Will PIP be added to the final release?

[FrostDMG 398]

While this isn't essential and shouldn't be a top priority, I feel that PIP (picture in picture) would be a very nice addition for vehicles, especially on Hardcore servers, since there's no third person, meaning mirrors actually have a use.

 

[sobieski12 835]

I'd say don't add PIP due to the simple fact that it impacts FPS. 

 

As for the need for PIP on hardcore servers, I doubt we will be driving any heavily armored vehicles, the 1st person camera is more than enough for civilian vehicles.

[Daemonkid 493]

I'd say don't add PIP due to the simple fact that it impacts FPS. 

 

As for the need for PIP on hardcore servers, I doubt we will be driving any heavily armored vehicles, the 1st person camera is more than enough for civilian vehicles.

It barely impacts FPS at all. Like, it's so marginal, I don't even.

[SFRGaming 718]

I'd say don't add PIP due to the simple fact that it impacts FPS. 

 

As for the need for PIP on hardcore servers, I doubt we will be driving any heavily armored vehicles, the 1st person camera is more than enough for civilian vehicles.

Keep in mind, by the time multiple vehicles have been added (the prime time to implement this), DayZ will have a whole new rendering/graphic engine with Multi-Core/Hyperthreading support, as well as DX11, x64, and support for other modern technology. FPS shouldn't really be a question by then.

[sobieski12 835]

Keep in mind, by the time multiple vehicles have been added (the prime time to implement this), DayZ will have a whole new rendering/graphic engine with Multi-Core/Hyperthreading support, as well as DX11, x64, and support for other modern technology. FPS shouldn't really be a question by then.

 

I wouldn't praise the 64-bit support until we actually see the results.

 

Even on ArmA 3 fully populated servers at around 70-80 players, players are lucky to maintain 30 frames per second on decent systems.

Edited May 19, 2014 by Sobieski12

[gibonez 3633]

I'd say don't add PIP due to the simple fact that it impacts FPS. 

 

As for the need for PIP on hardcore servers, I doubt we will be driving any heavily armored vehicles, the 1st person camera is more than enough for civilian vehicles.

you can turn it off if you suffer from a frame rate drop.

 

I like the idea of PIP because eventually once base building gets complex the idea of setting up CCTVs will be supremely helpful with PIP.

 

Imagine having to go to a room in your base that is the security room full of CCTV cameras all monitoring the outside of your base.

[FrostDMG 398]

PIP doesn't impact your FPS at all. Clouds on Arma 3 have a greater impact than PIP

[SFRGaming 718]

I wouldn't praise the 64-bit support until we actually see the results.

 

Even on ArmA 3 fully populated servers at around 70-80 players, players are lucky to maintain 30 frames per second on decent systems.

Arma 3 is nowhere near as optimized as people say. And keep in mind Mulitplayer has a huge influence to where the server is located, who's hosting it, whats hosting it etc..

[FrostDMG 398]

Arma 3 is nowhere near as optimized as people say. And keep in mind Mulitplayer has a huge influence to where the server is located, who's hosting it, whats hosting it etc..

100% agree. Arma 3 isn't optimized at all.

[St. Jimmy 1631]

PIP doesn't impact your FPS at all. Clouds on Arma 3 have a greater impact than PIP

I've opposite experience. Clouds don't affect much but PiP drops 10fps because of CPU bottleneck.

[Katana67 2907]

If it's feasible, sure. If not, meh, could live without.

 

Definitely no in-vehicle screens or CROWS interfaces though, I think that'd end up being too much (unless it was suitably justified in being difficult to maintain). But, that's another issue.

 

Would like to see a potentiality for a security camera type device, which could be used to monitor player stashes/bases.

 

Or, a fixed camera which took images at intervals (a la hunting camera).

 

 

Replace spooked deer with spooked bandit...

 

[OrLoK 16188]

Hello there

 

I like the idea of PIP but it does indeed kill my FPS (with or without clouds).

 

Im all for having it in but itd be great if we could get it working a little smoother.

 

Rgds

 

LoK

[Irish. 4886]

I'd say don't add PIP due to the simple fact that it impacts FPS. 

 

As for the need for PIP on hardcore servers, I doubt we will be driving any heavily armored vehicles, the 1st person camera is more than enough for civilian vehicles.

 

No. 

 

The impact is so small its insignificant. And the Heli's have small mirrors on the skiffs that are used for landing and are absolutely necessary to land properly in 1st person only servers. Also the lack of pip on any vehicle mirrors would be absurd. They work in every single version of arma, and you can disable them or adjust their levels from low to very high typically. This is exactly what the SA needs.

[gibonez 3633]

If it's feasible, sure. If not, meh, could live without.

 

Definitely no in-vehicle screens or CROWS interfaces though, I think that'd end up being too much (unless it was suitably justified in being difficult to maintain). But, that's another issue.

 

Would like to see a potentiality for a security camera type device, which could be used to monitor player stashes/bases.

 

Or, a fixed camera which took images at intervals (a la hunting camera).

 

 

Replace spooked deer with spooked bandit...

 

 

That would be terrific.

[gibonez 3633]

Dat pip.

 

Now picture that as a player base in dayz.

 

Each computer monitor and tv screen having a different video feed of the outside.

