Most decently made missions will at least have some instructions on how to do this in the info on the map screen if it's possible in that mission.
It can vary from having a keyboard key bring up a menu, to having to be near a specific ingame object (Flag pole, bulletin board, ammo box, whatever the mission maker decides) which adds an option to adjust view distance to your action menu (options that come up when you scroll your mouse wheel). This can be confusing as it's up to each mission maker how this is implemented. They are instead hard coded by the mission maker or adjustable from within the mission. Multiplayer missions generally do not follow the view distance you set in you video settings. Aim for 2-3k maybe less if your playing in towns or forests for that mission. smooth animations, shiny particle effects, and many other visual aspects that definitely. Anything above about 5km is generally overkill because objects and units don't show up past that anyway. Unlock version, can be used directly, without us activation 3. Try reducing that and see if you can get acceptable performance. View Distance is a huge FPS hog in Arma aswell. I do not see any possibility for better performance without a faster CPU, if this is a "real" CPU bottleneck situation. My prediction is that by increasing graphical detail the OP is going to see one of two scenarios play out: better visuals with no apparent framerate penalty (since it's just using the excess GPU capacity that was sitting unused before) or, if he increases the detail to the point where the GTX 970 is starting to struggle, he may see performance decrease a bit as the bottleneck shifts back to the GPU. So in future you will be able to use the gun as it is supposed to: as a tank buster and for scaring the shit out of your.
The CPU isn't doing more work when there's a lighter graphical load it's that with a light graphical load, the GPU is removed as the bottleneck and CPU performance becomes more apparent as it begins to be what limits the game's framerate. The CPU is basically doing the same work either way, and therefore it generally hits the same framerate limit regardless of what the video card's workload is. Basically the mod changes the 20 mm gun of the A-164 Wipeout to a more powerful version, the well-known GAU-8/A Avenger 30 mm gun of the A-10 aircraft. The GPU is still rendering the game either way. Running games in LOW settings on high end hardware, can sometimes be MORE taxing The 8350 is not the best CPU, especially not for ARMA, but what i said should hold true To add dust particle effects and lighting effects to the environment add the modules Environmental Effects and Particle Effect. To use the script you need to spawn a tank 150m or more above the ground and pass tank object reference to the script.Agreed, but if the GPU is doing no work then you can offset that by making the GPU work more, thus removing the bottleneck off the CPU (since the CPU is basically rendering the game instead of the GPU) Because particle effects have to be created locally on each client, the script is in 2 parts, the server part that drops the tank and the client part that does particle effect. To make it more believable I added a particle effect simulating a charge going off detaching parachutes with sound. So I went for 5 parachutes which makes it even more epic. So I decided to try to make something along these lines.įirst of all, because of how parachute objects operate in Arma 3, I could not have 3 parachute set up without any modding.
Just before landing the parachutes shot off. They used to drop tanks on parachutes there while each tank was attached to 3 parachutes.
I remember when I was a kid I used to watched programs about military exercises. They might look cool for when you want to drop a supply crate or a small vehicle, but main battle tanks looks way too heavy to have just one parachute. Arma 3 has rather large and round cargo parachutes, which where not animated until recently, big thanks to The Most Venerable Order of Configuration, Lord Pettka.