Development Blog & Reveals

[nodunit 397]

I'll trade a few frames to get a more smooth PIP, can sit in the boat with 50+ and the screen still is still slower than the actual scene, thats not going to bode well for using it on other applications such as aircraft.

[chortles 263]

I'll trade a few frames to get a more smooth PIP, can sit in the boat with 50+ and the screen still is still slower than the actual scene, thats not going to bode well for using it on other applications such as aircraft.

And that's pretty much why we're not getting PIP/RTT scopes (yet).

[nodunit 397]

With any luck PIP in alpha was more the introduction and testing phase, and in beta it will receive more polish since it could be used on nearly every application, no reason to have 60 fps and stare at it only to see the image itself a few frames behind despite plenty of fps to spare.

[metalcraze 290]

I'll trade a few frames to get a more smooth PIP, can sit in the boat with 50+ and the screen still is still slower than the actual scene, thats not going to bode well for using it on other applications such as aircraft.

What about other places that are not an empty sea? On the ground I want every FPS I can get. And PIP in a car in a detailed area already brings down FPS below 30 at times.

[nodunit 397]

What about other places that are not an empty sea? On the ground I want every FPS I can get. And PIP in a car in a detailed area already brings down FPS below 30 at times.

The boat was the extreme example, fair enough to have as much fps that you can get, thats why I'd be more of a fan to define refresh rate based on quality since the render distance doesn't change on Very High and Ultra.

PIP in a car for me for example, in town pointing towards a forest can be anywhere from 35 to 40+. The thing that confuses me and sort of doesn't at the same time...it's a case of...okay so the hunter's camera and mirrors even with all 3 in the scene render perfectly at even 20 frames but the ifrit thermal and civilian truck require double that...makes sense since you're kicking it to a higher resolution, but why aren't my fps dropping as a result? And could I sacrifice a few of those to make it smoother?

The boat was more of a "waaait I have so many frames but my monitor is still sluggish?" kind of thing, and the extreme of a possible example.

Edited May 15, 2013 by NodUnit

[Lucasmnunesk 2]

The boat monitor seems to lag on purpose

[Smurf 12]

This goes here?

http://www.arma3.com/news/report-in-lukas-haladik-sandox-design#.UZTsl8rX6QY

Always good to see these type of thing.

Ear rising: (Is that the expression in english aswell?)

Well, I’m working on a new squad concept. In the past our squads consisted of 10 soldiers, but now we are moving to a more concentrated squad concept with 8 men.(...)The roles are not fully decided yet, but it's coming along pretty well.

(Editor)

Without going into too much technical detail, there have been a lot of minor changes in different dialogues of the UI which made it more clear and accessible.

Also, we will be looking at the grenades and handling of weapons: there is a big recoil enhancement going on, and some more cool stuff about which we can hopefully tell more in the near future.

That job interview process should be used more often, outside the game industry too :P

[papanowel 120]

Finally a new devblog, the last one was long ago :)

This is a new screenshot:

http://www.arma3.com/images/post_images/a3_report_sandbox_6.jpg

[purepassion 22]

That one as well :) They are both from Altis

[Tonci87 163]

You’ll probably notice that in firefights, you are often being shot at but not killed instantly. This is the way we would like to go. Before, the AI was really deadly. This is definitely not to say that Arma 3 isn’t challenging anymore, it’s mostly less frustrating.

So what does he want to tell us with that?

[JSj 12]

Definitely sounds like a step towards the "you need a full magazine to kill someone" of run of the mill action shooters. Sounds very bad indeed... :-(

EDIT:

Or maybe not, it said "getting shot at", not "getting shot". If it just means a lowering of the AI accuracy, so they don't always instantly hit you with the first round, that's good. But if it means "getting shot and taking a lot of shots before you die", that's not good. I hope I misinterpreted it before, and that it is the first case that is what he meant.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Johan S

[maddogx 13]

Definitely sounds like a step towards the "you need a full magazine to kill someone" of run of the mill action shooters. Sounds very bad indeed... :-(

Oh dear... he also used the word "accessible". Surely this is yet another sign of the apocalypse!

Note that he says "you're often being shot at but not killed instantly", not "you're often being hit but not killed instantly", specifically related to AI. It's pretty clear this is about AI accuracy, not about taking 30 bullets to die. :rolleyes:

[JSj 12]

Oh dear... he also used the word "accessible". Surely this is yet another sign of the apocalypse!

Well, it's never a good sign. Countless game series have been dumbed down and ruined after the developers started talking about making it "more accessible". And I can't think of any example where this kind of talk has actually lead to an improvement of a series. If we wanted a simple, "accessible" game we'd all be playing Call of Duty or Battlefield, not Arma. This might be an unfortunate effect of DayZ attracting the CoD-crowd to Arma.

Note that he says "you're often being shot at but not killed instantly", not "you're often being hit but not killed instantly", specifically related to AI. It's pretty clear this is about AI accuracy, not about taking 30 bullets to die. :rolleyes:

Yes, I noticed this myself and edited my post. Hopefully this is the correct interpretation.

