windies

Wasn't that an issue with All in Arma? Like loading the old islands with the new units caused problems like that or something?

Like I said, I'm really interested once Altis hits. I think that will really tell us about the performance. The livestream really didn't sell me on Altis performing very well.

Possibly but it still brings up an interesting perspective as to getting people proactive about content development, since that seems to be the route BI wants to take.

Yeah, that's the attitude we should adopt. Lets make ArmA scripting a giant game of Where's Waldo. That will really entice people to pick it up quick. :rolleyes: ---------- Post added at 08:07 ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 ---------- Yeah it's good, but the problem is you have to know what a scripting command does before you can search for it. How do I get a squad to dynamically patrol? Well you have to know about bis_fnc_taskpatrol before you can actually try to search for it on the BIKI. You can google and it might bring up an answer, I've often googled for scenario's I'm trying to create or specific scripting tasks and come up with nil or just people having a generic discussion about it without any actual information. It's often frustrating. All I'm saying is that if their intent is to really get people into mission making and content creation, simple specific showcases aren't really going to do much because the problem isn't creativity, it's a steep learning curve with information spread everywhere.

Yeah but I doubt it would be intermittent and respondent to what's happening on screen vis-Ã -vis the game.

One particular part I noticed running really bad that didn't seem to be the fault of the stream was when they landed at the graveyard and walked around. It seemed like FPS was fluctuating wildly and was definitely below 30fps. Still though, they contend that it was only the stream's fault and there's nothing to really counter it with except suppositions so I guess we will find out around Gamescom time how it runs.

I agree on most of your points. Biggest things for me are the AI and the performance of the game because I'm mostly a single player or COOP with friends player.

My suggestion then to solve the confusion would be to simply use another box with a tuner or capture card to do the streaming, that way you would not be limited performance wise on the host system running the game, and you more than likely wouldn't run into any stream issue's either.

I get that they are trying to simplify mission making so that more people can easily create content, but even during the livestream Zipper5 still had to use even basic scripting just to get a module to work properly, the task module. I think they would be better off providing better resources with the game insofar as possibly a scripting primer with commonly used scripting commands, uses for commands with examples, and possibly sample missions that they have created with a tutorial or explanation about the different elements of the mission and how they work, if they want to "Inspire or help new community members to go into the editor and start doing what the game was built for". Like I said, I get they want it to be more accessible, but it's not going to happen until they have a good introduction to the scripting that doesn't rely on massive amounts of information scattered across tons of websites and forums, or get rid of scripting and make everything gui based.

They seem quite natural to me insofar as what I personally have experienced. You put some units on that map, you get lots of hitching and stutter and poor performance, and I don't even have to stream or record to experience this. It looks to be somewhat worse on Altis which was what I feared. You can't explain away the obvious performance problems by trying to say it's the stream or the bitrate or encoding.

^ This. 30fps in ArmA is far from butter-smooth, in fact around 45-60fps is where the game smooth's out and you stop noticing the hitches in animations and the guns since animations and rate of fire are tied to FPS. It's almost impossible to maintain however in any realistic scenario and in the case of the stream you could easily see the FPS dipping far below 30fps because there was a lot of hitching when walking during the beginning, which was not caused by a pre-recorded video. You also can't blame the encoding bitrate and target frame rate as the cause of the jerkiness in some area's, like when the tanks where firing and all of the vehicles were on screen etc... as it has absolutely nothing to do with the source quality and frame rate.

He's talking about the fact that NATO won't have the F-35, so he's basically saying what you are saying but from the opposite perspective. Also comparable doesn't mean unrealistic.

No I'm playing on the dev branch and I've quite noticed the AI improvements and I'm very thankful for them. What I'm talking about seems to be maybe network syncing issue's, possibly server related but I've seen it happen on a lot of different servers from custom missions I've made playing with 2 friends to domination servers. As to what the large performance hit is in multiplayer, I have no clue but I've created missions and tested them out with a friend hosting on a much better computer than mine and seeing the same thing I see on dedicated servers, a almost consistent drop of 20-30 fps in the exact same scenario between single player and multiplayer and it's exacerbated the longer the mission or server runs for.

