BobcatBob 10 Posted August 8, 2012 VBS2 2.0 can have maximum terrain sizes of 300x300 Kilometers is it so unreasonable to expect the capibilty of having maps that are 100x100 Kilometers in Arma 3? Plenty of room for realistic jets if you ask me... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
liquidpinky 11 Posted August 8, 2012 VBS2 2.0 can have maximum terrain sizes of 300x300 Kilometers is it so unreasonable to expect the capibilty of having maps that are 100x100 Kilometers in Arma 3?Plenty of room for realistic jets if you ask me... Isn't South Asia in Take On 100x100k already? Sure feels like it. As I said earlier, before people realised I was actually correct with knots speed, that it can take 5 to ten minutes at 730 knots to cross it. Usualy finishing off gliding the rest as the aircraft has burned up all it's fuel at full throttle. I am also using 20k draw distance on that map. Bottom right of picture you will see the distance to waypoint, the picture is taken roughly just North of the centre of the map. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmarkwick 261 Posted August 8, 2012 VBS2 2.0 can have maximum terrain sizes of 300x300 Kilometers is it so unreasonable to expect the capibilty of having maps that are 100x100 Kilometers in Arma 3?Plenty of room for realistic jets if you ask me... The issue is not so much one of size, but implementation. It all has to be populated with appropriate scenery. Chernarus has set the standard here :) otherwise it becomes a jet-centric map, and less useful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobcatBob 10 Posted August 8, 2012 Ahh, ok, yeah you'd probably need a whole team of experianced map makers (and a damn good PC I'm sure) to get that size done with good quality! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
x3kj 1247 Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) Isn't South Asia in Take On 100x100k already? Quantity isn't Quality. I don't think playing infantry in take-on would be very pleasant, unless you want OFP charm. For Take-On it's sufficient, it's a flightsim after all. But not for Arma3. Edited August 8, 2012 by Fennek Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
liquidpinky 11 Posted August 9, 2012 Quantity isn't Quality. I don't think playing infantry in take-on would be very pleasant, unless you want OFP charm. For Take-On it's sufficient, it's a flightsim after all. But not for Arma3. Indeed, but the possibility is there for you to get similar depending on your settings and preferences. If you prefer the winged side of ARMA then you can lose object draw in favour of overall draw distance to give you a more realistic feel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Minoza 11 Posted August 9, 2012 Indeed, but the possibility is there for you to get similar depending on your settings and preferences.If you prefer the winged side of ARMA then you can lose object draw in favour of overall draw distance to give you a more realistic feel. Exactly that! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wipman 1 Posted August 9, 2012 Hi, on the ArmA2 i'd took the AV-8BII up to 9.999m and then it began to loose speed and any handling to reach zero speed arround that altitude and then fall in stall; the ArmA2 didn't take that flying height as advantage againist AA as they (all) seen you but only those with AA missiles was able to open fire at you, but, the rest of the AIs keept you tracked no matter what and began to fire once you'd get close enough to the ground. Many aircraft could take a big advantage of bigger flying heights, but at least on the ArmA2... it wasn't that needed for the kind of operations that the planes were capable of or for how booth the AIs and players used to use 'em in SP aswell in MP. But have realistic flying heights for the aircrafts in general would be better than not, IMO. Let's C ya Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iroquois Pliskin 0 Posted August 10, 2012 Hi, on the ArmA2 i'd took the AV-8BII up to 9.999m and then it began to loose speed and any handling to reach zero speed arround that altitude and then fall in stall; the ArmA2 didn't take that flying height as advantage againist AA as they (all) seen you but only those with AA missiles was able to open fire at you, but, the rest of the AIs keept you tracked no matter what and began to fire once you'd get close enough to the ground. Yep and a single Tunguska pretty much covers the arc of 10 km. I think fixed-wing aircraft altitude/sub-sonic speed limitations are warranted due to the relatively small map size, but given the OP Opfor in AA ArmA II something has to give, either: 1) Allow Mach >1 speeds for aircraft and/or 15 km+ service ceilings; 2) Expand the battlefield space to make practical use of supersonic jets; 3) Balance the anti-air systems by reducing the area they can cover and/or decrease anti-air missile velocities. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
codarl 1 Posted November 23, 2014 Indeed, but the possibility is there for you to get similar depending on your settings and preferences.If you prefer the winged side of ARMA then you can lose object draw in favour of overall draw distance to give you a more realistic feel. I have two shortcuts named ArmA 3 and ArmA 3 - AIR. One has -name=Codarl in the launch path and the other one -name=Codarl_AIR Codarl_AIR is a profile with exactly that: Poor quality up close, but an amazing draw distance you wouln't expect from a GTX 550. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CaptainAzimuth 714 Posted November 24, 2014 One day. One day we will et higher altitudes, maybe when we get view distances good enough to support them. It's great and all above the clouds, but large view distances should stay with VBS until the day that they are actually useful in Arma. Maybe if we get sub-pixel rendering support, we could get that great view distance improvement, and thus, greater ceiling heights. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
five_seven5-7 56 Posted November 24, 2014 It would be great for low specs computers to separate the avatars; vehicles from the object distance. Like a good old-school game win 9x plane fighter. Targets would be drawn based on the overall and not based object distance (trees, stones, etc). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cyruz 103 Posted November 24, 2014 It would be great for low specs computers to separate the avatars; vehicles from the object distance. Like a good old-school game win 9x plane fighter.Targets would be drawn based on the overall and not based object distance (trees, stones, etc). That does however give issues with you engaging vehicles which are technically behind something, like a building, that you've got at a lower draw distance. Either round/rocket/missile hits an invisible wall or people abuse it to shoot through things. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
five_seven5-7 56 Posted November 24, 2014 That does however give issues with you engaging vehicles which are technically behind something, like a building, that you've got at a lower draw distance. Either round/rocket/missile hits an invisible wall or people abuse it to shoot through things. It is more in strand of planes and helicopters, the use of infantry is not used more than 1/2 km drawn objects, it's basically the shooting distance efficiency neither AI engage at that distances. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CaptainAzimuth 714 Posted November 24, 2014 It is more in strand of planes and helicopters, the use of infantry is not used more than 1/2 km drawn objects, it's basically the shooting distance efficiency neither AI engage at that distances. Cough, i've engaged infantry to infantry combat from Agios Stemna at almost exactly 800m, or 4/5 km. That was with a standard Katiba with ARCO because i ha no other choice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Imperator[TFD] 444 Posted November 25, 2014 An infantry squad running with a VD of only 500m is going to be outflanked pretty quickly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
