DGeorge85

I'm psyched for the BEAST too. I was wondering what the final verdict is on the reticle. Several months ago Mr. Hammer mentioned it will have the MLR reticle but that he'd like to do something like a Horus.

Yes, the smoke has been reported many times and is not going to change with a different GPU. https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ParticleArray https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Particle_Effects:_Config_Parameters https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Particle_Effects Just a quick search turned up these wiki pages, and after browsing them you can get an idea how these visual effects are constructed. I had a look through some time back and really gained a new appreciation for what Opticalsnare does. I can't imagine how much time must be spent tweaking/testing numerous parameters to get the desired result, especially having to restart the game every time to observe a new change.

I've settled into something between 45-50%. Some guys in my unit come in quieter than others over TFAR so I just increase their individual volume in TS to level coms. Other than that, I still have to listen really closely to pick up what people are saying when riding in certain choppers, sometimes not able to make out the transmission, but I think it's fairly realistic that way. I don't remember if the chopper sounds are quieter or louder than vanilla, but I should mention I'm using DragonFyre RC5. If it helps any, I'd probably have to lower the game effects down to the 20% range to always hear coms clearly over everything else.

The whole point of vsnyc is to synchronize the frames to the monitors refresh rate. If your monitor has a 60hz refresh rate (means 60 times per second) then frames will cap at 60 for 1:1 synchronization. In the event your system cannot maintain 60FPS, frame rate will drop to 30 for a 1:2 synchronization, switching back and forth depending on when and when it can't maintain 60. In this case it's probably best to leave it off as it gives a feel of increased stuttering in my experience. Having a game fluctuate naturally between 40-60+ feels a lot better than constant jumps from 30 to 60 and back to 30. As for the OP, I wouldn't pay any mind. Simply put, on an empty map (or with very little going on) you are not CPU bottlenecked, so your GPU is able to work to it's full capacity. Spawn 50 AI on each side and have them meet up for a good firefight and I guarantee you'll see GPU usage drop significantly to illustrate the concept of switching from a GPU bottleneck to CPU bottleneck. Arma is one of those games that swings back and forth between GPU and CPU dependency as you move in and out of battles.

We are talking about chip and motherboard settings which, I'd like to think, take precedent over Windows settings, and on my system they do. Regardless of power profile my system idles down to 800mhz and lowers voltage, then clocks up to my OC frequency under load. Windows would basically have to apply a constant load to keep my chip clocked up unless I disabled EIST/C-states. My question to you is why force something 24/7 (which isn't even accomplished by doing what you suggest) when the hardware can properly configure itself to only clock up when needed, saving power, and for OC junkies improve the lifespan? Technology affords us the ability to only use the power when needed, and save energy everywhere else, so why not take advantage? The only realistic answer I see is out of paranoia. If your game is running better then I suggest looking at your system setup, as there was likely something else poorly configured and a this power profile+priority setting is just bypassing it. Otherwise, "GUIDES" like these with capitalization, a bunch of links and bold text are a dime a dozen on the internet where someone is insisting something useless worked like magic for them. Some old-school guys have trouble moving along with and trusting technology, I get that. There was a time when I would have forced max frequency 24/7 as well out of peace of mind, but at some point, as these power saving features are refined and embedded in the hardware itself, there comes a time where you can simply trust that they are doing their job correctly and move on with your life. I mean, come on...You expect me to believe you isolated your CPU power draw from the rest of your system and house and then measured it for 4 months for validation before posting this? And AFTER ALL THAT, the point remains that your argument is based on forcing max clock 24/7, yet whether on "Balanced" or "High Performance" a chip should be idling down and clocking up only when needed. If you want to force max frequency 24/7 it's time to look elsewhere. Altis Benchmark v.60 Balanced + Normal: 84FPS High Performance + High: 85FPS My Windows doesn't care about the difference in priority or power profile. Either I'm not blessed by the Windows gods, or my system is set up properly and performing as expected...you choose.

