Harry_Flashman

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.

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!

@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.

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).

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

"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.

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.

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).

I think you're dismissing CoD and BF as competitors too quickly - clearly Arma represents an alternative to either (BF in particular) - by any reasonable standard. Switch to cars for second: A BMW M5, an Audi RS7 and a Porsche 911 Carrera 2S could all be considered competitors in that they often compete for the same buyer (and cost about the same). But an M5 has 4 doors and is RWD, the Audi has AWD, and the Porsche has 2 doors and an engine in the back. On paper, all are very different cars - but they compete for the same wallet. Yes, technically they're very different, but you'd be mistaken if you think that all 3 manufacturers aren't looking over their shoulder constantly to learn from the others - and trying to attract buyers in the process. BIS would LOVE the sort of player count found in CoD and BF, and it's therefore no coincidence that the series has become better looking and more accessible. Like it or not, Arma is competing for (some) of the same players. Thankfully, private servers and mods will keep most of the CoD crowd at bay, but I suspect we'll see a greater influx over time from the BF crowd. Heck, I'm one of the guys that migrated entirely from BF to Arma about a year ago. And previously I migrated from CoD to BF. I shudder when I think of CoD these days - glad they're behind me; but I take an active interest in BF, though I still haven't sprung for BF4; Arma 3 is keeping me busy/entertained, where Arma 2 did not.

Not to be overly pedantic, but any game that is considered an alternative to Arma (i.e. one that is in the same consideration set as Arma for someone considering a shooter - or non-shooter, for that matter, is a competitor). While CoD and BF are technically very different games, based on in-game chatter I'm quite certain that many current Arma 3 players also play either BF or CoD, or both. And, that's probably exactly why BIS improved the look of the game as a priority, and made the whole thing a tiny bit less simulation-oriented -to attract an influx of new players who would not previously have considered the clunky and complex Arma of old. That's of course also one of the cons of the game - now we have to deal with preteens and foul-mouthed teenagers on public servers, which I'd imagine is less of an issue on Arma 2 servers. ---------- Post added at 00:38 ---------- Previous post was at 00:36 ---------- Yep. And BIS is obviously counting on a lot of other players making the same decision as graphics is the most improved aspect of the old game.

You may be right that Arma 2 is the overall better game currently. But, as someone who bought/downloaded pretty much every variant of Arma 2 (in order to prepare for Arma 3 launch), I can tell you that there's NO WAY I'll ever go back to Arma 2. I just can't live with the graphics and animations. I may be missing out, but I'm enjoying Arma 3 immensely, currently. I do agree that it's far from perfect, however. The AI - as you stated - is hard to kill. Heck, I'm sure I've "filled" some of them up with 10-15 shots within 10m before, with limited effect. And one survived a hand grenade tossed into a tiny room today, even though I took blast damage standing outside the house. Still love it, though.

Very happy I came across this thread. I disabled the Steam community thingymagig a couple of days ago and played for several days with no issues. Then today, after playing all morning, I tried to boot up in the PM and couldn't get past the black Arma III screen. Even re-installed to no avail. I then, based on this thread, enabled the community thingymagig and it works fine.

Yes, definitely concerned. I played the Alpha for a while and returned for the Beta. I've had fun in the Beta, but it's very buggy. I get scripting errors when I log onto MP servers (though I have no scripts, see the same ground ripple effects when crawling in prone, continuously see players desynching in MP, run into issues with scopes not working as desired etc. etc.) I'll play it a bit on release - but if it's really just in alpha/beta state at point of launch, I'll probably leave it for 6 months and come back when it's fixed. Don't get me wrong - I love the game, but it feels far from ready to launch. I will eventually spend a lot of time with it. Eventually.

At least for me. During a short stint on a non-DEV server I was "greeted" with the usual script kiddie message suggesting I contact BIS etc. - this as my Hunter leapt into the air and ultimately floated down to the ground and exploded. Think I'll be going back to the DEV build again - and perhaps permanently until the Beta comes around. So that got me to thinking: why not get rid of the non-DEV build entirely. Force everyone into DEV. Sure, it's more "buggy" - but the bugs are really just minor annoyances compared to what folks are experiencing in the MP. Plus, it's a test environment anyway. DEV for me, from now on - I think.

Be warned: a mod will either close this thread or merge it with the one stickied at the very top of this page. They look doing that :)

You mean new, future technology that wad not used in the development or testing of Arma 3? Kidding aside, I see no meaningful advantage in waiting unless you believe Intel is going introduce a new CPU with a vastly faster clock speed or designed for even more extreme OCing. Which, judging from the rumor mill, they're not. Realistically, there's not a meaningful technology advantage to waiting - unless the wait turns into a year or more. But there would be a bit of a price advantage. But probably just a small one.

Some of the comments in this thread are absolutely mindboggling. It seems that many are happy to point figers at BIS for "letting this happen" or not fixing instantly. Geez, guys - take a chill pill. Relax. Go for a walk. Do something other than try to play the game or rant on forums. Life isn't over just because we have a momentary issue with an Alpha release of a game. It'll get fixed. In the mean time, play single player (after rebooting your PC) -that'll work fine.

Like you, I'm no expert. While I can't answer your question I can tell you with absolute confidence that the issue appears on the client-side even when not in MP mode. It "followed" me - that's for sure.