Alabatross

. Update 8/10/2013, Feedback tracker for this feature: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=12633 When they crash have them do this: rather than: (bf3 clip) (1:46) Usually what happens is the nose hits something and the jet completely stops, and then *poof* In most games the jet completely explodes when just the nose taps an object, or sometimes itll just leave a big grey burned shell of a jet to tumble around. Where in the top video you can clearly see that the plane pretty much disintegrates and looks like its clipping right through the ground. BF3 and other games don't make it feel like the plane is actually crumpling up as it crashes. Im not saying to crumple the plane, just don't make it come to a dead stop and then puff into a ball of fire. The best way to do this would be to spawn a bunch of debris objects within the explosion, and deleting the actual vehicle after letting it pass under the terrain (to simulate the "crumpling") The end result of the picture above is a jet appearing to completely collapse into itself when it crashes, just like in the first video. here is an arma 2 crash: That crash looks REALLY cool until it hits the ground. Suddenly the plane seems like a sturdy tin can rather than a fragile piece of technology, know what I mean? Also note that the plane switches models as soon as the wing taps the ground. But if it passed through the ground it would look like that plane is smashing into the ground right in front of the player This is what happens in BF3 and A2: and also the crash sites: Of course this is only if the jet is headed straight at the ground, crash landings/skidding the current system works great from what ive seen with the helicopters. So no change needed there. I plan on flying jets alot ingame, and nothing would be cooler than to have the jet crash realistically when I eject (if we can eject) and it would be cool for other players to witness the crash. And in other game modes (wasteland) you could even scavenge the crash. And please make sure the explosion cloud is big enough :) its almost always too small and looks cheap in games edit: found a perfect example of the bad bf3 crash: see the delay?

I don't want to hear tons of comments like "its because stratis is big" etc. Planetside/Just cause 2 (pc multiplayer mod not console) don't have this problem. This is my only graphics complaint honestly. I could care less if anything else gets fixed but this is a big one for me. This low quality terrain just a few meters in front of you makes this game look like a PS2/early 2006 title. Its un-doing all the work you've done with HDR/SSAO/Depth. And what worries me is if it isn't fixable on this smaller island, then I don't think atlas will look too nice. This is pretty much ultra (some things turned off like AO/AA for mp but nothing that would effect this)

Will any of the money be used on Arma 4? Specifically the engine? It'd be too much to ask for you to fix Arma 3 now so I might as well get my hopes up for 4.

And look at that... no one cared until it was pointed out.

You're the minority here. Most gamers with top of the line hardware want 60, dipping no lower than 50. That's why we don't want to settle for 30 and despise the engine. DayZ is getting the exact same hate.

You serious? I have a GTX 780 and I'm only running at 6 frames faster than my 560 ti in single player. Still barely getting over 30 even if I turn settings down. And don't make me mention that horrid multiplayer server fps cap of 22 which makes it unplayable. They had their entire alpha to final play cycle to fix the performance when everyone was complaining, and barely anything happened.

That too, they're getting alot of success. Time to clean up Bohemia, you're in the big leagues now :) Can't compete with an engine that runs like a potato!

Arma 3 doesn't look revolutionary enough to warrant this. This isn't the crysis of 2013 like crysis was back in 2007.

this BiS needs to stop everything and just focus on performance, it'd be so great

good.

his wiki says nothing about him being with BIS until DayZ put him in the limelight

Since its finally released I'm really looking forward to that 30% performance increase they add, any word on this or is it something nVidia does on their own without BIS?

Its completely realistic. In school 3 years ago I remember carrying my book bag out in front of me when a strap broke. When I got off the bus it was a million times harder to run to my house with the weight in front of me like that

A demo would just hurt sales, you'd realize how bad it runs and decide not to buy it.

All the fixes are nice and all but I won't be enjoying them because low fps

I hope so, but what good is nice AO when the game runs terribly? The SSAO ingame does nothing when its enabled, yet it still eats frames. Lol.

PS2 looks better than ARMA 3. Arma 3's performance to quality ratio is a joke PS2 ran terribly for me at first, one of the devs said something like "we wont stop optimizing it until I can run it on my sons laptop" 5 months later game ran like butter and looked just as good

The game is out, you already payed. It's not their problem anymore. I don't see Arma 4 getting off as easy

This, it needs a knock back/knock down. You're going to break a few ribs

I can't find the buzzard in the editor

Do you realize how complex multi threading is? Very few games actually utilize multi-threading because the overhead is NEVER developer friendly. This is why Maruk is getting frustrated, multithreading is being blamed for no reason. The game just needs to be optimized. The entire rewritting of the core engine is not worth the small perfomance boost it would give though, this post: Is interesting, because Maruk just said path finding is multi-threaded and its quite obvious AI is causing alot of our issues

Most developers consider 30-50 fps playable, to actual PC gamers 55 is where it starts to be playable And not to mention in multiplayer lowering the settings does absolutely nothing, it almost seems like its locked (yes vsync is off). I get 35 fps on lowest and 35 on ultra

You guys have to remember how complex multithreaded game engines are, many AAA titles won't even go that route, you just don't notice it as much because they're more optimized overall (so everyone is getting good fps, no reason to go monitor usage) But it doesn't seem the biggest perfomance hit is the graphics itself, it seems like its the AI. If I run a blank map on ultra I can easily keep 60 fps on a 2.8ghz quad and 560 ti, but if I join a showcase that has ai I can't get over 38, even on lowest settings. Why not spread the AI over the cores?

This is my main issue with developers that only make games for PC. They're never *really* forced to do everything they can to ensure the best performance, unless they're like blizzard and aim for family computers. There is no common denominator like consoles create, which is why console-based engines are some of the most efficient I've ever played. They run so well and they look great when you crank the settings up. As blunt as Maruk is being, he is right. Concurrency won't solve much.

Can we go back to actually talking about the technical details rather than arguing? I work in the game art industry and understand how complicated assets/simulations/LOD scaling works along side performance. Though I can't speak for the actual processing side of things with ai etc.