Jump to content

I give up

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by I give up

  1. What I do not understand about Arma:


    - 50% of all games I played so far have severe griefing, team killing and trolling. I love being a support player but people keep ramming my helicopters with go-karts, vehicles, other choppers, that for me, are expensive to get, while I wait to load friendly toops.


    Admins don't do crap....


    -50% of all games I fly fully loaded to an area, and get A-10 team killed, all passengers dead, my chopper that cost me a lot gone.


    This in ALL servers I played so far, in 10 different ones, ALL of them have this, none-stop.....


    Such an amazing game, I put so many hours into reading, youtube, etc, even to learn how to fly properly, for being constantly killed and griefed while admins don't do crap instead of advertising for paying for reserved slots...

    So sad, I have Apex pre-ordered but for what at the end...

    That''s exactly the point. 

    I have 1800 hours in CS GO and i can say that you are correct. Plagued with cheaters and trolls. But the the thing is, Arma was different, unique, was.

    Now with llife crap (and similar)  is just one tree in the forest.

  2. So far:


    Object lod transitions are much better (pretty much seamless transition with little flickering).


    FPS seems lower (may be related to other changes on todays build so I'm not auto-blaming new lod tech for this).


    Trees seem the same (they transform after you finish zooming in/out).


    edit:  Smoke seems to disappear from view too much when zoomed out.

    I dont see nothing of it.

    LOD transiction should be exclusively linked to view distance, 

    Is like, you have hardware for it or not.

    Thats how it works in all games. Better hardware = Better gameplay.

  3. You and him are clueless, a game engine (and this one in particular) is not making some freakin models based on tools that we got.

    The world do not end on RHS.

    But whatever, is due to guys like you both that we are here, stuck on limbo.

    • Like 1

  4. you do realize that mip-mapping is auto-generated, and not manually done, don't you?

    you do realize that lower lods have the same textures and rvmats as the higher lods (maybe minus the last one who only has dissuse texture applied but no rvmat), don't you?

    Stop saying bs dude.

    Refrain yourself from posting when you dont know what you are saying.

  5. Well, Im not a guy to hide what I see and also I am not guy to have afraid of the consequences.

    But in this case, c'mon.

    What the  hell are a the few bucks requested for the update? Arguing against it is just insane.

    This game is still a bargain when you compare with most games out there (and we cant really compare because nothing compares to ARMA).

    Stop crying, you can consider yourself a freakin lucky basturd because you are getting all this pratically free of charge.

    You can argue about performance, you can argue about visuals, you can argue about sound, but you cant argue about the price. Its a freakn bargain.

    I request this thread to be closed.

    • Like 2

  6. Well mate, my concerns are in "Recommended" and not in "Minimal".

    For "Minimum" requirements, that's ok, Its the minimum that you need to run the game, no matters how it will run.

    Now, recomended, it is obvious that the recomended ones are not according to what is needed to run the game decently.

    But, looking at games in Steam and the hardware requirements, I would say that A3 is inside average.

  7. Hi, as the title suggests, I'm looking for a 3D modeller to be part of a small modding team that is relatively new.


    I would ideally like to have someone who is quite skilled, to the point that making vehicles won't be a new area of work. 


    About my team:

    So we are fairly new to the modding scene however our first mod (AM BAF Equipment) is being released in the coming week and we have no clue on modelling and to be fairly honest, I've tried and followed tutorials and I just don't get it. The other guy (Antell) is on the same level as me as we both started at the same time and can be a bit overbearing at times but if you abuse him he'll get in line xD. 


    What can we offer you?:

    Nothing, we have the aim of making our addons free to everyone without expecting donations or even wanting them, we obviously will give you credits in the mod as you are part of the team and you are contributing to the mod.


    If you wish to speak more about what are future addons will consist of PM me on the forums or add me on steam here: http://steamcommunity.com/id/ethanm360


    All the best,



    Can I ask whats the purpose of it?

    I mean what kind of missions you intend to play with these models?

