Jump to content

Harry_Flashman

Member
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Harry_Flashman

  • Rank
    Private First Class
  1. Harry_Flashman

    Cannot Connect to Vanilla Arma 3 Servers

    I had a somewhat similar issue for a while. Turns out that my issue was that I had disabled the in-game Steam community link. Worked well for me for days, but for no apparent reason it prevented me from (sometimes) booting the game correctly, and (other times) connecting to servers. Re-enabled the in-game community link and it worked. Tried everything before that including a fresh install, which didn't work. Steam was screwing me up.
  2. I completely agree. It is unbelievable that the OP would come onto an internet forum and ask a question to which he did not already know the answer. He should absolutely have researched his answer to the question, before posting said question. Same goes for making an incorrect assertion - we all know that anything posted on an internet forum needs to be 100% correct. I'm embarrassed for him!
  3. Harry_Flashman

    No Women=Disturbing

    @Motorizer: Influx of players onto servers playing as women, not influx of brand new Arma players. I highly doubt people would rush out to buy Arma 3 just because they can now play as women. However, I don't doubt for a second that public servers would see an influx of little boys or immature young men (who have already bought the game) who would find it fun to play as scantily clad women. Guarding against that is just fine and actually helps preserve the integrity of the overall game/immersion/playing fun for those who've already coughed up the dough. Sure, people could just join private servers or leave every good public server, but why ruin game play for many because of just a few idiots.
  4. I'm not a technical expert but would imagine 60 FPS on a people-heavy MP server would be tough to achieve with a 3.0 GHz player even on low settings. But perhaps someone more familiar with that chipset and graphics card can help. This game is an IMMENSE CPU hog. That being said, it's worth a shot. Heck, even if you get 30 FPS I personally think it's worth it. Heck, to get my game to look decent I used Nvidia's adaptive v synch at half my monitor's refresh rate so I'm now locked into 30 FPS constant. Thankfully it's butter smooth, so I'm OK with the FPS I gave up to achieve graphical bliss. Also, don't forget that Arma requires a lot more forethought than, say CoD or BF: not much running and gunning, as that'll get you killed quickly. So I'm not sure that you gain much of a competitive edge with 60 vs 30 FPS (I'd personally gain none, playing CO-OP at least).
  5. Redirecting people to the same thread they're already posting in?... Nicholas - you posted a reply in a thread of mine that was closed today, so I'll say what I wanted to say in this thread. This thread deals mostly with highly generic questions like "Will my PC run Arma 3?" to which most responses are generally "Not on ultra; try low and play around with settings until you get a decent frame rate." In short, it's incredibly unhelpful for anyone seeking/searching for SPECIFIC advice to a SPECIFIC question - such as the one I asked earlier. Thankfully, the responses are out there - just not in here (or at least not in an easy to find place). Perhaps there are one or two nuggets buried deep in the 165 pages of one liner Q&A that seems to define this thread, but that's not very helpful. Who the heck is going to scroll through 165 pages. I didn't - instead I posted a question (after first checking that it wasn't answered in the first several pages of this thread), and 5 or so responses in I was pointed to a helpful website with a SPECIFIC response to my SPECIFIC question. THAT's what makes a good forum and community. ---------- Post added at 23:24 ---------- Previous post was at 23:15 ---------- You'll need to be more specific w/ regards to your set up (what's the clock speed of your processor, for example) and what settings you'd like to run. Arma has a TON of things you can tweak to improve FPS. I run a i5 3570K w/ a stable OC @ 4.5GHz, a Titan GPU, 16GB RAM and a 240GB SSD - and I get somewhere around 30-40 FPS in multiplayer with 30-40 folks (i.e. other players) running around. It sometimes dips to high 20s, and sometimes gets into the 50 range, but 30-40 is about normal. My view distance is set to 3,000M and object draw distance to 1,500M. Most other settings are on ultra, except for things like ground texture, HDR and clouds which I set to somewhere between high and low). Bottom line - even with a quad core 4.5GHz and Titan I'm getting pretty darn low FPS on settings that I find aesthetically pleasing. I haven't tried setting everything to low to see what sort of results I'd get - pointless for me as I'd never run the game like that.
  6. Harry_Flashman

