white

Personally ive only been aware of supressors in real life, and they are pretty loud still, so why ArmA has holywoodian/arcade game silencers? if im ignorant and silencers that completely negate sound exists, please show me.

so less means more and no means yes.

Yes i understand the huge difference between ArmA 3/2 engine and the new developments on the engine for Dayz, read again what i posted and pay attention to what has been underlined, the relevant comparison was between ArmA 3 and ArmA 2, forget about DayZ.

Ask Rocket, as a developer he probably knows a lot more than you. Like your description says, i´m not about to debate a mindless fanboy.

Enough with courteous synonyms, either he lied or he didn´t, which one is it. ArmA 3 either better performs or is worse than arma 2 when handling more players and more AI. So far the only developer statement i have is that one, that says its worse. Every cpu performance related topic is being closed because they know major performance issues wont be addressed, and they want to keep this silenced. Alpha will end in a couple of weeks, i wonder what will be the excuse then.

From a developer who has access to the engine code, curious information:

You are the one that keeps accusing me of trolling, drama and now twisting reality, but remember, even when you accused me of trolling i disproved you and that infraction was taken down. So check again who´s reality is twisted. That guy did the same affinity/core test i had done a month prior but only this time around you stopped to ask questions about it like it was something new to you, i drew the only obvious conclusion, that you didn´t follow the one i had done before, that was tested and discussed by other people, so i posted it again and all that is explained on the same topic, the same bench topic which i also posted those questions i mentioned. Again with the vague "optimizations" that can mean anything from making a couple of smaller sized textures to a complete overall of the engine, from which anyone can interpret anything from while not being accountable to anything, and don´t come close to describe even vaguely the issue discussed on this topic from day 1 of the alpha release and for years on arma 2. The closest anyone came from talking about the poor multithreaded issue here was you, but you also said that no game has high usage across all cores, and that multithreaded games don´t scale well, obviously implying that arma and its multicore support works as it should, but then we showed some games that scale well and do use several cores above 90%, thus disproving your statement and the article you used to base your statement on. what happened then? you became quiet, but whenever the subject was brought up again you stated the same thing linking to the same posts and article from bohemia. The questions are still there, unanswered, you can answer them now then: (Or give us a reasonable excuse not to. I can post the several other questions that you ignored on this topic aswell if you are willing to answer them) http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?153524-CPU-VS-RAM-Performance-amp-CPU-Threading-Benchmarked&p=2378614&viewfull=1#post2378614

Yes i´ve read the entire thread (and i doubt you did, because in a different thread you seemed surprised when a benchmark showed the same exact thing that was shown in this one way before), and all your posts, some of which i replied asking for more information and most went ignored and unanswered by you. And i´ve found nothing related or mentioning the low cpu utilization/poor performance on those links you just posted. So all i said stands. Please remind me of my other "dramas", i´m all for it if you are going to answer them this time around. I remember in another thread in which i made a few examples of direct questions that could end this charade, but to no surprise, you didn´t bother to answer any. Wouldn´t be surprised if you didn´t even read them.

My last paragraph kind of explains why, for short, tired of bullshit.

I respect what you said, and they could come out and be clear about it, but instead they choose to come out as vague as they can be. Not only that, but also giving the impression that the game could already be optimized, like in this interview: "It’s hard to ultimately say whether or not ARMA 3 in its Alpha state is already ‘optimized’." http://gamingbolt.com/bohemia-have-no-plans-to-bring-arma-3-on-the-ps4-praises-sony I take this kind of vague meaningless reply as a disrespect to all the consumers that have the recommended system or above suffering from performance issues. If it won´t change much, then just be clear about it and get it over with. And change the minimum/recommended specs on steam to more current hardware.

ideal: i·de·al (-dl, -dl) n. 1. A conception of something in its absolute perfection. 2. One that is regarded as a standard or model of perfection or excellence. 3. An ultimate object of endeavor; a goal. 4. An honorable or worthy principle or aim. adj. 1. a. Of, relating to, or embodying an ideal. b. Conforming to an ultimate form or standard of perfection or excellence. 2. Considered the best of its kind. 3. Completely or highly satisfactory: The location of the new house is ideal. 4. a. Existing only in the mind; imaginary. b. Lacking practicality or the possibility of realization. 5. Of, relating to, or consisting of ideas or mental images. 6. Philosophy a. Existing as an archetype or pattern, especially as a Platonic idea or perception. b. Of or relating to idealism. So yeah, its falls perfectly inside my interpretation of it, making it all completely vague. any game could fall into what they stated, and someone can draw anything from it, positive or negative as i did. I´ve seen plently of people using not ideal for things that were fine or good but not perfect, that´s your problem, you take your perception and want to use it as a rule, unfortunately reality works the other way around. like i just said: "and someone can draw anything from it." and that´s, with no surprise whatsoever from my part, what you chose to take from it. Yet they define the performance simply as not ideal, when in fact for a whole lot of people it´s simply broken, especially when using the recommended hardware on steam, and with that, meaning exactly what i said. I´m also curious about why Dwarden lied, since i´ve quoted him twice and he doesn´t answer as to where this topics issue was stated on a sitrep or spotrep.

