Development Blog & Reveals

[Max255 59]

All 4 new scopes work for me... Maybe try checking file integrity again.

[antoineflemming 14]

;2489667']All 4 new scopes work for me... Maybe try checking file integrity again.

ok. I'll try that.

[instagoat 133]

ok. I'll try that.

I've had a conflict with a mod that made them nonfunctional, so it could be that too. After I disabled the mods, the scopes worked. I think it's the extension for Alwarrens Optics pack that causes this bug, which is another big wave with the fencepost in BI's direction to do something about the attachments system.

This will continue to happen every time community addons attempt to make themselves work with game native weapons.

[antoineflemming 14]

I've had a conflict with a mod that made them nonfunctional, so it could be that too. After I disabled the mods, the scopes worked. I think it's the extension for Alwarrens Optics pack that causes this bug, which is another big wave with the fencepost in BI's direction to do something about the attachments system.

This will continue to happen every time community addons attempt to make themselves work with game native weapons.

That's probably what it is then.

[Varanon 892]

That's probably what it is then.

And that doesn't bother you ? That you will not have the possibility to mix two attachment addons because it doesn't work ? That these addons cease to work once a new weaon is released ?

This bug and an appropriate solution has been reported almost on day one of the alpha phase. And let's face it, how difficult is it to implement ? Basically, it's just use to check whether a dragged attachment can be mounted at a certain spot of the weapon. So it basically boils down to a lookup: Currently, it's checking whether the addon is in the current weapon's config array. For the proposed method, it would just add one indirection more. How hard is taht to implement ? It could have been done ages ago, but it wasn't, and now with release, it's likely not going to change at all.

[antoineflemming 14]

And that doesn't bother you ? That you will not have the possibility to mix two attachment addons because it doesn't work ? That these addons cease to work once a new weaon is released ?

This bug and an appropriate solution has been reported almost on day one of the alpha phase. And let's face it, how difficult is it to implement ? Basically, it's just use to check whether a dragged attachment can be mounted at a certain spot of the weapon. So it basically boils down to a lookup: Currently, it's checking whether the addon is in the current weapon's config array. For the proposed method, it would just add one indirection more. How hard is taht to implement ? It could have been done ages ago, but it wasn't, and now with release, it's likely not going to change at all.

It does bother me, but it's not a priority for me. But, yes, this is a problem. It's all about priority for BIS. And they simply don't think it's that important to fix. Unfortunately, they may have this mindset about other features as well. But who am I to say? I just want to see a complete game at release next week. That doesn't mean all the episodes and all the content. That means everything completed, finished, finalized, that they already plan on including in the game and that already is present in configs, like Novak's scientist suit or the khaki chestrig or the open shemagh.

[wolfflight 0]

I'm not sure how stable of a base it is, I still have tons of issue's in multiplayer from terrible performance and stuttering to entities not syncing properly and warping everywhere to AI that get shot and don't die for 2 seconds and are still able to react and kill you within that time. That's just to point out a few issue's I've seen. Single player does seem to be a lot better and I was kind of hoping the campaign would tide me over until they could fix the multiplayer, but with the lack of content and the short showcases at release it really does feel like it's just extending the beta while driving up the price and calling it release quality.

To me the situation here is completely obvious. You are basing your multiplayer experiences on hosts who are hosting from their own machine, on home based internet connections, some of which might not be the greatest. Until dedicated server code is released and you can actually have servers available on great connections that will be the issue. I host periodically for the guys in my group from a workstation that has a 100 MB connection and the game run smooth as silk... If you connect to a host that has a Pentium 4, with 3GB of RAM and a 3MB DSL connection and so are 20 other players... my 100% bet is that you are going to experience desync.

[antoineflemming 14]

Ok, not sure if this current conversation is really on topic with this thread. Anyway, let's discuss this:

This file is called "icon_f_ir_combatuniform_rucam_ca.paa".

Notice two things: 1) "rucam", 2) it's in the AAF camo pattern. Pretty sure this file wasn't present before yesterday's update. We've seen all the Russian textures, like the russian tech texture, the old Raven Security texture or at least the UI pic that had the Raven cap in the current AAF camo with the Russian flag colors

So what I wonder is whether or not the Russians are still to be featured in Arma 3, whether or not this is still the Russian camo, whether or not Raven Security will still be Russian, and if all of those are true, what the explanation is for the AAF having Russian camo.

