Sneakson

Hey, what do you guys think about being able to stick your weapon around a corner and shooting without exposing yourself? In Gears of War this is possible with any weapon while in Ghost Recon I remember it only being possible with a weapon with a gun cam installed. I've already seen a feedback request for it here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=6840 Response seems negative but I think the request originally was also for a cover system but now it's only for "blindfiring." I believe blindfiring is realistic in high pressure situations while at the same time some players would probably think it's not fair to have enemies be able to shoot you without exposing themselves. It's important to keep in mind though that blindfire would be blind and considering how precise weapons are in ARMA it would be hard to hit anything unless you knew were it was. I personally think it's very interesting and I've been seeing a lot of AI do it in videogames over the past few years and I like it. Typically it still exposes the arms of your enemy and if they're behind cover you can usually get to a better position and snipe them straight across their cover.

I would like to see the option to customize our: Default field of view Zoomed in field of view Zoomed out field of view Customizing this would allow players to create their own settings as they want. Humans can see about 180-200 degrees horizontally though each eye can only see about 150 degrees. The area which both eyes can see simultaneously and thus in depth is about 120 degrees. Each eye can turn to look at things within about 90 degrees without turning our heads. We have relatively good vision within 60 degrees of where we are looking though we have the very best within only a few degrees. All these values vary depending on your source. Sitting 50 cm away from a screen that’s 50 cm across horizontally your field of view should be 50 degrees to make it appear like a window and not be any warped. Currently on a 1920x1200 (16:10) screen I have a field of view about 84 degrees. Zooming in gives me about 50 and zooming out gives me about 110. What values are realistic and not superhuman are quite debatable but I would very much like at least to be able to set my values to 50, 90 exactly and exactly 120 (the field that both our eyes can see). If I had the choice I might even set the zoomed out option to 180 degrees which undeniably any person can see however in the outer 60 degrees or so we wouldn’t have any sense of depth which we still would in game though I would consider this a minor issue for the sake of realism. Naturally having a centered field of view makes spotting enemies at a distance easier and more realistic while having a broader field of view makes CQB easier. Currently changing your default field of view is the only thing here possible and it is only possible by changing values using notepad and even then the values entered don't seem to match at least compass readings in game perfectly. Here's a request: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11249 There's been a bunch of similar requests earlier and none seem to have been taken seriously.

The first thread mentioned has nothing to do with it. The second one has only a small amount of votes in an elitist community. The third one doesn’t show a significant difference and again deals with only a few votes. Checking how many 1st-person servers there are compared to 3rd-person servers would be a better measure. I have not done so but at least in DayZ (the mod that is) there are currently 4% first-person only servers, or 7% of non-empty servers according to a DayZ Commander search.

Oh come on... those videos are insanely anal. I'm sure someone could make a video showing tons of details WD has that IV doesn't. The WD developers haven't been sitting and using GTA as a template to copy every detail. Different game, different company and besides the first game in a new series. The GTA devs are notorious for their attention to tiny detail. With that said WDs style is undeniably challenging GTA and oh man… I thought the graphics would be waaay nicer. What the hell happened? I’ve totally been expecting this to be a 8 +/- 1 game though. I was going to buy the big edition but then I started thinking and the only cool thing is the statue which is only cool if you really get into the game and the standard edition doesn’t really offer anything that interests me so I’m just going to pirate it and if it’s really good then maybe I’ll buy the inevitable Gold edition with all DLC.

Does anyone know if there will be a workaround for Crysis 1/2? Or Halo?

Truth is we don't have any idea how the engine works... some word from BIS about what exactly is causing the drawing delay of every frame would be nice but I doubt they even know themselves. That's what happens without any good optimization software. Something is clearly delaying everything else though because what we are seeing on screen is not something that should be as hard on our computers as it is and we see awful scaling across different hardware.

Unfortunately there are no computer monitors that offer the same field of view and resolution as natural vision simultaneously so zooming out/in has to be used to give a realistic field of view and realistic resolution. ---------- Post added at 22:11 ---------- Previous post was at 22:09 ---------- How about RTFT. First-person is not realistic. Third-person is not realistic. That's why we need an update that alleviates some of the unrealism of third-person. There IS a big freaking problem and that's why the thread exists. That problem is that apparently a majority of everyone prefers third-person but third-person also allows cheating so first-person players are forced to play third-person or join small, obscure first-person-only servers.

Conclusion: NVidia > AMD?

Did you try turning it off and on again? ;) 1) Update your mobo bios/drivers and graphics card drivers. 2) Delete your ARMA3 folders from My Documents. 3) Re-install. 4) Clean re-install: uninstall, make sure there are no ARMA3 folders in My Documents/AppData/ProgramData (AppData/ProgramData are hidden on C:\ and in Users\YourName) or simply search your entire computer for "ARMA" and delete everything then install again. If none of these fixes work then it could be a hardware (memory?) issue or something. Sounds to me like there's a bug somewhere in your settings directories that makes your optimal settings unstable such as a wrong value and only becomes stable again after some value actually is checked when you click "optimize settings" but that's just complete speculation...

Well it's a quite weak computer overall. Upgrading to a 4670K, 760 and 8GB memory would allow you to max all settings except for visibility settings however you would still have about 20-60+ fps in other words there's no way to have stable fps in this game yet.

