Confirmed features now cancelled - your thoughts?

[Tankbuster 1733]

A speedboat! And you live in Rugby!!

[nodunit 397]

This is why I can understand why developers develop in isolation. Because when they DO communicate, and communicate honestly, you get results like this thread where there is general moaning about things being taken away from them.

I'm starting to agree, more and more it seems that as BI releases information, on day1 it's a positive with few mixed results, day 2 things start to look a bit bleak and by day 3 you have people complaining about every little bit. As much as I love hearing and seeing new things, I'm starting to think its best they wait long periods without showing us, lest someone niggle about every little thing, because as much as negative feedback can (pending on how it's structured of course) be as helpful as positive, there comes a point where it becomes disheartening.

A great example was the use of RTT was a just a silly gimmick rather than any gameplay feature, the arguement that size of the image would be too small to be of use vs the optics. Granted I'll give that optics will give you a larger image of the whole thing but useless..really?

http://www.cockpits.nl/lightbox/imagesapache/apache06.jpg

http://www.mikesteven.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/eech/eech_mfds_06.jpg

http://simhq.com/forum/files/usergals/2011/05/full-12102-11588-comanche_gold_custom_mission_7_slaves.avi_000089541.jpg

http://www.armedforces-int.com/upload/image_files/articles/images/companies/2576/9035-tcint-controls.jpg

Edited September 9, 2012 by NodUnit

[BobcatBob 10]

intuitive 3D mission editor. SINCE 2011 it has been ADVERTISED PUBLICLY BY BI as being part of Arma 3. At an offical public presentation of e3 for no less. When Ivan starts talking about it, he mentionions it in no uncertain terms AT ALL as well, BI should comunicate MORE, just hold off on some features list until they know more about their own development schedule, or at least put the words "try to" in front of everything they are not 2000% sure they will get on, like the better vehicle phsyics. Edited September 9, 2012 by BobcatBob

[celery 8]

If we include features that won't work well in the release version or do so at the cost of other aspects, Arma 3 will come off as buggy and half-assed, no matter how "additional" those features are.

BI is known to make expansions that introduce major upgrades.

[onlyrazor 11]

If we include features that won't work well in the release version or do so at the cost of other aspects, Arma 3 will come off as buggy and half-assed, no matter how "additional" those features are.

BI is known to make expansions that introduce major upgrades.

But you must make *all* the things!

[Maio 293]

I find this thread rather pointless as well as an insult to the efforts placed in the confirmed features thread.

I fail to see why the mods let this roll when my thread is well structured and it's redacted in a very tasteful font.

If this thread is not closed by midnight, I'm gonna get super mad and I'm gonna merge the game engine and game-play sub-lists and change the font to Impact

On topic:

I agree with one of the users that posted before me. I think he has a valid point and we should all give it a thought.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

A great example was the use of RTT was a just a silly gimmick rather than any gameplay feature, the arguement that size of the image would be too small to be of use vs the optics. Granted I'll give that optics will give you a larger image of the whole thing but useless..really?

http://www.cockpits.nl/lightbox/imagesapache/apache06.jpg

http://www.mikesteven.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/eech/eech_mfds_06.jpg

http://simhq.com/forum/files/usergals/2011/05/full-12102-11588-comanche_gold_custom_mission_7_slaves.avi_000089541.jpg

http://www.armedforces-int.com/upload/image_files/articles/images/companies/2576/9035-tcint-controls.jpg

Oh, this could be the solution to TAB+CLICK=Boom, especially the second screenshot, <3 Ka-52.

ALT+mouse to operate the forward-looking radar/camera when in Weapons green/optics mode would ensure relatively easy access and operation of targeting, as well as not hampering the ability to fly the aircraft at the same time, and less rage on the ground. :)

Edited September 9, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[chortles 263]

But you must make *all* the things!

Not in response to you, just to someone who might take that line seriously:

We can't make all the things, or we'd end up in developer hell - together with Duke Nukem Forever.

If we include features that won't work well in the release version or do so at the cost of other aspects, Arma 3 will come off as buggy and half-assed, no matter how "additional" those features are.

And it sounds like "not coming off as buggy and half-assed by only keeping whatever runs well in the release build" is actually more important than new (specific) features this time around in the ARMA 3 team's priorities?(If anyone's wondering, that Vespa post was in response to someone claiming that ARMA "is about the weapons".)

BI is known to make expansions that introduce major upgrades.

