skulldragon

Yeah, for me the weapons are the highlight of the DLC. I'm especially fond of the UK59. I was originally disappointed with the maps, but I've come to like Bystrica as has seen quite a few changes from that area of Chernarus. I've got nothing against Bukovina, but apart from the trees and a small construction site-like area, it seems identical to the Vybor airport area. The vehicles are pretty cool too, but the Pandur seems to not carry too much ammo, and I'd prefer a .50 cal Dingo over the 7.62mm (though having both would be better, ofc). I guess I've been fortunate and avoided bugs (apart from the Kusan thing), but I've found the missions so far (only 3 admittedly) to be very enjoyable.

The thing is, not everyone can get 100% into a 'Real Life' mindset. Personally, I do my best to get into one, but I'd imagine that, however much I try to ignore it, the knowledge that I'm only playing a game and that dying in it doesn't really matter makes me do things that I wouldn't do in the same situation in real life. For example I and a number of people I know who also play), used to find ourselves, whilst under fire, popping up to try and see where we're being shot at from. I'm sure if we were really in that situation, we'd do nothing of the sort. For me (I don't know about the others), this behaviour stopped when I installed the TPWC suppression mod, which, aside from affecting how AI is suppressed, changes aim-shake slightly and makes your vision go strange (I think it does something with the contrast of the image). So basically, a visual effect made the effect of being suppressed more lifelike. Now I know that I can in no way speak for everyone, but I think there must be a considerable amount of people in the same situation as me here. For those people who don't need any extra effects to get fully immersed - great, just keep in mind that not everyone is as fortunate as you in that respect. I guess the proposed effects could be made togglable/slider-based to help please everyone. wipman - Yeah, if that was put in, not only would the player care more, but the general atmosphere and experience would be better, I think. Problem is, it could use quite a lot of CPU power.

I think the blurring was suggested more as a way to cover up how bad the things outside the scope look more than help FPS directly because, yes, it is more GPU intensive than letting things be. Perhaps instead of dropping the resolution of the second render (though despite it not being easy, would it still yield better performance?), some kind of check can be made to see which objects in the screen are not in the scope's FOV and then just drop the LOD of them right down, letting the blur disguise this.

Good idea, I guess that would help a lot, however I think the scene would still have to be rendered once at whatever settings are being used, then again at low settings, which I'd imagine is still quite a drain on the graphics card, though obviously not as much as two full-setting renders. Some people may complain about the blur, however.

I think the editor's presence in the alpha has been mentioned in a few videos, though I don't know whether this is considered an 'official' statement or not.

Got to disagree with you here, though of course I respect your opinion. I find that the overlay method does not feel whatsoever like looking down a scope, whereas the Battlefield 3 or Crysis way, whilst unrealistic in terms of the magnified peripheral vision you gain, feels much more lifelike. A system in which the scope model is large enough to simply block your peripheral vision could offer the best of both, but I'd imagine it would feel like you had the scope absurdly close to your eye, though with physically large scopes this might happen anyway. Of course, RTT would be better still, but of course there's the performance to think about, and I can't see an 'RTT' option being easy to implement.

Definitely upgrading my graphics card (HD 5770). Not sure whether to go for an nVidia or an AMD - AMD seem to do better in Arma 2, but Arma 3 is being developed with nVidia GPUs, it seems, which may mean that the situation is reversed. The Alpha should tell us. Won't be upgrading until HD 8000 series/GTX 700 series anyway. Also, depending on just how CPU intensive Arma 3 is, I might get myself a new motherboard for a Haswell CPU (currently running an i5-2500), which should also open me up for a SATA-3 SSD. Can't hurt to step up to 8GB of RAM either. I'll probably do all this over the next few years anyway, but Arma 3 may well accelerate the process considerably.