white

idk, its been like that in arma 2 forever and yeah ive seen people defending it because they like how "stealthy it is". i understand obviously "110db" is a lot less loud than 160db, but considering 80 is a clap and every 3 db the loudness id doubleb. 110db is still loud as fuck, and that is with subsonic ammo.

supressors change from 160 to 130 db and subsonic ammo changes another 10-15 db. 110db+ is still pretty loud and way louder than that movie. consequently, waaaaaay louder than ingame.

anyway, its still pretty damn loud with supressors and i think it should be loud ingame.

enter any populated dayz server with BE and you will find a hacker after a while. i stopped playing because i literally encountered hackers every single day, even logging on different servers. the only somewhat playable servers were private ones with an admin that would rollback and ban everytime a script kiddie killed everyone. at least for dayz that wont be a serious issue anymore on the stand alone. but in arma 3? ill probably just play on locked servers with friends. afaik BE did nothing.

let me just post this here again: 2 Cores Enabled: GPU usage = 27% / CPU usage = 99.8% / FPS = 31 4 Cores Enabled: GPU usage = 76% / CPU usage = 91.1% / FPS = 47 6 Cores Enabled: GPU usage = 95% / CPU usage = 89.7% / FPS = 70 based on the fps increase anyone can gather those arent wasted cpu cycles in loop to increase usage by faking it. http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18459152 to replicate you have to underclock the cpu because the cpu isnt a bottleneck in most games, its the gpu. well the info is on the link. i dont, most games just work with great fps when you have the hardware to use it, so i dont even waste time considering what they did wrong, assuming they did anything wrong. unlike arma 2 and now arma 3, that leaves most people with high end hardware wondering what the hell is going on, and having a hard time to get anything more than misterious statements about it. but yes, im hopefull you guys will be able to get a noticeable increase in fps to finally make a game with respectable performance. dont get me wront, the concept for arma is great, im fine with the graphics, animations, missions. havent complained ever about any of it (well maybe ive complained about hackers on arma 2). but performance its another history. but yes, sometimes developers screw things up, crysis 3 beta had a bad fps issue that they fixed in less than a week i believe, sim city was a disaster and they endedup giving away free games for it, theres a handfull more that i can recall. most of them where quickly fixed with a couple of exceptions. and most of them are pretty quick to make a public statement about recognizing the issue and promissing to fix it, but like i said, sure there are exceptions. but were all good, since its still an alpha, its not like it will be another arma 2 all over again, right? just a tip, since you guys dont want to make a statement about whats the problem, what are you doing about it, how much performance increase people might expect and maybe how long it will take, and not because you have to, but because you can, you know, to enlighten and fullfill peoples curiosity, people unavoidably will wonder and discuss the things they come up with on their own, its in our nature to try to figure things out, especially when theres a problem. you guys have all the power in your hands to end this discussion about performance, you dont because you apparently simply dont want to. but of course thats entirely your choice. imho people are just afraid of having to deal with arma 2´s problems again.

wow, 1.18 seconds to turn and shoot, and accurately. damn. is that right? no, something is off, it counts to 0.30 then jumps to 1 sec. never seen time counted like that, how does that work? and he took less just to turn. still pretty impressive.

didnt even see this post since you mistook me from someone else, no idea why. check my first post again, i stated from when he turns to when he shoots, and then u proceeded to calculate his turn without his shooting and when i asked to consider the time he shot, you ignored it. by then i couldve argued a lot of things, i couldve said that the turn without the shooting couldnt be compared to the video, since the whole turn stance of the shooter in the video was based on him cocking/drawing his gun, taking aim and then shooting, slowing him down quite a bit. then i could say could be compared only to a head and arm turn before the body while aiming randomly without considering hitting anything but trying to turn as quick as one could, to only proceed to try to aim afterwards, which would be completely different from the video i posted and could be waaaaay quicker. and i agree that i misread the timeframe you mentioned before you posted the video, i glanced and thought it was 0.9 seconds, my english is far from perfect and i made a mistake, also, i agree that the turn by itself was faster then i thought, on the youtube video, that i have checked again, still seems slower than yours, wont acusse you of changing it inadvertely because im not willing to check though. but i dont think turning randomly without being able to shoot means anything, thus why i counted the first shot as a parameter in my first post. one, turning randomly as fast as one could, idk, one might be able to do it in less than 1 second, i agree, still far from your video, but then maybe even shoot in less than 2 seconds if not having to draw or care about accuracy like the guy in the video i posted. afterall, he cared about his stance, getting/cocking his gun or whatever, aligning it to the target for a hit and then proceeded shooting. all in 3 seconds, maye without all those things hw could get to half that. but anyway, turning 180 degress in less than 1 sec without being able to shoot accurately wont accomplish anything.

a strong leg placed properly at the correct time would be able to hold his weight, when a weaker than necessary one wouldnt be able to compensate while stopping the turn. imho. afterall what starts and stops the turn is force made with muscles, how strong and quick depends on his muscles, be able or not to is technique and muscles, especially if you have extra weight and need to counter the extra force when stopping. noone said the guy couldnt lift and train shooting. you can box, lift weight, be huge and train with firearms, they arent exclusive. my point is yes you can be way stronger than average and also be way quicker than average, and run longer if so. just wont win a medal.

