Development Blog & Reveals

[Mihail0v 10]

I like how the Arma looks like now, it's really awesome.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

There is no reference to walking in/on vehicles nor driving vehicles in other vehicles, most likely it's just scripted to look like it.

Yeah, I know. Which kinda sucks unfortunately, it would be cool. I tested a theory out yesterday on DEV Branch, where I drove the UGV into a chinook (mod made), and I used rope to tie it down to the heli. Didn't have too much success though. As I spooled up it disable my Atrq, and when in the air, it was simply awful. However, with supply crates, it worked without rope, but when slowing down it damaged my heli and forced me to land. So possibility of In Helicopter cargo... Not likely.

[CaptainObvious 95]

There is no reference to walking in/on vehicles nor driving vehicles in other vehicles, most likely it's just scripted to look like it.

Aye, DnA confirmed there won't be vehicle-in-vehicle cargo stuf in the DLC.

Edited October 3, 2014 by CaptainObvious
Ah, it was DnA, not Dwarden

[chortles 263]

DnA confirmed: "To clarify one thing in the Huron screenshot: there is no engine / sandbox support for carrying vehicles within other vehicles for Arma 3 Helicopters. So it will not be possible (in vanilla) to carry the UGV inside the Huron, but you can carry it as Sling Load obviously."

[Jona33 51]

existing photo with the Huron and UGV to the rear of it.

Thanks, had seen the photo but never spotter the crates before.

[nullrick 10]

There is no reference to walking in/on vehicles nor driving vehicles in other vehicles, most likely it's just scripted to look like it.

That's a horrible letdown. Quite disappointed at that.

[chortles 263]

I don't know why, considering that BI has never so much as implied as much in Arma 3...

[nullrick 10]

I know they didn't. That doesn't change the fact that it still disappoints to see the concept of dismounting from inside a clearly traverse-able interior has not caught on yet. This way, a whole squad can still get mowed down the instant they all dismount in that one location to the back of the craft where they all spawn at after dismounting as I've seen happen a bunch of time. Unless we are able to dismount properly from the inside, using the cover of the hull's interior to plan our exit (if need be), this will continue to be a an irritating problem.

And I can't help but to already see the comment of "I've never had that problem before where the entire squad gets lit up after dismounting." Well, if that is the case, luck is definitely on your side. Mad props, bruh.

[chortles 263]

*coughorbetterplanningcough*

For what it's worth though, I'm starting to suspect that if the Taru is actually a 'truly' modular airframe instead of simply a lineup of Tarus with the pods modeled into otherwise-identical airframes, the Taru's pods may actually be attached via sling-load lines just short enough that the pods can't jostle against/collide with/damage the airframe...

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

*coughorbetterplanningcough*

For what it's worth though, I'm starting to suspect that if the Taru is actually a 'truly' modular airframe instead of simply a lineup of Tarus with the pods modeled into otherwise-identical airframes, the Taru's pods may actually be attached via sling-load lines just short enough that the pods can't jostle against/collide with/damage the airframe...

Which would be vastly illogical, as the real life sky crane does not attach the compartments via. Rope. Hidden selections is even less likely, so maybe. Or maybe they do have multiple Taru's. I'm going with multiple models, why? Because they also stated two types of Huron, the armed and the utility version (don't freak out, by armed I mean mini guns, not rockets and bombs), which means that it would be separate models. I'm guessing same for the Taru... I still want a Taru in Urban CSAT. -.-#

[Chairborne 2594]

It doesn't make much sense to create a functionality, make a whole DLC around it, and end up using a simpler method because you're afraid the game engine might not support it.

The "real skycrane doesn't work that way" justification is a bit silly, considering half this game is based off concept art, it's not much of a stretch to imagine a "drop pod" being attached via ropes.

Anyway it's a bit of a disappointment that we still don't have fastroping supported.

Every time i open this game and go in the editor for a new mission i keep thinking "this mission would be a lot better if we had *frequently requested feature*".

I hope the devs manage to at least fix amphibious tracked vehicles soon. :(

[chortles 263]

Ahh yes, that's it. None the less, I'm determined to push every idea for further implementation of the ropes, as it works well for Sling Loading, it can be useful for a ton of other applications. Soon.

All well and good, I was just answering re: what BI planned​ (as opposed to throwing in).

The "real skycrane doesn't work that way" justification is a bit silly, considering half this game is based off concept art, it's not much of a stretch to imagine a "drop pod" being attached via ropes.

Especially when the Taru got in in part because the pod concept reminded RiE of Thunderbirds 2 *cough* (Although to be fair, the Huron is because the artists and sandbox designers were asked to pick an airframe that they were really interested in and passionate about -- and they answered with the Chinook. ;) )

I would also add that the Taru has no armed version -- only the "special purpose" pod with eight (8) FFV-capable seats -- so there is nothing stated by BI about the design that would mandate multiple airframes in-story, much less in game mechanics terms, if you can get the rope technology to support short-enough lines that the pods are held in a way that's not quite attachTo but practically as solid.

P.S. According to Old Bear, BI (as voiced by Ivan Buchta) had already ruled out fast-roping two years ago.