    No Women=Disturbing

    I can think of at least 2 good reasons to exclude females. 1. It'll take time/resources away from much more pressing development issues, and 2. inclusion of playable female characters could very well ruin immersion (and just all around playing fun) for those who wouldn't appreciate the influx of teenage boys who now want to play soldier as a woman and run around in underwear or otherwise minimalist attire. Sure, BIS could guard against this by developing additional features (such as ensuring characters aren't playable in underwear only), but then we're back to point 1.
  7. Harry_Flashman

    Arma 3 FPS optimization thread?

    Excellent - thanks very much. Not sure why this sort of the thread isn't posted/stickied on this forum - would be very useful to a great number of people. ---------- Post added at 11:47 ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 ---------- True, the game is a CPU hog. On the view/objects distance side - when I stand at any location on a MP map and play around with those two settings it shows massive changes to my in-game displayed FPS; either the config menu displayed FPS is incorrect, or they do have an impact on my actual FPS. I'm not a tech expert - just reporting what the game shows me is happening.
  8. Harry_Flashman

    Arma 3 FPS optimization thread?

    Does such a thread exist? I'm keenly aware of the "will my PC run Arma 3 thread" - but that's not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for a list of in-game video settings listed in order of which have the most-to-least impact on FPS. I've found random threads on the web, but wasn't sure if an up-to-date one exists on this forum? Think it would be immensely helpful. If it exists - please point me in the right direction (and perhaps sticky it - as it's a question on many people's minds) - I've found a handful of older threads with a small number of replies, but nothing "thorough" and up-to-date as of yet. For example, I learned today that reducing settings for cloud quality, HDR and terrain have a pretty noticeable on FPS, unlike several others. Of course viewing distance is the big one, along with objects detail. I'm getting somewhere around 25-50 FPS in multiplayer running a 3570K @ 4.5 Ghz, 16GB RAM, Titan GPU on Windows 7 64 bit (servers w/ 15-40 players, and lots of vehicles/choppers). Granted most of my settings are on ultra, but viewing distance and object detail are set to around 3K and 1.5K respectively. But I would have thought there'd be some conventional and well-documented wisdom out there around what I need to tweak to improve FPS, so would appreciated a quick poke in the right direction. Thanks!
  9. Harry_Flashman

    Dynamic Volume for Voice Channels

    Would be fantastic to be able to mute entire channels (e.g. Global, Side - at times). Also, I'd love to be able to turn UP the volume on direct - always hard to hear others vs. other channels, even when standing right next to you/them. The individual mute option is nice but a chore in reality - as players come/go regularly (at least on public servers) so managing the mute function is a pain. That said, I need to start using mute more often.
  10. Harry_Flashman

    An Honest Review

    No need to make this personal, Roshnak - that's uncalled for. I did address your claims, and I continue to stand by mine. And the question you keep asking has been answered at least twice before by me. They want to make more money and they've finally got a product that looks and feels much more up-to-date and slick than prior versions of Arma, and can therefore now credibly lure away a small portion of gamers from some of those "competitive" platforms. Note the use of inverted commas/quotation marks - that's where you and I disagree, amongst other things. BIS does NOT need to make the product more complex and simulation-oriented (modders will add that as need be), they need to focus on making the product pretty, accessible, fun and as immersive/tactical as possible without solely appealing to the tiny sliver of the gaming population that bought/played Arma historically. THAT's what will make BIS successful, and ensure the title lives on. Of course, this is my opinion and you're welcome to continue to disagree and argue that what they really need is a competitor that they don't have today, and to make the product far more technical and simulation-oriented off-the-shelf - neither of which will happen on any material scale (in my humble opinion).
  11. Harry_Flashman

