scaramoosh

There's several versions on the mod and ARMA 3, just wondering where everyone has moved to? I tried the standalone recently and it's still shit, I have to post this here because they're so ban happy on the Dayz forums, they just ban you for giving feedback. Thanx.

I just don't understand how modern online games keep launching without them and we have to beg for years until we finally get it patched in.. I found one good server I finally enjoy and yet it is always full, I just wanna be able to queue up.

I bought this game to play a multiplayer military sim, I expected to have some structure in the MP like a Black Hawk Down type of scenario, where you had bad guys in a town and you had to go and extract a VIP or something. I always saw so many amazing looking ARMA 2 MP videos of teams all working together and it actually looked like it could be a missions from real life with how it was structured. Sadly though I've learnt that these missions are only available if you have friends who play the game because there is no structure to the MP at all. Just sad how they couldn't have built game modes and missions that were official, so people could play on public servers and have a good time. Instead they just left it for players to do and they're all shit and not fun at all, there are no mechanics there to keep players together or on a tight leash. The worst thing of all though is how every server is either Wasteland or some Life RPG thing........ just no, why can't there be two server browsers, one with the proper stuff and one with all that bullshit moved on to it? I now know how the ARMA 2 people felt when Dayz came out and ruined their MP experience and pretty much killed it off for them until a patch came in to hide all the Dayz shit. I wanted a proper military shooter, this is basically a poorly optimized engine, some assets and tools for players to create everything but what the game should have been. I dunno what the developers are doing but it probably involves Dayz SA, though I dunno what those guys did for a year other than make a shit shell of a game that is way worse than Dayz Mod.

I remember Joint Operations where you'd have capture points all over the giant map and 150 players, it was so much fun before Novalogic vanished and you couldn't get online any more because of Punk Buster. You'd have people on your team who were dedicated to just being helicopter pilots and flying back and forth doing drop offs, loved every moment of that game, way better than the BF series. The problem in ARMA 3 is there just isn't any structure in the game modes, there are no defaults people can get used to. Instead you have to spend hours trying to find a good server with a good mission and most of the time it is just waiting and wondering what you need to do. It just isn't a good system unless you're part of a die hard group of people like a guild or something... There needs to be something like other FPS games as a base. I also think the unfriendly community doesn't help, the problem with ARMA is it breeds this elitist community which hates on everyone new or who don't agree with them. While Joint Operations had a lot of casual friendly people who would go out of their way to help you, you wont get that in ARMA. If you want a lift somewhere, you'll not get it or have to wait half hour for someone to finally do it, even then it's just because you're tagging along with their group.. I just think the multiplayer needs more structure to bring players together, right now it isn't a fun experience unless you are part of a group. It shouldn't be that way, you should be able to play alone together, it has been a long time since I've had a fun game. The last one was like summer of last year where we had two bases separated by a Valley and it was just storm the other teams base, so much fun just having that stand off over a valley and setting up like WW1 in the trenches and chatting to people and organising flanks. Since then I haven't found a single fun game, most of the time it's coop against the A.I, which I find so tedious or travelling half way across a massive island but having to wait ages for a ride.. standing around. I'd love to see like a Black Hawk Down constructed mission where one team has to camp in a town and defend it and the other has to try and take it.

I'm not an expert by no means and I'm talking out of my arse here, however from the face of things, I just don't get it. CPUs = 130 odd gflops and GPUs = 5Tflops these days so there is a giant performance difference from benchmarks. Whenever I play a CPU heavy game it performs badly, yet whenever I play a GPU heavy game like BF3 or Crysis 3 it performs amazingly well considering the graphical fidelity there. I also see CPU heavy games that don't use multithreading and especially for AMD systems, it seems to be throwing away so much potential away as a result. When again I play multithreaded games like the latest BF games or Crysis games they benchmark so well compared to CPUs that do not support this like the I5s and AMD suddenly gain so much since all their cores are finally being used. So I just don't get this game and lots of other games that seem to go CPU heavy, use barely any GPU performance and don't bother with multithreading... Is it just a hang up from an old engine that they've been evolved at a time when the GPUs didn't have such a performance advantage as they do today?

Can't developers just use Physx as their physics model now? I mean it is far more efficient and has no impact on performance in any game It has been on. Like Nvidias Shadowplay, it is amazing how I can record and not lose even a single frame due to capture unlike alternative stuff that uses the CPU. In fact why do we need cpus at all? gpus are far more powerful, seem to just handle anything you throw at it. Does ARMA 3 have physics any ways? The vehicles control like they did in the first Playstation, Helicopters don't even feel remotely realistic, BF3 Helicopters feel like you're in the air, in ARMA 3 it just feels like you have no clip on. The world is so static too and there is no jump or anything... where are the physics? lol.

