Sneakson

We have leaning and stance adjustment... using both of them I only believe your head is visible around a corner.

Joker. Indeed we can hope. By the way... "3D scopes"... isn't that exactly what we have already? We have had that since the sniper update I believe. What we MEAN is scopes not zooming the entire screen, which we currently don't have, right?

I didn't play much ARMA2 but ARMA3 is a lot closer to a normal game in terms of quality even with ARMA scale whereas ARMA2 had dumb things like the stumbling around when you walk with your weapon up that a playtester should have caught after 5 minutes.

And where did I claim that you claimed that? ;) ;) You: "The problem with 3d person is that you can see around or over walls, which you can't do in real life, so to claim it'S more realistic is plainly wrong. " Me:"To claim not being able to sense your own body is realistic is also plainly wrong." You: "And where did I claim that ? " Me: "Where did anyone claim that being able to see over walls is more realistic?" You: "Uhm, where did I claim that someone claimed that ? " Your original quote was apparently an argument against 3rd person however your only argument was a truism, that being able to see over walls in 3rd person is unrealistic, which everyone already knows. I thought stating a truism was a waste of space so I called you out on it by offering you a truism of my own: that not being able to sense your body is equally unrealistic. Then you called me out on my truism by asking me where you had said my truism was wrong despite me not really having claimed that you said so anywhere. So I called you out on that too asking where anyone claimed seeing over walls is realistic. Because you said a truism without anyone having implied anything else and that’s what I did too. Your first fault was bringing a truism into the thread and your second fault was claiming I had claimed that you claimed my truism was wrong despite you having claimed a truism without anyone else having said anything that would necessitate it. Your third fault is saying that I’m reading too much into what you’re writing when you have spent a good time asking me where you’ve claimed that being able to see your own body is unrealistic despite me never having said you claimed it. So this is just going in a circle now anyways ;) What I originally wanted to call you out on was saying it is unrealistic to see over walls in 3rd person. Everyone already knows it so there’s no need to say it. I think you should also get an idea about what the problem is. 3rd-p is about seeing your character as many other users have already mentioned in the thread. It is also about being able to see wider (as some have said though the camera field of view is unchanged in 3rd-p however measured from your character the field of view does increase) however if that was the only issue then why not just use zoom out? That increases your field of view even wider than 3rd person does (correct me if I'm wrong). So if the only issue was field of view then everyone could disable 3rd-person, start using zoom out double click and stop complaining now. However 3rd-person both gives you a broader field of view, a higher field of view, lets you see your character which is useful for stancing and finally moves it up somewhat that gives you a better overview and allows cheating. As someone who wants 3rd-person but not the way it currently is working I can tell you that the things I want from 3rd person are all of the above except the better overview and cheating. Broader field of view is obviously desirable, a higher field of view lets you see something close to your feet without having to turn you head down which is realistic and seeing your body is very useful for determining if your body is sticking out around a corner. A somewhat closer but more important height-locked camera would probably allow for all of these but without cheating. Maybe some modder can show this eventually. Since you are against 3rd person I don't see why you object to 3rd person being turned into something closer to 1st person. I agree the current 3rd person and the cheating it allows for shouldn't be in the game. Claiming 3rd person is more realistic than 1st person is not the same as claiming a component of 3rd person, namely being able to see over walls, is more realistic. The 3rd person gains are not "minute" in my opinion. In DayZ a week back I could hide perfectly behind a wall and see enemies approaching on the other side of it using 3rd person and they had no idea. The advantages in areas with structures and walls is massive. Saying there is no solution is cynical considering there are hundreds of third-person games where you can't sneak-peek over walls. A good 3rd-person camera may allow you to slightly peek around corners with some effort but that's about all it really has to be. With corner detection the camera can even stop that, which exists in some stealth games I believe.

Yeah, not a very good mission really. Especially for a "showcase".

Where did anyone claim that being able to see over walls is more realistic? And you need to make up your mind if you want 3rd person to be an overview cheat or not ;)

To claim not being able to sense your own body is realistic is also plainly wrong. Why wouldn't moving the camera closer work? Why does first-person and third-person have to be drastically different? Isn't that the exact issue that brought us all here? I believe my solution would work excellently. Bring the camera in closer as in Resident Evil 4 or Gears of War. Never had any similar issues in them.

Dead-zone aiming only when you are aiming down the sights... So your can turn around effortlessly, then click RMB to bring up your gun and then aim across the screen without turning with a dead-zone. That's not how it currently works is it? Maybe a button you could hold to engage dead-zone aiming too. Also, clicking W+S or S+W should not momentarily stop your character, only change movement speed without stopping.

