white

mid 30´s means it gets to less than 30. you do know what an average is right? doesnt seem to. altough i was frustrated by arma 2 i started playing because of friends that already did, and at the time my computer wasnt great so i coped with it, and nowdays it should perform way better, but it doesnt. and like ive said several times, the one thing that i expected from arma 3 was better performance. civ to me is civilization, is that what you are talking about? theyre games in which you dont have to aim precisely, and hell, with turns you can take an hour to click once. doesnt even make sense to bring that game up. any shooter-like game needs fps for precise aiming and to compensate recoil. thus the same goes for war flight sims and other genres. and ive competed on live for speed and fps also makes a lot of difference in racing games. and who said anything about lag spikes, is that your rationalization? one doesnt exclude the other so it has nothing to do with it. clear case of cognitive dissonance. i agree, i just replied to false statements regarding fps and how they magically perform better on arma when low. and as usual fanboys jump to attack anything or anyone that disrupts their fantasy world. so people should attack the one that went offtopic to begin with and not the one who replied correcting him, and simply stop replying with more inquiry about it so i dont need to answer.

yes its an amateur video with badly captured audio. a supressed rifle is 130db, a jackhammer is 130db. want to make me believe that a rifle can sound as low as a clap which is around 40-50db? prove it. show me sources from reviewers or manufacturers that measured it. i can find a ton of manufacturers that state that their silencers take off around 30db from the weapons sound. yes the sound is changed a lot so is hard to recognize which weapon you are using or if its a weapon at all, yes should be hard to pinpoint your location, but its audible and people would turn around to look where it came from. more than 1 shot would help them pinpoint your location easily enough. and altough silencers do supress a lot of the muzzle flash it isnt 100%. the AI is overly precise on several ocasions, that is right. ive died a lot from their first bullet after barely turning to look at me while standing from around 200m and you can vote on it here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=3480

ChrisB "My point here being, that you forget sometimes (me included), that this series can run really well at lower fps, I think BIS have worked on that, understanding perhaps that not everyone will get high rates. It can and will look great and perform well, nice and smooth, at lower rates, so fps is certainly not the supreme thing to aim for. It is system specific, some systems will look and perform as if they were on higher rates than they actually are, maintaining a steady game-play throughout." utter nonsense. Yeah i cant disagree there, but from mid-high end machines it comes down to mostly the cpu. anyway, im completely fine with people enjoying playing with less than 30fps, i myself have played a lot while enduring it, specially on arma 2 where i mustve played more than 600h. i´m just annoyed when people go on about how arma works differently fpswise, because it doesnt.

This is starting to sound like fox news, repeating a lie wont make it true. FPS is absolutely necessary for compensating recoil between shots, specially against a moving target. exactly like a twitch shooter or any other shooter whatsoever. i agree that 30 fps minimum is reasonable for being able to play, but there is clear advantage gameplaywise on having more fps on ArmA, like any other game. so stating that ArmA handles better with lower fps is nonsense. "In this case, I rather have a nicer looking game than a more fluid one, nonsense?" You should be able to get both, graphics is not the limiting factor here, cpu usage, simulation syncing and how AI is handled is. unfortunatly BIS appears to be a small team and is unable to both deliver a great concept and make it perform as well as it could at the same time.

there is no such thing as "this or that game runs smooth in 30fps" what goes on is cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) of accepting what you have and making due with it, even trying to make yourself believe that it is fine since you are stuck with it. yes there are tricks like smoothing frames to make it less horrible. try the link on my sig to test out different options between fps/blur/speed. a lot of people think 30fps if fine simply because they dont know better, usually those are console players since theyve always been stuck with 30 fps or less but there are a lof of pc ones with bad rigs aswell. any experienced gamer that is used to good smooth fps around 60 knows this. its not in vain that pro players try to use 120hz monitors and use gtx690 on low settings in games like crysis 3 in order to achieve those kinds of fps´s. and to ones that say our eyes cant handle it, or eyes can handle and notice way more than 400 fps. you can check for a fact the huge difference in this comparison: (try with and without blur and such) http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/ 2 factors to take notice, if you have a 60hz monitor, more than 60fps wont make any difference. and when watching movies on youtube they are limited to 30fps. a comparison gameplay video with 24vs60fps, but you have to download to watch: http://www.solidfiles.com/d/a369a/ to be clear, this: "that this series can run really well at lower fps" is complete and utter nonsense.

i bet that if it had any changes for arma 3 it would be on the changelog like they do with every other significant game. considering arma 3 has been one of the top sellers on steam for a while it applies as being significant. lesser bugs might be fixed though.

yes it is loud, and subsonic ammo only lowers the sound another 10-15db. your problem is being used to movies as a base for reality, and trusting the sound from badly made youtube videos. 130db is a jackhammer. http://silencertalk.com/results.htm theres my proof. .

