Script and config glitches can be fixed. It's the content that matters

[maturin 12]

I'll tell you what I mean. BIS games are glitchy, but their support is unparalleled, with dozens of patches and thousands of discrete bugs eradicated.

But certain glitches remain after years of waiting, and the reasons they haven't been addressed is that they are found in core game files and materials. Fixing them would mean a huge patch size and high chance of breaking other things.

So that's why in ArmA 3, there are some things that NEED to be done right in version 1.0

*Accurate viewblock geometry for EVERY 3D object in the game. Every bush and treetop (to hide us from the helicopters).

*Correctly-implemented crew damage proxies and hull/track/turret hitboxes for EVERY vehicle. Doing half of them is worse than doing none at all, because it creates unfair situations and screws up the balance between vehicles. Most of all, it fucks with the modders who have done such incredible things to implement realistic armor values.

*Correctly-aligned sights for EVERY weapon. If you kneel with an RPG and aim from a rooftop, you might as well be holding a broomstick with a metal brick instead of a front post. Manpads, MP5s and pistols are the same way. I know this will never be fixed, so do it right from the start in ArmA 3.

Feel free to add your own, posters, so long as you understand the point of the thread and this doesn't turn into a bunch of disjointed feature requests.

[Dwarden 1125]

i assume you posting this after You made post here

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=130375

but if you read my answers, the problem isn't viewblock (viewGeometry) or any other geometry nor just inaccurate nor missing ...

about the proxies and hitboxes ... most (if not all) are correct .... but feel free to point me to CIT tickets about these which aren't

same for sights, tho i know there are some problematic misaligned sights especially with A2 weapons

all in all You don't say nor repeat anything new what wasn't already said and repeated before ...

[BobcatBob 10]

I think he just wants to make sure extra attention is given, (his examples might not be best, but surley there are/will be deeper issues that cannot be fixed for A3 after it is released, w/o more crazy amounts of work needing to be done) knowing A3 is a massive project already, I think he has a good point nonetheless. Our incesent repeated worrying/whining is just because we care so much:)

[CameronMcDonald 146]

I actually concur with the OP on this. Content bugs, which aren't easily fixed by the community, should be squashed with extreme prejudice, or better yet, not be in the game to begin with.

If I see another goddamned neckhole in the pilot LOD (as per here), I will start foaming at the mouth, then suck it up and go back to playing.

But seriously, shit like that shouldn't happen in this day and/or age.

[maturin 12]

but if you read my answers, the problem isn't viewblock (viewGeometry) or any other geometry nor just inaccurate nor missing ...

In effect, if not in fact, the viewblocking properties do not function. So that's what I meant.

And the community is generally aware that vewblock geometries are often incorrect. There are already existing tickets about bushes, and everyone knows that certain tree canopy leaves are fairly transparent to AI. So that's why I haven't run to bugtracker every single time. Because it's a generalized problem that has never been addressed and is hard for fans to test.

about the proxies and hitboxes ... most (if not all) are correct .... but feel free to point me to CIT tickets about these which aren't

You've never noticed how shooting Takistani BTRs in the hull pops their tires? How sometimes you can penetrate APCs to kill crew and sometimes you can't? It's another widespread problem, ask the ACE armor system devs about it and you will get a mouthful.

same for sights, tho i know there are some problematic misaligned sights especially with A2 weapons

Yeah, but people use RPGs in OA just as often. Problem not fixed, ticket made ages ago.

[mr burns 132]

all in all You don't say nor repeat anything new what wasn't already said and repeated before ...

Would´nt be necessary if BI stopped repeating bugs/glitches.

Every dev who doesn´t know what bug bugs the community the most should play their own game more, maybe together with their customers (to avoid some kind of giving-birth-blindness). Sometimes, stumbling over one of said bugs/glitches during an MP session, you can actually see an expression of misbelief on the players virtual avatars faces, it´s so unbelievable that nobody in charge of making the game found & squashed it on his own right away.

A3 release being pushed back is a good sign though, time will tell.

[Dwarden 1125]

@maturin stop assume that something is wrong as You have no idea nor know if it is ...

the viewblocks were correct and your assumptions are incorrect...

that stays until You present some facts and not some theories w/o facts

this most likely isn't viewGeometry problem at all ...

@Mr.Burns considering i stand behind community BTS like CIT since they exist i find your commentaries bit disappointing ...

the CIT/BTS rely upon properly described bugs, reports, reproduction missions ...

not some mumbo jumbo complaints and theories there are way too many variables in the game which may make impossible to replicate ranting report

Edited January 29, 2012 by Dwarden

[maturin 12]

Lack of viewblock geometry was a rational guess based on BIS devblogs and track record with models. How was I supposed to anticipate a totally mysterious problem with a model that is baffling the people who made it? And I made this thread before said problem was mentioned.

