A3 is not single threaded...
Do you have a source for that?
Last benchmarks I checked showed essentially zero improvements with extra cores or hyper threading. However, performance increase greatly with IPC and clock increases. Going from a 4670K at 4GHZ to a Ryzen 1600 at 3.8GHZ netted me the same, if not slightly worse performance for me. Two years back I went from a GTX 970 to a GTX 1070, and the frame rate jump was around 1-2. Quick searches seem to show this is still an issue. If it is multi threaded, the engine clearly still struggles to take proper advantage of modern hardware.
TechReport's ArmA 3 CPU benchmark.
"So-so" performance depends on your hardware just like every other game. I run A3 at max settings (some things like BLUR etc. is off since I can't stand it) at VD 4800 m as infantry and get 45-60 fps (V-sync on) @ 1440p resolution depending on action with my 2.5+ year old computer.
It runs fine on an empty map, but the moment you start doing anything remotely complex you get AI issues, animation lagging behind actions and whatnot.
Don't know exactly what you mean with "solid state" but if you are referring to game stability and crashes I can tell you it's been solid for years and never been in the state EDGE 2.5 currently is, just check ED forums, ppl crashes left and right! I actually feel a bit sorry for the dev's since I'm sure they want things to work as intended more than anyone else.
"Solid state" was Paradaz's terminology, not mine. The game doesn't crash much any more, but the performance degradation is the main shortcoming. Normally games drop in frame rates. In ArmA 1-3, it results in significant AI behavior chances and more. As for DCS, I haven't had much if any crashes these past few years until I moved to the current beta version.
What you say about AI is true but since A2 BIS given us the "Headless Client" workaround so if you want to you can set up your own dedicated server and as many headless clients you want to share the AI load across all of them allowing for quite a few AI, think I've seen tests done with 800-1000 AI's using 1 DS and 2 HC IIRC (search YT if interested).
Again, very complex and awkward "work around". What if I want to play single player only? What if I don't have a spare PC for a dedicate server and all that it entails?
BIS is not perfect nor is ED...
Exactly my point. Of course, a few members here have axes to grind with ED so BIS and whatnot are exempt from the same shortcomings artificially making ED the only one in the business to be guilty of these issues.
but I wished ED copied BIS way to work years ago when it comes giving information and listen to their customers.
I wish BIS would listen to the customers who give actual advice or ask them to fix the shortcomings.
DCS mission editor - To make a an enemy spawn after you have destroyed another, it can be done in seconds via a GUI that updates unit names on the fly automatically without breaking scripts
ArmA 3 EDEN - google search a complex script, tailor it your your particular mission and hope it works
It only took them 2-3 years post release to get a weapon loadout editor GUI with EDEN. I had been asking for one since 2007-2008. It took them two other games and half a dozen paid DLCs to get there. Remember those scripts for loads? Jane's USAF had a GUI in 1999.
...but that doesn't account for the fact that features were pushed into subsequent games (3D mission editor, aka EDEN pushed to ArmA 3 and delayed again by years). And remember the game took over half a year to come to "release" and the campaign still took many more months to come. How is that different from ED?
I've been playing games/sims since the 80's (like many of you) and just want to say that BIS earned highest rank in my book when it comes to supporting their games and listen to their community. If you followed BIS since OFP days you will know that (I also followed ED since Flanker days).
I'm sorry, I can't give them a pass. Their engine is out dated and they're lazy. So many simple things had been ignored for
years. Even when mods had done hackjobs to get around the issues, BIS lacked with official support for years to follow. When they do get around to it they do a real half done job. Take switching to a sidearm while moving. Was a problem in ArmA, ArmA DLC, ArmA 2, ArmA 2 DLC and ArmA 3. Only after mods managed to add it in did BIS finally get around to it. Another example, bipods. A feature many had asked for since ArmA's release. They finally got around to it in ArmA 3 post release, but applied it to every weapon. You get the affects of a bipod even if you don't have one equipped. Press the bipod deploy button without one and it will work as if it had one. A very lazy implementation of it like usual.
They can get around to scuba diving and other off the wall fan suggestions, but when it comes to actual shortcomings or lack of realism they lag behind until they implement a hackjob and call it a day.
I'm not anti ED and wish them all the best and hope that someday they will realize their vision about a Digital Combat Sim with everything we all want's (I.e. stable DCS platform, dedicated server with MP for 50+ players and some form of persistive and dynamic campaign) and get everything sorted out!
Agreed. I'm not anti ED or anti BIS, but I'll call out the shortcomings when I see them. The fact that BIS seems to get a pass when they're no better than ED is too big to ignore though.
ED needs to nail a few things (IMO) which would make DCS so much better for myself:
- Fix A2A missile performance
- Fix ground machine gunners / vehicle accuracy
- More FC3 level planes
- Some additions to mission editor
Not too big on MP or a dynamic campaign personally.
You also seem to have an odd understanding of the words "inconsistent" and "rant" as that's the only way I can see how you'd be using those words here.
It seems as if your handle of the English language isn't as good as you may believe. You do indeed frequently post contradictory lines of thought, double barrelled questions and occasionally questions with laden with jabs (a PWEC thread comes to mind).
Even if ARMA was all that (which isn't if KeyCat is correct), how does that exactly help ED and DCS?
It doesn't, it is merely an answer to another question of yours. "What other game developers are like ED?" I give you a list of games as examples.
As for ArmA 3, KeyCat is only partially correct. I've given plenty of examples of the shortcomings and the obscenely long times to address them. And that ignores the poor implementation of fixes/ additions (like bipods). It is very similar to how DCS/ED is. Even the engines have the same shortcomings!
