Kid18120

^ this. If all the hype they are throwing at us is just for a MP gamemode, it's better to be an extremely new one (which to me sounds a bit impossible to come up with a really new mode). If there's some (good) additional content aswell, either engine-side or playable content side, i'll be good.

Want to see an actual benchmark ? Play BF4 - it has Mantle support since last patch of some days ago.

Quoting myself.... So your car is being fixed while someone else is taking care of rims and neons and stuff

All i keep reading in this thread is nothing but "Meh da game iz broken, fix BI, you promised!" And stuff like that! As some else said some posts back, this will do anything but unmotivate BI devs because it feels their work isn't appreciated. Someone else asks "would you have bought A3 if you knew its release state was going to be as it has been on Day1 ?" My answer is YES! For a very simple reason: I know BI, i enjoy their games and i know that over time (i have no hurry!) the game will be exactly as expected. It has been exactly the same for me on A1 and A2. Why bother now ? Also, about the lack of "announcements", BI has been PERFECTLY clear that they will NOT make any announcement untill they are 10000000% sure that feature/content/whatever will make it in the stable game. The DEV Branch changelogs are a perfect example of their work. They are working and they are doing it every single damn day. And before someone comes up with "yeah but they are taking care more for graphics and minor issues instead of fixing AI and other major bugs", a dev team has different people for different areas of what they develop, so this doesn't mean they aren't focusing on major issues aswell, it just means they are still working on the best and most viable solution for it.

I know that, and infact i also wrote "Sure, RV would benefit a lot from multi threading optimization, x64 exes and so on, but i wouldn't expect a miracle." I still stand on my point tough. Sure it will benefit from better code and better HW resources usage, but i wouldn't expect it all of a sudden (with all those things done) to run on a stable 120fps.

I'll give it a try and drop my 2 cents, hopefully someone will get my point. I've been reading trough the whole thread by now and the majority of posters seem to be stuck on the "but the engine X looks better and runs smoother than RV" matter. Let's take Frostbite 3, for example. I'm refering to this engine simply because BF4 is my 2nd most played FPS, A3 being the 1st. Frostbite 3 is capable of great graphics, great sounds and runs with solid 75+ FPS maxed out on my rig. Arma 3 is capable of great graphics too, enjoyable sounds and runs on a stable 40 FPS (MP) on my rig not with some tweaks here and there in the graphics. Now, at this point, some may just tell "see ?! Frostbite outperforms RV !". While it's somewhat true (FB3 is better optimized towards multicore CPUs and multiple GPUs), there are still some factors to keep into account: - Map sizes: The scenes rendered by BF4 are comparable (in size) to what A3 does with a single city - Calculations: Games like BF4 are and always be different from games like A3 in the amount of calculations (read CPU-sided) --- A3 AIs are somewhat "dynamic" and unscripted, they do react to the situation and try (sadly most of the time fail :P ) to adapt and overcome --- BF4 AIs are scripted. Replay the same missions and you'll always get the same situations, eventually with slight differences if you kill that specific AI later than you did before --- Bullet drop in games like BF4 is just a set of numbers that define where the "laser beam" being your shot will land --- Bullet drop in A3 is calculated over a (not sure how much) realistic set of factors, where even the bullet itself is an object and not just a client-side texture (hence more shit to calc) --- More examples on the same path as the previous ones What i'm traying to explain is that there is and always will be a difference between a game and a realistic-feeling game (yes, i'm not calling A3 a simulator because it's far from it) that lie in the area that isn't clearly visible to non-developers users. Sure, RV would benefit a lot from multi threading optimization, x64 exes and so on, but i wouldn't expect a miracle. Even if RV would be replaced by a more modern and optimized engine, with the amount of calcs needed just for AI's pathfinding, the game would run just as "bad" (if 40 stable fps are considered bad, that is). To experience my point yourself, just play a coop against AIs, then play a pvp without AIs, on the same mission, same area, everything exactly the same. There you have quite a difference on performance. Right there, with the exact same mission.

That was a damn great explaination of your suggestion! It was quite a wall of text, true, but hey was clear even for someone (me) that doesn't really know anything about texturing and mapping layers. Hopefully we'll see something like this implemented, maybe in a future patch (ìt's never too late !! :D ) Very well done, mate. Regards, Kid18120