Arma 3 looks b-

Arma 3 looks b-

Other urls found in this thread:

bro.ma/launcher-preset/
steamcommunity.com/groups/broma3
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

10fps

-eatiful

BotW looks ba-

-aller!

30-40 actually with 4k, everything maxed and viewdistance at 12km :^)

Great not being a poorfag

Arma 3 is a true next gen game

-d.

who else stopped caring about graphics as long as they were acceptable or different?
I dont play cod very often(when friends come over) but even cod 4 was real enough for me in terms of graphics.
UT99 was also fine because the graphics suited the game.
Who even gives a shit, I am not going to buy a game because it looks real I am going to buy it because it looks fun.

>Aksu74
Don't do that.

nice bloom

faggot

thats an AKM

d.

Basically this.

Stop lying, pussy.

I have an i7 4790k, 16gb ram, and, the latest Titan Xp. Yet, I get 20 fps on medium settings in 1080p.

Don't give false hope to people. This game does have a big map, but it's extremely badly optimized because of it.

Don't fall for this trap.

I want to stick my dirty penis between her lips

somethings wrong on your end bruh

Did you try installing it on an SSD? I've got a cheap PC and I get 60FPS on Stratis just because of the SSD.

>I have an i7 4790k, 16gb ram, and, the latest Titan Xp. Yet, I get 20 fps on medium settings in 1080p
stop playing badly optimized gamemodes that demand to much from the engine

I guess this is what happens when you let modders do everything with the game

Specs? Is this a good camping Sim?

The problem lays entirely on the multiplayer aspect. Game runs smooth as silk offline but you need to have literally nothing going on in the map for it to run well online.

>arma 3 looks goo-

What ? i got 15/20 medium in 8800gtx and quadcore. Theres something wrong with your setup.

I just prefer gameplay/features > graphics/resolution.

Reminder that squad is objectively the better PVP game and despite its performance problems still beats Arma

Why does no one use mics on arma 3 pub servers? And if they do its some russian child cursing on global

>early ass

fuck off shill ;)

HAHAHAHAHA

no.

-ad

>Yet, I get 20 fps on medium settings in 1080p.

Something's wrong with your computer.

I've got a 7700k, 16GB 3200 MHz RAM, a 1080Ti, and I've got it 1440p maxed out and I get around 60 FPS.

I can get pretty good FPS on the Arma Life RP servers

Squad and ARMA's MPs try to do different things. They really aren't worth comparing.

Hello Squad Dev, still trying to shill your dead game I see.

nice pasta

Reminder that comparing this to ARMA should be a bannable offense, as it should be compared to as a modern Project Reality, instead of Slavic garbage.

Graphics have their place and I do want them to get better or do more interesting things as time goes on.

They aren't the end all be all but I really wish people would stop pretending like they have no impact or doing affect gameplay and how a game is experienced.

>Arma 3 runs sm-
ftfy

I don't care what a game looks like as long as it's fun.

>her

I stopped caring about graphics as soon i realized most tech is used to create generic looking photorealistic boring garbage and shitty open world games or milsims.

I have a 1070 gtx and a 6700k and i got 60 fps max settings unless there's like 2k people on screen

>runs in one thread of the CPU only
>next gen

the problem I have with squad is its lack of content

I loved the urban fighting in PR, cities are just so much fun to fight in, but squad has a mild focus on big ass desert as sand nigger ass maps and I just don't like that

The one time I played the forest map (there was only one at the time, dont know if there are more and dont remember the name) was my best experience in that game, and it was great.

I love squad but I hate its lack of content, basically, therefore i respectfully disagree with your opinion that it's better because arma has content out the ass. Arma might play a lot worse, but it has content that I enjoy. Squad doesn't (yet?)

Pentium III Slot A 667MHz, 512MB SDRAM PC133, Voodoo2 maxed out on my Sony 17" CRT. works fine here, there's something wrong with your setup.

Arma 3 with mods looks incredible.

HAHAHAHAHA

yes.

>Voodoo2
8MB or 12 MB version?

>tfw no finland innawoods mod

You need at least two Titan Xp's

>runs in one thread of the CPU only

ARMA does do multi-thread, just not well. Most games suffer from this but it's especially bad with ARMA.

Squad now has 10 maps, with Narva, an Estonian city maps being released within the next month and Fallujah in development.

I roll with the Magic 3D II

...

Now please, why you lie, you have to give merit to Sergey's team they make a wonderful job with EFT.

Being able to shit out a bunch of tiny ass BF sized maps isn't all that impressive these days.

...

join broma

Good maybe i'll buy it when it goes on sale

Kek, I have a 4790, 16 GB of RAM and an R9 Fury and even I can get 40-50 FPS on a mix of ultra and very high at 4k.

broma is the best arma group ever. Join now for a truly artistic experience.

-d

literally a decade behind the west technology wise

What does BROMA do for it's modpack? How realistic do you guys tend to go with ops?

Why can't Bohemia optimize for shit?

Nope.

ArmA 3 > Insurgency > Squad

Hard to say that when I don't think any other game even tries to do half the stuff ARMA is trying to do.

Like, it's easy to make things look good and save on the CPU when you put everything into corridors, in a small ass map, make everything hitscan, ect so that it fits onto a Xbone.

...

>Early Access
>Plays better than "full release" ArmA3
Really makes you think.

*autistic

>Why can't Bohemia optimize for shit?

They aren't a big company, most of their best talent probably gets sucked up by BIS, and the game they're trying to make is probably a lot harder to optimize for since they're the only ones making anything really like it.

