I give up

Mate, cut those. In PC gaming everything is unique. If I was telling you that I can run A3 flawless with a celeron @ 3.0 ghz, 4 GBs ddr2 @ 800 Mhz and a ati 5870, what you would say? BS? No, Just PC games.

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.

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.

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.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTlGaXc1MYs

In my opinion we should have even more placebos, just because the freakin "real time textures" are the major cause for performance issues.

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.

Ok mate. Got your point,

From a legal point of view. Nothing that you create using some one work, you can claim as your work. Steam is in fact very kind letting you claim rights for someone's work.

Short answer. NO. Since it include terrain.

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.

HI. Can I ask whats the purpose of it? I mean what kind of missions you intend to play with these models?

Nice work mate. Best of luck. In fact these forums should have a section reserved for people like you, instead of voicing some freakin trolls.

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. Memory. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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. Edit, 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.

I raised the subject couple of times and I am sorry but I have to raise it again because its has a severe impact in game performance. As a matter of demonstration and also in a attempt to avoid useless discussions, I made a video that clearly demonstrates what I have been saying. In this case (trying not to make the video to long) I stopped on 13 GB of RAM loaded, but it can load much more. Also the most weird is if we close the scenario and open a new one, the RAM loaded in previous one is still here and keeps loading more. Only when we change back the textures from Ultra to High is when the RAM gets "flushed". Why this happen? Is there a way to avoid it? Because it has a nasty impact in performance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA8WVJBCEiI

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeK2srtwA8s&index=132&list=PLfdWf47Qgsteuo5Q7TrPBi413qMkCQ762

Arma 2 reminds me when I was a happy guy. Anyway, thats past.