If ED is crap and all other studios are crap, it does not make ED any good, it just puts ED in the pile of studios that are all crap.
Not a realistic example because other studios are indeed better, but let us assume all were crap. "Crap" or "substandard" is relative. If a studio cannot be relatively worse than another studio then how is it crap?
Personally, BIS can be as crap as it wants to be (if it were to start with) but I don't care as I don't play ARMA. I do, however, play combat flight simulators of which ED is a part of, and that's why I post here and not on the ARMA forums
Which is fine. But you cannot complain that ED is abnormally bad when a number of other studios are similar. What you thought was "abnormal" or "sub par" didn't align with reality. We can talk about how flight sim utopia should be but we're wandering off into fantasy land then.
The only thing incosistent here is your reading ability. Read my last post and maybe digest it before typing out another response; I've already explained this.
Try the same yourself. As much as you want to believe it, your English isn't as good as you had thought.
And I'm not going to play dumb and pretend I didn't understand what "incosistent" meant because I know it was a typo. You're so quick to jump on a single typo and point it out when others do it; I was expecting better from you.
Um, no, that's not what I said. Read it again.
Lets do that right now.
Seems like it's only for new modules, you still can't gift your own used modules to someone else. Took them this long to implement a "gift" system (existed on Steam and Humble Bundle and other sites for YEARS!!) that's exactly like what every other site has and still screw their existing customers?
Part in bold there. You're argument asked in a question format can be summarized as:
They added a gifting system, but they're still screwing us. They don't let us gift our already activated modules Those meanies! They owe us that! Because I said so!
So if you buy a module for your acount, you get bonus points. If you're kind enough to buy a module for a friend, you do not get bonus points. How does that make sense? How does that reward a customer who goes the extra mile for both a friend and for DCS?
They don't owe you bonus points. How does it make sense you ask? Because their store, their promotion, their rules.
Not being able to comprehend a post that is 105 words long and then calling me petty
I comprehended it just fine. It is 105 words of whining for something that is not owed to you.
Ah, good! You responded to that! Now please show me where in this thread have I been aggressive, over the top, off the rails to you?
And you tossed some good bait right?
Your logic:
I claim your rants are getting even more inconsistent and incoherent as your OP was essentially baseless whining. You claim that is a personal attack. Okay.
The only thing incosistent here is your reading ability.
A comment pointing out an inconsistency for another member (myself). For the sake of consistency, the above is also considered a personal attack.
But to sum it up, it is cumulative. You discredit something based on a certain parameters, then when the same logic is applied as a counter argument you suddenly invalidate such thought processes. You dish out a loaded question filled with extreme exaggerations and passive aggressive insults. Then when you are called out on it you cry victim and/or side step. This isn't limited to the DCS sub forum. Your "writing style" pulls attention away from the actual topic.
Yes, and I also wrote the words in the green box. You know, the one where I asked for examples of OTHER AAA titles or dev studios promising release and then delivering a beta?
Indeed you did write that. But that is another topic you brought up yourself. It had nothing to do with what I was writing about - long Early Access periods that last months or years.
My brother is entitled to anything I say he's entitled to.
No he isn't. If you say he is entitled to your neighbors car I think the police will have a big problem with that. That is some $
hithole underdeveloped country logic right there.
Joking aside, you set yourself up for that one!
Ha! And you know what? ED transferred the license over so even ED agreed with me there at the time.
How nice of you and ED.
Interesting how you don't see the inconsistency here and instead focus on "mean". I guess you've got no point to counter, eh? You buy a module, you get bonus points. You buy a module for a gift, you do not get bonus points. Consistent? Hardly. But that doesn't fit your narrative so let's just ignore that point, shall we?
Their store their rules. They don't owe you bonus points unless they advertise it, period. They can cancel the program entirely - no one gets bonus points. You have no argument, except that ED is mean because they're not giving out bonus points for gifted modules.
If the thread was entitled "BMP snipers in DCS", then it'll make sense complaining about those. Have you read the thread title?
You missed the point. Make a thread of something worthy to complain about and I'll agree with you. This thread is basically you feeling entitled to bonus points for gifted modules and your argument is ED is mean.
It does. Open your mind and improve your comprehension a bit more and you'll understand.
Just because you say it does doesn't make it true. Just like you granting your brother entitlement powers to anything you want.
Making the point over and over and over and over and you still missing it shows me the issue isn't with the point
Maybe because it doesn't make any sense? Of course the problem is always either others.
Previous system allowed people to transfer used modules to other users. New system does not, but it's a step forward?
The ease of it is. The older system was cumbersome.
It may be easier for ED or whatever, but the "ease of use" is not the issue here, it is the capability of transferring used modules.
And are you required by law to transfer your activated and used modules to another user? No? Then there is no issue. You should have read the ToS before purchasing.
Yeah, you lose one good aspect of something but still call the new iteration "certainly a step forward"??
Gifting became easy and straight forward. Is that not a step forward in that aspect?
Must be. Efficiency is a wonderful thing. I'll take that as a compliment!
This is just proof that you don't understand what is written or what's being asked of you. I ask for a source for your statement.
I understood it just fine, it was merely a typo.
Let me correct that for you:
And what is the new online check requirement?
The main difference is you no longer have a CD key, but the license is tied to your account log in. I believe it was once every three days, but if I recall ED decided to increase the duration between checks after a big back lash. Don't exactly recall what they did though. Essentially you don't have to use the ridiculous activation / deactivation scheme, but now have online checks. Depending on how long the duration is, I might prefer the new scheme more.Although I think both are too restrictive...
Two typos, the horror. Or will I have to point out the second one for you to?