Development Blog & Reveals

[CaptainObvious 95]

Flight model makes things go fly, two different flight models don't segregate the community one bit.

[maddogx 13]

Flight model makes things go fly, two different flight models don't segregate the community one bit.

To expand on that, from what we know the RTD flight model will be a difficulty option. Generally you will be able to choose which flight model to use, but it will most likely be possible for "hardcore" servers to enforce RTD, similar to 3rd person, crosshairs etc.

[Jaska 10]

Flight model makes things go fly, two different flight models don't segregate the community one bit.

Well yeah it's already segregated, i forgot

[mistyronin 1181]

Well yeah it's already segregated, i forgot

Why would the flight model segregate the community?

It's a difference on the client side, like saying changing the color of the HUD. How does affect other players the fact that your HUD is blue instead of orange?

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Well yeah it's already segregated, i forgot

I think your over reacting. The Community isn't divided in a lot of things. People complain because they want things a certain way, and that's usually more feedback than anything. However, the flight model being Optional, or even a difficulty setting makes it better. Would you prefer if they did away with the current Flight Model and added the new one and final with no way around it? I'm pretty sure after a few days of crashing, failing to land, engine failure, and in correct auto rotations, you'd be very frustrated not being able to fly the way you used to. But see, if they had it as an option/difficulty setting, you' be able to pick and choose how you'd want to fly, or hat server you'd rather play in. The more realistic servers, or the regular ones.

[miketim 20]

Flight Model is not a client side difference,

I totally doubt that how would that even work lol.

99% sure its going to be server side.

I totally agree its not going to segregate anything, so your totally right, besides that you think its clientside? :confused:

Either that or you made a badly worded analogy.

[mistyronin 1181]

Flight Model is not a client side difference,

I totally doubt that how would that even work lol.

If you choose to use the ToH flight model it means how you will fly the helos, ergo client side. The only thing that will be sent to the server is the position, and direction towards where you fly, the same data that would be sent if you use the 'easy' flight model.

Unless the server restricts what flight model it's used, there would be no logic that the flight model affected the server side; as it's clearly a client side operation.

[miketim 20]

Pretty sure that's not how it would work mate.

It would not be really balanced, also do you really think arma 3 can "render" two types of a flight model at once....

Really though I doubt its clientside only.

Just doesn't make sense, and the way the arma engine works I don't think that is going to be how they do it.

Pretty sure its going to be server, mission or some such restriction, really though try imaging having two flight models on one server...

If your helicopter physics were a clientside operation, people could easily make teleport hacks and shit.

They could just edit some packets being sent to the server that type of stuff etc.

Sending fake data to servers.

Right now, your heli physics are server side... (I am pretty sure)

At the very least the are "filtered" through the server in some sense, back and forth operation.

Why would they become client side.

I don't doubt its going to be a choice in SP, but in MP I think not.

Also other difficulty options are serverside, (Pretty much all of them I can think of) besides some HUD elements maybe.

Edited July 26, 2014 by MikeTim

[mistyronin 1181]

If your helicopter physics were a clientside operation, people could easily make teleport hacks and shit.

They could just edit some packets being sent to the server that type of stuff etc.

Sending fake data to servers.

Right now, your heli physics are server side... (I am pretty sure)

What you said makes no sense.

We are talking of how to fly the helicopter ( as if you were flying it from keyboard or joystick ) so it's clearly from client-side. Then you send the data ( speed, direction, altitude, ammo, etc. ) to the server, which obviously make a check as if it's possible your actual position compared to the last one.

But that doesn't have anything to do with the flying model. That data is sent in the same way no matter if you are using a simple or a ToH model.

[Chairborne 2594]

Someone said it can be enforced serverside so i guess it's not a matter of choice after all.

However i don't see how this would "segregate" the community.

There have always been more hardcore simulation oriented servers and other more easy-going servers.

[CaptainObvious 95]

@MikeTim:

So you're saying that when you fly a helo in MP, you basically use whatever controller you use to make the helo do what you want at any given time, say you want to roll to the left, you push the joystick to the left and your client sends a request to the server for the heli to roll, the server then gets that request and starts processing it and then sends the result back to your client which then can roll your helo to the left.

Does that sound in any way feasible to you?

[Sniperwolf572 758]

If your helicopter physics were a clientside operation, people could easily make teleport hacks and shit.

They could just edit some packets being sent to the server that type of stuff etc.

Sending fake data to servers.

That's exactly what's happening right now. You can do all these things. This is one of the reasons why anticheats are necessary.

Even MMO's like WoW, which is built so that the server has a lot of authority over you (controls if you can cast spells and abilities) does not control client position/movement but rather receives that information from the client. That's why you could've seen floating dead bodies in cities forming messages.

Right now, your heli physics are server side... (I am pretty sure)

At the very least the are "filtered" through the server in some sense, back and forth operation.

They are not. Units and vehicles in the game have "locality". Even the AI can be either server controlled or client controlled (hence why Headless Client AI is a possibility).

If the server influenced your movement, you'd move in the same manner remote units move on your screen, in a stuttery mess. Observe the difference in movement when you fly a helicopter and when you are a passenger in another players helicopter.

[ReVee 10]

Guys, the flight model would be a form of difficulty setting. So either you choose the advanced or simplified version, and that would be enforced on a server side basis. Your client would merely be forced into one model or another. Technically the flying itself is client side, but your client adheres to certain settings given to it by the server (No Crosshairs, No Third Person, Etc.).

