Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. You can try lowering the model detail to the lowest. Test it on a map with a lot of trees. Then bump up the model detail until you hit the point that is not acceptable for you. If you point the camera towards the outside of the map, then the frames jump up and it feels smooth. If you point towards the center of the map, it drops down. This causes a lot of fluctuations. As for moving the camera with the mouse vs keyboard. I don't think there's a performance difference between the mouse and keyboard. It's just that with the mouse movement there appears to be some sort of acce
  2. For me it's the same in BS. BS with trees runs the same as SF2 with trees. BS without trees runs the same as SF2 without trees. But anyway, it's why I always play with the tree trunk mode to improve the performance. If you want to play with trees, then you'll need to drop the model detail. Just compare the lowest model detail setting to the highest, the difference is night and day.
  3. I've compared the training level to the same training level in BS and the performance is exactly the same. If you don't put the model detail on the lowest or near lowest setting, then your FPS will tank. I find it disappointing how in Black Sea I played with a GTX 680 and the performance was crap if you didn't put the model detail to the lowest. And now I'm playing BS and SF2 with a GTX 1080 and the performance is exactly the same. From what I remember, SF1 had similar issues. There just seems to be something in the engine that destroys the performance, no matter what hardware you run on it.
  4. We still don't know how it will look like in reality. Concept versions often differ to the real life final versions.
  5. Especially if you put them on the new border between Ukrainian and Russian/DNR/LNR forces. Keep in mind that putting UN troops between Ukrainian and Russian/DNR/LNR forces would be a win for Russia and a loss for Ukraine. You don't want Chinese troops standing there, enforcing Russia's victory... It also can't be America or Russia for obvious reasons... I think it has to be a combination of mixed European and other non-European countries. Just NATO countries (under UN flag obviously) could work too. But looking at how much fighting there's going on, I doubt the UN will want to part
  6. Gotcha, no more Arma3 vs CM... Wait a second, you're cheating!
  7. Well, you came with a snarky comment saying that we should stop discussing whatever we were discussing, and so I sarcastically asked you what you think we should be discussing. The question still stands: What do you think the topic should be?
  8. Forgive me your highness. Which subject would you like us, your lowly servants, to discuss next?
  9. Why not? Somebody was wondering how realistic Arma is. You then came in and wanted to proof that CM has a much more realistic damage model and is therefore a lot more realistic in general. And the rest is history...
  10. That has nothing to do with which game is more realistic... I think now you are just trying to bash Arma for no reason. Sure, Arma has problems with AI in urban areas. But CM has problems with the AI as well. Go play against the AI in an urban area in CM, they are mindless zombies then. Arma has similar issues. In the open, the AI fares much better, that counts for both games. However, one thing to keep in mind is that Arma has a dynamic AI option that can make strategic decisions on the fly, while CM AI is mostly static/scripted. This does not necessarily make Arma more or less realistic,
  11. Look, I'm not saying CM is not realistic. All I'm saying is that Arma is more detailed in some aspects. If you want to go full realism in the artillery department, you can use mods in which a player needs to call in a proper fire mission, then another player on the other end of the line inputs that information into a firing computer, and then sends that information to a player manning a weapon who then fires, then the first player adjusts fire and that loop continues. That's a much deeper simulation than CM does, in which it loosely simulates artillery by playing around with some numbers behin
  12. About the realism argument... Speaking as someone who has played Arma in a realistic fashion since like Flashpoint, Combat Mission has the upper hand in a few areas, but Arma certainly allows for a more accurate simulation than CM does. The thing with Arma is that the developers aim to create a good technical platform on which the fans can create good mods. So, if you don't use mods, then you are missing out and Arma may seem a bit lacking. But if you play Arma 3 with some of the latest realism related mods, than it's the most detailed simulation that can still be classified as a game.
  13. Well, there is some armor simulation being done (not every hit will result in a kill, depends on where you hit and such), but it is more simplified than CM in that aspect. On the other hand, Arma simulates a lot of things that CM does not. For instance, does Combat Mission have a realistic radio simulation with signals that can bounce off the environment and such? Arma does. Arma also has a more accurate join ops simulation because you can have an actual person doing all the different roles, which comes with its logistical, planning and command issues. Artillery is a lot more awesome, maki
  14. Did you try Arma? That's one of the best tactical combat simulators out there. With a few mods, it's a lot more realistic than Combat Mission even.
  • Create New...