[froggyluv 2136]

Oh dear... he also used the word "accessible". Surely this is yet another sign of the apocalypse!

Note that he says "you're often being shot at but not killed instantly", not "you're often being hit but not killed instantly", specifically related to AI. It's pretty clear this is about AI accuracy, not about taking 30 bullets to die. :rolleyes:

Honestly I have haven't noticed this but I'll look out for it. Still even though he worded it that way I wouldn't be surprised if he did actually mean damage as in wounding. I've noticed there is far less wounding overall in this iteration than previous Arma's and am actually hoping for a multi-layered wounding system for as it is now it just seems like death or nothing 90% time.

[royaltyinexile 175]

Indeed, Luca meant just what he said: getting 'shot at'. That means he's trying to create a set of standards (across different classes of weapons) for how accurate the AI can/should/will be. It's certainly not easy, nor will the results be perfect, but it's a long-overdue and worthwhile endeavour, evidenced by hiring developers dedicated to this role.

The point is not that one can 'absorb' any more fire to the cranium, but that the enemy - while trying to blow your head off - are perhaps a little less likely to do so in one or two shots (this goes back to what we've been talking about for a while: 'problems' with AI tied to un/under-configured base classes, rather than an innate in/over-ability).

Also, I think it would be inaccurate to suggest that anyone here is trying to attract a 'console' shooter crowd. Arma 3 might well appeal to those 'moving on' from that style of gameplay, but it surely doesn't seek to encroach upon it. :)

Best,

RiE

Edited May 16, 2013 by RoyaltyinExile

[froggyluv 2136]

. It's certainly not easy, nor will the results be perfect, but it's a long-overdue and worthwhile endeavour, evidenced by hiring developers dedicated to this role.

Words can't express how happy I am to hear this.

[JSj 12]

Indeed, Luca meant just what he said: getting 'shot at'.

Sounds great!

Also, I think it would be inaccurate to suggest that anyone here is trying to attract a 'console' shooter crowd. Arma 3 might well appeal to those 'moving on' from that style of gameplay, but it surely doesn't seek to encroach upon it. :)

This sounds great too, but then please stop using the word "accessible", because that has always ended up meaning only one thing when used by developers, and that is "dumbing down". Something we don't want to see in Arma 3.

[nodunit 397]

Why? Accessible doesn't mean simpilfied, it means changed in some form or another. I mean just look at the change to the movement system, it was touted very much with the term "more accessible" and look what came of it, certainly not dumbed down...infantry operations are more of a joy than ever and there was even an introduction of a new stance system with the capable to lean in nearly every one, as well as side step.

Compared to Arma 2 and OA's; stand, crouch, prone, roll, stand lean, crouch lean system. That is hardly "dumbing down".

[JSj 12]

Compared to Arma 2 and OA's; stand, crouch, prone, roll, stand lean, crouch lean system. That is hardly "dumbing down".

I agree, I don't think the Arma 3 movement system is dumbed down. It's been made more complex with the addition of extra stances and controls. I don't understand in what way this would be "more accessible"? It seems rather less "accessible", as there are more controls to learn and use.

[Wolfstriked 11]

Hiring a game balance designer is great news for us.I hope he is well spoken on the forums as I love to be filled in on even the small issues.

---------- Post added at 07:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:07 PM ----------

I agree, I don't think the Arma 3 movement system is dumbed down. It's been made more complex with the addition of extra stances and controls. I don't understand in what way this would be "more accessible"? It seems rather less "accessible", as there are more controls to learn and use.

DUDE?? Its just a more fluid system overall.Arma 3 is pretty much a huge advancement for me in this regards.

[purepassion 22]

Why? Accessible doesn't mean simpilfied

Yeah. "Accessible" should usually mean something is better to use. That means the core has not changed but it is just easier to get to that same core. Think of it as headphones in packaging.

Arma 2 is like an awesome pair of headphones but they are shipped in a plastic clamshell packaging. The headphones are awesome but the stuff around it... well... I gues you know these... There are clever ways to open it easily but it's generally not pleasant. Arma 3 however is more like this. It's the same pair of awesome headphones but the packaging is easy to open and nice too look at. You can get to the headphones more easily, they are more accessible. :music:

Got it? :803:

In the case of Arma it means that the basic philosophy and principles which created what "Arma" is all about are still there but it is easier for people to actually use and experience the philosophy and principles. That means the e.g. controls, interface, animations and interaction menu etc make more sense and were removed of unnecessary obstacles.

As you can observe it, BIS does not dumb down the game in any way but actually adds new layers of complexity (much of what we haven't even seen yet) but still manages to present them in a way that anyone willing to experience them can in fact do so. Feedback from veterans and newcomers has been very good :)

[JSj 12]

DUDE?? Its just a more fluid system overall.Arma 3 is pretty much a huge advancement for me in this regards.