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Guys, the flight model would be a form of difficulty setting. So either you choose the advanced or simplified version, and that would be enforced on a server side basis. Your client would merely be forced into one model or another. Technically the flying itself is client side, but your client adheres to certain settings given to it by the server (No Crosshairs, No Third Person, Etc.).

^ This, is true, and for all the reasons i could think of, being logical and practical of how BIS would do it.

[mistyronin 1181]

^ This, is true.

It's what we were trying to explain to MikeTim.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Well it's good to explain to people to get out the confusion. Though, i'm sure BIS will have the information for us soon enough. Gotta wait for the Sitrep tomorrow to find out. We should also be able to test out the flight model in DEV when they decide its a good time to dish it out for DEV. Maybe sometime next month. Or sooner, if were lucky... Though of course we all hope sooner, as the more time for testing, and feedback to make sure its good for Final Release. That way we don't end up with as much of a blow up from the community as we had when the Bootcamp launched.

[miketim 20]

Lol:)

I understood that the whole time.

I meant nothing about actual control or anything,(I meant like velocity and such, long story nvm) I was trying to make it understandable

Anyway, fyi I more or less thought exactly the same as what Voss said, except I was under the impression the physics were serverside.

Still though, no need to explain it anymore.

I clearly just didnt make what I was saying clear enough.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Lol:)

I understood that the whole time.

I meant nothing about actual control or anything,(I meant like velocity and such, long story nvm) I was trying to make it understandable

Anyway, fyi I more or less thought exactly the same as what Voss said, except I was under the impression the physics were serverside.

Still though, no need to explain it anymore.

I clearly just didnt make what I was saying clear enough.

Everything expect for Audio and Video settings are serverside. Upon joining a server, your now under the server's settings.

[zukov 483]

there are news about the upcoming DLC?

i saw the pre order and relative discount, but at least you have to describe the contents ;)

[papanowel 120]

there are news about the upcoming DLC?

i saw the pre order and relative discount, but at least you have to describe the contents ;)

No news at all, it is really sad. You can buy it but there a big lack of information or promotion about it.

[enex 11]

Wait for new DLC, it's held out because of battle of Bohemia interactive against multiplayer problem.

While we continue to work hard to fully fix the multiplayer problem(s), we are releasing this hotfix now to try to reduce client crashes as much as possible. Read more about this situation in SITREP #00071 and SITREP #00072.

SITREP 000071

Last week we deployed version 1.26. Sadly, this was not a good update due to multiplayer desynchronization issues it has introduced for too many players. The irony is that the update was an attempt to optimize multiplayer via the guaranteed network messaging. As it turns out, this low-level change is not yet robust enough to bring the benefits it was intended for (although on some servers it did work well). Our apologies to those whose multiplayer fun was interrupted by this. We need to further improve our large-scale multiplayer stability testing (with and without mods & custom game modes).

We're working on a hotfix, which can be tested already on Steam's RC branch via access code: Hotfix126Arma3. Only the executable is different, so switching between it and the default branch is quick. Our thanks to those communities who have been helping us to fill large public test servers already. As soon as we have a more stable version, we'll release it on main branch. It was our intention to stage a first version of Sling Loading on Dev-Branch yesterday. However, in part because the relevant programmers now focus on finding and fixing the desync issues, this will be delayed a while longer.

http://dev.arma3.com/post/sitrep-00071

SITREP 000072

The fight against multiplayer issues continues. On Friday we published the 1.28 hotfix (the version had to be increased because of removing the new network messaging). In terms of technology, this brings the netcode back to the 1.24 state. We'll continue to search for clues as to why the changes cause issues with desync and increased bandwidth use (where actually they should do the opposite, and do so in repeated tests). There are many mixed reports across the versions, making confirmation of fixes extra challenging. On top of things, the 1.28 version caused an incompatibility with the BattlEye anti-cheat client. A fix candidate for this is being tested on Steam's RC branch (access code: Hotfix128Arma3), and it will reach main branch as soon as we get confirmation it works. Our first priority now is restoring multiplayer to 1.24 performance. Then we'll attempt to thoroughly review the new networking tech, solve any issues, organize more varied external tests (different servers, modes and mod mixes) and hopefully roll out the results.

http://dev.arma3.com/post/sitrep-00072

[zukov 483]

i know, but if Bis wants, that I prepurchase the DLC maybe a list of contents is the minimum, in this manner is only faith hehehehehe ;)

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

BIS is the only company i know to prolong a DLC or something this heavily without this kind of teaser. Get used to it. It will be hint's of hint's before we get to see anything tangible. Heck, even RcokStar and GTA release their Free Update's with more than 4-6 vehicles, clothing, and weapons a while after they present a trailer to get up the hype. The most i can ask for (i may regret this) is at least a pic of the tail rotor on one of the heli's. That is it. Just a simple Tail Rotor.

[PenguinInATuxedo 18]

Little different with Rock* they have a game that has sold something like 15 million units and they want to keep people interested, ArmA 3 has sold 1 million units and BIS know they have that core fan group pretty much all of us on the forums that WILL play the game no matter the amount of DLC.

BIS also don't have idle hands at 4 different studios around the world that can chip in for DLC.

[zukov 483]

Little different with Rock* they have a game that has sold something like 15 million units and they want to keep people interested, ArmA 3 has sold 1 million units and BIS know they have that core fan group pretty much all of us on the forums that WILL play the game no matter the amount of DLC.

BIS also don't have idle hands at 4 different studios around the world that can chip in for DLC.

yes ok! but if you sell something, even something you must to show to customer....... at least an image