calin_banc

There's no need for 8700k (6c/12), just get the i5 8600k (6c) and invest the rest of the money into faster RAM.

It's a fair comparison because that "mod" of the multiplayer of the game offers about the same experience as PUBG, but will less performance and a bunch of glitches. You nail down the technical issues, this can be PUBG, BF, whatever you wanted to be. Until then it's just a great concept with an outdated implementation. Performance is not at all ok, it doesn't have to do with "too big" anymore, it has to do with the developer's will to invest in the technical part - and in a way, I understand, since it's a product quite at its life end, really. Take Witcher 3 for example (just to show that is not a technical impossibility), in Novigrad, if you increase the number of AIs, the load on the CPU increases and thus you can differentiate between a lower core/dual core CPU, which is fine in a less demanding area, and an I7 (4c8t CPU). In ArmA when you increase the AI count, because the game is badly threaded, performance drops although you have the resources (see also Ashes Of The Singularity which scales great and is an RTS game). Same aspect is true in other aspects of the general "performance issue" subject. Interface: well, the action menu, inventory, pretty much everything needs an overhaul. It's a pain to manage your loadout and the loadout of your buddies (AI). I find it much much easier to control my squad mates in other games. Gameplay: shooting from vehicles incompletely and artificially limited to just some situations/positions, glitches like getting stuck more or less serious in different objects, no way to properly go over walls, climb stuff and other actions, animations issues which got me killed more than once (stuff like your character beginning to load a gun while standing straight up or crouched when I pick up a missile/rocket and not move at all; starting to go "up" one of those small walls on the terrain while it should get "stuck" in it, etc.), lack of civilian life/activity (which is connected to the capabilities of the engine), artificial limiting how many weapons and how you can carry them, no way to be undercover while using the uniform of a different faction (like it was initially presented and never got in the game) and I could go on... AI: it depends on your interactions with it per game. I don't mind and observe that often it's simple and not that complicated in your everyday game due to the nature of interaction in those games, but when each bullet can kill you or them and you tell them to do one thing which they still can't do as they should, it's slowly pushing me away and you start to see every problem... Don't get me wrong, love the game (or to be more precise, the idea behind it), have more than 700hrs in it, mostly in SP, I plan to upgrade also mainly based on the series performance on current hardware, but I can't be ok with the state the game is now and I truly can't find any other way than "they should" when we talk about Bohemia constantly supporting the game. I don't see any favor when they add stuff I think it should already be in - and I have the same mindset when I think about other games as well. Anyway, I hope they'll address most of these issues (if not all - one can hope) in ArmA 4. Besides this and Star Citizen, there isn't another game out there that aspires to be something special - at least from my point of view. :)

You can use the Intel system for "other stuff" as well and the i5 8600K is killing every AMD CPU in single threaded performance while offering 6 cores - which are plenty for gaming and other light stuff. Is not like Intel just shines in ArmA and is terrible in all other variables, quite the contrary.

Of course it's perpetual work in progress, it was launched as an early access type of game, you do need to add stuff to finish it. To be fair, ArmA 3 has lots of problems, starting from performance, to glitches, interface, AI, gameplay, etc. Just because the hardcore community doesn't mind that, it doesn't mean they don't exist. Player Unknown capitalized of the shortcomings of the MP in ArmA and made it great in its own way, while ArmA still struggles. Bohemia are following a recipe that works for them currently, but it's not going to bring in a stream of new, constant players unless the game will seriously improve with the next iteration. :)

Found the post: http://steamcommunity.com/app/107410/discussions/0/458606248620063074/?ctp=2#c458606877322824034 Since it's WIP, they are working on it and dx12 is indeed just experimental.

I can't find it right now. They are working on it, but not ETA. I think dwarden spoke about it and other issues in a post somewhere. :)

They are working on 64bit plus some engine improvements would have really helped to develop Altis and Stratis more, as in make them more believable, as someone really lived there and be more than just props for pew-pew. Perhaps experiment a little with civilian AI doing small and random tasks and whatnot. Put more vehicles in different states, add more clutter, more wildlife, perhaps some radio stations to which you can add your own music or make it easy to add online radio, add radio chatter between different factions (and even yours and by this you get an extra bonus gameplay feature) etc. Revisit the user interface and the incredible primitive order menu, inventory, etc. Tweak the animations, add some more (vaulting over fences or jumping over them, go through a window, etc.). Tweak the AI to react more natural in the face of danger and how they respond to your commands. Make them work like a unit and cut out the artificial stuff like going a huge circle around vehicles before getting in or getting in or out in a serial way, not all at once and so on, put some love into stealth, etc. There are lots of points long overdue for some love and while I do agree a major rewrite of the engine at this point may not worth it, then probably I would loved it more to see ArmA 4 start anew with all the things which would make the series really shine more than Tanoa can. Bohemia cannot do DLCs in the same way EA or Ubi does. They don't have the marketing behind them and don't have the products to appeal to the masses. Bohmeia gets a lot forgiveness due to its position as the only company making these types of games or else it would have been crucified just like EA for Battlefield 4 or worse. The funny part is that for a long time we all knew AI runs better if you set it to a dedicated core in an online scenario. Why not add that into the base game? Why not add each side (Red, Blue, Civilians, Independent) to a core of its own (or depending how many you have available) if truly the AI is independent and doesn't "cheat"? :)

Possibly, but I think Cry Engine source code was made public and something like "pay what you want". SC made practically it's own engine from Cry Engine, with different physics grids, procedural planets, incredible damage system, etc. I'm guessing there is no pressure on them to jump forward with big improvements since there is no competition on the market. :)

@oldbear, you could play tactical if the AI were better suited for that and even then you need good, steady fps. I was ironic about the 24fps, since some see movies as proof that low fps is fine. Low input lag, predictable experience is what you need when you do an action that requires finesse and shooting at someone is definitely such an action. I can play an RPG no problem at 30fps, if it doesn't involve precise moving or aiming, just clicking in a certain direction, but not here. With that said, I do appreciate that the latest build (on dev branch) does show a nice boost. It's not where it should be and it still doesn't use the available resources as it should, but at least it runs better.

Maybe the environment has changed for the past few years? I mean just look at what SC is doing with Cry Engine.

Why 30+ when 24 is more cinematic?

You make sure the CPU stays at a certain frequency and then you start deactivating one core/threads at a time and test it or you start with the minimum core count the game needs to start. When you don't see improvements anymore, it means the game doesn't scale beyond that in that scenario. If you do it right, even with huge numbers of AIs and other stuff, you can scale to a great number of cores - http://core0.staticworld.net/images/article/2016/02/dx12_cpu_ashes_of_the_singularity_beta_2_average_cpu_frame_rate_high_quality_19x10-100647718-orig.png

I doubt they'll significantly rewrite the current engine, is not worth it financially. ArmA 4 is the next big step I would imagine we would be able to see some proper performance gains - on Infusion of course.

I would be fine with proper FPS in SP vanilla content, but that doesn't happen as well.

If you're playing online it has to do with server architecture and performance. Try and lower the view distance and other image quality settings allowed server side and also on your machine keep the object quality to standard or even low, terrain to about high and draw distance not beyond 1,5-2km.