Oh, and if anyone asks what the AAF camo was originally going to be, well I don't think the AAF were originally planned for the game. Pretty sure it was just the FIA (whose gray paramilitary clothing textures were just added and seen below).

Edited September 5, 2013 by antoineflemming

[Pomi Git 256]

Anyone else notice the new spec ops helmet? Its not textured properly and has been incorrectly configured as a bandana but looks pretty cool

[comp_uter15776 1]

blah

It could be because they just have a habit of naming the major OPFOR faction as RU. Wouldn't surprise me. After all, it's just a classname right?

[Throbulator 1]

With the new thermal scopes when changing fire mode with my weapon it seems to enable/disable the thermal view, is this how they're supposed to be? some weapons the scope will be thermal only when in single fire mode and some only in full automatic...seems weird.

[Varanon 892]

And they simply don't think it's that important to fix.

Did they say that ? Or do you just assume that ? Because from all I have heard, the main problem of Arma 3 development was major setbacks that lead to a shortage of resources. And as a result, a lot of things had to be put on a backburner because the manpower simply wasn't there.

But, see, that's one thing I really don't get on the forum: People assume that if something isn't fixed, it's deemed not important. While BIS themselves said multiple times that they were short on resources. So what is the more likely scenario ?

[antoineflemming 14]

Did they say that ? Or do you just assume that ? Because from all I have heard, the main problem of Arma 3 development was major setbacks that lead to a shortage of resources. And as a result, a lot of things had to be put on a backburner because the manpower simply wasn't there.

But, see, that's one thing I really don't get on the forum: People assume that if something isn't fixed, it's deemed not important. While BIS themselves said multiple times that they were short on resources. So what is the more likely scenario ?

Well, I should say they don't think it's as or more important to fix as other issues. I mean, because if they did, then they'd have dedicated time to focus on that instead of something else. Even with limited resources, the team still has to prioritize what to fix, when to fix it. I'm not saying it's a bad thing that they didn't prioritize fixing the attachments system. There are definitely other things that were more important and the probable possibility that focusing on this would have prevented them from focusing on something more important. So, yeah, that would mean that it isn't that important/ there's something else that's more important to fix. And with that in mind I can understand that there are things that need addressing in the game that are more important than even finalizing textures and such. There's no harm in admitting or even assuming that not everything that needs to be worked on has the same level of importance. Like bipods. That's not a game-breaking/game making feature so it's not as important as other features, like memory optimization. Sure, they may or may not be mutually exclusive tasks handled by different people, but there's nothing wrong with saying bipods aren't that important in the grand scheme of things.

It could be because they just have a habit of naming the major OPFOR faction as RU. Wouldn't surprise me. After all, it's just a classname right?

No, that's not true actually. All of the major OPFOR stuff has always been oi_..._ocamo...paa. None of it's been named as RU. And it has not been the habit of just naming the major faction RU. Besides, this RU is actually independent, judging by the "ir" designation that's also used for the AAF uniforms. But, no, it's not "just a classname". They are named certain things for a reason. This is stuff that clearly was or is intended to be Russian, and, I think, for a Russian PSC called Raven. Now, Raven might not be Russian anymore or may simply not have the Russian flag anymore, but there's the tech_ru texture that has a black version of the Iranian helmet. There's the Raven Vest which looks like a modified Iranian LBV. There's the black Kajman and black Orca, and there's the most recent uniform ui that I posted up my last post. The Iranians, oh sorry, I should be saying "CSAT", use all the hex camo stuff. Haven't seen any of their units use the black variants of vehicles or gear.

EDIT: So I'm a fricking idiot. Didn't think to look in the OPFOR folder. In short, yes, the Russians are confirmed to be in the game as yet another faction, and yes, they do have the AAF camo pattern! So that raises some questions. Why do the AAF use Russian camo. Because we know it doesn't make sense for the Russians to be using AAF camo.

