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.

But guys, everybody knows high caliber sniper rifles should kill anything it hits in one shot for balancing purposes, since its bolt action it SHOULD do tons of damage to be realistic. It should stay as it is! I mean THIS is a sniper rifle bullet from a dragonov so it should be OP. http://rvtravel.com/blog/rvnow/uploaded_images/me-bullet-711120.jpg

Well... Sniper rifles shoot pretty powerful bullets, I think this would occur in real life also.

Well the vehicles aren't 100% accurate to their real life counterparts for the most part, and they shouldn't be since this is the future... so good idea but probably not realistic.

I would say a gun would be good but no self destruct because that's silly.

Wait... Why are you playing ARMA with a gamepad? Like, what is the point of that? Honestly it's just not something you're supposed to do.

This is just with the pistol sights right?

I wasn't aware there was aim assist... Are you talking about when you're close to a wall and you can't shoot through it so it moves your crosshair?

Yes, that's what I meant. I didn't check the second number because I thought you read it wrong. /removedownvote, upvoted

Well look at that... it says 6.5x38.. Isn't that the 6.5mm caliber they use?

I think if they were going to redo textures they should increase the resolution of the vehicle cockpit textures.

It would be cool, but with ARMA games you're lucky to have reload animations, let alone the pretty good reload animations we have now. And we have good walking and sprinting gun movement animations, dynamic vehicle entering animations... I'm not going to downvote because more animations would be cool, but I'm not complaining about what we've got.

Okay, the ARMA engine is not made in any way to do crumple simulations! We're talking about a game where we just got reload animations in 2013. We get bad enough FPS on multiplayer servers as it is!

Yes, real planes can go in reverse - thrust deflectors for jets, adjustable pitch propellers for prop planes.

Agreed. Make them good and listen to the feedback tracker

SDAR uses modern tech, meaning darts. Supercav rounds are the same size as normal 5.56 so they'd have 30 round clip sizes. SDAR doesn't.

Warning: Many on this forum automatically downvote anything about future technology because they wish the game was in the past. But I looked into it, and this tech actually exists today, and torpedos/bullets have already been successfully tested that utilize this tech. In fact, they're currently working on making submarines that can do this. Upvoted due to realism.

Reborn, they could drop the 30 FPS cap - but if your FPS is lower than 60 you WILL have screen tearing and might as well not have vsync on for as long as your frames are below 60 due to how vsync works. Considering it's impossible currently to get 60 FPS on multiplayer...

If vsync locks to 40 FPS that's a completely different bug altogether, since only 30 and 60 can fix screen tearing.

That's what Vsync does. With Vsync on, you're either going to get 30 FPS or less or 60 FPS. If your computer can run the game at 55 FPS with vsync off, it caps your FPS at 30, because your computer can't run it at 60. If you're getting 70 FPS with vsync off, it'll cap at 60. 30 fps is half of a 60hz refresh rate so it does the same thing for the screen tearing.

Just don't use vsync... it's not worth it. I'd much rather get 30 fps because I have my AA turned all the way up and my distance at 5000 rather than having no minor screen tearing.

EDIT: sorry I did not read the posts above, and I realize you know what vsync does... but why are you still using it then? :P

If you don't like these vehicle sounds, go play ARMA 2 if you haven't already. These are much much much better... although they could still be improved quite a bit (gearshifts, squealing, etc)

This is the biggest problem in the game right now, but they devs refuse to awknowledge there's a problem as far as I know. If the desync and the multiplayer FPS drop issues were resolved the game would be at least twice as good as it is.. If the current issues are not fixed I'm probably not even going to play the game.

wUFr: it's not a serverside problem. If the server was faster, yes, we'd get better FPS, but even a server with a nitrogen cooled super overclocked hexacore xeon can't run a server at decent FPS. What needs to be done is either:

1. Make the game engine less hard on servers without actually changing the missions to be simpler (optimization?)
2. Rewrite all of the netcode to make it modern so that client FPS isn't capped by server FPS.

Downvoted because

1. 99% of people wouldn't even notice (or care if they did notice)
2. Doesn't have any real benefit to gameplay since you need a supercomputer to set your draw distance high enough to make a difference, and many multiplayer servers have a low distance cap anyways to improve the terrible multiplayer FPS
3. Developers need to spend their time on actual useful stuff like rewriting the netcode to fix desync and multiplayer fps drops... but of course they won't even awknowledge there's a problem.