Can you?

suppressors/silencers only change the weapons sound to be harder to recognize, the sound is only lowered from 160db to 130db which still is very loud and would be heard from a few hundred meters on open ground. what is wrong is the weapons sound with supressors/silencer ingame, they sound like holywood movies which is completely and utterly fake and CoD-like. and if someone says that in the future silencers may become that way then just place plasma and laser rifles in there aswell, my guess about the future is as good as any.

not much can be asserted from your lack of providing thorough information.

there will always have stupid kids trying to ruin things, its the development company´s/police job to deal with it properly.

right click your game on steam library and on propeties/update select update to development build. a warning, there are a lot less servers on the development build, and less people playing on them.

so if you compare arma 2 to arma 3 and both using 2000 viewdistance, in arma 2 the object distance will be 1000? well then that would mean that even if the fps were the same, the performance in arma 2 would acctually be inferior since the object distance was in reality half. and btw thats fucked up, why does it work that way?

watch a lot of youtube videos and think for yourself. there are a lot a pros and a few cons but to begin with you need to watch or check by yourself the playability at first hand.

ah, another post. now i get it. probably just a child script kiddie that downloaded a couple of tools online. kind of pathetic to give this kid the attention you are by creating a topic about it. unless you are the kid to begin with.

Not sure of whats going on but ill go along with the topics title, big companies usually buy out and hire hackers to enhance their security, considering how full of holes arma 2 with BE is and has always been, that wouldnt be a bad idea for arma 3. and im not talking about the swarm of script kiddies, im talking as if there is/was a proper hacker around. so, anyway, whats going on?

I´m aware you don´t care, otherwise you wouldnt keep posting without any meaningfull information to support your claims. Of course, no matter what the subject is. If i post evidence proving my point you either have to pick holes in my argument/evidence or show an evidence of your own supporting your claims. You keep posting so i will choose to believe otherwise. Apparently you are not aware of what a logical fallacy is. Noone has to agree with me, not only that, i want people to disagree with me and prove me wrong by using facts and being logical. I´m here to learn and be challenged, because discussions are usually where i learn the most. Yes, ignoring is usually what ignorants do. Not unexpected. Considering the amount of posts without any evidence arguing against the topic at hand i believe this particular discussion is actually very helpfull in order for people to start making an effort and prove their claims, or simply avoid posting meaningless and baseless statements that add nothing to the topic and thus the game development. (well that is if the developers take into account the information gathered and tested here, altought i believe they do not)

great ad hominem. infractions to me can show a lot of other things, one example could be anti stablishment non conformant behaviour, traits that usually stir up discussions with great output once challenged by upto par individuals that use proper logic as means of argumentating, instead of plain meaningless logical fallacys over and over like yourself. and i had a couple of those infractions, but were taken away after it was cleared, by me, that they were wrongfull. so you need to take into account why each one exist in the first place. your best way to prove your point would be post a video or screenshots to support your statement, because you see, you can find videos, screenshots and lots of information made by people that suffer from it in an effort to shed light on this troublesome subject, however, there are close to no material at all showing otherwise. what we endup getting by those that voice their positive opinions about performance, even with a very sizeable amount of posts, usually amount to zero. i´m not saying you are lying, i´m also not saying that you can´t post as much as you like, i´m just saying that posting without any sort of evidence or at least logical conclusions made while using some supportive material will just endup being completely dismissed by everyone and not taken seriously. will endup as just noise.

performance is very variable based on what you see, your settings, server performance, how many players are online and the mission you are on. that said, dont expect great performance on this game, well, dont even expect a good one, and dont expect it to change much if at all by launch. to me overclock on my x6 1075t is usefull to a point. 30% overclock gives me about 15-20% more performance. a better videocard wont get you better performance on medium to low settings. things that can be done for you: turn off pip, turn off shadow, terrain and objects on standard, particles on low and viewdistance 1300 max (lower than this you will be missing out on awareness ingame). you can use anti aliasing and aniso on max, because those will only affect your underutilized gpu so it will barely affect you fps, if at all. (doesnt really affect mine on a 660ti oc) overclocking to a higher frequency on the first 2 cores and changing to cpus with better design are the most direct and effective approaches to gaining some performance, im not entirely sure about how bulldozer performs but you can check out the 1100T against the 8350 vishera here (i expect bulldozer to fall somewhere in between): http://i.imgur.com/TpOLckP.jpg

is there any possibility of file injecting/server scripting compromise the OS in the current alpha state?

yeah ive read it wrong, you are right. but anyway, right now theyre locked togheter in arma 3 which means that if you do a test with 2000 view distance you will get 2000 object distance, so is kind of easy to use both on the same parameters to try it out.

wouldnt that make arma 2 lose more performance compared to arma 3? and not the other way around?

i think right now object is stuck along with regular view distance, i might be wrong but i think Dwarden wrote that somewhere. and also, shouldnt it help to gain fps instead of losing it? afterall lots of people keep saying how great arma 3 performance is over arma 2, and when someone actually tests it under the same scenario, its worse.

Well i take well explained tests with screenshots a little more seriously than completely vague statements. but thats just silly old illogical me right.

i urge you to check this post which shows how wrong you are: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?153524-CPU-VS-RAM-Performance-amp-CPU-Threading-Benchmarked&p=2379703&viewfull=1#post2379703