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

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.

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.

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.

I hope radios will be a real thing and not a lengthy mp3 track played over voip through the radio like GTA. It would be fun to have realistic radio shows where people in game can get on the radio in a game show for instance or for requesting a song.

I was wondering whether or not the dev team have had to make some concessions when moving to the new MMO architecture. Dean stated they moved from a first person shooter to an mmo type game, which comes across to me as though they have had to make some compromises that affect gunplay. I wanted to know if the following features are still possible for SA. Hit registration: If this is done server side and the servers will have a lot of trouble even running at 30 fps. Will this cause "lag" like zombies dropping dead half a second later after you have shot them?. And missing shots completely because the target is at a different location on the server as oppose to your screen? Bullet drop and windage: One of the things that sets arma apart from other shooters is the fact you need a lot of skill to hit someone. This is because arma uses realistic bullet travel time and drop. Windage was featured in the ACE mod ( and was supposed to be in 1.7.7 I thought for a while). Taking away these very important mechanics will change the way a firefight will be fought. I was not entirely shure if these features can be used alongside the MMO architecture.

Yes it really is a major contributing factor to dayz. Dean also stated in the live stage at e3 he wanted to really look at what made dayz great to begin with and expand on that. Which gave me some hope

I think the server you where playing on has increased its view distance. This happens with every update the view distance resets to its original value and admins forget to put it back. View distance is one of those things that consume a lot of horsepower.

They should make your character start crying when you log out ( in combat) . That would reflect the cowardliness

Agree with most of the OP. Animations! jezus christ. Dean said they used a new skeleton because the old one was nearly 8 years old. Well then I expected to see an improvement instead of a step backwards. To me it looks just like the old way of animating instead just different ones. Very disproportionate falling animations when he got knocked over by the zombies. Transitions between animations is just instant which makes it seem jerky. Another thing that makes movement feel jerky is the acceleration from standing still. If you press forward your character will instantly move with the normal walking speed. It should be so that when you press forward to walk your character will start accelerating towards that walking speed. The way it is now makes moving indoors very jerky. Other than that indoors looks very nice. Dean also mentioned a polygon budget, is the engine limited in the amount of polygons used or is it just from a performance perspective?

Nope [11:39 AM CST 6/9/2013] Matt Lightfoot: You won't be able to do tomorrow as we need ot update Steam at the same time Yes at the moment, we were alright to go on Friday when it was brought to us but now the people needed to push an update to steam are at E3 and in Prague. So trying to do that is going to be slightly more complex especially with the us being busy from 9.30am till 9pm LA time. There isn't really much we have to say till I know exactly what we can do about it. Again we were perfectly ready last thursday/friday. Jan isn't here at the moment I can't make the build public on steam. Only Jan can and I don't know his process for that whether he can do it remote, he has to e-mail valve. I don't know, so I'm going to have to speak to him. ...... sigh

I have a question/ suggestion for the SA that is a simple change of variables. Like everyone of us we hope SA will be more optimized than the mod itself. Now it is very important to note what I mean by "optimizing". For what I understand optimizing means getting the engine to run more efficient on a code level. It does NOT mean dumping down quality or removing geometry to improve fps. That for me is a very important thing. Though what I see in many games when devs start talking optimizing they start to dumb down quality of the stuff that does not immediately stand out. However those things WILL stand out once you play the game for some time. When Rocket was asked questions how they would improve performance he pointed out that zombies where a big performance hit. And that with a simple change in material for zombies performance should notably increase. However from my experiences zombies are not THE problem (perhaps because I have a fairly good cpu). From what I experienced myself it is simply the amount of geometry and textures that play the biggest role. And for the amount of textures and geometry that gets displayed I think the RV engine performs rather poorly. Now for my real point. I have played Arma 3 alpha for some time now and I have loaded up chernarus in it. Which gave me better performance to a certain extend. Many people stated Arma 3 was more optimized but from what I experienced I do not agree. And that is because the optimization from what I saw came from dumping down quality on textures. The distance when High res textures are loaded in is reduced quite a substantial bit. Just look at the trees in the distance. And when I scope down into the forest with a sniper rifle my fps drops by a wopping 70% because then I see the high res textures suddenly loading in. Test it for yourself if you have Arma 3. Yesterday I also played the recently leaked build at a friends house and I observed that same loading distance. I am not judging in any way on that built because it is old as hell but since I observed that loading distance also in rockets dev blog vids it is giving me some concerns. My question: Are we going to get the same texture loading distance as Arma 2 or will it be dumbed down? Suggestion: Keep the high res texture loading distance at least high for trees because otherwise it ruins the view of the landscape.

Whatever is best for your budget at your time of purchase

Power consumption is not bad at all (adressed in video at start). DayZ (arma 2) is a very CPU heavy game. He asked for best performance for DayZ Core count doesn´t mean anything, but the performance benchmarks in arma 2 don´t lie Streaming and recording those cores come in very handy indeed yes