ArmA3 Wishlist and Ideas

[sarge4267 16]

they already implemented physics (Physx) but I would like them to make it realistic.

(not as shown in the video)

[KC Grimes 79]

they already implemented physics (Physx) but I would like them to make it realistic.

(not as shown in the video)

Agreed. It was awesome to watch, but I do hope it was adjusted. I believe Ivan said it would be, but we'll see.

I kind of wonder what it'll look like when a soldier is struck by a big metal box that a tank flung into the air.

Edit: Will vehicles "bounce" or at least show the use of shock absorbers after a good sized jump?

[paecmaker 23]

Maybe its included in PhysX, I dont know, but I really hope they have fixed the thing when a tank runs over a rock or a stone, I am tired of having flying tanks the moment a few rocks enter the path.

[AstroMan 10]

I want to see a Get List button for getting all the servers and then a Refresh button to refresh the status of all the servers. I hate having to wait for to entire list to load back up after I get kicked for having a mod enabled thats not allowed on the server or just wanna change servers.

[lozz08 10]

had to move my post...

If you have a decent processor you know that the only time this game slows down is when AI activity increases beyond a certain point (obviously dependent on processor speed)

That is not to say that ARMA 2's AI system isn't a massively awesome achievement. However, in ARMA 3 I do hope to see the possibility of more threading of AI routines. The fact that all the AI runs on one core holds the game back.

(I wonder if ARMA 3 will be able to utilize 6+ cores? haven't seen that question directly asked yet.)

[Dreahack 10]

i really love that customizable weapons idea,

Taking weapons on bodies should be less frustration than opening a gear menu and choose what to take and not

---------- Post added at 02:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:49 AM ----------

can you change the PBO system at all ?

I need to be able to mod my game's sound vegetation and textures without being on a server that doesnt allow mods.

i mean separating sounds and textures from PBO... (like in counter strike)

i hope you got the idea...

[demonized 20]

Not sure if this has been posted before, probably but saying it anyway.

I wish we could have ground displaced by a certain type, lets say "building" type objects.

so we could create sandy foxholes, shaped like a cup, and the terrain gave way for the "downward" inside of the foxhole, underground hangars with ramps up to surface etc..

Edit: and i would like the ability to load next map in MP, without ending or starting a new mission.

for example, players start on Utes, then do something and then gets picked up by a C130 and then fly away and Chernarus map loads and players land in chernarus aiport to continue the mission.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Demonized

[Due._. 10]

is there any info on desctructable terrain? like ied craters and such?

[Maio 293]

is there any info on desctructable terrain? like ied craters and such?

Check the confirmed features thread and be sure to click on the spoiler tag once you reach the "sort of confirmed" subsection as well. If it's not yet on the list, there is no conclusive info of said feature :)

[instagoat 133]

Enable the AI to use backpacks. Right now they are doing nothing with them. For example if placing a javelin gunner and a javelin support gunner, the jav gunner will fire his missle and never get the one stored in the backpack of his teammate. No matter who leads the squad, which means all non-player led squads only have one shot like the AI in Arma 2. Or OFP, for that matter. So apart from enhancing the ammo load of Player controlled squads, we´re still stuck in 2001 in that departement. Or am I just tremendously unlucky never to have seen AI use backpacks?

What´s more, if you load up a backpack with ammo, the AI will never take it from his own pack when he runs out of ammunition. What are the backpacks there for, if the AI can´t use them?

AI is tremendously important, singleplayer stands or falls with them being able to operate. Right now, there are still holes, like massive friendly-fire uses in crowded terrain, not using backpacks, not retrieving lost guns (SAWs, AT weapons, Grenade launchers are all ignored by the AI when their bearers have been killed. AI should always attempt to retrieve hard-hitting equipment at almost any cost.)

So, yeah. Basically either enable the AI to use the feature, or remove the feature. Because a half-working feature is likely not a very good feature, even if intent and idea are excellent.

