much that makes it realistic and a "sim". In fact one of the main things I can think of right now that makes it more "realistic" than other shooters right now is you don't unlock weapons by killing people.

Maybe they set the in-game date as 2035 because that's when they thought it would be scheduled for release, by the time they'd fixed most of the bugs and remembered to incorporate all the things they'd forgotten due to "poor decisions" etc., maybe even a new engine!? Arma 3 wasn't meant to be set in the future, it was meant to be present day but came out early.

Flares are pretty much broken, they have zero effect from what I've seen, I can't believe some people here are trying to defend this. Or maybe it's because it's the future and the IR missiles now can see what's a flare and what's an aircraft.