Meatball, same - I had an overclocked i5-3570k too and ARMA 3 would keep crashing. My OC was 100% stable and tested too with prime95 and zero crashes for over a year of playing games daily, including ARMA 2, Planetside 2 (other cpu intensive games)... ARMA 3 really hates overclocks.

more weapons would be nice... ARMA 2 had a million weapons.

IMO the drift with the snipers is very realistic. The real problem is that bipods are not simulated (they should be), and no sniper even tries to make 1100 m shots without a bipod.

Related to 0010971
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10971

This would be cool, but more like a totally seperate game. Needs TONS of new models, functionality, better water simulation, sounds, maps etc. Sorry but -1

Confirmed. +1

Raoul it's all explained and linked above. But I'll do some of it again

Sniper detection system- Being deployed today, why wouldn't they have them in 2 decades? They'd be dirt cheap, and are undoubtably very useful in many situations.
http://www.gizmag.com/qinetiq-swats-sniper-detector/10486/
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.fresh.co.il/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=526118

Thermal/infared combo goggles- You can get them today, and they're much more useful than just infared for target identificaion, so why WOULDN'T they use them in 22 years once the price goes down?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRLpDtpgptc

So are you saying that technology will get MORE expensive as production costs decrease, the technology becomes older, and advances are made? That doesn't make too much sense... Some things we can be pretty sure are going to be implemented in the future... The automatic sniper detection is already being equipped full-scale on US troops and vehicles. Thermal goggles allowing for easier target identification are better than infared goggles in every way, and as they both become cheaper as time goes on we will be seeing soldiers with thermal/infared combo goggles, such as the goggles already equipped on certain special units today. HUDs need to be added because ARMA 3 has models for the actual HUD device. And if as you say today's "future tech" is outdated in 5 years, you think we'll have lasers lol

Metalcraze... you read half of the OP... I go on to say that what the Army says is ridiculous and only the most basic of technological advances (as in stuff we have working today but it's currently too expensive) should go into the game.
And the game takes place in 2035, not 2020. I am reccomending the 2035 soldier to basically look like the Future Warrior 2010 soldier.

Sometimes I wonder about the future of humanity...

That's pretty cool, I didn't know they had optical systems until now

Literally the only reason someone would downvote this is because "I wish BI made the game in the modern day so I'm going to do everything I can to make it seem that way"

I just feel like if you can buy them right now in real life you should certainly be able to have them in 2035.

Armor improvements are a different ticket (not by me) all together, and the devs are investigating what would be realistic for body armor right now.

@runekn Yes, that would make sense - squad leader with the thermal/NVG combo with an infared laser marking targets for the rest of the squad with normal NVGs. Spec Ops would all have thermal/NVG combo. Sounds pretty good right there, gives the lasers a good tactical use ingame for marking targets only squad leaders can see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRLpDtpgptc - current thermal/NVG combo optic

I thought you were saying that the squad leader could be equipped with one of these while the rest of the squad could have normal NVGs. Teamwork would be required because the squad leader could mark targets with his infared laser attachment (already ingame) that he could see on thermal, and his troops could open fire on the marked target.

Yes, that seems to be where the community is going - I agree, crazy things like jetpacks and battlesuits shouldn't be in the vanilla game. But things that already exist today but are currently to expensive like thermals, HUDs, sniper detection systems, wouldn't make things too different, could be disabled serverside for a more 2015 experience, and would more realisticly simulate 2035 - I'm pretty sure everyone agrees soldiers will have these technologies (in the additional information section) by this time.

@runekn - Yes, but that helicopter was cancelled to due excessive costs. In the ARMAverse, they kept feeding it money until it was battle-ready. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing-Sikorsky_RAH-66_Comanche#Cancellation

@bez
1 - The liquid armor has similar protective qualities to modern armor, but it's less bulky and can be used on the arms and legs since it's a fabric with the protection of a plate.

3 - Yeah, but it would be cool if we could equip goggles or glasses which had an HUD overlay in the corners with a compass, a minimap of friendlies and terrain in the area (just friendlies, realistic non-COD map), and the "magic waypoint" and friendly soldier indicators currently in game could be explained as functions of the HUD. Taking off the goggles would make you unable to see waypoints or magically identify friends from foes, as in real life.

4 - By this point the tech will have miniturized itself to the point where a normal sized helmet mounted optic could contain both thermals and NVGs. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRLpDtpgptc) Alternatively, the thermal could be a monocle - it would assist target identification in both day and night while still allowing you to aim down sights with your unobstructed eye.

