clydefrog

Yes flares are useless, they don't work for their intended purpose.

I think if you want to play arma you will have to get used to stuff like this, because it's been a problem with the engine from the very start (OFP 12 years ago) from what I've been told.

It wasn't the "road optimizations" that made them bad, they were already bad before that.

Yeah, that must be the reason why it has so many problems.

I don't set the rank. I basically just spawn a group of vehicles using bis_fnc_spawnvehicle and then assign the group waypoints, and that's all you should need to do. I also set the driver of each vehicles skill to 1 although I read the other day that bis_fnc_spawnvehicle actually does this by default. And your vehicles won't get where they need to go without a problem when one of them stupidly turns off the road/drives half on the road and half off it and hits one of those random car wrecks right on the roadside like mine did the other day, and it never even tried to get back on the road afterwards.

Does it have better funding though? You would have thought (hoped) with all the money they made from Arma 2 sales after DayZ came about, they would have heavily invested in Arma 3 but I honestly don't get that impression, so far at least. And yeah if they ever make an Arma 4 and they are still using this engine I can see a lot of people giving up on it. Some people here might slate games like Battlefield but at least it has some simple things that this doesn't, e.g. bipods, climbing over walls, great sound, you can actually walk on rocks etc.

Yeah, I was doing it with limited speed but it does it in full and normal speed too. It also just turns and drives off the road sometimes and stops, like the driver fell to sleep, and sometimes goes to turn off onto another road even though its waypoint is to carry on, basically it's rubbish. I get the same thing with the Zamaks too, they also just turn off the road randomly as shown in your video.

They still seem pretty dumb to me e.g. just turning off the road randomly sometimes. Also if I put a Kamysh at the back of my convoy it repeatedly smashes into the vehicle in front of it every time it catches up after it stops.

I use an MSI Twin Frozr 3 GTX570 with 1280MB VRAM and I've not even seen the memory usage reach 1GB on the settings I've been trying out (mostly ultra - not all, AA x4, FXAA very high, anisotropic ultra and around 1600 to 2000 view distance with 1000 object draw distance). Also after switching the settings to the standard preset last night just to see what kind of difference it would make I saw hardly any difference in frame rate.

From looking at my CPU usage whilst playing yesterday, it looks like the core usage is pretty even over 4 cores (it wasn't when I looked a while ago) but it's still only using at most about 60% of the CPU and on average about 60% or 70% GPU usage which is bad. I only get higher GPU usage in the editor, on servers it drops a lot, I'm pretty sure I've seen it go below 40 and obviously you end up with about 20fps.

I've not read this whole thread, not yet anyways, but the sound is one of the thing about this game that's bothering me most. Not only in the quality of effects but the balancing of levels of different things, I mean some things sound way too loud and some way too quiet. For example that beeping when you lock on with a Titan launcher is ridiculous, there is no need for it to be so loud. Does anybody else think this or is it just me? Oh and Are you sure this isn't a low budget game? Because there are some things about it that make it seem like one.

You can try everything people suggest, and it will still run badly when it comes to multiplayer in mine and many other peoples experiences, no matter how good your hardware is.

I bet if they make Arma 4 they will still be using the same engine they've used for the past what, 12 years? Oh yeah and it will probably be set in the moon.

amateurs

this addEventHandler ["HandleDamage", {false}] and yeah it would've been nice to see some new ones instead of arma 2 models recoloured

Don't expect anything when it comes to Arma 3. Everything in that video looks far better than any type of weather effects currently in the game, doesn't even look like they're related (I know they are, it just looks on a completely different level).

early stage of development? This game has been in development for about 3 years, it seems like they've learnt nothing from the ACE mod which has been around a lot longer than that.

you don't get any frame rate drops at all on multiplayer?

They should definitely do that, I'm sure it would be a better use of their time than making loads of showcases and target practice missions.

Yeah it isn't.

I've seen videos where sometimes it's instant and other times it can take a second. e.g. 13 seconds into this video

fair enough

It bothers me more that the barrel on the UH-80 miniguns doesn't need to start rotating to a certain rpm before it can fire like it should do. It just fires instantly when you click, I think that's really poor and hope they will change it. Even battlefield 2 has that.

I don't know what to call it sometimes either, when it comes to CQB maybe AR for Artificial Retards would be more suitable, since they currently barely show any signs of intelligence.

Yes I'd definitely like to see both islands combined into one map, mainly to make it possible to increase travel time/distances for more realism. e.g. your team starts from stratis to launch an air assault on altis. Or just to call in CAS that is stationed on another island so it can't turn up 30 seconds after being requested. It would just be better for a lot of things and it would be optional whether you use it or not.