Cheers

Instagoat

[5LEvEN 11]

I would like this

Say on server Arm they have high quality simulated vehicles enable. This would mean that players with and without the high quality vehicle DLC could join it, but only players who paid for the DLC can use the simulated vehicles. So lets say you made the DLC for the apache, the black hawk, the m1a2, the A-10C, the Ka-50, and the MI-8. Player Joe who has bought none of the DLC can play on that server as normal, but would not be able to use these vehicles. While player James who bought all of these vehicles will be able to use all of these vehicles. And player Bob who bought the MI-8, and black hawk, can only use those two vehicles. Basically this would allow highly simulated vehicles in game to players who want it. You would not need to pay for all of the vehicle DLC's to host a server with this feature enable, but (as stated before) ONLY players who have paid for it may use the vehicles. I think this could work, and that many would pay for the DLC's. I know I would pay for almost every single vehicle. Especially the apache and A-10... Also if server Arm decides to load a mission without this feature enable, then the default arma 3 would be used.

EDIT: Players who do not pay for the DLC could still use the gunner seat (depending on vehicle), and still use passenger seats.

Edited August 8, 2011 by 5LEvEN

[metalcraze 290]

That's a really bad idea, 5LEvEN.

The current model of crappy textures is much better than disallowing the use of content which goes against one of the main principles of this game - "you can see it - you can drive it"

[5LEvEN 11]

That's a really bad idea, 5LEvEN.

The current model of crappy textures is much better than disallowing the use of content which goes against one of the main principles of this game - "you can see it - you can drive it"

It would be a feature you could enable or disable... And I forgot to mention, if it has passenger seats and you didn't pay for it, you can use those. But you cannot fly it/drive it. You could gun it depending on the vehicle. For example the guns on the black hawk a player without paying for it could use, and use the passenger seats, but a player that did not pay for the DLC could not ues the pilot seat.

I agree it goes against that, but if it's the only way to add the level of simulation that Eagle Dynamics offers, then I would go for it. That kind of simulation can be very costly on the developers both in money and in time. If you got any better ideas on how BIS could implement high quality simulation to vehicles, then please share. Because from my understanding the developers probably won't do it because of time and money. This solution would make it worth their time.

[twisted 127]

one simple thing i'd like to see - the ability to get the AI to gear from wherever your on screen pointer is pointing. if you point at a body then ai will gear from that. if there's multiple ammo chests then AI will go to the ammo chest you are pointing at.

[metalcraze 290]

ArmA 3 is an infantry sim. As much as I like sims of all kinds I think BIS should keep its priorities straight.

Even if BIS will model some plane with every smallest detail you still have problems like the lack of a proper map (say the size of some Korea from Falcon 4), the ability for it to get filled with enough action without making CPU burst in flames (like in Falcon 4 which uses simple AI for everything on the ground - whereas it's vice versa for ArmA) and the simplicity of anti-air weapons which are either hit the target way too easily or get too easily put off-target by counter-measures.

BIS should keep focusing on infantry. It's impossible to do everything.

[demonized 20]

i agree with metalcraze, its mainly an infantry sim, though vehicles play an important role.

however, they are afaik already creating fully/more detailed vehicles and interiors in a3 so no need to go all DLC on it.

[5LEvEN 11]

ArmA 3 is an infantry sim. As much as I like sims of all kinds I think BIS should keep its priorities straight.

Even if BIS will model some plane with every smallest detail you still have problems like the lack of a proper map (say the size of some Korea from Falcon 4), the ability for it to get filled with enough action without making CPU burst in flames (like in Falcon 4 which uses simple AI for everything on the ground - whereas it's vice versa for ArmA) and the simplicity of anti-air weapons which are either hit the target way too easily or get too easily put off-target by counter-measures.

BIS should keep focusing on infantry. It's impossible to do everything.

To quote my self..