@runekn they seem to have plenty of money considering they've engineered new stealth helicopters, completely deployed them. Equipping new electronics gear is cheap compared to that.

@ShotgunSheamuS battery power is a big deal today for both thermals and normal NVGs but 22 years into the future it is likely we will have new battery chemistries which will have much more capacity. To put into perspective, 20 years ago we were still using mostly Ni-Cds. http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/fuel-economy/8-potential-ev-and-hybrid-battery-breakthroughs#slide-8

I wish people would stop downvoting the instant they see the words "exoskeleton" and don't go on to read the rest of the OP which goes on to state much of that isn't actually going to happen due to costs.

Yeah, the post about the battlesuit was really sci-fi, this one's much much closer to home, which is why I separated them. Of the list of what the Army says will be deployed, here are the ones I will actually happen due to costs:

-liquid armor vests(kevlar treated with shear-thickening-fluid)

    These vests won't repair themselves but will do away with plates, giving more mobility with the same level of protection. Since it's fabric, more of the body can be protected though, such as the arms and legs. The liquid armor part itself is modified polyethelene glycol, an inexpensive chemical widely used today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_Armor

-Acoustic sniper detection systems

    They've already started equipping foot soldiers with these today, so by 2035 it is 100% certain that pretty much all soldiers will have these.
     http://www.gizmag.com/qinetiq-swats-sniper-detector/10486/

-The interactive HUD/Map thing in each helmet. If you look at ARMA's helmets, the OPFOR have screens in their helmets and bluefor has a screen in their tactical glasses, so this just needs to be made useful for the player.

-Thermalvision goggles replacing NVGs. Spec Ops units have access to thermal NVGs today, and prices are constantly dropping. By 2035 thermal NVGs should cost the same or less than normal NVGs do today. - http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/night-vision-vs-thermal-vision-what-you-cant-see-can-hurt-you/

I actually think all that robo-exoskeleton stuff isn't going to happen for a very very long time, but included it in the OP because that's what the military said. I'm adding this post to the OP as clarification of what I think is actually possible, so people stop thinking I want the game to become something like HALO with lasers and iron man suits and all; I don't. Also changing the title to seem less scifi

Then why did they make it in 2035? They could have just as easily made it in 2015... Where do they say that?

Everything I've been posting is technically possible but cost-obstructive TODAY. The game takes place in 22 years. Ignoring technological progress is completely unrealistic - 20 years ago we didn't even have GPS.

I haven't been asking for anything unrealistic (such as recoiless guns, laser pistols, or "portable" 200mm rockets as you put it). The guns in ARMA 3 are fine for this timeframe, the military very rarely replaces their assault rifles (m16's been in service for 50 years).

If you actually read the posts I've documented everything I say based on current tech and tech the military says they will have deployed by 2020.

You must be one of those people who wishes Bohemia had just made the game based in the modern day, and automatically downvote anything that deviates from that wish.

+1
@gutsnav: you might want to see a doctor if your vision blurs in and out after running maybe a quarter of a mile. Of course you can't aim straight, but that's more because of heartbeat and shaking rather than blur.

I agree about the suits - they'd be ready to use but they'd be so expensive they wouldn't do it. If I could close this ticked I would.

I understand what you're saying about the battlesuits, I really just posted this because I thought it would be interesting to see what people thought. Sure, they'd be technically possible in 2035, but money is eternal!

@AD2001 Good job not reading the OP

AD2001: Not nanosuits, although the Army says soldiers will be equipped with nanotech armor by 2020. If you read the post and looked at the resources I posted then you will know that this is something they can almost do today. Less nanosuit/iron man, more big bulky guy in an exoskeleton weilding at most a .50 and a future version of an RPG. They would not be invincible, but would be armored by as much armor which is practical to carry on an exoskeleton.

@bez: I said they wouldn't be common. But if the United States Army says soldiers can be equipped with exoskeletons for their lower body so they can carry 400 pounds more in 2020, soldiers with full exoskeletons should be availible in 2035. (Future Warrior 2020 project) I envision these used as urban combat tanks, more effective in close combat because of their smaller size, rather than Heinlein's "starship troopers" in which every soldier has one of these.

Honestly, the only reason for downvoting is that you wish the game took place in the modern day and are trying to limit as much tech as possible so the game plays like 2015.

Whoever is downvoting can you at least tell me why? Since armored exoskeletons are entirely likely and realistic for 2035? I'm not talking japanese mechsuits with laser cannons here... I'm talking about the stuff currently going through DARPA R&D today.