[theevancat 94]

Yeah, I've found that PIP doesn't really affect me. If the capability is there, I'd like to have it.

[Testy69 12]

While this isn't essential and shouldn't be a top priority, I feel that PIP (picture in picture) would be a very nice addition for vehicles, especially on Hardcore servers, since there's no third person, meaning mirrors actually have a use.

 

I strongly agree man. How else are we gonna see the back when driving on hardcore servers.

[lipemr 160]

PIP in an already terrible performance engine? no thanks.

 

inb4 10 fps up north

[agentneo 337]

I wouldn't praise the 64-bit support until we actually see the results.

 

Even on ArmA 3 fully populated servers at around 70-80 players, players are lucky to maintain 30 frames per second on decent systems.

Dont know what shit servers your on about, but on my medium machine (660 and i5 4670K) i am constantly playing at 60FPS with my view distance at 1500m and most settings High. People do not have a clue about how to set up Arma and I have only had a pC for one year.

BReaking Point for example gives me a solid 60FPS on a 50 man server on Altis in towns / cities still

 

Arma 3 campaign also 60FPS throughout

 

the only servers that dip are crap Life / Wasteland servers

 

I love the PIP it adds a lot of immersion and sets the game apart from other games

Edited May 21, 2014 by AgentNe0

[kichilron 8550]

People do not have a clue about how to set up Arma and I have only had a pC for one year.

 

 

Your are simply lucky to have a powerful computer, that is actually Intel-based. It is proven, that ARMA 3 runs poorly on AMD setups. I have a more powerful PC than others, but mine is AMD-based, which makes ARMA III perform poorly, and poorer than technically slower computers that have Intel-components.

 

It also makes a vast difference playing on MP in comparison to SP, so it's not only "shit servers".

Edited May 21, 2014 by kichilron

[agentneo 337]

well breaking Point is a good example of quite an intensive mod that runs 50 person servers on Altis with a lot of AI And spawned loot and is multiplayer so i used that for MP example.

 

I think if people use the start up parameters, reduce the view distance and object distance to about 1500. it will run alright on most set ups..I didnt know about the AMD issue.

Also Arma and day z could do with some sort of automatic installer/ optimiser. Because having to do all that launch options, and change max frames ahead to 1 etc, could have all been part of an option in game rather than having to essential 'recode' parts of the game ourself.

Same goes for DayZ  standalone, my FPS went up about 10 frames when i changed my max view distance down to 1800 I think it defaults to 3000 which is further than a mosin can even zero. I have heard people are only visible within 1000m in Day Z standalone?

 

So anyway i think they should have more user friendly optimisation

[sobieski12 835]

Your are simply lucky to have a powerful computer, that is actually Intel-based. It is proven, that ARMA 3 runs poorly on AMD setups. I have a more powerful PC than others, but mine is AMD-based, which makes ARMA III perform poorly, and poorer than technically slower computers that have Intel-components.

 

It also makes a vast difference playing on MP in comparison to SP, so it's not only "shit servers".

 

The only reason is getting great FPS is because he lowered is rendering distance by allot.

 

There are both pros / cons with that action. 

 

Helicopters in the air will be able to see him, yet he won't able too thanks to limiting his view distance range.

[sobieski12 835]

well breaking Point is a good example of quite an intensive mod that runs 50 person servers on Altis with a lot of AI And spawned loot and is multiplayer so i used that for MP example.

 

I think if people use the start up parameters, reduce the view distance and object distance to about 1500. it will run alright on most set ups..I didnt know about the AMD issue.

Also Arma and day z could do with some sort of automatic installer/ optimiser. Because having to do all that launch options, and change max frames ahead to 1 etc, could have all been part of an option in game rather than having to essential 'recode' parts of the game ourself.

Same goes for DayZ  standalone, my FPS went up about 10 frames when i changed my max view distance down to 1800 I think it defaults to 3000 which is further than a mosin can even zero. I have heard people are only visible within 1000m in Day Z standalone?

 

So anyway i think they should have more user friendly optimisation

 

This render distance really varies.

* Standard vision seems to be about 1000 meters.

* With a binoculars or a sniper scope, you can actually gain more than 1,000 meters in render distance.

 

Strange system really. 

[agentneo 337]

This render distance really varies.

* Standard vision seems to be about 1000 meters.

* With a binoculars or a sniper scope, you can actually gain more than 1,000 meters in render distance.

 

Strange system really. 

So what do you think is the optimum distance to use for Standalone? 2000? I just checked for Day z S.A my settings say

sceneComplexity=500000;

shadowZDistance=250;

viewDistance=3000;

preferredObjectViewDistance=1800;

 

. And I have better frames in Arma 3 with a 1500 view I think.

Edited May 21, 2014 by AgentNe0

[Forest_Funk 0]

flexible range of sight is something you should really be able to change. i mean - gamma brightness and field of view can be changed and do even have a absolute high impact of the gameplay and does give people with better computers a positive effect compared with low-budget computers (on my old PC i could not even change the settings to play without flashlight or nv at night). but a difference between 1500m and 2500m wouldnt be so dramatical i think. it's very rare that you spot people so far away because the map of chernarus does not have many places where you can even see so far. :-)