Felixthefriendlycat

People should play the best version of dayz. That is the only way for dayz to move in the right direction. If the dev team makes a huge mistake with standalone then people will play something else. That is the feedback that makes developers change their game.

So it is in no way connected to the actual dayz server right?

I agree with point 1 and 2. The rest I think is wrong. I think dayz arma 3 will be successful as well however I do not believe the zoombies mod will be as polished

This is great, I have been looking for something like this for a long time. The only ones I could find were on iphone/android however due to a tiny screen I find them not very pleasant. I am downloading it now.

I do not think such loop holes still exist. Microsoft needs to change their policies on this in order for it to work. I do not agree with this. Even if microsoft has some large profit margins it is still good for DayZ. It will only mean more money for the PC version of DayZ. However bohemia WILL need to license the DayZ title because if they start developing for multiple platforms then the PC version WILL suffer.

The counter on the front page of the dayz website seems to be stuck for a long while now. Or is it true we have gotten no new players since 2 months ago?

To me this sounds very much like overheating. Try cleaning out your rig with a vacuum cleaner. A friend of mine had the same issue of the pc crashing after a fixed amount of time. The screen would flickr white and then die, if that is what you are seeing it might be overheating edit: can you also tell if you are overclocking your graphics card or cpu? Too much overclocking causes internal failures within the chip which causes ' artifacting' to occur on the screen. Looks something like this

The grass is made up of pretty wide 2d squares. Having those flattening when you walk would look a bit silly. Unless we can find shoes this size

No, dean stated the weapons would have lower polygon count but very high detailed textures to compensate

Could be a pentium 4 and a hd3650 for that matter. You only need 1 fps to take a screenshot :lol:

Yes I definately agree it looks 'prettier' at first glance. But look at the forest behind the guy. Those trees are now just flat textures. What can happen now is if somebody is in those woods he would be able to spot you and you would not because you don't have the high quality model loaded in. I know it is a MASSIVE performance gain to not render those trees the way they should but it is that simulation part of arma 2 that made dayz a success. Those 'graphics' also function as mechanics in the game. They decide what is possible and what not.

Yes that is exactly what I also find and I hear this argument a 1000 times a year. But the thing is when I talk about graphics I generally do not care for fancy lighting and depth of field. I am talking about graphics settings like LOD distance that affect gameplay by a lot. For instance in arma 3 I have generally higher performance, this has to do with the lower LOD distance settings for textures. But once I zoom in with a sniper on a forest, suddenly those high res textures will need to be loaded and my fps drops by almost 70%. That really affects the gameplay. For instance in arma 3 I cant distinguish a person walking through the woods at far away distances because the tree is just a blop of low res texture. I am already very happy with how arma 2 looks. I just want to stress how certain features that might seem unimportant can have a major effect on how the game will feel.

I am absolutely for better performance and the OPTION to set lower settings. However I have noticed for instance in Arma 3 that with the highest settings I can't get the same texture LOD distance I could with arma 2 on Chernarus (hooray for 'optimization' ). It is perfectly fine with me to have the option to play on crappy graphics but the thing is I do not want to see major drawbacks for the rest of us. For instance it doesn't matter how high you crank the graphics, the polygon count on the models will stay the same. That is a perfect example of intentional quality dumping for lower end pc users. The solution is to give people the option to have those crappy graphics (without having an advantage) and the higher end pc users the intended quality.

Arma 2 is a pretty good looking game in my opinion. It is the realistic down to earth graphics with no excessive effects that make it very immersive and pleasant to play for a long time. Arma is one of those games that I would say has 'honest' graphics. What I mean by that is that what you see on screen actually is what it seems to be. Arma doesn't use a lot of tricks and effects to make the game look nice (except for post processing nonsense that should be left disabled). Arma 2's key features that make it feel nice to me are: - Polygon count uniformly spread (all objects contain about the same level of detail). - Correctly saturated material colors and lighting. - Scale of the environment. Models at long range are still rendered in high quality. - Sound mods like JSRS are more realistic and satisfying sounding than any other game I have played. - Uniform spread of high res textures. Most games skimp on textures that you don't immediately notice, arma doesn't do this nearly as much which makes the experience just as good when you explore every corner of the world. Now for the SA we all want the game to run better than the mod. Dean has already said that zombies are a major contributor to the horrible performance of the mod. Optimization is the thing we all want for SA. But it is important to stress what optimizing means for us. For me personally I want to see the game optimized at a code level. What I mean by that is I do not want to see quality being dumped down to increase performance. The presentation of rocket at Rezzed indie game show somewhat worries me. Watch the video at 39:50 In the presentation he stated that most models on the ground would have very low poly count. That actually doesn't bother me because for what I saw it is about the same level of detail arma 2 has. However when he stated the weapons would have very low polygon count that started to worry me. Also I noticed trees from far away are rendered with lower textures which makes them look bad. Arma 2 is almost 4 years old now. I think it would be a real shame if SA would look worse than the mod just because they want more people with low end systems to play it. Do you guys agree with me on this? Or do you think dropping graphics in favor of performance is the right way to go.

My experience has been very good. I have always played private hives that run a vanilla esque version of dayz. Servers with custom anti hacks are the ones I would recommend.