Even shit like Project Reality is just a hardcore Battlefield mod so a lot of the optimizing is already done for them by the base game, as well as the engine. And since a lot of other devs do that flavor of FPS already, there's a lot more resources and people to talk to about getting yours to work that doesn't happen with ARMA.

>Plays better than "full release" ArmA3
>it doesnt

Really makes you think

Who cares? Tactical shooters are boring. It has no story and gameplay is slow as shit, I'd pick any console exclusive over this.

dafuq, im running a 860 M on my laptop and get 60fps smooth 1080p. Its on your end probably.

...

ACE3, advanced medical. RHS and more.
Here's the full list of mods:
bro.ma/launcher-preset/
It's the autistic people that make broma really broma. Without them it's boring.

Don't worry, you'll grow up one day too and suddenly enjoy subtler things in life.

Insurgency is literally cod, kill yourself you retard.

>take a game from 2013
>try to run it on a commodore 64 with a toaster hooked up as a gpu
>complain when it runs shit

that's the whole fucking reason Arma 3 fails as a PvP game though

>Spawn
>equip yourself
>find or wait for transport
>wait to go to hotzone
>land
>get out
>search for the enemy
>take fire
>die
>respawn 1000 miles away
>rinse and repeat

i think day of infamy is better than insurgency

Insurgency is COD as much as Squad is Battlefield so I don't get your complaint. Neither qualify as any sort of milsim.

The game is decently optimized, the missions you
play must be unoptimized. Just join broma and
have the best missions weekly.

I used to play call of duty too until I found broma.
Now I'm no longer a casual shitter, I am one with
a community of likeminded enthusiasts.
It's the most intense gameplay I've ever had.
Capturing a town and having airborne Russian
troops drop on top of us is definitely not
"slow as shit" and "boring"

...

worst thread this year

How much were you paid to post this? I need some money.

if only they launched with a Chernarus-like map instead of some disgusting humid landscape

>gta 5
>2005

this is the shittiest bait i've seen in a long time.

fixed that for you friendo :^)
Squad has a much better map variety and the smaller scale maps let's the dev put more focus on balance and design overall

They are a studio of 150, thats big, no excuse

Insurgency is literally cosized maps with 1hit shitscan weapons, it's not even a tactical shooter, just a turd with a US vs Insurgent skin

Those fuck huge maps are only fun if you have hundreds of players fighting creating a moving front line based on team objectives.

Without the player count they are just annoying creating to much down time.

It's beautiful, indeed. Love the art style and general design.

Care to put this image in 1080p user ?
... Oh wait

Join broma now for limited time only offer!
If you join this week you will receive your
>TIER 1
rank in just ONE WEEK!
This offer only applies to owners of Sup Forums GOLD
Check out the steam page to see if you are eligible to win:
steamcommunity.com/groups/broma3

have they finally dropped that fucking retarded withsix shit

stop shilling dickass

I'm really tired of fps games having the gun at the ready against your shoulder but at the same time making it look like your left hand is 2 inches from your face

It says console from 2005

Whoa, I just downloaded all the mods in 30 MINUTES!
Isn't broma just great? I will surely join their
ops and have the most fun ever.


I hope this community will be able to fill a hole left by god.

If your idea of PVP is only "SHOOT KILL DIE RESPAWN" every 30 seconds because you have the attention span and tastes of a 13 year old on a sugar rush you might as well play Overwatch and just toss the entire idea of tactics or milsim out the window.

The appeal of ARMA, either coop or PVP is for something more realistic, and incorporating lots about combat that doesn't fit in nicely with what would be considered 'standard' FPS gameplay. Each life means more precisely because it'll take more time and effort to return to battle, so each death stings more. Thus you fight more cautiously, and each fire fight as far more tension and suspense.

When I play Squad, I don't care that much if I die in a fire fight since I'm just going to respawn and can get back to the front line in no time. Same as with Battlefield or Overwatch, death doesn't mean much when it's just a 10 second time out. Even CSGO is better about that than Squad.

Just because it's a different type of PVP doesn't mean it's bad. The best and most memorable PVP moments I've ever had have been mostly in ARMA and DayZ, and in Battlefield/Squad, 99% of firefights are entirely forgettable.

So which is the better game. The one where I only have had maybe 100 big fire fights, but almost all of them were downright scary and challenging and got my heart racing and something I'll fondly look back on years from now, or the game with 1,000,000 fire fights that are all just sort of 'meh' and don't mean much and I'll forget about in a few hours with little to no lasting impact.

>im tired of games working around the fact that your fov is limited if youve only got one screen

hint: dont be poor

He likes cod/bf1.
We don't want him in broma anyway.

While Squad isn't a bad game, it isn't for operating

>Squad is Battlefield

dumbest fucking meme

>bullet drop and penetration
>explosives have very large killzone
>vehicles move at realistic speeds
>mortars work with millirands and degrees
>need a forward observer for any kind of effective fire support
>ACRE like voip system that the great majority of the community use unlike Insurgency or Arma
>Bleeding out, limited med supplies
>Backblast Simulation
>Engagement ranges like Arma
>No 3d spotting, only squadleaders can put markers on the map.
>FOB building mechanics
>zeroing soon

Altis life, wasteland and king of the hill were a mistake

now you average player joins those servers and think that's how the game runs

The game runs flawlessly well on custom missions that aren't retarded, you could have missions up to 80 players without lag, only if the mission creator knows what he is doing and you aren't using retarded mods like ACE3

Can we have a moment of silence for the best Arma 3 group /a3g/?