considering i have 16gb ram and a ssd (in case windows misteriously pages something since pagefile is turned off) my fps is consistent to other people with similar cpus but with hard drives and less ram. i even get lower fps than people with better cpus but with hard drives. so, right now, i dont think it would have a direct performance impact. IO might be an issue and might help something, afterall i see no point of not using 64bits already, but, i think that it will only become a bottleneck after the true bottleneck is fixed, if ever.

pretty close to me. and then the guy doubles his mouse sensitivity. lol

so strenght woulndt make you handle heavy objects easier? thats new for me. came to mind arnold using an 25kg armor to film the atrocious movie batman forever, but sure, any regular teenager would be able to accomplish the same and be able to have the same freedom of movements. hurr durr. B isnt true there are 2 types of muscles, a quick and a slow one, white and red muscle fibers if i recall correctly, good weight lifters train both with both slow and quick movements and different weights. and of course im not talking about the cover of a muscle n fitness, but an average weight lifter but still is a lot stronger than a regular joe. also, tell that to boxers, their punches seem pretty quick to me. some mma fighters can land close to 6 punches a second while being very strong.

did you make him wait before turning liek the guy in the video and did you make him draw his gun? its obvious he would be faster, the thing is, by how much?

then i say the guy in the game is a weight lifter and the one in the video isnt. but, do you even lift? i said 2 seconds to start shooting, he definetly took more than 1 second to do that. the guy in the video took a little more than 1.5 secs (little over half the video) to just turn. and he waits a bit before the turn aswell. but even if im wrong i appreciate the edited video, will be cool to watch.

seems like he took 2 seconds to turn and start shooting, seems doable. 3 seconds, but he had to draw: close topic?

you are probably right but i m not sure, i reinstalled bf3 yesterday because of the new end game expansion, im able to sustain 50+fps with 4x msaa and everything on ultra, on fullhd. i have a 660ti oc. 32 player online game. damn thats a beautifull game.

acctualy this sounds about right what should be corrected is increasing the sound the weapon makes when using the silencer/supressor.

then in the game it should be loud as it is in reality, but is nowhere near it, never been.

sorry, you are right. this is the "internets" afterall, im just used to it.

yes, that must be it.

its not just apparent. stop posting.

sigh. first off i bolded the most important part. he states that high cpu/gpu usage in gaming is yet to be seen. and a few posts before that, here, i posted a high cpu/gpu usage in bf3. exactly what he said was yet to be seen, and in different topics people posted the same thing on other games. and on a topic about low cpu usage in which everyone is talking about how the game underperforms in multicore, he states as an excuse: "these who always expect theirs multicore CPU maxxed out by games fail to realize that there is always overhead by syncing or minimal timeframe needed to finish operation on actual primary thread" but again, thats proven wrong with high cpu usage on multithreaded multicore games. being able to read words doesnt mean you are able to understand what is written.

look again, i just edited my previous post with it (in this topic). that one in particular talks about cpu/gpu usage and multithread in games, and both his statements and some in the article he posted are wrong. check the reply i made there soon after, acctually, check that entire topic slowly since you seem to miss a lot of things, you will learn a lot there. but there were more statements about it on other places/topics aswell, sorry because im not about to scavenge the rest of them aswell. deducting using evidences,you know, using logic. you should give it a try. theres a lot of information on the subject between users and the devs statements here on arma 3, on steam discussion (especially on a topic there that dwarden closed) and on arma 2 aswell, since its the same issue and its been discussed for years, including the 64bits issue, and ive been reading it. dont come here with a parachute without doing your homework and expeting to know what i know so far. i dont know everything, far from it, but apparently you dont know shit.

i think in the low cpu usage topic around page 20. here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147533-Low-CPU-utilization-amp-Low-FPS&p=2320137&viewfull=1#post2320137 and ive replied to that shortly after questioning it, didnt get any more direct replies back. because of how the engine is coded the first core bottlenecks everything, thus making everything else wait for it, and that, makes most of the other cores useless. the game needs to have this aspect redesigned in order to use the hardware thats avaiable.

you can try it yourself and watch how your core to fps ratio works, theres no secret to it. causality my friend. theyve clearly stated in the past that other game´s cpu/gpu usage behaves the same as arma, and that they dont scale multicore usage well like one would expect, and well, i can prove that wrong quite easily. if i say something when theres enough facts to prove me otherwise, i must accept im wrong. if i keep saying the same thing anyway when trying to not fix something/stating i cannot fix it for time/budget reasons, for years, (arma2) while pushing a product... well... doesnt leave much space for more conclusions. well theres is the one that they simply dont know better even when people keep shouting it, i could accept that. i understand they built the engine in a peculiar manner that cant take advantage of multicores, but noone can say other games dont make use of it properly, because that would be a lie. also cannot be said that it couldnt be changed, since its a matter of effort/cost/time, and not being impossible or not. but like i always say, prove me otherwise if im wrong.