windies

I've actually tried that, hosting a local dedicated and connecting and playing a mission as a client on the same PC and get worse performance generally than just playing the mission normally.

Anything is possible, that's kind of the problem. Things are possible within reason, they just don't get done or fixed. Just look at what AI mods do. Bottom line is that the AI in ArmA when compared with their intended role or roles within ArmA itself are severely lacking, inefficient and overall rather buggy. We don't even need to compare to another game, simply ask yourself if the AI in ArmA does a satisfactory job. When they can't get past a rock in the road or ram each other constantly throughout the duration of a convoy or can't even tell there's an enemy 50ft from them rocking full auto etc... then you can't say they really do a satisfactory job for their intended purpose.

Screwing the community is kind of harsh but I do think their priorities are pretty messed up. Honestly though this community openly embraces being "screwed" to an extent so can you really blame BI? Zeus is fine for what it is but it's hardly needed and was introduced at a time when there are many more pressing issue's and problems existing that need to be solved/fixed. Again though if the community never pushes for a better product, what's stopping BI since there's no competition to speak of?

You can technically build an RTS out of Zeus since there are modules for resources per time cycle and modules for assigning resource value's to units and such.

It works to an extent but it's not some major tweak or anything. I find in general the Phenom II's run better in Ganged versus Unganged mostly. The only time where the 2x64 MC's would be a benefit is if you're utilizing all 4 core's with a very memory strenuous task like with video encoding and rendering for instance.

I don't either, I just meant that would constitute a "indication".

Maybe he means because of the Make ArmA Not War contest?

Very nice work Mr Alwarren! Looking forward to the Remington pack.

Get the same error as well.

It explains why you will never get a 100% performance increase per core but not why a program can't be multi-threaded. For instance in ArmA, all of your file operations are on separate threads, which is what the -exthreads command is for. Just being able to offload the AI across multiple core's for instance would unload a huge bottleneck from the main processing thread. Sure it would be hard to do and time consuming, but it's not impossible and the gains would be worth it. Why do you run a headless client for instance? Because it takes the stress of AI calculations off of the main server and puts them in a dummy server right? Why not do that same thing but across multiple core's? It's obviously possible if it can be sync'd through a network right?

Parts of it interest me to a degree for certain coop scenario's and commanding the AI for a coop group so it's more challenging and dynamic. Ultimately though, considering all of the other things that could have come before this, it's not deserving of the hype that was created for the most part and is not really a new or novel idea. It could go beyond it's purpose, but how much of ArmA has truly gone beyond it's purpose and how much has been laid aside and forgotten and then ultimately discarded. The medical system in ArmA 2 comes to mind or ambient combat modules and civilian modules, lots of things come to mind and those things don't give me hope.

Just to counter that argument, if BI were to implement proper bipods and weapon resting even though it's done by multiple mods already you would hear praise like no other because it's a long wanted feature that's in the game for everyone and it's something that pretty much everyone wants. MCC or Zeus are very niche on the other hand and it's going to be very hard to implement properly in a public scenario which means in all eventuality it will probably end up being something that groups who already use MCC are going to use which in the end doesn't really serve anything new to a new crowd. With Bipods and weapon resting, you would see that used by pretty much everyone, Zeus on the other hand will probably only be used by people already using MCC which is why there's not as much enthusiasm or excitement for it. Bipods and weapon resting serve to enhance the game for everyone whereas Zeus only servers to enhance, assuming it does enhance anything that MCC can or can't currently do, the people already using MCC for the most part. Most of the people in this forum going "OMG BI WAY TO GO RAH RAH RAH" will probably load it up once or twice and completely forget about it for the most part, because if it was interesting to them, they would be using MCC right? It's not bad, it's just not something really needed. It's one of those cool feature's or implementations that could have waited really until the game was in a better state, but instead it's the cart before the horse again.

The more I think about the possible uses of it the more optimistic I feel about it overall. Still I feel like it's something that's really only going to benefit private coop groups mostly as in public play I can see it being abused and in PvP as well being abused. I think the thing that turned me off the most about it initially is the fact it's called Zeus and the whole Storm vibe and the lightning bolt destroying the tank for instance led me to believe the focus was on being some sort of supernatural deity.

The AA used in ArmA or any game for that matter is not FSAA. Changing your 3D resolution is true FSAA in a nutshell, that's why I was saying that it fixed it because it Anti-aliases the entire scene rather than the "intelligent" way that MSAA does it. There is no such thing as 8x FSAA as 8x FSAA would literally be rendering the game at 15360x8640 assuming a standard resolution of 1920x1080. Read the 2 stubs in anti-aliasing I linked to better understand it. So in other words when you use MSAA you are only anti-aliasing the edges, not the whole scene whereas by increasing your 3D resolution you are anti-aliasing the entire scene irregardless of edges and such.

Because of the way MSAA works it doesn't anti-alias the edges of objects like that. You will notice it on other things like the links in a chain link fence for instance as well. When you increase the sampling you're basically doing FSAA which anti-aliases the entire scene irregardless of if the specific area needs to be anti-aliased or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multisample_anti-aliasing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-scene_anti-aliasing#Super_sampling_.2F_full-scene_anti-aliasing

I've never ever gotten the laser designated shells to actually hit what I'm designating. I don't think they work TBH.

What will really be great though is if it's just a countdown to the announcement of the title/description of the announcement of the announcement.

I know what you meant, but with the vagueness of the announcement of an announcement it's very easy for dreams to be crushed.