"Please give me a source for where BIS said arma was an infantry simulator? I have not seen it in any of there advertisements, nor I have I seen it in any statements made by them... As I have stated before... I think people believe arma is an infantry simulator because it's the best simulated part in the game, but I have yet to see one developer state it is an infantry simulator. I believe arma is more a general combat simulator (based on advertisements, features, content, and game play), which is it's flaw...

Nothing in the game is not in need of improvements to make it more of a simulator... Aircraft and land vehicles are the worst simulated by far... Which is why you see a push from a lot of people to increase it's simulation... Also since arma already has great infantry simulation with just minor improvements needed, I do not see this at all as too much work... It should be one of the main focus's for arma 3 (increase simulation of land and air vehicles)...

Honestly what in the world do you think will take them a year to do involving the simulation of infantry? Revamped animations are not necessary, but is wanted to make movement more fluid (so don't try saying animations as something)..."

Also unlike arma 2, I don't get up to around 400-500 knots in the a-10c for DCS. My max speed was 340 knots, and I average about 220knots. Lemnos is supposed to be 2.5 times bigger then takistan, and I can make the a10a in arma 2, which is moving at least 400knots work in that small enviroment. Also lemnos is surrounded by water, and the water just keeps going and going. So the enviroment is big enough for the a-10c, and is definetally big enough for helicopters.

As I stated in my quote, all vehicles should be improved, this also means the targetting and counter measure systems. Also the handheld AA weapons could be improved as well.

Now what in the world makes you think that you need the map to be hugely populated? Also IDK about you, but I would be flying for CAS, which means I WAIT untill I get the call. So untill then I am just enjoying the view... If the simulation is bumped up, it would be nice if some people learned how to use the 9-line system....

[Stubaf. 10]

I haven't read a lot in this thread or about the game, but THE one thing that would allow me to like the game despite future stuff would be LESS shooter, MORE tactics.

No more sniping till everyone's dead, instead fire and movement. Squad and Platoon tactics. Suppressive fire, Platoon and maybe company coordination, simply more maneuvering.

I do not want 50.000 spent rounds per Enemy KIA or something, but a little more real life like tactic employment would be really great.

[dmarkwick 261]

I've often touted the same idea that 5LEvEN has, that of the sim-DLC. People who aren't interested needn't buy it and there'll be no penalty, because the proxy model will still exist for them to see it, even if they cannot operate it. There will be no code (or at least only minimal code) shared across clients who haven't paid for it, because as we know vehicles become client-side when flown/driven, so only that client needs the simulation code. Positional & ordnance data is fed back to the server & then farmed out from there, no unnecessary simulation data need be disseminated.

The people who complain that they shouldn't have to pay extra for stuff that should already be in the game can be placated (somewhat ;)) by the idea that they don't have to buy it at all to enjoy exactly the same experience as they did before. The hardcore sim-flyers are happy because they have the sim module right on their own PC.

@Metalcraze: a more accurate description of ArmA is that it is a battlefield simulator, as such all battlefield elements are open for improvement. I include helicopters and armour in those elements.

[wolfbite 8]

More addition for aircraft.

Would be nice if there was an aerial refuelling script/animation built into the game.

Maybe aircraft models could have a hidden selection on the model that is a towbar..

[mrcash2009 0]

I agree with DM, I would like to see this, its partially in for Helis :

Arma 3 will include the TOH flight model , but not in the main campaign .

I would welcome a DLC which was "ARMA3 Armoured Forces" and you had a selection of tanks/fixed wing/helis and such which all features full sim style control. And justified as a later DLC becuase the focus would be needed on the main sim for release and this later. Edited August 8, 2011 by mrcash2009

[metalcraze 290]

To quote my self..

"Please give me a source for where BIS said arma was an infantry simulator? I have not seen it in any of there advertisements, nor I have I seen it in any statements made by them... As I have stated before... I think people believe arma is an infantry simulator because it's the best simulated part in the game, but I have yet to see one developer state it is an infantry simulator. I believe arma is more a general combat simulator (based on advertisements, features, content, and game play), which is it's flaw...