  8. With any decent Intel quad core, you should not have issues with game. Forget AMD in matters of cpus for A3, the game really needs cpu and these do not have juice enough.

    But first look a bit where the things start, because without it (no matters your hardware) you will be unsatisfied. 



    There are 2 ways to improve the game performance that direclty will have influence in cpu and gpu operations.

    1. If you have ram enough (at least 16 GB) just disable pagefile on your system operative. This will force the game to use ram (physical memory) in exclusive for memory load and management. The HDD will be used only for the game load, at start. This will bring huge benefits iin matters of cpu and gpu utilization since the timing needed  for memory operations is reduced. Just make sure that you have a decent ram (frequency/latency balanced).

    2. If you dont have ram enough and you need pagefile, then make sure that you have  the fastest HDD that you can (SSD or above). In this case the HDD (or at least part of it) will be used to load and manage memory, means that your HDD is continously feeding your cpu and gpu. Still no matter the HDD, in this situation, your cpu and gpu will perform worse, since the waiting times will be considerably increased, (usually called as cpu bottleneck and consequently gpu).


    For graphics, maybe can be a good move to wait for Nvidia 1070 and then compare prices with RX 480. Everything points that both will be very similar. 

    And from mine experience with both (AMD and Nvidia) in this game, I can say without doubts that for A3, Nvidia always has been the best option.

  9. that's not the "truth", it's your own personal opinion


    it already is

    this is the nth time i see you post this sort of shit, and although i really want to avoid replying to you, this show precisely how much you know about game engines, draw calls, resource management, textures versus atlases etc

    Yes, it is my personal opinion.

    So, in your opinion it makes sense to have a all graphics maxed and after a few meters we have all stuff turned in low detail, with a continuous LOD change in front of your eyes? Ok.
    LOD transition should be linked to view distance, only. Not to graphics quality. 
    Graphics quality is a different subject and if you play with low graphics, it should be  bad, either close or far. This applies to textures, foliage, shadows, etc.
    What does not make sense is to have this continuos LOD change in front of your eyes, no matter your graphic settings.
    And for MP, setting LOD transition exclusively related with view distance (with several levels) is not a even a issue, because with the mission we cant set max view distance  for alll players So, no advantge for anyone.
    Btw, point me one person that play MP with 12000 view distance having all settings in Ultra? (not having all maxed makes even less sense to use 12000)
    About new lighting and illumination, point me where it looks better. 
    The only thing that is looking better after the update are the water reflections, but that is not even related with the subject.

  10. I think it's about time for an upgrade there bud.  Thinking maybe a Radeon RX 480 since you like the Red Team. (?)

    Sorry mate, but for Arma 3 you still need a Nvidia.

    Is a fact that 2 RX 480 in CrossfireX perfom better than a GTX 1080 (for half of the price), but since Arma 3 is not ready for CrossfireX it will perform like crap and since a single RX 480 is nothing new or anything good, the better choice is still Nvidia.



  11. You people can argue whatever you want but the truth is, the game does not look better after visual upgrade, In  fact is the opposite. Comparing the current build with Alpha build, by far Alpha looks better, in every aspect.

    Adding to that the freakin LOD transition added with recent update in Dev Build. the game just looks like a a beta version of Duke Nukem (1991).

    About LOD distance and transition, that should be linked to view distance and also graphics quality, does not make any sense that you have textures changing to  low detail 2 meters in front on you, when you have hardware for more.

    If I was in charge I would cut the 12000 view distance (since no one use and is not needed) and would replace it for a 6000 view distance max, creating 6 levels for LOD transition according to view distance. 

    1000 one level, 2000 another level, etc.

    • Like 1

  12. Interesting analysis.


    I was wondering have you ever compared the dual cores overclocked clock to clock - EG 4 GHZ vs each other and then to a quad core also at the same speed? I suspect a highly overclocked dual core may actually be enough for ARMA 3 so long as the memory controllers are the same and coupled with  fast enough ram.