If this is correct it could be showing that the slowdowns are caused by bad progamming making the engine stand still and idle while waiting for something else to finish instead of your CPU not being able to handle it.

Sounds like a great idea. Heli controls can easily fit on an Xbox controller. Question is if you can get the analogue sticks working?

Detailed physics simulations instead of animations is far away and simply very impractical since programming an AI that wouldn’t just lie down and swing his legs wildly in the air would be very challenging. There’s one indie shooter where your character moves using muscles not animations though, QWOP-style. Allegedly the game is only 1MB big or something because everything is procedually generated... that's also quite inspiring.

I'm going to start playing Battlefield 3 again this summer and this time with all the DLC. Sort of excited about it…

You don't know anything about computers do you? That computer is basically overprized and you can get one with identical strength and all high-quality components instead of some ambiguous ones for about $1400… then consider a more cost-efficient 770 over the 780 and go down to $1200. Buying a computer in parts and assembling it yourself is always the best option, then there’s buying a computer in parts and having someone else assemble it for you and at the very bottom there’s buying from sites like this one that capitalize on the quite clueless non-techies. 4670K, 8GB 1600, 780, 400-700W identical strength at much lower cost. I7, more than less than 8GB memory doesn't really do much, more than 1600 MHz doesn't do much though there are claims that 2400 MHz will make a significant difference using Haswell CPUs in games such as StarCraft II and ARMA3 and 800W is a lot. Sooo... you know. Search for another store.

If someone had answered my question instead of being dense I wouldn't have had to rtft. Going back some regardless the gains of the tweak still don't seem to have been conclusively benchmarked.

TLDR motherf**ker, do you speak it? Hell, you're the Captain. I suppose I should try it out the next time I play then.

Yes, you can change it. Or use the zoom out command even easier. That’s why I consider field of view to be a small component of 3rd-person. I would use 3rd-person to have a wider, higher field of view and to sense what I'm doing with my own body easier. Well, the final two images are basically 50% filled with your guy :p But it's very inconvenient compared to 3rd-person because of how small your field of view cone is.

TLDR: does this work for anyone yet? Anyone benchmarked it?

Try different server, different mission. Seems you missed that one.

Don't be an idiot, read the thread. 3rd-person invites cheating but many still use it because 1st-person gives you such a narrow field of view and no sense of what your character is doing. 3rd-person without being able to see over walls like in most 3rd-person shooters would be nice. Read the thread. In reality you have a much broader field of view especially if you count in eye movement without moving your entire head and more importantly you can sense your body.

5 years old CPU and 2 years old graphics card sounds like a good time to make a small upgrade generally however I upgraded back in August and to be honest it hasn't really been worth it at all yet. I had a Q9550 and 560 Ti and now I have a 4770K/770. My old computer could handle basically all games I had tried back then on high settings well and I upgraded for ARMA3/BF4/CoD: Ghosts and then they all came out buggy messes and I didn’t even buy BF4/CoD: Ghosts at all… since then I actually have only played 100% old-school games that my old computer could handle and some console games. Honestly there is not a lot of heavy games on PC currently. Valve are quiet… id are quiet… and some of the most talked about games are quite lightweight or indie. If I were you I would wait to around August 2015/2016 and hope that the new console generation will spark a wave of games similar to that of 2007 (Orange Box, Assassin’s Creed, BioShock, CoD4, Crysis, Mass Effect, Stalker, World in Conflict, Supreme Commander, Halo 3, Super Mario Galaxy, Zelda: Phantom Hourglass, Crackdown, GRAW2, Lost Planet, Uncharted, Skate, Resident Evil 4 Wii, Guitar Hero III, Rock Band and many, many more). I mean how many games do you play and how much time do you spend playing games that your computer really can’t handle on nice settings, even if not maxed? Think about it. I’m going to dig into the Crysis series this summer, Watch Dogs is out soon and at least my computer should last a good while so my money haven’t been completely wasted besides older games such as TW: Shogun 2 run absolutely amazingly maxed now but it’s something to consider. Ideally you’ll want to buy a new computer when Half-Life 3 is announced or something such. Anyways, my computer also wasn’t very cost efficient because I had a lot of money when I bought it and now I’m wishing I had saved a bit of it. Don’t buy an i7 instead of i5. I’ve done it to test it and so far I haven’t really seen any signs that it would be worth it. It’s marginally quicker in a few games but we’re talking few games and usually marginal differences. Anyways if you do want to upgrade definitely wait until around August, at least. New CPUs and graphics cards always come out in summer and then drop massively in price in winter so it’s a want-to-be-first versus cost balance. There's nothing much coming out this summer and you should be out in the sun having fun and sand so waiting until August, at least for the 4670K to go on sale, will be the safest.

I haven't claimed that you didn't claim anything anywhere... have I? Moving the viewpoint closer would still leave a lot of the character visible, most importantly stance, arms and gun and if you do want to look at the ground you would have to tilt the camera downwards less than if you were in 1st. This time you said this: "Again, it's not whether you see your character or not." Which is wrong. I said 3rd-person is about seeing your character, seeing wider and so on in other words that there are many components to what makes 3rd-person useful, which is correct.

In ARMA2 when you aim using the sights and try to walk at the same time you stumble all over the place... looks really dumb. ARMA3 is better animated.

I believe so. Will probably be medium settings but should work.