I'm not sure how stable of a base it is, I still have tons of issue's in multiplayer from terrible performance and stuttering to entities not syncing properly and warping everywhere to AI that get shot and don't die for 2 seconds and are still able to react and kill you within that time. That's just to point out a few issue's I've seen. Single player does seem to be a lot better and I was kind of hoping the campaign would tide me over until they could fix the multiplayer, but with the lack of content and the short showcases at release it really does feel like it's just extending the beta while driving up the price and calling it release quality.

Bigger question is does the game actually use up to 4gb of addressable ram or does it use it's non addressable memory store "streaming" when it reaches a certain point of usage below 4gb, I.E. say 1536mb?

I think a bigger question/worry will be if you will be able to implement all that was promised into ArmA 3 at all, irregardless of if it's in a DLC or not.

This I would like to know as well. I haven't heard much about it and am wondering if it's been scrapped or pushed into the dreaded "pre-release" content?

I like that, blind happiness mode ENGAGED! :bounce3:

This is kind of what I have trouble with. It seems like that message is getting louder with every release as well. Also to be fair, I don't mind downloading a few mods to enhance ArmA, but when I have to download like 20-40 mods or huge mod downloads like ACE that almost require me to use a third party program to keep it up to date without a huge headache, I feel that something is really lacking from the game if a large portion of the community has to turn to this "golden" mod so to speak. I know that's going to go against the grain of some users and I can understand that it's not a big deal to them. I think it's a large part of what really keeps ArmA a niche game or "out of the hands" of a more mainstream audience, more so than any aspect of the game itself. I'm not trying to knock mods, or have a negative few of them or their creator's, I just feel like it's almost becoming a must to mod ArmA to the hilt from day 1 to actually get much out of it.

I understand that. I don't think the point is so much that they did it as much as it's a little clearer now maybe why they did it. It kind of opens the perspective up that you kind of see the end result. What I'm saying is that it's a lot clearer to see that free QA from the community coupled with the time crunch and development timeline they were under explains the lower price point to Alpha and Beta and why they did it. Now I question, since the community most likely took advantage of the lower price point, exactly how long they can support ArmA 3 after launch without having to throw out DLC and Expansions, possibly with the content that was originally promised at launch that was now cut. Also post launch sales are going to have a large factor on development time spent on the core of ArmA, and Reviews are going to more than likely play a large role in post launch sales to the "unwashed masses" who aren't a part of this community. Also we have about a month and half or so before launch and like they said in one of the sitreps, eventually they're gonna have to lock down the introduction of content and feature's and go into QA mode for launch. That doesn't leave a lot time to introduce much, so using the excuse "we're still in beta" is getting flimsier by the day.

Considering what has happened in terms of their development of ArmA 3, I wouldn't say that he's far off from the truth. I don't think that a lot of the bugs/issue's would have been found as quickly or even at all if there wasn't a community alpha or beta. I guess the intent could be debated, but I don't think the end result really can be.

Yeah pretty much this.

That's ironic, you're advocating the very same thing you were abhorrently arguing against and such a fanboy for like 2-3 posts ago....

Why are you so hostile towards feedback? I get that it's an apples to oranges comparison, that's mainly because there is nothing mirroring ArmA to compare to. Still it is as close as we can compare. Your attitude is worse than some of the trolls on these forums about feedback at times, and this from a developer. This mirrors my sentiments exactly. Well said. ---------- Post added at 22:54 ---------- Previous post was at 22:45 ---------- If I max out view distance I really can't "watch things move on the monitor" any more than I can if I do the same thing in PS2. I think that's a gross overstatement. As far as ArmA 3 performance is concerned, not comparing it to anything else but itself, It's actually worse than ArmA 2 in real world scenario's I.E. multiplayer or actual single player missions with AI. I've yet to see this "optimized" thus far and if anything it's gotten a tad worse with stuttering issue's happening even with the -nologs startup parameter. I'm trying to provide you feedback and it seems like you are more interested in trying to sweep issue's under the rug and create excuses as to why the engine can't perform in real world scenario's on systems that exceed the recommended specs set forth by the developers.

I don't think he was being snide and frankly the thought has crossed my mind as well.