and then they proceed to say that "it is not ideal", and that´s the same as saying, "its great but not perfect". well no game is perfect, which means they might aswell change nothing. and thats why its pretty damn vague. i was going to excuse you for not understanding english properly (since the forum has people from all over) but then i realized you were from the US, so you have no excuse.

very vague imho. "not ideal" means they dont recognize anything as being bad or wrong, and i take it as "not much will change."

currently they are hidden by being hidden under the ground after a certain distance while proning.

i agree and voted up

well then i would reinstall or try a different gpu driver version, and verify the game´s files integrity through steam

I know its not knew, i had a 3dfx voodoo 5500 from which nvidia took its sli technology. (i had most others voodoo´s aswell) gpu usage is only low when the cpu is the bottleneck for the game, even with 1 card. if your cpu doesnt let your first videocard get close to 100% of course sli wont do much if anything at all. but its not the sli itself that causes the overhead to block the scaling, its not what you see when you get almost 100% scaling with a second card with a good cpu on a properly coded game (aka not arma). usually the problem with scaling appears when drivers simply arent optimized for an specific game, but scaling on both ati and nvidia nowdays is amazing and dont take much for new drivers to properly support sli in whatever is launched. your single experience means nothing, might be the exception or simply something you did wrong, or your perception. thats why is necessary to take several reviews into account and not trust just 1 source that can be completely wrong. as close as one can be to the scientific method on a review, no reviewer goes all the way when it comes to it. I work with 3d archviz dealing daily with stuff like texture quality and resolution, shadow quality and resolution, etc. and to me, the difference from low to ultra is huge, not so much between high and ultra although there is some aswell. but i agree that it doesnt look horrible like arma on low. wasted for blind people, i agree. those people also think that the game is beautifull and look the same as on pc while running on consoles with 500x on very low with 30fps or lower.

theres an unnoficial dx10 for winxp in case you insist on not upgrading your OS: http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/OS-Enhancements/DirectX-10-for-Windows-XP.shtml

i was curious about it so i checked about 8 links, none explained or proved what you mentioned. and about the difference on bf3, it changes considerably specially for far away objects, into a higher lod, also the lighting/shadows-shadow quality and other subtle differences on textures, etc. you can perceive the difference here: high: http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2011/11/battlefield-3-technical-analysis/mesh-high.jpg ultra: http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2011/11/battlefield-3-technical-analysis/mesh-ultra.jpg here its easier to perceive how much mroe blurred the shadows become when the range increases: high: http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2011/11/battlefield-3-technical-analysis/preset-high.jpg ultra: http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2011/11/battlefield-3-technical-analysis/preset-ultra.jpg http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2011/11/10/battlefield-3-technical-analysis/1 and here you can see crossfire scaling to almost 100% more performance on a 6990 (6990 has a slightly lower clock) compared to a 6970: (throwing out the window the cpu overhead hypothesis) http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2011/11/10/battlefield-3-technical-analysis/4

someone here on the forum tested arma 2 content in arma 3 on the same spots with similar settings, and it performed worse. (that can be acceptable, but serves to disprove who says otherwise) considering arma 3 right now has way less content its expected to run better, but like arma 2, there was a big performance hit when the big island came about. well see then.

check my last 2 posts on the previous page, wouldnt you call that a clear cut lie? if not, explain to me why. and if they decided to start to go as far as lying, care to think of reasons why would they do that? i can, and they are not good.

I´m sorry, but again, where is it?

I agree, currently the AI lacks any basic common sense.

wasnt being cynical, those requirements are indeed more in tune with reality.

where? because i never saw it. maybe? you don´t know then. you guys seriously need to hire a pr firm, this is disastrous. "dif between alpha and beta" so the game will make use of more cores for its main threads? or are you guys just gonna create a ton of new physx/clouds threads to make use of the other cores to get the usage up with no performance gains? and based on what you said about the difference between alpha and beta, am i to expect this change before beta? simple direct questions, gotta love them. edit.: i know a simple way to fix everything, too bad it wasnt done from start: set the minimum required specs to an amd 8350 with a 7950 and recommended to an 3960 with nvidia titan. only those with a 3960 and titan would have any basis for complaining, and those should be way less than 1% of players.