Yes infantry is the best simulated part. As it is the most played part. As are maps that are made with infantry in mind. As are AI improvements which are mostly about an infantry.

Trying to make sim-DLC which will be just a single plane per DLC will be a waste of time and resources.

Let's say you get your F-16. What do you do with it? You accelerate and in a few seconds you are beyond map boundaries. You then return back and get shot down by a random fire and forget missile.

You forget about the point that a lot in the game will need to be remade for it to suit aerial combat. It isn't just about flight physics and pressing buttons in the cockpit.

Vehicles in ArmA are all about a support role - because real life battlefield isn't only infantry.

I would welcome a DLC which was "ARMA3 Armoured Forces" and you had a selection of tanks/fixed wing/helis and such which all features full sim style control. And justified as a later DLC becuase the focus would be needed on the main sim for release and this later.

Find a team of 300 people willing to work for nothing and you'll get it.

There's a reason why no flight sim models more than one or, in the very very very best case, two planes.

Steel Beasts right now models only 7 armored vehicles (not counting modifications) and they are upgrading this game for 11 years

I certainly would've wanted for ArmA to become a sim in everything, but I'm also thinking realisticly. Simulating something as incredibly complex as Apache with all its systems and startup procedures takes a lot of effort. It isn't just about tweaking the physics of flight.

Edited August 8, 2011 by metalcraze

[mrcash2009 0]

Full Support for Nvidia 3D Vision.

Find a team of 300 people willing to work for nothing and you'll get it.

Chill out mate in case you forgot this thread is titled:

Wishlist and Ideas

not ..

Metalcraze Doesn't want Thread

I said : "full sim style control" .. that doest not have to be on par with Black Shark or that ilk, it can be more to do with functions, start/stop procedures and optics changes for realism.

Edited August 8, 2011 by mrcash2009

[dmarkwick 261]

Let's say you get your F-16. What do you do with it? You accelerate and in a few seconds you are beyond map boundaries. You then return back and get shot down by a random fire and forget missile.

You forget about the point that a lot in the game will need to be remade for it to suit aerial combat. It isn't just about flight physics and pressing buttons in the cockpit.

ArmA isn't suited for fast jet simulation. But it is suited for good helicopter simulation. And it would certainly benefit from good tank simulation

Find a team of 300 people willing to work for nothing and you'll get it.

Please, no numbers-out-of-the-air arguments :)

BISim BIA etc could benefit from such a system. Even more so than BIS. Plus it represents saleable products, why assume development has to be done for nothing?

There's a reason why no flight sim models more than one or, in the very very very best case, two planes.

No flight sim? I have MSFS X and it has way more than 2 planes. OK they're not weapons platforms, but for ArmA purposes we don't need DLC-level simulation. Maybe MSCS-level :)

Steel Beasts right now models only 7 armored vehicles (not counting modifications) and they are upgrading this game for 11 years

I don't see what other companies' work rate/focus has to do with this.

[metalcraze 290]

My original argument was that locking stuff wasn't a good idea. BIS has a much better model right now.

BIS is already improving flight simulation for aerial vehicles so I don't see why would we need DLCs for any of those. Even with ArmA2 arcadey physics every chopper handles differently (compare little bird to apache) - so I don't see why BIS wouldn't do the same in ArmA3 with TKOH-level physics

And I doubt it will be possible for BIS with their resources to simulate everything - is all.

I have MSFS X and it has way more than 2 planes.

Adding the same flight model to 30 plane models (well with tweaks obviously) does not take as much effort as doing Falcon 4

I don't see what other companies' work rate/focus has to do with this.

Simply pointing out that either you get focused on everything and get everything at mediocre levels (which in many cases related to OFP/ArmA and Microsoft's flight games) or you focus on one thing and get it done right.

Edited August 8, 2011 by metalcraze