I've just upgraded to a Haswell 4770k clocked at 4.4ghrz, 16gb DDR3 clocked at around 2200mhz, 780 SLI to replace my old 670SLI cards and I have the game installed on a new SSD. So my PC Isn't shite by any means and neither was my last PC, however I fancied upgrading from my 670s and decided to get a few other things as well. However despite all that and the game using very little resources, I loaded up the Single Player Campaign and was getting 20FPS. I decided to load up several different multiplayer games and I was getting between 40-50FPS, it often dropping below that and I wasn't even maxed out in the slightest.... I just fail to see how this game runs so badly, yet games like BF4 or GTA V which are far more impressive can be run on last generation of consoles. I'm getting over 100FPS maxed out on BF4 for fuck sake and it's making nice use of my system, it isn't wasting 90% of it. People can make excuses all they want about this and that, the fact is it's a poorly optimized engine, it runs way below what it should be for a game doing as little as this. The big island is barren, nothing is happening... I've got 64 players all causing destruction on massive maps on BF4 and it looks better and it performs better. How is it that the giant map of GTA 5 with everything going on there performs better than ARMA 3? That's on the my PS3! It's time to license someone elses engine Bohemia, you wont be getting another penny off me until you do, though that excludes Dayz SA..... and until I get suckered in by ARMA 4 again..... BUT NOT ANOTHER PENNY!

VAC banning would work because it means every VAC based game on Steam you're banned from.

Look at GTA V and everything they accomplish on dated hardware and I bet when it comes to PC it'll be running at 80FPS. There is far more going on there, what's going on in ARMA 3? Nothing, it's an empty island filled with like 30 odd players....... well GTA V can handle 16 on consoles and look at everything going on in BF3 with 64 players, heck even Planetside 2 has better performance and there is far more going on in that game. Every engine can do what ARMA 3 does now, there is no excuse, there are so many games out there with massive seamless worlds and they do far more complex things than ARMA. Why are there CPU heavy games anyways? I've just learnt that means "STAY AWAY" because every CPU heavy game runs really badly. They're never CPU heavy either, they're all singlethreaded and using like 2 cores. You get a few multithreaded games and AMD loves them, suddenly it brings the performance right in line with the I7, I just don't get why games are multithreaded these days. I guess it'll all change with the new consoles now they're using similar hardware, hopefully we'll see a standard across the board where poor performance wont be so much of an issue any more.

Why do they even use APIs anymore? Most people have AMD or Nvidia, surely you can just write to metal like consoles? Why even make your own engine? Cryengine 3, UE3/4 and Frostbite (whatever number they're on no) are all capable of doing what ARMA 3 does and at good frame rates. Surely you could just license an engine and mod it for your needs? Would take less time as well surely.

the cpu isn't limited, the game uses fuck all of it, it's a poorly optimized turd. Went from a Core I7 950 @3.8 to a haswell 4770k @4.3 and my FPS is still under 30.... When you look at the usage it's not even 40% and most of the cores/threads are untouched.

My problem with it is there is no structure, it's sort of like a map where you just let players do what they want with it. Now this is great in concept but it just leads to 99% of the servers being complete garbage, the game isn't fun to play. I've only have 1 or 2 great experiences and those were months apart, it just takes too long to get anything good going on in this game and I end up just not bothering. It's why I liked Dayz because it put structure into ARMA 2, made it simple to just get in and play and not have to spend ages looking for a good server with something going on. If I'm honest the only reason I bought this game was the hope of Dayz being ported to the main island. However I have genuinely tried to play it as an ARMA game....... sadly though it's just too time consuming to try and find fun gameplay on a server. The biggest issue is I have a 780, 4770K, 16GB ram, installed to an SSD, an Asus D2X sound card and I'm only running at 1080p. However for some reason the game runs at 30fps and if I go into a town it's down to 13fps. The whole point of this new engine was to make the game fun better and it just runs worse than ARMA 2, even worse than Dayz. Every time I see the words "CPU Heavy" I run a mile because why would you go CPU heavy? GPUs are like 10 times more powerful and games like BF3 and Crysis 3 prove you can make an amazing looking game and have it running at 100+ fps. I'm sick of the excuses of it being a large island...... fuck all is going on in it and it's not all rendered at the same time. GTA V is a massive land mass and oh look that runs well on console hardware that's 8 years old at this point and it looks amazing as well. If I look at my hardware usage while I'm playing the game isn't heavy on anything, it's just poorly optimized. If you cannot make a game run well on top of the line hardware from today, then you've failed, buy an engine that actually works.... This whole game is a complete let down for me, it's failed to be quite honest and I see so many assets that were from ARMA 2, in fact the game looks like ARMA 2 with new lighting. All I can do now is wait and hope someone makes a good mod so I haven't completely wasted my money.

Who says it has to be standard online FPS modes? They could have constructed something original, instead they've done nothing.

Is it just me or do the animations not feel as good as ARMA 2? Like when I'm running in different directions the character model looks so stiff and horrible, where in ARMA 2 he would run at all different angles. When I'm running up hills in first person it's like the game keeps my perspective as if I'm on flat ground and it makes you seem so close to the ground, I also don't feel encumbered like ARMA 2 either. Instead all that happens now is your vision gets blurred at the edges and he sounds like he's having a fit... just more annoying than anything.