I'm missing the point here as to how this will increase performance. Modern chips are constantly changing clock speed across cores independently in a time scale which may as well be called "instant". Even then, setting your power profile and priority does not keep it from doing so. If you want to ensure your chip runs at peak frequency at all times you must go through some BIOS/UEFI settings to disable C-states/EIST, raise or remove power and current limiters and have proper cooling to keep the chip form throttling itself. Whether the difference in Arma performance is noticeable or not by changing power profiles and priority in Windows is mainly besides the point here because it doesn't even achieve what you are after. Also, if anyone cares to know, I have all C-states and EIST enabled (CPU idles @ 800mhz) and the instant I run Arma it clocks to max and stays there. 8-10 watts power draw while dicking around on the desktop, and instant full speed during load...seems the best of both worlds. The power delivery/regulation of todays motherboards and CPUs is so dynamic and sophisticated that forcing a machine to run full tilt 24/7 would simply be out of paranoia and a waste a whole lot of power in the meantime.

Go to the editor on whatever map, spawn your player and whatever else and save it (don't load any opposing forces, we don't want anything moving around or engaging for consistency). When you load, check FPS before moving your player/view. This way we have a consistent base to measure FPS. Shadows - On my system "Standard" is the sweet spot. Going down to "Low" or up to "High" drops my FPS by 3-4. AO - I personally don't feel much in the way of image quality is gained by this so I run with it disabled to gain a few FPS. HDR - Setting this to "Low" should grant you 5+ FPS. I think I actually like the way Low looks better than Standard, so the performance boost made this an easy choice for me. Aniso. Filtering - You should be able to max this out with little to no impact to frame rate. As for everything else, our settings are very similar and we run the same resolution. With texture quality, I know the guy above mentioned lowering it, but my 1GB HD5870 handles "Very High" just fine, in fact lowering it to "High" doesn't change my FPS any- I've found 1GB VRAM to be plenty at 1680x1050 resolution and only 2xAA, but test this for yourself. With the stuff I mentioned above, you will likely get a solid 10FPS increase, and as long as you don't mind the different lighting of the low HDR setting, you won't be giving up any quality.

I tested out v1.2 on Saturday during my units weekly campaign OP (fits the 30+ player and dozens of AI category). I'm pretty sure that I was the only one using Impulse and I was, as usual, one of the only ones NOT complaining about terrible frame rates. Will it have an effect on frame rate? Sure, any addition of code will, but in the situations that drop my frame rate the most, this mod does not impact performance enough to make or break playability- That is, if I'm in a situation where my frames are shitty, they are going to be shitty regardless if this mod is on or not. I would say if you like it, then use it. One of the only negative things I could say about using this mod is that sometimes it will pick up some stray reverb from an object or objects that probably shouldn't produce such a strong effect. Other than that I'm really digging what's been dubbed "slap back". It is a pretty dominant sound so a lot of guns will sound very similar unless you have good ears, but overall this mod produces the sounds I always felt were missing in ArmA. Very good work thus far zooloo. *Note: I'm running this with DragonFyre RC5

Where your video card lies in respect to the recommendation means little to nothing at this point and with what you've provided (very little despite people asking for more information), it doesn't appear there is an issue here to troubleshoot, but rather a case of inflated expectations like I said before. Anyone who has been PC gaming for awhile will tell you not to base your expectations on these recommendations. The reality is that these published hardware recommendations are far from universal and are tailored for marketing purposes more than anything else. Someone running 1440p who demands smooth gameplay with maxed video settings is obviously going to need a much more robust recommendation than the guy gaming on an old 1280x1024 monitor who is ok with standard/high settings, a relatively low view distance and frequent dips below 30fps. In either case, performance on a given machine is what it is, regardless of what the box says (I know, nobody buys their games in a box anymore). It's harsh, but just because one's GPU is marginally faster than the developers published recommendations doesn't make it "overqualified" in reality, so I would start getting in the habit of browsing the web for benchmarks before purchasing a game to be sure you can expect the performance to meet your standards.

I think I remember him saying earlier this year that future releases won't include the smoke changes, that they will be separate mods.

If 512x512 is the limit, I think that first shot is the result of trying 1024x1024. Only the first quadrant (512x512) is rendered correctly.