As I've said, I don't care whether some random bush has viewblock geometry. I care whether the AI can see through it. And since they can see through some things, my complaint in completely valid and you are splitting hairs and dodging the point. It is doubly valid because BIS shipped an entire island full of grass that didn't have any viewblocking properties. I'm not talking just about tree trunks, you know. I could add that smoke from grenades should have its own viewblock rather than a radius that doesn't conform well to the volumetric shape of the cloud. As seen in ArmA 1 videos with smoke plumes.

I absolutely know when things are wrong. Shooting the hull of a vehicle shouldn't make tires pop. There's no ambiguity about that. I don't know why the problem exists, but why is your job, not mine (and ACE devs, since they fix half the stuff and can tell you all about the causes too).

[gammadust 12]

If it was viewGeometry the issue would certainly be easier to solve, if nothing else, since its cause would be already identified.

(...) this most likely isn't viewGeometry problem at all ...

"..." representing that BIS has some clues on what's wrong, hopefully, knowing what it is not is already a start.

Despite some overreaction on maturin's part though, I think he tried to be methodic, and he did present facts, just that maturin's seems unwilling to abandon his original theory. Whatever the final explanation we're all after the issue to be resolved, whatever the means to achieve that. If this serves as experience to prevent it in arma 3, so much the better.

[maturin 12]

maturin's seems unwilling to abandon his original theory

Wut.

The OP is outdated. It's not the end of the world. And it still holds true for other things. Grass had no viewblock on release.

The AI sees through tree trunks. This is really simple and isn't a theory. In ArmA 3, the AI shouldn't see through tree trunks. We shouldn't just be starting to address such a fundamental issue 3 years after release. Because it's not something that players can easily test, usefully report on, or fix with mods. And it's not something that can be easily patched after the main development cycle has ended (as BIS devs have stated). That's the whole message here.

[ProfTournesol 956]

We shouldn't just be starting to address such a fundamental issue 3 years after release.

That's something new, i mean 1.60 related ?

[maturin 12]

That's something new, i mean 1.60 related ?

I assume that the AI have always seen through tree trunks, because 1.60 shouldn't have altered a tree model.

But to return to my original point, hiding in grass was (sort of) implemented years after release. Vehicle hit boxes and crew proxies are still messed years after release, as are some weapon sight alignments.

These things all have something in common. They are content glitches that require doing surgery on important game assets with big file sizes. It's surgery where most patches have applied bandaids.

I'm not saying this out of the blue or because I imagine I know a ton about game development at BIS. It's from beta patch threads where devs have said that it is very difficult and time-consuming to fix things like these, because they are worried about breaking other things. That's why you have to get them done before 1.0

[Dwarden 1125]

these are A2 trees so the problem is most likely way older than OA itself ...

also so far no fact was presented that any newer trees (OA,BAF,PMC) has same problem

[gammadust 12]

Wut.

The OP is outdated. It's not the end of the world. And it still holds true for other things. Grass had no viewblock on release.

Not refering exacly to OP.

The AI sees through tree trunks. This is really simple and isn't a theory. In ArmA 3, the AI shouldn't see through tree trunks. We shouldn't just be starting to address such a fundamental issue 3 years after release. Because it's not something that players can easily test, usefully report on, or fix with mods. And it's not something that can be easily patched after the main development cycle has ended (as BIS devs have stated). That's the whole message here.

The bold part is the fact, what you seem to theorize is on the explanation for the problem, ie lack of viewGeometry. This is what you present as an explanation, not as a possibility but as a certainty.

We've been told, and we have no reason to invalidate that information, that lack of viewGeometry is NOT the problem.

Then you ambition a deeper conclusion, that since your assumption supports the problem as being in the "content" side of things, that is the reason those are standing issues, because of the difficulty in patching as deep as it goes. But these are a collection of "ifs" taken for granted.

What if I tell you that my hipothesis is on the arma engine side of things, would this make it easier in any way to solve? Would it matter really? Do you think it is the size of the download that hinders the solution... I rather think it is difficulty in ascertaining the cause not in providing the solution.

You may certainly proove me wrong in the future, but until then these are just theories.

---------- Post added at 06:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 PM ----------

these are A2 trees so the problem is most likely way older than OA itself ...

also so far no fact was presented that any newer trees (OA,BAF,PMC) has same problem

I added 2 Takistan trees to the CIT, are those only "reused" trees from A2? (First 4 pics in this gallery)

Found 3 other instances in Chernarus also.

Which makes me think this is more of a general issue then a model issue. But I rather keep that discussion under the specific thread, not this one.

[maturin 12]

We've been told, and we have no reason to invalidate that information, that lack of viewGeometry is NOT the problem.

For fuck's sake! I said it once. I didn't deny it when told otherwise. So stop preaching. And you wonder why I 'overreact...'

It was indistinguishable from missing viewblock problems for which there is ample precedent. So sue me.

[gammadust 12]

I'll stop my input to that argument here, I have no further point to make.