I am really disappointed in the quality of Arma 3, compared to other titles, this game still looks like a B rated game. Even Dragon Rising had better animations and visual quality than this game.
I'm not sure what you were expecting. This game is running on an engine that has its roots back in 1997, with some updates in between keeping it modern. Visually, I think it looks great and accurate. Sure, animations still need some work, but they are 500% better than their previous titles. No idea, haven't been playing it (holding out for release).
The game has been released. And the development branch has been changed to be identical to the main branch at version 1.0.0 I guess. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?149636-Beta-Development-branch-changelog/page13 (But there will be further updates shortly.)
OUT, Trailer, TCs and Tactical Guide and more http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1YBZUxMX8g http://www.bistudio.com/english/hom...mia-interactive-deploys-arma-3-launch-trailer
More of a whimper than a bang then, perhaps the least hyped game release in history? Is it even available on disc at retailers? £40 now ouch.
http://forums.bistudio.com/showthre...ch-changelog&p=2500605&viewfull=1#post2500605 The update for the dev version was pushed back to Monday, it will re-add some of the later fixes that didn't make it into the release build. (Various optimizations for example.)
I wish this game ran higher than 30fps. Is their a setting that is really heavy on fps? I've already turned msaa off.
You know it shows your fps while in the settings menu right? That's the best way to test it. View distance seems to have the most impact for me, but there are other settings that give me a nasty hit too. You just have to fiddle with it and don't expect too much. Also, it seems like gold release is actually running worse for me than beta was. Anyone else seeing this?
The game is CPU heavy, it ran absolutely beautiful on my 4670k@4,2ghz, atleast 40fps+ It ran a little worse on 3570k, i had both CPU and tested arma3.
Ya if you guys are having issues, turn down your draw distances down. It really helps. It's not GPU related, you can keep this game at max settings for video, most of us. It's a CPU bottleneck. The game is basically a upgraded engine of the original engine used for Arma. It doesn't use multi-cores very well or hyperthreading. If it did, we would have no issues. The only way to help performance on a CPU bottleneck is to overclock your CPU or reduce pressure on the CPU, in this case, lowering the draw or object rendering distances will place less objects on your rendering causing less strain on your CPU. I lowered my draw distances to 3k instead of 4k, its still a pretty far distance and grants a much improved FPS. I find the animations lacking in this game, sure it's a step up for the Arma series, but reloading a launcher in this game looks like a joke compared to Dragon Rising which had the most realistic launcher loading animations. maybe after seeing and playing BF3, it makes this game feel inferior due to it's sound design. I also dislike the effects in this game, it's the same effects from Arma 2 which look terrible. The volumetric smoke animates slower than everything else, making it feel out of place and cartoonie. There are no convincing bullet impact effects, the muzzle flash looks cheap and lazy, it's a simple 2D flash that looks like it was drawn out of MS paint, without the lighting system, the muzzle flashes would look terrible as it did in Arma 2, in truth, they shouldn't have a pronounced muzzle flash as military weapons are equipped with flash hiders, they should just add a sonic boom when firing, it usually looks like a blur effect when a weapon discharges. They have PhysX and are not even utilizing APEX PhysX which makes games look amazing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHakdkKQH4 Look at what they could add to Arma 3, but they haven't, the overall visual department seems lazy or not enough staff working on it. They need to aim for a higher bar in visual fidelity.
Hilarious, did you know that simulators are cpu bottlenecked all the time? Just lower everything to low and start from there.
But you are forgetting something, who the Real Virtuality engine is really aimed at; the military/LE. Bohemia makes most of its sales and income by catering to militaries the world over with their VBS series. I personally came across VBS while in the military myself, though an older version. What they accomplish with the ArmA series is having a great platform to test their engine and fix as many bugs and test as many features as possible before upgrading the VBS to the latest engine.
I know all this, it doesn't mean they should still be lazy in their visual department. Even militaries prefer better looking graphics in their simulations or the US Army wouldn't have contracted RealTime Immersive using the CryEngine 3 with its amazing graphics for $57 million dollars. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob7BVTp6IxA The graphics in VBS look like ass, just the majority of older Arma titles.
Well I'm bummed. Since they've gone full release, I've been getting that damn crashing with PhysX3_x86.dll error. BIS Forum link on the error. They're working with NVidia now but it's strange that other players are experiencing this with AMD Radeons. Ugh.
That was just a technology showcase, it looks nothing like the end product: http://youtu.be/1NtjjSYR_wE It also includes none of the huge backend that the VBS series offers. With VBS, you can: -Real time edit scenarios as they are being played out -Extensive after action tools. -Controls from the basic soldier to a division commander (using the map and UAV's). -Huge live terrain. You can have live simulated enemies on a 2000km by 2000km terrain while having a 20km view distance. Something no other game or simulation offers to the detail of the VBS series. Just look at some of the videos on the BIS channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/bisimmedia/videos?sort=dd&view=0&shelf_index=2
