AussieStig

I thought that they were still going with BattlEye, it's just not implemented right now.

He's upset about getting free stuff?

I'm fine with them going down the slightly more futuristic road as long as we still see some forms of technology from today, and the past. It's only 20 years, we'd still be seeing a lot of the same aircraft used today, probably a lot of the same weapons as well.

I just received an email from feedback.arma3.com about my low performance issues. It was just about the fact that my ticket was a duplicate of another, so they were taking it down, which is fine. But the good news is that they've 'assigned' the main performance issue ticket to someone called "dazhbog". So that now should mean that they've recognized the performance issues, and they are looking into it. It may take quite awhile for them to sort it out, but it's reassuring that BI has finally recognized the issues with the engine, and they are looking into it!

I can't recall the last game I played that actually allowed people to play online with cracked versions of the game. This is extremely disappointing. Just looking at the bay with the pirates, there are multiple versions with working multiplayer with hundreds of seeders. Something really does need to be done about the fact they can play online.

People are angry because this happened in arma 2, and I'm sure everyone expected that it would be a number 1 priority fix for Arma 3, yet nothing has been done about it, and the developers still steer clear of the topic. It's like they just don't care about optimization, and if they do, they aren't showing it. BI should at least come out and say "Oh, sorry guys, we haven't quite optimized the game for all hardware, we should have it ironed out before full release" instead of just leaving us out in the open about it.

Hey guys, I'm relatively new to making missions. While I made a few in Arma 2, they were never advanced, and I'm looking to expand my knowledge in arma 3. I'm creating a rescue type mission, where it's the job of OPFOR - who are holding 3 civilians captive - to hold off the advancing BLUFOR trying to rescue the 3 civilians. There is no AI in the mission, including the 3 civilians, so even they will be played by members of my group. The trouble I'm having though is that the civilians will have the ability to the Ammo Crates placed down for the OPFOR, and the civilians will also be able to take gear off players that die near them. While that's obviously the most realistic approach, that's not what I want to do. I would like to have it so that the civilians do not have access to the Ammo Crates at a minimum, and I'd prefer that they cannot access players gear. Is there a way of locking particular players out from accessing gear? Cheers.

He was pointing out that being turned into a seagull is a bug, not a hack. No one ever said that mass killing wasn't. Note that your 'new game' is still in alpha, and it's going to take time for BE to get everything sorted out. Also, you can blame terrible server admins and mission creators for the poor anti-hacking. This topic has been done to death anyway. Move onto a different server.

If people agree with what you're suggesting, then they'll vote it up. You don't need to be a popular community member at all. I've seen several suggestions on there with over 50 people giving it the thumbs up, and I've seen at least 3 suggestions with over 400 people giving it the thumbs up. None of these were made by popular community members

This kind of thing was implemented into Grand Theft Auto IV and it completely ruined it on PC. It made it unpredictable and often uncontrollable. The system they have in place right now is totally fine, I see no reason to change it.

Alright then. If they've added it to the game, great, it won't enhance the game for me in any way, but great. If they haven't added it in yet, then I don't see why it should be added at such a late point in development. I see no way of it expanding gameplay in any way at all, but that's your opinion. It's literally just a female. I don't quite get how you think that's game changing.

Isn't this flight model just a place holder? I was under the impression that the TOH flight model would be implemented down the road once it's ironed out.

Neither do I, but in this stage of development? Seriously? There are far far more important things to work on than just cosmetic features that add nothing at all. It's something that should be worked on after full release, not right now.

I've argued with several feminists on the feedback ticket on feedback.arma3.com over the past day, and my view on it is that it's too late for this now, and there is no point to it. It doesn't add anything to a military simulator, so I don't see why bohemia should have to waste their time on something that doesn't change their game in any way at all.

