i feel like this is an immersion killer since an enemy could be running and then just suddenly hit the deck, and you'd have no reference points or anything to shoot at. If it was really grass, you'd at least know which clump of grass to supress.

IRL you have the gun on a sling of some sort, all you need to do to "put it away" in an emergency situation is to drop it and the sling catches it. Similarly switching back is a matter of holstering a pistol (one quick motion) and picking the gun back up from your side. Putting it on your back IRL takes maybe a second and a half.

Upvoted. This is especially annoying in stuff like dayz when your primary is out and you're being chased by zombies - but in the normal Arma game it just makes it feel more clunky.

Not a good use of developer time since I've only heard ONE female playing ARMA with voicecoms, and using games such as Blacklight Retribution as an example, tons of people will select female either to troll, Run around the wasteland half naked, or use their slightly smaller hitbox (at least on blacklight) to cheat the system.

Tons of games allow modded dedicated servers... most of them in fact. Only the game giants like EA do that, and that's not to improve user experience but more to maintain control over everything. And as others have proven, the FPS issue occurs on all servers (modded or unmodded), it is just worse on wasteland. The linked client server fps is simpily bad design.

Why IS client FPS tied to server FPS anyway? Other games don't have this problem afaik...

And it IS TOTALLY WORTH THEIR TIME! Low FPS is one of the BIGGEST immersion killers any game could have; I'd rather have no reload animations than 25 fps in a game where aiming is required. In fact, this is the big issue that I was hoping ARMA 3 would fix, but I find that it's gotten even WORSE!

I have a 3570k overclocked to 4.4 and the max I get right now in wasteland is 30 - so it doesn't really make that much of a difference. Come to think about it the performance at 3.6 is the same as 4.4 so the overclock doesn't make any difference IN MULTIPLAYER.

The dedicated server really shouldn't need a 16 core i9000 overclocked to 7 GHZ cooled by liquid nitrogen to allow the clients to get more than 30 FPS. But with ARMA, it does. In pretty much every other game you could run the server with a netbook and players would get the max fps their computer is capable of.

Same problem. In singleplayer, I get 50-60 fps with maxed settings. Once I join a multiplayer game, my FPS seems capped at 20-25, regardless of view distance and settings.

The main design goal of Arma 3 was to improve the rough edges Bohemia has become known for. In singleplayer, this goal is accomplished, but there is no worse "rough edge" than forced low/unplayable fps regardless of system.

I realize Arma games are different than standard first person shooter games, but none of them have linked server and client FPS causing problems, or desync issues, and games like Battlefield 3 deal with the same basic problems (vehicles spawning, etc), albeit on a much much smaller scale.

Arma 2 just had horrible netcode - I'm not a programmer or game designer so I don't know how it could be done better, but what I know is this; no other successful games out there have ever had to deal with EXPECTING enemy players or vehicles to skip around in place or for shots not to register until 30 seconds later - typical in Arma games because of desync. No other game has linked server and client FPS... for a good reason. Just porting the A2/OA netcode to Arma 3, which looks like what happened, isn't a good idea. They've tried to patch it up and fix it in the past with A2OA, which was tolerable, but really if Bohemia wants to get rid of those rough edges they really need to 100% resolve both problems by release, which would probably entail rewriting the entire netcode.

Sorry for large block of text... Just extremely annoyed.