    It would be interesting to see if a 5 GHZ dual core would outperform a 4.5 quad core for the same generation - Haswell to Haswell, Skylake to Skylake.


    Also, regarding the new visual upgrades, the water is shader heavy or appears to be so. Thus older gpus with less shader modules will perform less.  


    Resolution, AA and actual pixel pushing is usually down to ROPs while geometry and textures are down to TMUs.  Thus you usually see Nvidia pushing ahead vs AMD in higher resolutions until you become shader limited which is when AMD cards with more shader units pull ahead. Most Nvidia cards have more ROPs and TMUs where as AMD balances towards shaders and rightly so since all the lighting and effects are shader based.


    But Tanoa is all texture, geometry and shader heavy.


    Exceptions would be a 980 Ti or 390/Fury for example in that is a monster of a GPU. I bet highend GPU owners will push Tanoa fine so long as their CPU can keep up.

    I can answer to that.

    I made the test with an i7.

    1 core at 4.5 Ghz and 4 core at 1.66 Ghz.

    By far the 4 core at 1.66 Ghz perform better than one core at 4.5 Ghz.

    Also most of time people makes some confusion between cores and cpu's.

    A quadcore does not mean that we have 4 cpu's, means that your cpu is spreading the work in four ways.

    Is like that you have a 100 Kilo guy working alone and then you get four 25 Kilo guys, obviously you still have 100 Kilo in total , but just because they are working in parallel the job gets done quickly.

  13. Honestly, unless you are running a 20 year old GPU, its not going to be 'burning' from arma at max settings. My GTX980ti barely hits 50% with all settings on ultra. Even my old GTX760 could handle ultra settings without much hassle. CPU on the other hand is a different story. Fact is, as a paying end user, you should not be expected to 'enjoy it as it is', that is a ridiculous comment.

    50% usage in Tanoa under heavy foliage? I need to see a evidence to believe on that.
    Unless you are playing with low graphics, but then whats the point for a 980ti?

  14. Textures are buffered frm HDD when we have pagefile enabled (which is also memory). With pagefile disabled its all about ram.

    HDD is only used when we load the island for the first time.




    About 64 bit, not sure if would do any better. Basically we already have it with "32 bit breaking barrier", still and probably because with 64 bit would have to be the executable to handle with memory load and management, some improvement could come, but would not solve the thing. Arma due to its architecture will always have this situation, in my opinion.
    In fact was due to heavy load on memory (and the consequences of it) the reason for "32 bit breaking barrier". 
    The thing is with Arma 2 and  because DirectX 9 the textures were considerably "smaller" and consequently the loading, flush, refresh, processing timings, etc, also were considerably smaller, so there was no issue.
    With Arma 3 and because DirectX 11, these become "huge" requering a large space on memory (either pagefile or ram) and consequently the tinings for its management are largely increased and there is no way for a management under acceptable timings in a way that has no impact cpu and gpu operations.
    If you want to see the difference between in memory load between A2 and A3, just use "cup" (or similar) and load Takistan (or Chernarus) using Arma 3, check memory (pagefile or ram) load and usage.
    Then load Takistan (or Chernarus) using Arma 2 and  check again.
    You will see that Arma 3 (under the same scenario) will double the memory usage.

  15. There is no surprise.

    Foliage always have been the gpu killer with arma 3. Just for instance, the gpu has more usage in Stratis forest than in Kavala.

    About the called cpu bottleneck in Towns, here I disagree.

    While in forest what we have is heavy foliage, basically there are no textures loaded in to ram, this means that the gpu (and consequently the cpu) do not need to wait for ram, here the graphics are rendered on the fly.

    In Towns we have several Gigabytes (textures) loaded in to ram, being refereshed, being flushed, loaded again and repeat this in to infinite. This takes time and since the cpu is considerably faster than whatever ram,  the cpu ( and consequently the gpu) has to wait for ram, that's why the operation of these 2 pieces of hardware (cpu and gpu) is limited.

    There you have your bottleneck. 

    Memory management.