    No Women=Disturbing

    I like women - am married to one and have a daughter. However, I could not be any LESS concerned about the lack of women in Arma 3. Let's face it, the player base is 99.9% male - and it'd also be annoying when the inevitable immersion-ruining gameplay ensues when playable female characters become available and every pre-teen and teenage boy decides it'd be hilarious to run around playing women in their underwear carrying big guns. Would it be "nice" to see some women AI - sure, but I'd place that somewhere around 10,000th position on the enhancement request list.
  12. The slow walk is cool. So cool in fact that I've adopted it around the office. Sure, I gets looks - but I know it's because jealous onlookers think I'm a total beefcake with biceps so large that I couldn't hold my arms closer to my torso even if I wanted to.... The swagger is totally justified, especially in-game where I'm even more awesome (along with every other player,. of course).
  13. Harry_Flashman

    An Honest Review

    "One is supposed to be realistic...." - I suppose Arma 3 is a bit more realistic, but not by much. Still takes many shots to down an AI, choppers are easy to fly, you can run/jog indefinitely, swim underwater in full gear - need I go on. OK, if I'm totally pedantic I'll admit that Arma 3 is a tad - a smidgeon - more realistic, but not by much. Also, if you reread my post you'll see that I was referring to the "lay person" (or casual gamer) not the hardcore Arma fan. As for why BIS would want to entice CoD/BF players to the franchise: I told you already (think I even monetized my answer), but will say it again - sales and profit.
  14. Harry_Flashman

    See, I told you the modding community will be active

    I agree with the OP. Arma is a modding platform vs a well-rounded and complete game out-of-the-box. And that's fine with me. Sure, BIS could/should add more content and expand maps over time, but I think the pace is fine, personally. I'd prefer silly features/bugs get ironed out first. . As for single player campaign: can't imagine a lot of people buy the game for the campaign. Sure, they promised a campaign so they'll need to develop it, but pretty sure 80%+ of the community couldn't care less about SP.
  15. Harry_Flashman

    An Honest Review

    I disagree completely about an Arma vs BF comparison being more like comparing boats to cars. Take your average lay person, sit them down in front of Arma 3 and BF4 and ask them to explain the difference. After about 30 mins with both, he/she will tell you that both are military shooters, both allow you to operate vehicles, both operate on large maps (Arma 3's is large and "connected", whereas as BF's are smaller and not connected), both offer single player, PvE and PvP etc., though BF is easier to get into, and Arma takes a bit longer. The differences are much more nuanced than they are fundamental (to the lay person). But I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, even though I gave you 1 very clear example of someone who considered both and made the switch to Arma (i.e. me). To me, Arma represented a much better alternative to BF (which in turn is a better alternative to CoD): all 3 were in my consideration set, so all 3 are competitors from my commercial vantage point. That aside, you actually missed my broader point - which contradicts Arsenal's somewhat: I believe BIS is the one looking over THEIR shoulder at games like CoD and BF and asking themselves how they can attract higher numbers of players. And THAT is why, to a large extent (I believe), they've prioritized easier gameplay and graphics over simulation-oriented enhancements (they WANT the game to be a bit more casual; a bit less hardcore simulation). Now, bear in mind that to believe this you would have to believe that BIS believes it can entice folks to cross-over to Arma from CoD or BF (you know, like I did), which I think they've achieved to an extent already: public Arma 3 servers are full of people who have played, or currently do play to some extent, those other games. Are they the same product? No, of course not. Would BIS like to appeal to the same demographic that allows CoD to achieve $1B in a couple of weeks on shelves. I'll let you be the judge - I know what I believe. To be successful (at making money, not the most realistic FPS/military sim) they need to appeal to a broader demographic, which is why it makes total sense to take inspiration from other successful shooters. If the hardcore community doesn't like it, the modders will fix those issues over time. But BIS needs/wants more players, and will probably make more money in the near-term by focusing on how to drive more noobs into the franchise than appealing to simulation-oriented needs of older/more seasoned Arma players - who, let's face it, have bought/paid for the product already. In my eyes their business model makes total sense - and proves (to me at least) that they're looking pretty closely at other shooters for inspiration (and players).
×