ARMA3 runs admirably well compared to ARMA2 considering graphics though it still doesn’t work well compared to other games and I’ve heard multiplayer is messy and so is combat with many AIs. Indeed the game works quite well on older computers if you settle for the medium settings. Even my 5 year old Q9550 (2008-2013) handles small singleplayer missions in about 50 fps on a mix of medium and higher settings with 1600 meters view distance which I thought was nice. Hell, I should never have upgraded really… still haven’t played anything my old computer couldn’t handle. At least Watch Dogs should make my computer sweat and I haven’t played Crysis 3 yet. Quick grenade tosses is a good thing to me because in reality I believe it is indeed very quick however cooking and such could definitely be added some time though I wouldn’t demand it. Movement in ARMA3 is nice. I’m bothered by how you can’t change speed without stopping though… clicking W+S or S+W stops you momentarily and it bugs me. Quick turning is indeed unrealistic but as someone else said it really doesn’t give anyone any advantage outside of CQB at less than 50 meters. I’m more bothered by my gun getting stuck in walls because my character is unable to bring the weapon closer to his chest automatically. Good thoughts. Still many things to be improved though such as health, damage, tiredness, vehicles and tons of graphical bugs and close to worthless AI and AI control. By the way three years old is absolutely not an old computer. It's just weak. AMD. Maybe you should read what you're quoting instead of being a smartass about it.

Don't be afraid of the smaller sizes... based on a quick check it seems 500-550W is almost exactly double what your computer will actually use so that's safe. The number one thing to compare after checking that it’s has enough wattage and that it is 80+ certified, which it isn’t, is noise levels because supply units can be quite noisy. The unit not being 80+ certified is bad but since it’s a Spanish brand it may simply not be certified because of some technicality.

Combined Arms... the one where you go in with a helicopter and attack a small base with a bunch of guys and a vehicle? Stay down. Advance together with the AI and wait for the action to claim down and go in to clean up the 2-5 AI that are still alive... I've had the AI clear the mission for me once but most often most of your teamies die quick.

3D scopes haven't been confirmed to my knowledge... just because they assign a ticket to something doesn't mean a shit.

Currently 3rd person is the only way to have body awareness and broadens your field of view significantly however also allows for easy cheating. The 3rd person camera really should be moved down somewhat to always being vertically in level with your character’s head. That way we would still have body awareness and would only have to adjust to using zoom out to broaden our field of view to a more natural level and at least some of the camera cheating would go away. Zoom out broadens your field of view even more than 3rd person does by the way. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_vYk45ep4ZG0/TGhhjmwEN0I/AAAAAAAAARo/zXFC_kn3sPE/s1600/3520i0m.jpg Why the hell doesn't the forum resize this image if I post it using IMG tags like it usually does? The 100 kb rule still applies doesn't it?

ARMA3 already has High Definition Ambient Occlusion (HDAO) that is strong and works on grass... check settings.

Sounds crazy enough for me to believe it. After we see some tests.

It uses more than one core thanks bye.

Wait, in what context did you just call Star Citizen a "realistic" simulation?

Apparently nothing wrong there. Not sure how well stock 4670K overclocks even with small overclocks or how much noise it makes and I'm not sure how strong the 750 Ti is compared to say a 760 in gaming but I guess you know what you're doing. Everything good except: I'm not into AMD so can't comment on the R9 270X. You may want to try 2133/2400 MHz memories as there's been some evidence it actually matters. 750W is very abundant... you'll only use about 300W and should ideally have about double that which is about 600W however as low as 400W may work. Can't comment on the case. I've a Corsair 540 and also considered a quiet though very anonymous 330R... googling on cases shouldn't be hard at all.