[Chairborne 2594]

Well... it was two years ago! :rolleyes:

I hope they come around and change their minds, there's a lot of good material that gets ignored over time and is lost.

Maybe the Devs should consider a different approach to the community, AKA do what they already do for VBS, get good coders from the community and pay them to develop bits of code and functions for their game.

Think of CBA and how long it has been around in Arma, would it be such a crazy idea for the devs to consider adding that stuff to the core game instead of requiring people to go through mods?

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Well... it was two years ago! :rolleyes:

I hope they come around and change their minds, there's a lot of good material that gets ignored over time and is lost.

Maybe the Devs should consider a different approach to the community, AKA do what they already do for VBS, get good coders from the community and pay them to develop bits of code and functions for their game.

Think of CBA and how long it has been around in Arma, would it be such a crazy idea for the devs to consider adding that stuff to the core game instead of requiring people to go through mods?

That's actually not a bad idea, seeing as a lot of people including me if I had the skill, would work on fast roping/other uses as give it to BIS for free, just so it can be in the Vanilla game. Which is actually another thing, a lot of people don't understand the importance of the best of these features are better off in Vanilla than a mod.

[chortles 263]

Well... it was two years ago! :rolleyes:

I hope they come around and change their minds,

BI has not only never indicated that they came around on this, but as soon as they announced sling-loading, they went out of their way to repeatedly tell people that fast-roping (still) wasn't planned.

(My guess: Everyone who still plays Arma within BI and not DayZ full-time is a "lands the chopper on the deck" person. :p)

Maybe the Devs should consider a different approach to the community, AKA do what they already do for VBS

It doesn't work that way, at all, and now we're about to get message-bombed by Dwarden yelling at us that BI =/= BISim, thanks a lot. ;)

Think of CBA and how long it has been around in Arma, would it be such a crazy idea for the devs to consider adding that stuff to the core game instead of requiring people to go through mods?

It would be incredibly uncharacteristic for a company where pettka said that ACRE's existence alone was a reason to not bother spending time/resources on official ACRE-style VOIP. Likewise, BI has in the past done what DarkSideSixOfficial said... but they've done so for what they wanted, and if they're repeatedly saying "fast-roping not planned"... Edited October 10, 2014 by Chortles

[Varanon 892]

It doesn't work that way, at all, and now we're about to get message-bombed by Dwarden yelling at us that BI =/= BISim, thanks a lot

It's called out-sourcing and is a standard industry practice (although most companies hire external professionals, not "community" members since they don't have a community, but it doesn't invalidate the method)

[chortles 263]

Just me haranguing on the whole BI =/= BISim thing (in the sense that BI can't​ do it for VBS because it's not theirs), I'm perfectly aware (and I thought I even said) that they've do something similar for Arma already.

[onlyrazor 11]

Just me haranguing on the whole BI =/= BISim thing (in the sense that BI can't​ do it for VBS because it's not theirs), I'm perfectly aware (and I thought I even said) that they've do something similar for Arma already.

The whole BI/BISim thing is but an expectable consequence of posting pretty videos of VBS to Youtube combined with a reluctance to spend hundreds of dollars on professional-level software. People can dream, and maybe one day Soonâ„¢ those dreams will be a reality...

Probably not, though.

[chortles 263]

The whole BI/BISim thing is but an expectable consequence of posting pretty videos of VBS to Youtube

Cue BI protesting that those aren't their videos, haha...

[Chairborne 2594]

I'm aware they're two different companies, as it has been overly discussed before.

But still it's just an example, and as varanon said it's nothing new.

Kerbal Space Program is getting some good stuff from the community and adding it into the core game, so it's not sci-fi or something never seen before in the videogame industry.

I don't see why BI should be so phobic about making the community happy at little expense about stuff that is literally already out and tested.

Reading things like this makes me wonder if BI intentionally sabotages Arma just so people pay extra cash to get VBS.

And don't start again with the whole BI/BIS drama pls.

[chortles 263]

Reading things like this makes me wonder if BI intentionally sabotages Arma just so people pay extra cash to get VBS.

That would only 'work' if VBS3 was 'regularly' available, but as the VBS2/3 thread has noted, VBS3 is currently military/academic-only -- no Personal Edition is offered, although existing VBS2 PE license-holders got free upgrades -- and nowadays BISim doesn't even advertise/offer VBS2 licenses.

[miketim 20]

-snip-

Edited October 10, 2014 by MikeTim
Thanks context

[onlyrazor 11]

Reading things like this makes me wonder if BI intentionally sabotages Arma just so people pay extra cash to get VBS.

I highly doubt anyone would lack the business sense to make the decision to withhold features so that a few people will decide to fork over the money for VBS. One copy of VBS is only worth ~3-8 Arma copies if I remember the pricing correctly, so I'd say that's probably not BI's goal. There are probably lots of things going on behind the scenes that could cause things to be the way they are without malice being directly involved at any point in the process.

[miketim 20]

Bohemia Interactive does not make money from VBS in any way at all, so any argument for that is moot.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Enough of the VBS talk guys. You want Arma 3 to get better? We have to talk to the guys developing it, about their product not another companies product and complain why it can't be like theirs.