Battlefield 3 Discussion Thread

Really??

The frag 12 have a huge bullet drop beyond 5m and moves pretty slow.
I'm surprised you can hit a helo with it, even for a cockpit kill.

I got better odds taking down a helo with a 50 cal than spas-12 with frag

I thought it was nerfed cause it was decent in cqc tdm maps or metro spam.
Against people who stood still instead of moving around.

-----

By the way, AA mines are awesome. I managed to get 3 kills by placing mines in common escape flight paths.

 

Just a follow up on my previous post of poor gaming performance:

I'm running at GT 420 @ GT 435 speeds and was getting a lot of lag, even in low resolution settings.

I was about 700mb RAM at idle when running the game, and I've never had poor performance in any other games. I figured my 2GB of RAM was sufficient for any game, especially when closing all background apps.

So I ordered 2GB of additional ram because it was $2. Battlefield now runs superb and looks fantastic. I never thought a game would need more than 1.3GB of ram to run but this does.

The game is quite a RAM hog as it sometimes gets up to 1.5GB of usage in game.

I'm running 1366x768 @ all medium, texture and terrain high, AA 16x with no hiccups.

So for anyone running this game with 2GB of RAM, upgrade your RAM before thinking it's your video card that's weak.

 

2GB is pretty much minimum for Windows Vista or 7 just running basic tasks. 4GB is more or less required for any recent game. 8GB helps Battlefield 3 run even better. And at RAM prices today, no reason not to get 8GB RAM to be honest if you're going to be gaming.

 

While we're on the subject of RAM, will 16GB RAM yield a big performance increase compared to 8GB RAM?

 

I would say no. 8GB is sufficiently adequate. I think you will see an improvement in many cases going from 4GB to 8GB, but even a clean 4GB system shouldn't have issues.

 

I'm running 6GB and I still have over 2GB's free when running BF3.

 

No. It's a 32bit program, it won't use more than 2gb. You will see zero improvements.

 

I am really excited about this patch. I am glad EA/Dice listened to the players and fixed the minimum player requirements. Also this list of changes all looks favorable.

I think this is great. I am tired of being killed by guys in other buildings who kill me with a single shot. Way overpower IMHO.

It shouldn't matter for you anyway Philiphan, you pretty much own everyone regardless of your weapon.

 

32 bit windows applications running in windows x64 can use up to 4 GB of memory. Nevertheless, BF3 uses approximately 1.3-1.4GB of memory on my system.

The total amount of memory my computer uses while running BF3 is almost exactly 2 GB (that includes the OS and the other BF3 related applications- including the web browser, ESN Sonar, Origin.

I wouldn't want to be stuck with 2 GB of memory playing BF3, because if you go over, your computer uses the hard drive as extra memory, and it's really slow.

At the same time, I can't imagine a performance benefit from moving above 4 GB, assuming your computer isn't running a ton of other random stuff.

 

No, it's still a 32bit program, regardless if it's running on a 64 bit operating system. BF3 will not use 4gb. 32bit program will still have 2gb limit.

You can possibly try to patch the BF3 .exe to use more than 2GB, but wouldn't surprise me if Punkbuster or EA bans you.

 

That's just incorrect. Sorry, but it's written plainly in the windows 7 documentation. I don't know the documentation regarding the 32 bit variant of windows or any previous versions of windows, I didn't mean to make any implications regarding other versions of windows.

In 64 bit windows, 32 bit applications have a 4 GB maximum memory space. Period. If *you* could patch BF3 to use 4 GB of memory, the developers could have simply designed it to do in the first place.

Now, if BF3 doesn't use 4 GB of memory for some other reason, that's fine. One reason might be that it doesn't even need 2 GB of memory, much less 4 GB. Again, my system is using 2 GB total when running BF3, with BF3 taking about 1.4 GB.

If BF3 is designed not to take more than 2 GB, again, that's fine. But it has nothing to do with any limitation with 32 bit apps and 64 bit windows. The maximum address space is 4 GB.