Yes, it's a great advancement. The extra stances gives you more movement options, which is awesome. But what does this have to do with being "accessible"? It's more complex, because it has some extra controls. So it takes a little bit longer to learn and "access" fully. It's great because it is more complex, not because it is more "accessible".

[Insanatrix 0]

Indeed, Luca meant just what he said: getting 'shot at'. That means he's trying to create a set of standards (across different classes of weapons) for how accurate the AI can/should/will be. It's certainly not easy, nor will the results be perfect, but it's a long-overdue and worthwhile endeavour, evidenced by hiring developers dedicated to this role.

The point is not that one can 'absorb' any more fire to the cranium, but that the enemy - while trying to blow your head off - are perhaps a little less likely to do so in one or two shots (this goes back to what we've been talking about for a while: 'problems' with AI tied to un/under-configured base classes, rather than an innate in/over-ability).

Also, I think it would be inaccurate to suggest that anyone here is trying to attract a 'console' shooter crowd. Arma 3 might well appeal to those 'moving on' from that style of gameplay, but it surely doesn't seek to encroach upon it. :)

Best,

RiE

So in other words, even say at like 1.0 skill level, they should be really really damn good but not headshot magnets like they basically are now? If so, AWESOME! heh.

[chortles 263]

Sounds great!

So in other words, even say at like 1.0 skill level, they should be really really damn good but not headshot magnets like they basically are now? If so, AWESOME! heh.

This is somewhat important considering certain recent developments that people have been noticing about the AI in dev branch, which metalcraze created a ticket about. If you two can reproduce this issue (check what resources the ticket provides for this purpose) then please upvote the ticket!

This sounds great too, but then please stop using the word "accessible", because that has always ended up meaning only one thing when used by developers, and that is "dumbing down". Something we don't want to see in Arma 3.

You know, I'm actually reminded of something that RiE said last year at E3: "Let's not be afraid of that word"... although back then he was talking about "streamlined". ;)

If this is enough to spook you, no way would you have been able to handle last year when he was joking about the game's improvements "welcome to the late 90s" and Ivan was calling Cold War Crisis "a s****y game". :lol:

I agree, I don't think the Arma 3 movement system is dumbed down. It's been made more complex with the addition of extra stances and controls. I don't understand in what way this would be "more accessible"? It seems rather less "accessible", as there are more controls to learn and use.

As someone who's played both arcade-y FPS games and Arma 3 (both 2 and 3)... sometimes the difference between "clunky" and "accessible" is literally as simple as changing the default controls -- that is, the default keybinds -- to something more intuitive for an audience that hasn't been playing Arma for years. :p The Arma 3 preset that the alpha was released with in early March actually reminded me of a conventional FPS, right down to Left Shift for Sprint, the Z/X being the exclusive stand/crouch/prone keys and even "G is for grenade". :lol: Likewise, the stance adjust mechanic is more complex than most shooters, yet "what you have to do to pick a stance"... is literally just holding down Left Ctrl and pressing the corresponding movement key. Despite the greater possible complexity due to more possibilities, the Arma 3 preset for movement/stances is basically a conventional FPS layout except with run as default instead of combat pace (using C to toggle), walk having to be manually toggled (instead of forced by aiming down sights) and LCtrl being the stance modifier key, that's it. :p

Some might wonder about spacebar being the "context-sensitive action" key, but there are "AAA" mainstream third-person shooters that don't have (and get away just fine with not having) jumping-except-when-pressing-up-against-a-surface anyway... heck, sometimes "context-sensitive action" is those games' jump key.

Ironically, I'm honestly of the belief that DayZ has indirectly helped with Arma 3's accessibility simply by making the Arma 2 default keybinds more known, but also by making the very idea of "this is harder-core, longer-range combat than a FPS" more well-known in the mainstream; nothing like reading a thread where DayZ players (indirectly or directly) pay their respects to Arma as the foundation on which their gameplay premise is built. :p Or watching tutorial videos where DayZ players explain to viewers how mildot or PSO-1 reticles work...

This one isn't from Luca, but speaking of that stance indicator that he mentioned... source article is this.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Chortles

[Tonci87 163]

Indeed, Luca meant just what he said: getting 'shot at'. That means he's trying to create a set of standards (across different classes of weapons) for how accurate the AI can/should/will be. It's certainly not easy, nor will the results be perfect, but it's a long-overdue and worthwhile endeavour, evidenced by hiring developers dedicated to this role.

The point is not that one can 'absorb' any more fire to the cranium, but that the enemy - while trying to blow your head off - are perhaps a little less likely to do so in one or two shots (this goes back to what we've been talking about for a while: 'problems' with AI tied to un/under-configured base classes, rather than an innate in/over-ability).

Also, I think it would be inaccurate to suggest that anyone here is trying to attract a 'console' shooter crowd. Arma 3 might well appeal to those 'moving on' from that style of gameplay, but it surely doesn't seek to encroach upon it. :)

Best,

RiE

Sounds good