Mr. Charles 22 Posted July 26, 2012 No underground features? :j: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Smurf 12 Posted July 26, 2012 Well, they never confirmed that it was only in the (top) Dev's wishlist. Unlike other things...:j: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
purepassion 22 Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) :icon_frown: that's sad What exactly did the article include then? I don't know about which specific one you're talking about :o Tough thanks for letting us know! --------------------------------------------------- Here's a little update from the sound department: Christian from gamestar was so kind to provide a more detailed english transcript of the interview to Armaholic. The sentence is now: Beginning from sound recording hardware and technology, processing the samples, engine support for stereo sounds, filters and multiple sound samples for different values from game controllers (distance, gear, environment/place). Which would add "gear" to the list as well. :) Edited July 26, 2012 by PurePassion Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Timnos 1 Posted July 27, 2012 Next news´ll be theres no physx despite it being announced ._: Quite frankly, I wouldn't be one bit surprised. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frostwyrm333 1 Posted July 27, 2012 Quite frankly, I wouldn't be one bit surprised. I would, because it was shown working a year ago. No undeground is lame, its something that Arma really needs, so its safe to assume that everything on their wishlist won't make it for A3.:confused: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Timnos 1 Posted July 27, 2012 I would, because it was shown working a year ago. BIS have already confirmed that the PhysX 2 work was stopped. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonci87 163 Posted July 27, 2012 Because they moved to PhysX 3.... BIS is running out of selling points. I wonder why they have to drop features regardless of the massive DayZ motivated sales. Something doesn't really fit there. Are they redirecting their resources to other projects? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Timnos 1 Posted July 27, 2012 Because they moved to PhysX 3.... The last official word was they were in the process of migration from PhysX 2 to PhysX 3 but in no way guarantee that everything is going to react as it should. You can find those comments in Maruks post history. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maddogx 13 Posted July 27, 2012 Obviously many of the things on the list are just "nice-to-have" features that the devs want to implement if they get around to it. We can of course hope for the best, but I think anyone looking at the list as a kind of "confirmed features fact sheet" will be disappointed next year. ;)In fact, I can practically guaranteee that at least one of the features listed on the first page will not make it into the initial release, but a significant number of people will whine about "promised features not being delivered". :D *cough* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gossamersolid 155 Posted July 27, 2012 I don't know about you guys, but rather than seeing things removed from the so called "confirmed" list, I'd just prefer if they would delay the game to give them more time to implement more features. As long as we can get into an alpha that gets updated along the way, they could delay the game another year for all I care. I don't really want to be buying ArmA 2.5, I want to be buying ArmA 3. I don't really give a flying shit about underwater activities to begin with, so a big "selling point" of ArmA 3 is completely useless to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Janez 530 Posted July 27, 2012 I don't know about you guys, but rather than seeing things removed from the so called "confirmed" list, I'd just prefer if they would delay the game to give them more time to implement more features. As long as we can get into an alpha that gets updated along the way, they could delay the game another year for all I care.I don't really want to be buying ArmA 2.5, I want to be buying ArmA 3. I don't really give a flying shit about underwater activities to begin with, so a big "selling point" of ArmA 3 is completely useless to me. I rather have the game much later with as much features as possible as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LeeManatee 4 Posted July 27, 2012 3d editor is a must. I can wait more or have 1,5gb patches like back in arma 1, but 3d editor is probably one of the most desired features i expect from arma 3. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mondkalb 1087 Posted July 27, 2012 You know, it's not the first time that postponing/delaying of features happened. -> Timetravel Those T-90s and AAVs didn't make it into a game until 2008. :P Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr burns 132 Posted July 27, 2012 I don't know about you guys, but rather than seeing things removed from the so called "confirmed" list, I'd just prefer if they would delay the game to give them more time to implement more features. As long as we can get into an alpha that gets updated along the way, they could delay the game another year for all I care.I don't really want to be buying ArmA 2.5, I want to be buying ArmA 3. I don't really give a flying shit about underwater activities to begin with, so a big "selling point" of ArmA 3 is completely useless to me. +1 A community mostly holding out for 10 years shows they have patient customers. But they really need to bring their A-game to the table once again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frostwyrm333 1 Posted July 27, 2012 BIS have already confirmed that the PhysX 2 work was stopped. What I meant was that they wouldn't probably ditch a feature that was shown working long time ago, and that they are more likely to ditch something that they haven't even started working on yet. A3 was already postponed, they must release it, otherwise it will turn to Duke Nukem Forever. btw. when is it supposed to be released? They said Q1-2013 once but official site and wikipedia says Q4. Also wikipedia still claim 3d editor feature. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PuFu 4600 Posted July 27, 2012 official site and especially wikipedia are hardly proper info sources. A3 was postponed 6-8 months from the original release date. Comparing it to DNF is an exaggeration anyways. To answer your question, Q1 2013 (january - march) sounds reasonable enough for most. Doubt you will be able to find a more exact release date until december or similar. @timnos: ditching Physx 2 for 3 is a plus, and hardly means ditching it altogether. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frostwyrm333 1 Posted July 27, 2012 Yes, DNF part is exaggerated but do you remember Game 2? When was Arma 2 released? 5 years late? Anyway, stop being emotional (those whose are), Arma 3 will still be a good game so what... It's not like anything changed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PuFu 4600 Posted July 27, 2012 Yes, DNF part is exaggerated but do you remember Game 2? When was Arma 2 released? 5 years late?Anyway, stop being emotional (those whose are), Arma 3 will still be a good game so what... It's not like anything changed. again, you are over exaggerating. You should know well enough reasons why Game 2 was released so late, and why A1 was some sort of in-between cashcow (tip == clownmasters). emotional? just trying to be realistic about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Charles 22 Posted July 27, 2012 Could you maybe add ditched features to the list? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maio 293 Posted July 28, 2012 Could you maybe add ditched features to the list? A positive outlook on things helps you avoid early aging ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SandMan13 10 Posted July 28, 2012 Everyone who is saying a 3d editor is a must, we already have one, so why wouldn't we get it? Control + E at main menu. You do have to change some of the script in the file around to have it read on the 2d editor though, but its not that big a deal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ArmAriffic 10 Posted July 29, 2012 Everyone who is saying a 3d editor is a must, we already have one, so why wouldn't we get it?Control + E at main menu. You do have to change some of the script in the file around to have it read on the 2d editor though, but its not that big a deal. It is a finished 3D editor we want, the one in ArmA 2 is not finished...and since they already had a working (but not finished) one I don't get why they could not put it in A3. There is also the 3DE from VBS2 which they could probably have used. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mondkalb 1087 Posted July 29, 2012 There is also the 3DE from VBS2 which they could probably have used. What makes you say that? The RTE/OME from VBS2 is completely different in functionality. Just copy & paste will not work. Despite that, the VBS2 editor is also already rocking up it's years, and that is showing... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
msy 22 Posted July 29, 2012 (edited) What makes you say that? The RTE/OME from VBS2 is completely different in functionality. Just copy & paste will not work. Despite that, the VBS2 editor is also already rocking up it's years, and that is showing... Showing that needs time and money and man power to rebuild a new RTE/OME which will be absolutly not in ARMA3 due to lack of resource? So a expantion pack will be rationalb... Edited July 29, 2012 by msy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gossamersolid 155 Posted July 29, 2012 I just don't understand where all of these resources from the influx of purchases have went if features are getting cut. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