I think we both agree that BF3 doesn't use 4 GB of memory. We disagree as to why. My position is that BF3 doesn't use 4 GB of memory for the same reason Steam doesn't use 4 GB of memory. It simply doesn't need it. If it did, they could still maintain a 32 bit application (only) until the memory need grew to above 4 GB.

 

I have the frag rounds unlocked and use them with the USAS, I'm glad they're getting nerfed actually. Maybe now I can use other guns when playing support... but like ht said there's no number value given to the nerf. Right now it takes 2 shots to kill someone @ 25m (typical engagement range) and about 4 @ 40m, more if you don't quite aim right.

It feels like a tank cannon in my hands

 

It wasn't that great before the Nov patch.

USAS with frag is really effective against morons who stood still for far too long.
The 3 sec delay stacked splash damage what kills them.

If enough people joining squads, move around more, and enabled flak, will make it totally useless.
But no one really join squads ... I wonder why.

 

A fun video humilating DICE developers.

Battlefield 3: Collecting DICE dogtags - YouTube

 

Where's the one humiliating MW3 developers?

 

They dont play their own game? xD

 

Haha ....

poor dev support/usas user lol.

 

Sorry for not searching through all 416 pages, so many someone could answer these 2 questions:
1. What graphics settings are most noticeable that won't reduce framerates so much? My computer can play it great on LOW settings, but I'd like to increase a couple settings for a better visual experience if it won't decrease the fps too much. I can do without some of the fancy smoke and flames, but I don't like jagged edges and 2D looking surfaces.
2. Does it make any sense that my computer runs the game much better using the internal screen rather than an external monitor? With the same exact settings, I was getting 35FPS on external monitor and 40-45 internally. See sig for computer specs. Monitor is a Dell 24" 1920x1200 via displayport.

 

Something random to share

[V8] Battlefield 3

 

I just unlocked the USAS, and have to say I'm not thoroughly impressed.

Although you say 4 shots from 40m makes me wonder about the kills against me in a game I played yesterday. Just for giggles I did a 64 man Team Deathmatch. It was stupid crazy. But I died many times by someone with a USAS in one shot from at least 30-40m.

And ran across this... LOOOOLL! What is the point? Surely you will get banned immediately.

<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gNzF0eAwNPs?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gNzF0eAwNPs?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width='560' height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>

 

The M39 would be perfect with that aimbot. Quick semi-automatic firing, with decent accuracy of a rifle. Surprised he's not using it.

Well I can assure you WingNut at least I'm not using AimBot, I went 18 and 30 last round.

 

Hopefully it will be banned with Punkbuster, but i cant say i agree with any kind of cheating online.
Dont care what players do offline.

 

These types of hacks exist in many popular first person shooters, unfortunately. Almost verbatim like this, with the boxes that indicate player positions and insta-aiming towards their heads.

Punkbuster will almost certainly ban this player if it has not already. All hackers I have tracked have been banned already.

 

So what is everyone longest legit head shot with a sniper rifle, not EOD bot? Recently got 922m, because a buddy of mine was bragging to me how he beat me previously with 440m. All I can say it shut him up, lol. Did it with a m93b with 12x scope on a bipod in Caspian Border.

 

Was it another Sniper? Because I can't imagine 922m on a moving target. That is over a half mile, bullet drop the enemy would be out of your scope sights at 12x at that distance.

For M93, muzzle velocity ~ 2700 ft/s, ideal conditions, bullet would drop 242 inches (that's 20 feet) over 922m. Even with some wind to help and aerodynamics of the bullet, it would still drop a significant amount.

See here:

Gravity Concepts and Applications

Plug in 2700 ft/s into the equation.

 

EA Origin Bans: Update Edition | Rock, Paper, Shotgun

^^Why I'm boycotting EA. It's a shame because BF used to be one of my favorite franchises.

 

Sorry for writing the wrong number rifle, but its was a m98b. And yes I am familiar with bullet dropping at long range. I was laying down with a bi-pod and was shooting at another sniper. The only thing that was visible from the sniper was a little sparkle light which is what all snipers show when they are equip with an 8x or 12x scope. I fire a few rounds to the side of him to see where my bullet was dropping, then I adjusted and started making my shots.

