white

considering the issues with cpu usage, the only amd processors equiparable to the performance of intels in this game have been the visheras, even so they need to be overclocked to get acceptable framerates, as do intel ones. i think this is an average between all the showcases: http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/ARMA%20III%20Alpha/test/arma%203%20proz%20amd.jpg (120 kB) http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2306247 http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/arma-iii-alpha-test-gpu.html

you forgot : http://img.wowebook.com/images/32890818.jpg (111 kB) seriously, if you dont read the whole topic first, dont post. ------- since these were posted on a few other topics about the same issue, and for some reason arent closed, ill just post this here aswell since this is the main topic about it: http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/ARMA%20III%20Alpha/test/arma%203%20proz%20h.jpg (124 kB) http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/ARMA%20III%20Alpha/test/arma%203%20proz%20amd.jpg (120 kB) "A game can fully load only two processing cores. The number of cores the load is distributed between them virtually no effect on the performance itself. If, before the release optimization is not corrected, it will be put to doubt the purchase ARMA III." http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/arma-iii-alpha-test-gpu/testovaya-chast.html

good job on being lazy and not caring enough to read that topic, also good job on making false asumptions about it. and nice going about not knowing shit about how arma 2 performs on current systems and calling people with high end rigs that experience the engines limitations stupid, and i find it ironic considering you just said arma 2 has outstanding fps. funny shit. i really cant say anything more after that.

sigh i guess being able to read is not the same as being able to understand it right? and arma 2 still has bad fps issues. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?85124-ArmA2-OA-(low)-performance-issues and i never stated that i expected 30 mininum in alpha so i guess its true that you cant read. you take part of a phrase, ignore the paragraph and dont take the rest of what ive said into account as context. what ive said is that 25 average is unacceptable, because a lot of people state that "20-30 fps is fine for arma". you know what that means to me? that you cant read, dont follow the topic and post whatever stupid thing comes to mind not taking anything into account. what i do expect, or better, hope, its 30fps minimum at launch. and im afraid theres a huge possibility that it wont happen based, like i said, on previous games and their vague answers about the issue that theyve already recognized. but who knows, its alpha, anything can happen right? i still hope they will get it right, theres time imho, but all the vague statements and avoiding direct questions dont help.

and then i proceeded to define a quite specific scenario, i guess finishing that paragraph was too hard for you.

with anything i throw at it. 100 AI, multiplayer with 30 ppl, with tanks, helis, on the shore with explosions and smoke and 3000 view range. again, thats 30 fps minimum. because 30fps isnt enough for smooth gameplay. you wouldnt get 5 fps with those right now. and if you switched off 2 cores on a quad core you wouldnt lose 1 fps, curiously if you have a quad core you will see 50% cpu usage. thats says a lot about it effectively using more than 2 cores or not. i would be fine if the game made proper use of 4 cores, but right now 1 core is bottlenecked and slows everything down, if you have a good enough gpu settings either on low or ultra wont change anything. but hey, if they manage to get 30 fps minimum (and around 45 average) on the scenario i mentioned using that same 1 core (not separating more threads for at least quad cores, using better ram management by goign 64bits, etc), hell i would love it aswell but i seriously doubt it will happen without more serious changes in the engine, well, unless i wake up in 2016 with 6ghz cpus and gddr5 ram. i agree, the game should run with that 30fps minimum on the recommended system specs to begin with. 30fps like its been said, its console fps, its unacceptable to play with average 25fps like most are. you trust bis will fix this until launch, thats a reasonable assumption, but is also reasonable to think the opposite considering their track record with previous games. its not about putting 50 million dollars into features, or "wasting" 15 million into hiring a studio just for the pre rendered cinematics, its about a couple of great programmers that dont think "stuff is too hard" and focus on updating the engine along the years to current/next gen hardware. thats proper design. and its not the devs fault, thats their boss fault and lack of vision. (well vision enough just to at least keep the engine updated to current specs) "Unreal Engine 4 On August 18, 2005, Mark Rein, the vice-president of Epic Games, revealed that Unreal Engine 4 had been in development since 2003.[15] Until mid-2008, development was exclusively by Tim Sweeney, technical director and founder of Epic Games.[16] The engine targets the eighth generation of PC hardware and consoles." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Engine