If I'm honest I'm not interested in players VS A.I, I've always thought that was a lame thing for Care Bears. What I wanted is to have proper structured online PVP missions where you need actual team work to attack or defend, maybe a survival mode like Dayz but without Zombies... just something! Instead it's 99.9% nothing. I have no idea why people love fighting the A.I so much, every single server I've joined that has done that has been boring as hell. The A.I are really dumb for one thing, I've not been killed by them once, just so easy to out smart, half the time I end up just waiting for them to all run out of the same door like idiots.... eurgh.

I tried again, I ended up getting bored of waiting for people to leave the base, they stood there for a good 20 mins. So I spent 10 mins driving across the map to the objective but for some reason the wheel decided to come off just for going over a big bump.......... aren't these military vehicles made for that? I ended up killing myself, going back to the base and everyone was still there lol. Eventually we all got in a helicopter and left to an objective, got there and had no clue what was going on, there were no enemies and all of a sudden the objective was updated and we all got in a helicopter or two and went to another object. By which point I got bored and quit, another lame ARMA 3 experience... I'm just gonna wait for Dayz on this map tbh lol, the game is not good, you're basically buying a poorly optimized engine and an SDK where you have to wait for the community to do the work the developers should have been doing and that's making a game. I loved Minecraft and played a lot of SWG Pre CU back in the day and still play EVE Online to this day, I'm not against open ended games....... however the world is so static, there aren't any physics, chairs stay static on the ground. So it isn't like you can go world building or do something like a sandbox game, you've just got a boring lifeless island with fuck all to do in it because every single server sucks. I keep getting the same answer "it's only a beta"..... well the game comes out soon, I doubt there will be a lot of stuff added between now and then. Also, why does my perspective change to like a few inches off the ground when I'm running up a hill? I go for a run daily and up lots of hills and I don't suddenly change to being the height of a dog.

I'm not interested in having to join a group to have fun... I just want to be able to log in and play a structured mode that is obvious how to play. What is funny Ultra settings FPS = 13 (in the last game I played) low settings FPS = 29............ Seriously this is the worst optimized game I have ever played!

Yeh not being able to jump is the worst thing about these games, though it should depend on how much gear you have.

I don't understand as I'm not a game developer, why we have these massive powerful cards which apparently are way ahead of CPUs in terms of power and yet they go unused. Most games I've played use like 40% of the 670 and 670SLI is just useless, it often makes games worse. Yet we have these CPU heavy games and it usually results in low performance because the CPUs of today just don't seem to be able to cope. I mean I have an I7 980 only OC'd to 4ghrz but it's a 6 core and CPU heavy games still never seem to run all that well. Yet DICE and Crytek do some amazing work as they tend to push the GPU and especially BF3 I see is really GPU heavy and not so much CPU and the game is an amazing performer. I mean I've played that game with my older dual core CPU, using a GPU I have on my current PC and while it didn't perform as well, it was still really smooth and fine. Obviously I'm talking out of my arse here as I have no clue about game development, however just from observing, I don't understand why you'd push the CPU over the GPU which seems to be far better.

At that point it's a poor engine problem, rather than a hardware issue. When you get games that look as good as Crysis 3 or BF3 running at 60+FPS on lesser hardware that struggles to run this game.... something is wrong. It is an alpha, however it just makes me worried after all the talk they give. Makes me worried when this game is CPU heavy and others have gone GPU heavy too.

I can play BF3 on giant maps or Crysis 1 - 3 maxed out with DX11 turned on in 2 and 3 maxed out and they look far better than this game. I mean the vegetation cannot be the reason, it looks like shit, in Crysis it clips around your body but in this game it goes right through you like it is 2D... so that isn't it. I don't see it being the view distance, there are games with far better view distances and they run smoothly, but also stuff in the background looks so low resolution. When I look at my CPU and GPU usage, it's not pushing them and SLI makes no difference what so ever. I know it's alpha and this is when the optimization kicks in, however I've seen no evidence in the past that there will ever be any. Dean Hall said Dayz SA is going to be running much better, looking at the video he released though, it still ran like crap. I spose that is the trade off though for a small developer making their own engine over buying a license to an engine from a more experience and higher budget developer like Epic, DICE or Crytek.

670SLI 980 I7 = 20-40FPS Just not good enough after hearing how it was going to be running much better than ARMA 2 and it isn't. Graphical settings don't impact it and I refuse to believe my CPU is holding it back.

What I don't get is people say it's due to the A.I, firstly I have no idea why you'd want to play with A.I in the first place, playing against humans is much better for a variety of reasons. Also though because performance is no better in multiplayer than Single Player, so the whole A.I thing doesn't make sense.

Well I'm trying to understand why push the weakest part of current systems.

Surely though Physx is an attempt at getting physics off the CPU and onto the GPU? Can't it be a direct Havok replacement?