Regardless of how it would impact gameplay, it's very realistic, and ARMA is a war simulator. It's pretty much possible NOW, if we had really, really long power cords! Still a fun thing to discuss though. :)
I really don't expect this to be in the base game, but hey, if they ever need creative ideas for a DLC, the Future War pack! Complete with advanced drones, remote controlled combat robots, and armored exoskeletons!
...
Come on, you can't admit that wouldn't be cool... At least a little? :P

Article on current (2010) and future (2020) infantry technology, including artificial muscles, other toys currently in development - http://www.gizmag.com/go/3062/

Video detailing exoskeleton technology in 2007 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IYWd2C3XVIk#at=64

As I said, if we had the batteries we could do this today.

This is something I'm sure the devs already know about but just haven't gotten around to adding yet.

In real aircraft you don't just press tab while circling to find every single vehicle/aircraft near you and blow it up. I'd normally upvote this, but only if they made it harder to identify targets from an aircraft, especially ground targets.

I know this was happening to me because of an overclock. it was stable on all other games, but it crashed ARMA. Try setting your clocks back to stock if its OCd.

Umm... Sun DOES reflect in optics. I was just outside playing airsoft with a red dot sight and the sun was really bothering me. This issue is invalid.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant something like Battlefield 4 where when you shoot a building with a tank or RPG it puts a hole in the building where you shot it, or the ability to C4 holes in walls and stuff. Properly done bullet holes are a different story - games been doing those for a good decade.

this is not a small request. It would be very cool, but it's probably not going to happen.

@Falcon did you read the OP? I'm not saying to make a bunch of the same vehicle with different loadouts, I'm saying there should be a way to customize aircraft weapon loadouts from a GUI ingame similar to weapon attachments.

@arziben it wouldn't literally be the rearm button - there would be two buttons, reload and rearm, one would function the same as ARMA 2 while the other would open a window to reconfigure the loadout.

Found this mod for Arma 2; so it's been done before, by modders no less. All that really needs to be done is touch up the GUI, make it a bit more customizable, and de-ARMA2ify it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0baCog8jjvI#at=89

They can't access their inventories already? I feel as though being able to access inventories while riding in a vehicle is important though... So you can transfer gear from the vehicle to you while you're on route to your destination.
I was thinking the aircraft loadout menu would be activated similar to the "rearm" menu of an ammuntion truck back in ARMA 2, except you could go into a GUI and choose exactly what you want in each slot (depending on what's in the truck of course - no infinite missiles).

Having a bunch of different versions would be problematic at best - if you can't spawn vehicles and you're stuck with the wrong version for the job, you're done. For example you're playing wasteland, you need something that can take out the massive tank force coming at your base, and all you have is a blackfoot with AA missiles.

I don't really see a massive difference in work between making 5 different models for each heli, than adapting the current weapon attachment system to work with vehicles. I mean, modders have already ported ARMA 2 weapons and added the ability to attatch stuff just like A3 guns, so how hard could it really be? The only thing they'd really have to do 100% scratch have a new GUI for swapping out the weapons. The weapon swap truck could just be a slightly different textured version of the current transport trucks.

please also see
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10762

This would be nice. However there needs to be an option to turn it off, because smoke and dust makes a big hit to FPS even in singleplayer. Large scale battle with lots of LMG suppressive fire = 3 fps.

Yeah, but what helicopter pilot would trust his life with optics so dirty he can barely see out of them, rather than telling the crew to clean it?

Would you drive your car if your windsheild was covered in mud, even partially? Or would you get out and WASH it?

actually the comanche has more anti tank missiles. 24 of them compared to 8

I feel as though a railgun tank would be unrealistic because of the non-explosive properties of its ordinance, not to mention the electricity requirements. I'm not going to downvote because I think it's cool as hell - but a modder should be able to add this in fairly easily - the muzzle effect can be stolen from the mi-48's exhaust vents, and the actual projectile could be an extremely high speed normal round with config tweaks.

I found that if I turn off the overclock on my CPU the game doesn't crash anymore. However, the overclock I had been using was one I've been using for about a year, it has never crashed on any other game (Arma2/OA/DayZ, Crysis 2, Planetside 2, Minecraft, all the Assassin's Creeds, and a dozen) and it passed 24 hours of stress testing using a dedicated program. In otherwords, that overclock shouldn't be causing the game to crash, but it does.

