BE AWARE IF going to buy ARMA 3 alpha

[Chickenfeed]

latest beta is SAME as ALPHA...you walk and u get 33fps...

Have you tried tweaking the settings?

I've got it running nicely myself, the big thing is the render distance. It's just impossible to run the game well with high render distance. I'm running it at 2000 which is enough to see everything I've encountered.

[andressergio]

Have you tried tweaking the settings?

I've got it running nicely myself, the big thing is the render distance. It's just impossible to run the game well with high render distance. I'm running it at 2000 which is enough to see everything I've encountered.

yes and everytime i run again after tweaking on other part the crap starts, i really really regret buying it and worst is that not BI and no STEAM will refund...

[andressergio]

This is why Pre-Orders for Alpha/Betas are bad news. They get their money up front for an unfinished product and maybe they just might finish the game in a good state.

It's not just this game but all of them.

yes...

[TysonM]

What is your render distance?

[TysonM]

By your lack of response I'll assume you set it to 12000 [when most systems suffer hits to their framerate past 3000] and that you are merely complaining because you spent way too much money on your system and as a result you DEMAND EVERY GAME RUN EVERY SINGLE GAME AT MAX SETTINGS over 60fps.

I have YET to see a game that has a persistent world as large as ArmA [ie: WW2 Online/Battleground Europe, Planetside 2] not have a significant hit to framerate, as I have kept saying. Until a game developer creates a game that large and manages to have it run as smoothly as every other "tiny enclosed scripted loading zone battlefield" game out there, then and only then will I expect more.

Am I wrong? Then point out which game does such a large battlefield without that hit to framerate. I'm waiting.