Alabatross

Theres no downside to snipers like there are in real life. I'm not talking about wind etc Make it so you run slower and run out of energy faster with a sniper rifle Make the standing/crouching shot recoil very very strong to completely knock you away from what you were aiming at which gives them time to get away if you miss turn speed needs to be slower/have more momentum so it "swings" noticeably when aiming close range but this wouldn't be an issue if you were laying down aiming far away like its intended. I think just those things would make me want an assault rifle. Right now all I use is the GM6 or whatever with a holosight. There are no downsides, I can turn as fast as an smg so the deadly accuracy + reflexes help me rack up kills. I did the same thing in BF3 but we all know EA won't fix things like that.

Theres no downside to snipers like there are in real life.

A small pistol fight on a hillside when you spawn is action?

lol 30-35 fps Just wait until you feel 60 with vsync. You won't want anything less ;)

I would but every screenshot I take is ugly because of how blurry the ground gets ~100 feet away from you :\ That is pretty much my last issue with graphics visually (other than performance)

They're both insanely boring and it makes me mad because I don't see many DM DOM or COOP modes

Great work!!! (on SP) :D this looks so great and runs at 60 fps on my measly 560 ti at 1920x1080! Multiplayer is still unplayable for me. I get a solid 60 fps in SP 100% of the time but only get 28 fps in multiplayer with the same settings even on servers with 10-15 players

I'm on a 560 ti running on pretty much ultra except AA is either x2 or off. And I also keep obj quality on high only. I maintain 55-60fps the entire time. Also turn view distance down a tiny bit along with SSAO to standard. It still looks like ultra but it handles scenes better.

This is what has confused me also. I've complained about performance before and people kept telling me its the AI... But Multiplayer doesn't have client side AI so if anything it should be faster

Ah I remember SP running fine before Oops. Yea MP is unplayable for me :\

still get terrible fps in multiplayer though... must be server side lag limiting client fps

When a game is for PC developers usually don't put as much effort intro optimizing compared to a console developer (because they have to work with crazy old tech) So the end result is a game that only top of the line cards can run and if you complain the #1 answer you'll get is "buy a better card"

I haven't had fun playing the alpha because people are only playing Wasteland, which is probably the most boring game mode ever.

I've never had any of those FPS problems on PS2, and no I don't ever recall being limited to seeing only 100-500m, I have no clue what you're talking about Uh they aren't microscopic at all. Maybe to Atlis but definitely not Stratis I'm not unhappy with how Arma 3 looks, other than it looking like playstation 2 200ft ahead of you. The close up areas look great, but like I said I only brought up PS2 because someone wanted an example of another large scale game. Just as I expected, planetside 2's map dwarfs stratis: http://www.armedassault.info/ftp/pics/news/pics1/web_stratis_map_overview1.jpg (208 kB) http://forums.finalgear.com/attachments/entertainment/planetside-2/7020d1339261390-mapsize.jpg (233 kB) So that is no excuse for quality (performance yes, but its an alpha so that can't be judged yet) And heres the PS2 map compared to Atlas http://i.imgur.com/LvBaA.jpg

Great post, alot of good points there If we look back on the COMPLETED Arma 2 game you can see Arma doesn't have a great track record wtih performance, but A3 is already doing better so well see

Of all the alphas I've been a part of I've never seen any huge graphical changes aside from flickering being patched and performance increase. But yes it is unfair to compare the framerate right now. But I doubt we'll see much change to the visuals between now and release because gameplay is the most important (and I agree) The person who I made that comment to asked for me to give him a large scale game that looks better or as good. He did not say "in alpha" misunderstanding

Call me crazy but I think Planetside 2 looks better than Arma 3 does right now (though I do not like planetside2's arcady gameplay or sci-fi style, im just talking graphics here) and not only does it look better but its even less of a performance hit. Don't get me wrong, A3 still looks good but trees and distance quality are still laughable for the memory its hogging. (Don't even say AI because im talking no-ai multiplayer)

I don't really have an issue with how it looks, but it could look better (like in the screenshots BIS posted) My only issue is medium distance terrain quality

Alpha is 99% gameplay. You really have to complain for them to update any graphics. The graphics are usually final other than performance tweeks So those of you saying "relax its still an alpha" are going to ruin it for all of us, because im pretty sure these graphics are final and if we don't complain nothing will be changed.

good guide but "Shadow Quality: Low or DISABLED, higher means more frame lag for not much gain visually or otherwise." Shadows on low I get 30 fps, just changing shadows to standard/high instantly gives me a +30 fps increase because they were shifted onto the GPU. Not much difference between the frame hit on high/ultra though Difference between disabled and high is only 4 fps

That explains why the single player requires so much CPU power but it doesn't explain multiplayer

I never once said that I said consoles force engine developers to optimize more and it benefits everyone

Yes yes yes!

Lol you're missing out. Thats not what AO does. I want motion blur but something else in the "very high" PP setting is making me lag, and theres no way to just enable it alone :(

I have to say when it comes to performance its the biggest thing consoles have contributed to. Think about it, consoles have very harsh limits which force you to do two things: 1. Lower the game quality 2. Optimize more and do more tricks If consoles were NEVER created we'd be playing games that hog up our cpu and gpu in a very messy way because there are no limits. People with excellent cards would say your card isn't powerful enough when in reality it is, the games just aren't as optimized. A good analogy is war. Things get invented SO much quicker during a war, same goes for game engines. When companies are competing to out do each other in quality on a sub-par system they'll go to great lengths to get exactly that. Most games release for consoles also, which means the PC community benefits from alot of the optimizations. And before anyone tells me its the AI -> I get worse fps in multiplayer than I do single player.