Frell

I agree, removing it early on will cause less of a backlash. It just doesn't fit. Splitting everyone up waters down the player base. Force everyone into first person and its better.

Psychic abilities

I can like the game but hate its clunk

Frustrum culling is a given in any engine, if you don't use it theres a good chance the game wont be playable. Occlusion culling is even better for complex scenes and many games do use it, it isn't rare at all

wat Its one of the most popular forms of optimization

Why wasn't this in the engine already is my question

First or second statement? Assuming the first. Why would they spend the time to rewrite the engine for DayZ and not take the chance to improve the engine for Arma 3 while they're at it?

This I'm tired of people thinking distance in human measurements means anything ingame. Distance is arbitrary

I find the first one unlikely. Sure it may have been rebuilt by re using their existing code to be more Rocket friendly, but that doesn't mean it was rewritten. You are having performance issues, you just still consider it playable. Your rig should be able to max it and hold 60fps everywhere

They aren't wrong. Every arma game uses the engine and they all perform poorly, coincidence? If DayZ SA was a new game fresh on the market with a brand new engine no one would say this. But BIS has a very bad track record with optimization, occlusion culling not even being in after so many years is sad enough.

Why do people assume alpha means the developers can suddenly read minds? Its important for the community to bring up flaws instead of assuming they're already acknowledged

I forgot about that, theres also hardly any zombies in the game right now. Once the game is in full force it will most likely be crawling again unless a good chunk of that money goes to proper rewrites

GTX 770, i7 2600S 3.8ghz 8GB RAM 22-28 fps in cities 40-60+ in woods on lowest

Yes but the game wasn't built to spawn loot in the way Rocket did, so alot of the performance went downhill from there. Arma 2 raw ran better than the mod. But the point above is why standalone runs better

Hey condescending fuck, I wasn't comparing performance to the mod. I was comparing it to every other Arma game released. They all have one thing in common: they run like potatoes. One of the forum admins even said "your fps now is most likely final, but there may be some room to speed it up a bit"

I never said RV couldn't be fixed I said will they do it now after so many years of neglect And none of my points are moot. You're comparing engines used in games that are created primarily for consoles (2007 hardware) to 2013 pc games. Its a no brainer why arma never went to consoles.

Common as in almost every engine could handle it if the developers wanted to. Most engines out there are being used in games that don't need to have a big free roam world. I'm sure if the developers wanted to and knew what they were doing any engine could be shaped to handle it. Look at the Witcher 3. They went from small single player instances to a giant freeroam world

Careful not to compare engines used in games built for 2007 hardware (consoles) to PC only games Every free roam game can be as big and prettier than chernarus with nextgen. But Bethesda chooses to not do multiplayer because they're known for single player RPGs. They also use smaller maps in an attempt to jam pack them full of content, otherwise you just have alot of walking. Just because a game has a smaller map or lack of something does NOT mean it doesn't support it. Engines are usually shaped to fit design but can easily be expanded on.

They said the same thing about Arma 3 Guess what barely improved? Performance. All the way from alpha to release

Lol... Frostbite only has maps that big because thats how big the maps are in the nature of their game. They could go bigger easily, DICE is a AAA studio You're mixing up rendering and map size Proper game engines stream map chunks. If VR isn't doing this its laughable

You don't think its a coincidence every Arma game released has had poor performance? And then SA comes along and surprise surprise poor performance? Maps for alpha only

Where did you hear this? Is it on nVidia's end? Will they have to put out a driver for the game to fix it? (which they wont until its final release) or is it because of RV

I bet you're one of those people who goes around posting "its alpher" in threads?

Remember, Garry Newmans main reason for creating Rust was because he wanted to make a version of DayZ that didn't feel so clunky. He was very smart to undercut Rocket like this because the RV engine will take a long time to ever be smoothed out (if it even will) We know one thing: The game isn't pretty enough to warrant the resources it uses. Not to mention the engine doesn't use the GPU like it should, it still offloads too much on the CPU which is retarded becauses GPU's were built for this. That's a horrible sign. People with good rigs who aren't used to Arma titles that bought the SA would probably consider 32 fps on lowest "unplayable" with a GTX 6***-7***

While I agree Rocket is a game developer and not an engine tech developer that doesn't mean he can't hire people to rewrite it. Arma was never a hugely popular game, I HOPE all this money coming in from SA is able to fix the garbage engine once and for all. So SA isn't slow and clunky and future arma titles aren't slow and clunky