I've spent the past 3 days playing the game on the lowest of all settings in order to gain frames, but I decided to try something today. I turned all of the 'quality' settings to high/very high, kept AA and post processing off, and kept my view distance at 1000m, and my frame rate was the exact same in multiplayer. No matter what I change any of my quality settings to, there is no more than a 1-2fps difference which is extremely weird, but a good thing I guess. This now means that instead of playing the game at a shit frame rate, and with shit graphics, I can now have good graphics while having the exact same shit frame rate. Yay, I guess?

All these "What fixes the FPS lag" threads, and not one of them does a single thing for me :(

It's a cleaner, faster, better version of Windows 7. Would I recommend the upgrade from Windows 7 to 8 if you already have 7 installed? Probably not, but it costs a lot just for a small upgrade. But if you're buying a new PC, you'd be an idiot to stick with Windows 7 to be honest, as Windows 8 is clearly better. The game doesn't run that well for me, but I am 99.9% sure it's not because of Windows 8. I never had any issues upgrading from W7 to W8 in arma 2, in fact, there might have been a slight upgrade in performance.

I have the AMD FX-6100 also, and an equivalent nvidia GPU. I get shit frame rates in multiplayer as well, not much we can do about it until there are driver updates, and BI optimize it better.

That's a beast of a computer, shame it runs like ass for you. What view distance are you running it at? It's easily the biggest FPS killer.

Thank you, this is all I've wanted to hear for the past 3 days.

My personal opinion is that AI is only 1 part of the optimization issue. If you join a multiplayer game hosted on a dedicated server that has no ai, such as TDM, Wasteland or any of the capture area missions, I guarantee that you'll still get terrible performance.

While I've probably voiced my concerns a little more angrily, I agree with you 100%. I'm angry not because I can't play the game at a decent frame rate now, I'm angry because I'm scared that when the full release comes, it's going to be the same stuff. I just feel like BIS has never really cared about optimization for a range of hardware, and it's going to be the same old crap with Arma 3. Before someone says "It's alpha, give them time", I know it's alpha, but their history shows that they probably won't do anything. They care too much about positive feedback, and too little about everything else. Take a look at SITREP #00001, no mention of the horrible optimization for a lot of the community, but they are very happy that it's optimized for a few people.

Sorry, my point was that they hadn't actually addressed the terrible optimization, there hasn't been a post from them saying that they are looking into it, not even an indication that they are looking into it. I'm not here to shit up the thread or tell them that the game is crap, but Arma 2 was the exact same, they didn't care about optimization, and I feel like it's going to happen again. I want some reassurance that they will actually try to do something about it, instead of just ignoring it like in Arma 2. I'm complaining because as I said above, this same shit happened in Arma 2, and I don't want it to happen to Arma 3. I'm here because I want a good game, and I'm sorry that I'm not here to defend it to my death, much like yourself. Aside from the optimization issues, the game is great, it's excellent, game of the year. But no one can enjoy a great game when it runs like shit. Yet no one from bohemia seems to want to address it. That's all I'm asking, someone from bohemia to step up and say that they are looking into why the game is running so badly for half of us. You've got shit eyes then mate, because anyone who actually knows what they are talking about, knows that there is no limit to the amount of FPS you can see in videos/games. Go ask any pro FPS player what they play at, and how big of a difference there is between playing at 30fps and 120fps. It's the difference between winning and losing. There's a reason why people get 120hz monitors, and extremely expensive graphics cards. By the way, I think you're the typical internet character. You simply cannot lose an argument, accepting that you're wrong is far too hard for you, isn't it? That's typical.

20 pages, and still no BI post on the terrible optimization? I want to enjoy the game so much, but this is just almost completely ruining it for me. What's making it worse is that there hasn't been a single post, or response anywhere from anyone who works at BI to say that they are looking into it. One of the devs said that FPS should improve on dedicated servers. I played on Matt Lightfoot's extremely overpowered dedicated server last night, and still got shit frame rates. There is more to the terrible multiplayer optimization than just 'dedicated servers'.

I don't want to derail the thread, or sound like a pain, but do you guys at least have plans to look into the optimization issues. I can see this turning into a game where only half the community enjoy it because it runs so badly for the other half.