Dreams can be crushed.

Well what is the black shroud from the old 2D scopes but a texture. Just RTT your normal view around the scope and put the actual higher resolution render inside the scope, throw some blur on the RTT area and you have a close approximation. Look at the way they do the SOS for instance, so it looks as though you're looking through a scope. Just RTT around the outside of the scope and have the "real" view zoomed in under the RTT and Scope overlay. It's kind of backwards trying to RTT the important part which is what you see through the scope, but rather use the RTT for the unimportant part which is the generally blurred area around the scope so you can still maintain some SA without having those uggo black shrouds and the bad 3D scope implementation we have now.

The Dev changelog states that the system for animals is now ready for some new features, not the new "game mode", probably why it was put in bullet points under the animal behavior change. Frankly with the way it's been hyped up and announced, I wouldn't be surprised if it's some gamey futuristic "game mode" revolving around some "storm" mechanic, which is fine and dandy but it does nothing to alleviate community concerns and the focus put on it makes it seem like the developers basically don't give a crap about community concern and are more focused on "sweeping it under the rug". Even if it is sync'd MP weather, which would be nice and all, why hype it up for 2 months like it's some big thing because it's still going to be disappointing. Also why make a big focus on it before you even get MP running "good" for the majority of players. The seeming imperceptibility of the developers over community issue's sometimes is seriously off putting.

I wouldn't get my hopes up about optimization though it does kinda drive home the old saying "putting the cart before the horse". I just expect it to be some niche futuristic game mode revolving around capturing zones or flags ala Battlefield Conquest style. Honestly not getting my hopes up or anticipating much else. Would be nice to be surprised though.

Goes against what I said about being done, but in the sense of it being a blind illusion I meant that the community creates this blind illusion that BI supports their games so well, just as they created the illusion that ArmA is built for future hardware. In actuality BI does put out a lot of patches but in retrospect, what do they really "support" in their engine? Patches generally revolve around content, scripting functionality, the very occasional feature. You see very minor tweaks and optimizations but never anything big to actually support the foundation of the engine, which is why we're having problems in the first place. I'm not in a position to tell BI how to code, but I am in a position to tell BI that their result isn't satisfactory and that it's much more frustrating than fun. I trust that they are a development company and that they have the ability to fix their problems and if they're not then I'm sorry but the reality is maybe they shouldn't be biting off more than they can chew and start focusing on actual problems instead of creating more. If you take my post as a personal attack against BI then I'm sorry but that's a personal reflection of your own inference and not my post itself and I'm not addressing this to you BB.

But we do know where technology is heading and we have known it for a very long time. What most are criticizing is BI's lack of foresight into adopting technology constraints into the basis of their engine. Since they require such high processing requirements, they should by all accounts be focused much harder on multithreading and parallel processing than most other game makers, but it's quite the opposite in reality it seems. This is why people complain and criticize, it's not to belittle or badger the developers but to try and make them see that they are making an error by ignoring this and to show how many people this affects and how serious it is. I can't even play ArmA 3 in multiplayer half the time and It's not about needing 60 fps although that is generally considered to be "smooth" by the industry, but sadly it's about needing a smooth and stutter free experience to be able to simply enjoy it which currently ArmA 3 cannot provide. Hell even in Single Player, some missions will drop me into 1 digit frame rates, especially if there is any combat going on. This is not enjoyable, and that's what I spent my money on, something to enjoy so I'm definitely entitled to complain and criticize as a customer and consumer. Especially considering my specs meet the recommended specs. What I'm tired of are the excuses, "BI can't do X, they're a small company or they lack resources". So fine then, why release a product that you know won't work because you lack the proper resources to do it right? Just like the AI, just like Soldier Protection, just like pretty much everything else. There's always an excuse as to why they can't do something right, but they definitely want to try to do it anyways no matter how silly or unneeded it is unless it's done properly. Excuses are like assholes, everyone's got one. What matters are the solutions, and so far no solutions have been handed down about very severe issue's plaguing the game. Give us a solution, put some work into the engine, then what do we have to bitch about huh? Instead though since Alpha it's been nothing but smoke and mirrors, trying to hide things under their hat as long as they can. After this, I'm done, I'm tired of blowing money on this and spending time frustrated trying to find ways to make things work, trying to find ways to make it enjoyable and ultimately at the end of the day simply feeling frustrated by it instead of getting my moneys worth out of it. I've got 275 hours played and only about 20-25 hours of that is from actual playing. The rest has been from trying to make missions, trying to write scripts and test them, trying to tweak settings and test every known "fix" until I just finally gave up. All I've ever heard is how BI supports their games so well, and truthfully I think it's a blind illusion because while they do patch their games quite a bit, as far as actually supporting them and fixing what really needs to be fixed, I would say they're no better than anyone else in that regard.

Wrote a script to utilize the new setFog array command and decided to make it JIP compatible and release it. I did try testing this on a local dedicated server to my machine and connecting and had no problems, but that's as much as I could test it. Here is the script: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7IenZ_SotmZWE5rcks0VWFzY0U/edit?usp=sharing and you simply call it in init.sqf with [[startDensity,EndDensity], Decay, Altitude, Time in minutes for changes to take effect]. So for example [[.65, .40], .010, 55, 60] execVM "Fog.sqf"; would start with a fog density of .65 with a decay of .010 and an altitude of 55 meters and gradually decrease to a fog density of .40 over 60 minutes.