The 12x scope has 4 lines of sight. I hit him somewhere between the third and second line counting from the top, mainly close to the third. I don't know about everyone else, but to me making a long head shot feels like I just made a touch down in a football game .

 

Was it from the rocks near the RU base to the rocks near the Antenna or vice versa? I hit plenty of 921m (could have sworn it was 931, but whatever) HS's from there. One game I had like 3700 points due to 5-6 hs's only.

 

I hate all of you snipers with a passion, prepare to be stabbed if I ever see you in-game.

 

k.........

 

I'll join the crusade.

Most snipers that get me end up getting knifed if they are too stupid to move locations. They just sit there forever. And I don't think I'll ever get sniped from 400m+ since I'm usually on the move, unless it's a complete fluke and they get me.

 

You can just run around.
Most snipers are inexperienced and wont hit you anyways. :3

I usually play Recon at close range with M39 or SKS and ACOG.
Tomorrow people will fear the SOFLAM.

 

I'm sure I'll play recon eventually, but not for a while. Until then Engineer and Support unless they give Recon some more toys. In BF2 I liked Recon (Sniper) because claymores were great defense to keep people from sneaking up on you. I don't think you can equip claymores with Recon now. Plus there's zero defense against vehicles.

 

3/5 times I go up against a copter as a sniper I win. Tis pretty funny.

 

Even a gunship? I've been sniped out of a little bird, heck I've even shot pilots out of a little bird, but gunships never seen it happen.

 

Well the sniper was in between two rocks close to RU spawn locations and yea I was at Antenna but on an open field on a hill. Now I hear the new patch tomorrow is going to allow sniper bullets to travel further, so people can get longer kills now.

I'm with you and I am not usually a camping sniper unless my team takes over all the capture points and all that is left is to attack their spawn. I usually play recon aggressively by using a red dot to snipe people close combat or mid range. To me it makes it much more of a challenge and the only thing I hate is that snipers do not have c4 like they do in BC2, which makes us useless against vehicles.

 

Right. If Recon had C4 it would make it a more useful class. I think using scoped rifles is ok, my experience has been most recon camps, and frequently spawn points, just for the kills.

 

Yup. No Gunner though, they tend to kill me to quickly for me to get any shots off.

It sort of has to be copter vs just me for me to get the kill, since I need em to be coming at me straight on for any chance of a kill.

 

I want to be a sniper because for me it is the most enjoyable. I love the skill involved in long range shots and the stealthy nature.

However in my experience it is by far the slowest class to level up on and until you have a very good knowlege of maps it may be hard to find good spots.

So I may go for another class.

BFBC2 I did pretty well, in BF2142 Recond had cool snipers and also had those motion mines that could give you score points and help your team.

BF2 I remember having C4 and stuff.

Sounds like all the cool toys and useful equipment is gone now making it a one trick pony.

 

Why is Origin telling me im downloading a 4gb patch for Battlefield 3?
I mean i dont mind since i got blazing speeds but dident they say it was 2gb?

 

Probably not. All they did was increase the bullet's time to live, which means that unless you were attempting shots that were so far away that your bullet was disappearing before it reached the target, then you won't see a difference.

 

Hrm I have to d/l 4GB too.

Edit: Could they be sneaking Karkand in this patch? It's released today for PS3 so they could be preloading some if not all of the content.

 

Think they might do that.
Im already done so im gonna try out the SOFLAM.

 

Hmm a patch wonder if it will break my game again like last time.

I should just learn Russian and be done with it.

 

NO RUSSIAN! ^^

I send youa PM with solution to the problem cant punush you for being lucky, right?

 

Oh that's too funny Vicious...I'm downloading now but I reckon' it won't be done for a long time on my crappy DSL. Showing as a 3.9GB patch for me for some reason.

 

Seems Back to Karkand is in the patch.
Popping into Battlelog and i got a message saying i own the expansion.

 

So if it is, do we still have to wait till the release date? :|

 

глупая свободная российская игра

 

Yeah kinda dumb to include it in the patch and make us wait a week just so Sony can go on an ego trip.