Just wanted to add that this problem did not occur in the Alpha Lite - only the full alpha and full beta releases.
Also, it is worse in Beta; in Alpha I could complete a showcase without a crash, now I typically can't. Crashes are more like 3-5 minutes rather than 15.

Vital areas would be great if they could make them work right but with Arma's desync and fail hit detection (at least in ARMA 2) I feel like that feature would become very buggy and annoying in multiplayer.

I think the theory is that the new armor vests are very good at resisting the older 5.56 round while the 6.5 caseless rounds are newer and better at penetration. Just a guess though.

Glare from the sun doesn't get blocked by your head when you're in a aim down sights position. Went outside and tested it with an AR-15 and a reflex sight.

Agreed, although when it comes between this and fixing the desync/multiplayer fps issues, I would go with the latter.

This has been a problem since Arma 2... I would guess the games share this code too. Does anybody have any insight as to why this happens? The game isn't rendering any more, draw distance stays the same, and you're seeing less FOV, so shouldn't the FPS actually INCREASE? Is this just bad coding or is there a reason for this?

+1
This would have several advantages
-Give a use for boats, which are pretty much never used in PVP
-New gamemodes such as "disaster relief" in which you go into some town and restore order from a player-controlled squad of looters/paramilitary terrorist people.

Actually, the recoil on the silenced vermin is what it should be. The utter lack of recoil in fully automatic mode is the bug, and will be/has been fixed in the next dev build.

@fragmachine adding the feature without proper visuals is just what the devs are trying not to do - they don't want another ARMA 2 where there's no reload animations on any of the guns.

Would be cool, but totally too difficult, performance-eating, and unfeasable in this stage of development. Maybe ARMA 4 or 5.

the fatigue blur is kind of silly though isn't it? Who here gets major blurred vision after running maybe a quarter of a mile or less?

Remove tired blur, keep wounded blur. IRL my world doesn't get all blurry after running 10 feet, or even a mile - and I don't even do track.

If you're blurry because you got shot, you SHOULD be physically sick! They should tone down the blurriness from running 50 feet though.

Actually, this would make a good feature, don't know why it doesn't have many upvotes.

Demon you realize my original post was saying there was a limit to the entertainment value of realism so armor shouldn't be able to take 5 rounds to the chest. I was actually mostly agreeing with you... lawl.

And completely ignore what I said about the shots to the arms and legs are one shots thing... For some reason I thought that's what we had now but now we have the broken legs and all that, which I like as it is.

IRL the figures quoted by pro-realism people are accurate, there are dozens of videos where people test shoot body armor and they can stop 3 or 4 AK rounds. In the future they'll have liquid armor treated kevlar, so this will be even better, but for the sake of gameplay I think the armor should be limited to 1 or 2 midsize rounds and maybe a 50% of stopping one sniper round. Leave the ultra-realism to ACE.

Now how about you stop restating your point over and over and specifically targeting other posters... because you're turning this into a rage thread.

If you do add this I'm probably stating the obvious but it's really annoying when an AUG does more damage than an M4 in a video game. The penetration/damage has to be by caliber rather than by what gun's shooting it.

lol demon u mad? It's because of people like me that you're living in a bad world? What, because I'd rather just respawn than bleed out on the ground for 20 minutes in a video game?

I think you're getting a little too worked up.

I haven't read this entire long thread, but I feel as though there are much bigger realism flaws than just "armor doesn't work right." If you really want to get simulation, why don't bullets blow arms/legs off when they hit arms or legs instead of just dying? Why don't you black out for an hour after your realistic helmet blocks the bullet from entering your brain but gives you a major concussion?
Answer: It's a video game.

I concede the body armor should be able to stop maybe one more bullet than it can now, but arm, head, and leg shots are still going to be one hit kills, unless you want to be blacked out for an hour waiting for a "simulation" medivac helicopter to take you back to base for amputation or other major medical care.

I feel like it's realistic to include but doesn't really have any positive effect on the gameplay, at least from a PVP perspective. This is one of those super-hardcore milsim things which most people don't really care about except for the milsim commandos who only play against AI.

That said, a jamming rate roughly half or a quarter of modern weapon jamming rates wouldn't be game-breaking or annoying, and could probably be explained away by saying "future weapons".

As lots of people have said, there's no subsonic ammo yet. Get a silenced Scorpion, turn your third person camera so you're in front of the gun, and fire. Loud crack. That's how they can find you.

+1

You should also stay in whatever stance when you're moving, albeit at an extremely slow rate... just so that your head doesn't pop up when you're trying to manouver behind a rock so you can shoot out one side of the other by using QE