Edited September 5, 2013 by antoineflemming

[Varanon 892]

Well, I should say they don't think it's as or more important to fix as other issues. I mean, because if they did, then they'd have dedicated time to focus on that instead of something else. Even with limited resources, the team still has to prioritize what to fix, when to fix it. I'm not saying it's a bad thing that they didn't prioritize fixing the attachments system. There are definitely other things that were more important and the probable possibility that focusing on this would have prevented them from focusing on something more important. So, yeah, that would mean that it isn't that important/ there's something else that's more important to fix. And with that in mind I can understand that there are things that need addressing in the game that are more important than even finalizing textures and such. There's no harm in admitting or even assuming that not everything that needs to be worked on has the same level of importance. Like bipods. That's not a game-breaking/game making feature so it's not as important as other features, like memory optimization. Sure, they may or may not be mutually exclusive tasks handled by different people, but there's nothing wrong with saying bipods aren't that important in the grand scheme of things.

I see the potential problem with the rail system that it can't be easily changed after some time, when enough weapons are out there and the whole mess is already beyond fixing.

Maybe it was an issue that wasn't deemed important enough to fix (although 600+ votes basically say that the community felt different), but then a lot of issues were not deemed important enough to fix, while at the other hand, there had been experiments with zooming load screens that were removed later on which were totally useless and I would guess that the rail system changes would have been possible to implement in a similar timeframe...

Sigh, we'll never know since most of the decision making is done behind closed doors (nothing wrong with that mind you), but sometimes, I really would like to hear the reasons why things weren't implemented. As it stands now, the feedback tracker was one big disappointment. Sure, it was used to find crash bugs (and those are obviously the most important ones), but so little of the sometimes really well thought out and formulated proposals were not considered (or considered and rejected for unknown reasons). Heck, some are even still on status "new"...

[antoineflemming 14]

Oh, I also found the alien that was teased way back before E3 2012. It's apparently called a Reticulan for those who remember that April Fools joke, IIRC. The texture's in the game lol.

[HorbeySpector 164]

..So that raises some questions. Why do the AAF use Russian camo. Because we know it doesn't make sense for the Russians to be using AAF camo.

http://imageshack.us/a/img31/2300/65qe.jpg

Because that would totally make sense according to BIS's copy/paste system.

[roberthammer 582]

If really Russians will be then the SURPAT camo would be better option - it might actually fit into greek islands

[antoineflemming 14]

Because that would totally make sense according to BIS's copy/paste system.

IDK, seems like they'd at least give the AAF the same camo that's on their vehicles, or something. Just seems weird that the AAF (what I assume was going to be the HAF before the whole Greek fiasco last year) would see a texture change (albeit, a slight change) from their planned camo to the current one that's Russian. I mean, I just noticed that originally they had a modified version of the one they have now (with the dark green color being a blue-ish, purple-ish color that I guess is supposed to be black).

[pauliesss 2]

Anyone else notice the new spec ops helmet? Its not textured properly and has been incorrectly configured as a bandana but looks pretty cool

Where can I find it, or what is the class name ?

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Where can I find it, or what is the class name ?

http://dslyecxi.com/shacktac_wp/shacktac-mods/dslyecxis-paper-doll-gear-menu/

This is what I use for browsing weapons and items, both complete and incomplete items will show up.

[2nd ranger 282]

"H_BandMask_reaper" or "H_BandMask_demon"

It's not new, it's just an ECH without all the stuff on it.

Edited September 5, 2013 by 2nd Ranger

[instagoat 133]

EDIT: So I'm a fricking idiot. Didn't think to look in the OPFOR folder. In short, yes, the Russians are confirmed to be in the game as yet another faction, and yes, they do have the AAF camo pattern! So that raises some questions. Why do the AAF use Russian camo. Because we know it doesn't make sense for the Russians to be using AAF camo.

http://imageshack.us/a/img31/2300/65qe.jpg

There's also a texture for an Xcom style Alien, so that doesn't say much.

[Pomi Git 256]

"H_BandMask_reaper" or "H_BandMask_demon"

It's not new, it's just an ECH without all the stuff on it.

yeah true, I realized that after posting. Still I think it looks better without all the extra stuff on it

[antoineflemming 14]

yeah true, I realized that after posting. Still I think it looks better without all the extra stuff on it

Yeah, but at the same time I don't think the helmet is meant to be there. As in, it's using the wrong model. So I don't think it's meant to be a helmet.

[Pomi Git 256]

Yeah, but at the same time I don't think the helmet is meant to be there. As in, it's using the wrong model. So I don't think it's meant to be a helmet.

Well obviously its not meant to be a bandana but it must serve some purpose for them to have the model. I know there are a number of class names for special forces helmets which are currently just using the standard helmet model.