Well what are you trying to argue really? You're sort of going all over the place. Are e-sports dying? Wrong. Were e-sports bigger then? Wrong. Were e-sports harder then? Wrong. Was there more variety? I doubt it. So what's up? Out of the ones you mentioned Quake, CS and CoD are still alive. Counting the games that have been played at DHS/DHW/MLG/WCG in the last two years (that’s 2013, 2012) and that have been announced for this year (2014) there’s: BF3, BF4, CoD:BO2, CoD: Ghosts, CS 1.6, CS:GO, CS:O, DotA, FIFA12, FIFA14, Halo: Reach, Halo 4, HoN, Infinite Crisis, Injustice: The Gods Among Us, Killer Instinct, King of Fighters XIII, LoL, Mortal Kombat, PlayStation All-Stars, SC2:HotS, SC2: WC3, WoL, Soul Calibur V, SSFIVAE, Super Smash Bros Melee, Tekken Tag Tournament 2, Quake Live and I’m having a hard time seeing what’s been at DreamHack Valencia recently but apparently there’s going to be Hearthstone this year and DH/MLG/WCG aren’t the only active e-sports events… Not to mention I bet there’s any number of smaller tournaments in other shooters that are bigger than the oldies were back in the day. Destiny is coming up soon by the way and considering it’s PC/PS4/PS3/XBO/X360 if it isn’t terrible I bet it’s going to compete with CoD. E-sports were definitely not bigger a few years ago. Counting event visitors, viewers, prize pools... it's all going up to my knowledge. A while ago some Swedes won $1.42 million… divided into a 5 player team. Your talk about games today being easier is also trash talk. Shooters may have been marginally more three-dimensional when Quake and Unreal Tournament were at their biggest but Quake is still alive and CoD has lots of 360-noscoping, bunny hopping, dolphin diving and whatever. Halo is also undeniably three-dimensional, come to think of it. Basically we’ve traded Quake, Tribes and UT for Quake, Halo and CoD. By the way TF2 is still alive and extremely popular, outside of e-sports and there was a new Tribes (not e-sport) not long ago that to my knowledge was a good one. Basically if we lowered the bar of e-sport to the standards of 5-10 years ago I'm pretty sure these games and many others would count. They're just not in the spotlight any more because they're not the biggest. CS is still very popular by the way. Not the biggest any more but still at most big events I see that aren't exclusively SC.

Unigine is an old engine and has console quality graphics so I don't see it supporting ARMA4... it's barely even a game engine. Has been used in 5 or so budget titles.

Upgrading annually may have been a bit more worth it in the 90s but today we're really not talking especially significant CPU/GPU differences from year to year. Currently I believe upgrading CPU every 5-7 years or so and graphics card every 2-5 years is what you have to do to stay on medium-high settings... there really aren't many good heavy-duty PC games on the market nowadays. At least Watch Dogs should make my computer sweat.

Tell us more about how big e-sports was 8 years ago and what titles were hardcore e-sports titles back then... nostalgia talking? The only e-sport I ever heard anything about back then was CS and SC and that was mostly basement stuff. The only way to have big scale combat in multiplayer is to have many players which is highly impractical, or bots with players commanding them like some sort of strategy game which would be even less ARMA than small scale combat unfortunately.

Mkay. Starting off 2 years isn't old at all. 5 years is quite old. Your CPU shouldn't be significantly different to the best new ones. 680s = 770s. There’s nothing at all in your box I would upgrade. The only wrong thing about any of your specs other than details (2x8>4x4GB memories, marginally) is that you’re apparently not overclocking your CPU? Your CPU is 3.2 GHz with a 3.8 GHz turbo. Mine’s 3.5 GHz with a 3.9 GHz turbo and based on one test some time ago that I’m not too certain a constant 4.0 GHz clock made a big difference compared to having 3.9 GHz turbo. It’s worth trying out and since you have water cooling you should even be good to overclock to maybe 4.4 GHz using perfectly safe automatic software such as Command Centre. So definitely overclock some. So about your issues 6040x1080 is massive and I would expect all sorts of issues on screens that big in any non-supermassive game such as Battlefield or Skyrim. Anyways everyone has stuttering in cities and if it’s not caused by the massive amounts of geometry causing a graphics strain then it’s caused by a CPU strain because of bad game optimization. Picture-in-picture is also slow as syrup for mostly everyone, not only you or SLI-users. Again, a lot more geometry. If you’re testing in a small singleplayer mission such as “Showcase: Infantryâ€, watching over Girna or whatever and changing any and all settings doesn’t make any fps difference then there’s obviously nothing you can really do. There are no effective tweaks. There ARE tweaks, tons of them though few to none have been shown to do anything. Note that all in-game settings mostly affect your graphics cards and not your CPU, except for object draw distance I would assume. So if you change everything and the fps stays the same then it’s your CPU bottlenecking which is the case for the most of us due to bad optimisation. So not much you can do it seems. You haven’t said ANYTHING about how you’re doing absolutely though. What’s your fps? Measure in small singleplayer missions, or some big ones if you want, however fps depends a lot of mission. Missions with ineffective scripts can make a big difference and in multiplayer there’s a whole host of things that matter other than your specs.

Won't somebody please think of the children?! They must be implemented! They deserve to be shot!

Altis Life is probably a poorly scripted mission?