I think expectations may be a little high. The reality is that a 6850 should hardly be labeled as "overqualified" for this game. In fact, even at 1080p resolution I would place a 6850 at the bottom end and will likely require running no AA and reducing most graphical settings a fair amount to achieve smooth, playable frame rates in any situation. I'm using my own system and performance for reference, as I too have a powerful CPU (4790k @ 4.4ghz) paired with a dated HD5870 GPU that I haven't yet replaced. I'm only running 1680x1050 and to maintain a vsynced 60fps MOST of the time I can only run 2xAA/Standard FXAA with most detail/quality settings turned down a fair amount with only 2000/1600 view/object distance. Of course a combination of certain mods, amount of AI/units placed and how much schitt is hitting the fan will quickly change the scene and tip the performance into a CPU bottleneck, even with a heavily CPU biased system, where better utilization would raise the minimum FPS, but there is still no doubt my GPU, which happens to actually be a couple tiers above yours, requires me to keep my graphic settings in check. It is still fair to say better CPU utilization would give either of us higher frames in some cases, but considering my own experience, I feel safe in saying your GPU is going to hold you back a fair amount especially if you aren't keen on sacrificing graphical quality. Point is, if you can't achieve playable frames by lowering graphic settings, then there is a specific problem here, otherwise take note that CPU utilization is a hindrance for all of us.

The only time I've seen that was when my unit's server was updated to 0.3.6 before I had a chance to, so I'd start with making sure your version matches the version on the server.

The point Spartan makes about cleaning up config code is noted, but unless points are made in a request which pertain to and benefit vanilla content, I don't see why BIS would even pay attention. Requests to a developer in an attempt to make things more streamlined for 3rd party are a dime a dozen. To get a developer to do something which benefits you/your content, it would be a good idea to first convince the developer that it benefits them/their content. I do like the armor idea, and .408 animations, YES! It's silly at this point when a vanilla rifle still feels as if it's part of some early WIP release. I know the utmost in ballistic simulation is beyond the scope of the original requests, but I don't think they are in a difficult spot at all. Most of the small group doesn't even push for ballistic simulation because we already have a mod that does it damn near perfectly. On the other hand there is another large group of people to consider. To suddenly require a well rounded understanding of ballistics and how to use various tools for effective long range shooting would be to throw the vast majority of players under the bus. Even then, among the small remaining group who are maybe recreational long range shooters, military/LE trained or those with general interest, there would be an unhappy percentage that simply don't wish to exercise the same level of discipline in a video game. Am I for ballistic realism by default? Hell yea, but it'll never happen. Video games of the last couple decades have an entire generation thinking they are "snipers" and I'm afraid it's a bit too late to shatter that delusion without also shattering your customer base. Brisse, you paint a really solid picture of the reality of where the ballistics in this game currently stand, (namely post #3) which should hit home for those who want to see BIS bring in realistic ballistics of their own and those who continue to piss into the wind, trying to match BIS trajectories to reality. It should be perfectly clear to everyone that we don't need the ballistics code to be patched up, built on, repaired or reconditioned, because the foundation itself is simplified and inaccurate. We'd be fools to think BIS isn't aware of this. They know a complete overhaul would be required and the only way to move forward is for us to acknowledge this as well and form an appropriate demand. From my point of view, adding a priority to weapon-defined parameters as opposed to the magazine only adds a realistic concept; that some things change weapon to weapon, even with the same ammo, but until the parameters themselves are redefined and capable of producing real-life projectile behavior, adding this concept does nothing in the way of actually bringing more realism to the core ballistic simulation.

For sure, and that's my sentiment exactly as it's really the only con to the whole idea, though I would be willing to have one more mode to switch through to have at least a short burst on high rate. In any case, if 2 modes is the max you want to incorporate, I think having 2 burst lengths is more practical than 2 rates of fire with the same burst length. Even something mixed like the current 1.5s low rate, and a shorter burst for high rate would be tasty as well. In some situations 1.5s of time on target with a steady hand is not only excessive in terms of the fire power (especially on high rate), but also counter productive when time on target itself is a consideration. In do or die CAS situations, having the ability for a short time on target without spraying the AO with 30mm is very handy, especially when high rate can deliver sufficient firepower in a burst as short as 1/2s. I don't want to be pushy or annoying if nobody agrees so please don't hesitate to shoot down my proposition flat out. I mean it, lol.