like ive said, api monitor, you can see how the specific threads work with it. ive talked to a few long time programmers about how one would address this, most of them said, probably rewriting the code to make a separate thread for each AI. but like soma said when answering about the poor performance in arma 2 a couple of years back, i gather bohemias stance woulndt be much different now: "its too hard and we are not willing". but yes, there are other factors, dwarven stated himself that they found some misterious "troublesome code". doesnt exclude my previous statements since he also stated that bad multithread performance is a valid argument. all in this same topic. as long they find a way to get 30 fps minimum on better than recommended machines, ill be fine with it. and ill remain hopefull they will be able to. even when theyre very evasive and suspicious about it. after u read this topic, read this one: http://steamcommunity.com/app/107410/discussions/0/864961721676462825/#p1 someone explains in better detail and with screenshots what ive said. now go troll someone else.

not it doesnt come naturally, a lot of games use asynchronous multithreading for a lot of things. saying that the dozens extra threads for clouds makes the engine have proper multithread to make use of multicores is retarded, if the game runs most of it in 1 threads in 1 core, and that slows down the entire game making the gpu idle, what is the conclusion taken from it? and i dont argue that launch parameters are useless. what has been proven is that the first core bottlenecks everything else, and turning off 4 cores in a six core cpu has no effect whatsoever in performance. if you havent gotten there yet in this topic, keep reading. to this day we have the same performance issues in arma2, people with 3960 and titan experience the same, having the same issues with horrible minimum fps (lower than 20). but yeah, a lot of people consider 20-30 fps "fine for arma". well to me those ppl are blind. and btw, in case you also havent gotten there yet, dwarden on this topic said: "of course we are aware of this issue". and i agree, it might take a few more years for this to be addressed, because it havent so far, in years. go to the arma 2 forum, ull find topics on the exact same issue, dated 2009. and since you think theres nothing wrong and ppl are just whining, vote it down: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716

thank you, ill read it thoroughly

i dont disagree, the only thing that really bothers me is the performance hit form the ocean. as its been discussed it seems to require too much cpu. perhaps they should recode it into opencl and make use of the gpu for it. (opencl so its compatible to both gpus)

sigh use an api monitor and now tell me what those threads do. most of them are the new implemented clouds and physx (lots of threads for both, and they werent there on arma 2). theres 1 main thread that takes care of the game/ai/sync and thats on the first core, theres also a thread for textures. again, which means, most of it runs on the first core, some runs on the second core, and some crap (clouds) is able to use some other cores (but dont really need to because the game runs with the exact same performance on dual cores as it does with 6-8 cores avaiable, why? the first core cant handle dealing with that big thread. and all threads, even clouds, have to wait to sync with the thread on the first core, and thats shown in an api monitor. since the game gets stuck because of the first core, and dont take advantage of more than 2 cores because anything more than that is clouds and physix (which runs fine also in the second core with the current performance), we state that the game dont use/take advantage of more than 2 cores in practice, which means its not a proper multicore game. yeah the engine recognizes all cores, can even spill some crap into them, but for no real gain. the whole "arma is a mil sim and its cpu intensive" is a lie when considering the current multicore architecture of cpus, the fact is, it doenst use current cpus as it should. it was designed that way a long time ago in a galaxy far away (couldnt bring myself to finish that sentence earlier). and it might not be changed ever. and do yourself a favor and read the whole topic before posting, since this was already discussed at length. and to me the pathetic thing here is your attempt to sound intelligent.

well since ppl are talking about guides how one would come about creating an island, custom texture and place custom static models on it? can anyone point me in the best direction regarding those topics? im becoming interested on making something (custom island obviously), want to read up on how to come about it while i wait to see if the games performance will get good enough for me to consider spending a lot of time to accomplish itl.

if we get 30fps MINIMUM with that + vehicles & explosions, i agree completely.

from what ur saying is not your hardware, is the same issue most ppl have. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147533-Low-CPU-utilization-amp-Low-FPS

we have people with 3960 and titan complaining about low performance, anyone with half a brain notices it, so stop with the stupid. and there is no "30fps is good in a3" ppl just say that because they have no choice when the first core on the cpu is bottlenecked and noone can buy a 6ghz cpu. average 30fps in arma behaves the same as 30fps in any other fps´s. BAD. and btw, devs already recognized the issue. so if you dont want better framerates, keep posting nonsense.

just wish the game had a bigger variety and amount of bushes/debris to use as cover, and that they didnt stand out as much from the terrain textures.

well is good to know we have an Acoustical engineer here. its not measurable that it doubles, but stating it does its false, no matter that what you can measure, which is its intensity, shows it does double. right. again, you can state its false, even when you say yourself its subjective and you cant measure it. to me that sounds like "i dont know, and i cant know, but i know its false". anyway, the point of this thread is that silencers/supressors ingame, imho, shouldnt exist like they are now, because as they are now, only exists on movies and arcade games, well, and arma 2. as opposed to reality. now, the argument about how its called, its because silencers got too associated with how they behave in movies, so people started using the name suppressor that represents more accurately what it truly does. so basically is a better word for it, and deals with enlightening people about how silencers really work.

does this mean old arma players are becoming hipsters? all in all i agree that turning should be somewhat limited, or, simply forcing a really bad aim for a sec so you can turn but become unable to shoot shit.

well so far the poll is pretty much clear, most, by far, want women models avaiable.

i agree that that pdf is subjective by not explicitly defining the model of the spoken objects, such as what motorcyle model, with what engine and what muffler its using for instance, those are just vague averages. but actual perception of sound is not subjetive , but it is measurable by db using eletronic sensors that verify how loud the sound is. our ears arent damaged necessairly by the physical air pressure the sound waves cause or its intensity, unless thats way intense, but usually by the loudness of the sound itself, because high pitched sounds dont make nowhere near the air pressure or low frequency sounds, but are just as damaging if not more. the amount of air pressure thats impacted by sound waves depend a lot of the frequency used, and can easily be seen by low bass frequencies shaking everything up while not being loud enough to damage ones ears, and its kind of common in car sounds systems. but to me measuring that kind of sound intensity is a whole other subject that doesnt apply to the game. to the game, imho, whats important it how loud it is to our ears and how far away one would perceive the weapons sound, and my guess that on open spaces, like most of the game, would be hundreds of meters since the sound would propagate without barriers. edit.: i guess the intensity of sound waves based on air pressure/frequencies are relevant to the game when considering temporary deafening explosions with how theyr sound and affect peoples ears (buzzing/ringing), but thats beyond the silencer/supressor scope i think.

are you sure? "A change in power ratio by a factor of 10 is a 10 dB change. A change in power ratio by a factor of two is approximately a 3 dB change." your link.

afaik whats written there is in conjuntion and at least partly written/agreed by bohemia, isnt it? and stuff there/purchasing probably follow valves rules into whats stated or not in the time of purchase. i remember a lot of trouble another game had with false statements on steam, even got knocked off there, despite being a beta. and i agree, if you bought there under what i mentioned, and got denied, one should indeed annoy steam. dont know how it works or how its phrased when buying on BIS website so i wont comment about that. the thing is, that guys logic does apply, well to steam at least. and no need for anyone to be angry at me, i just made a logic exercise based on the facts of the matter (steamwise).

fact is we did buy the alpha and will win the full game later on, thats the gist of how is described on steam, and thats what valve used to deny people´s reinbursements when trying to cancel the preorder (ive seen discussion topics about it on steam). so technically, its not a preorder, although the process is exatcly the same as one, it has different phrasing so you cant get your money back, thats pretty much it. but, by following that logic, the guy is right, because if you cant get your money back, because it isnt a preorder, then the recommended settings apply to the alpha, and then if you cant run it in a decent manner you can argue its false advertsiment, or the product is broken, and thus deserve your money back. basicly working a loophole against the logic created by a phrasing made especifically so you cant cancel your "preorder". i somewhat agree with the rest. @unrelated im disappointed that i didnt get any answer to my previous post, again.

sure, but 110db is still very loud and easily perceivable by a few hundred meters. you might not realize its a weapon, or what kind. but you will hear it.

is it? http://rs.nationalsafetyinc.com/company_79//HP202_Noise_Thermometer.pdf