Oh dear, you let slip the existence of "ARMA 3: Combined Operations"! Now your crucial early sales may plummet as people hold out for A3: CO. :(

intuitive 3D mission editor. SINCE 2011 it has been ADVERTISED PUBLICLY BY BI as being part of Arma 3. At an offical public presentation of e3 for no less. When Ivan starts talking about it, he mentionions it in no uncertain terms AT ALL as well,

Sounds like a case of "sorry, we couldn't pull it off :("

BI should comunicate MORE, just hold off on some features list until they know more about their own development schedule, or at least put the words "try to" in front of everything they are not 2000% sure they will get on, like the better vehicle phsyics.

At which point they'd be holding off on their features until the release build, you mean? :D

[Haystack15 10]

and change the font to Impact

Oh No he didn't!

[elmas 10]

Why not? Operation Arrowhead expansion was worth it, I mean ship vanilla ArmA II with no aircraft counter-measures and overpowered ground anti-air systems, then add flares later in an expansion... waait, bad example. http://blizzforums.com/images/smilies/new/face.gif Ok, ok: graphical improvements, like the SSAO, in-game thermal imaging, a Takistani island, a new campaign, units and another playable force is a better one.

I don't see anything wrong with the 3D Editor coming in a later expansion.

It was worth it but it bothers me that half of the units in CO have no "thermal mapping" (i dont really know if this is the correct term), their weapons have no secondary sights nor the units have backpacks, etc...

Edited September 10, 2012 by Elmas

[danny96 79]

If we include features that won't work well in the release version or do so at the cost of other aspects, Arma 3 will come off as buggy and half-assed, no matter how "additional" those features are.

BI is known to make expansions that introduce major upgrades.

Well, next time try to not confirm something that won't the game contain. It really disappoint the entire community.

[PuFu 4591]

Well, next time try to not confirm something that won't the game contain. It really disappoint the entire community.

please try and speak for yourself.

[Flash Thunder 10]

3D editor and Flight model not going to be in the game after being confirmed.

You guys do realize the other hundreds of features that are making it into the game though right?

Also a newer SKU of Physx (3.0) jeez they can always do expansions and DLC to finance more features the developers have a lot on their plate at this time.

[maddogx 13]

Flight model not going to be in the game after being confirmed.

So has this now been officially confirmed somewhere? If so, a link would be nice.

Because the last I heard was Ivan Buchta saying the following:

It might be said that we are also considering integration of RotorLib, which was used in TKOH. However my answer to the question as to whether there will be RotorLib should probably be "no comment" at the moment.

This is taken from the recent gameovercast interview that seems to be getting so many people's panties in a twist (including the OP, as this podcast/interview is linked in the first post). How that quote can be interpreted as "there will be no advanced flight model" completely baffles me. :rolleyes:

At this point, I feel I need to point out the wording: "my answer [...] should probably be 'no comment' at the moment".

[Flash Thunder 10]

So has this now been officially confirmed somewhere? If so, a link would be nice.

Because the last I heard was Ivan Buchta saying the following:

This is taken from the recent gameovercast interview that seems to be getting so many people's panties in a twist (including the OP, as this podcast/interview is linked in the first post). How that quote can be interpreted as "there will be no advanced flight model" completely baffles me. :rolleyes:

At this point, I feel I need to point out the wording: "my answer [...] should probably be 'no comment' at the moment".

Sorry I haven't been on these forums as nearly as much as I used to, I must of heard wrong.

Anyways point is if everything doesn't make into Arma 3 its not the end of the fucking world.

BIS is not a spotty developer.

[kotov12345 10]

I need these bots working underground environment.No ais underground no game !

Also - can i shot myself in a3 ?

[paecmaker 23]

Sometimes I dont get the community(or parts of it) Arma 3 so much more content thats better than Arma 2, every aspect of the game has been improved(more or less). Underground places would be fun but if the AI dont work I can wait. I think I will have enough to do on Limnos anyway with it being massive and very interesting.

[4 IN 1 0]

Sometimes I dont get the community(or parts of it) Arma 3 so much more content thats better than Arma 2, every aspect of the game has been improved(more or less). Underground places would be fun but if the AI dont work I can wait. I think I will have enough to do on Limnos anyway with it being massive and very interesting.

Remember, they must make ALL© the things. Even if it is just the community-alpha;)

Edited September 10, 2012 by 4 IN 1

[Zorg_DK 10]

No TOH flight model in A3 after all?

[4 IN 1 0]

No TOH flight model in A3 after all?

FPDR

This is taken from the recent gameovercast interview that seems to be getting so many people's panties in a twist (including the OP, as this podcast/interview is linked in the first post). How that quote can be interpreted as "there will be no advanced flight model" completely baffles me. :rolleyes:

That should answer your question .FPDR

[shephart 1]

Well, next time try to not confirm something that won't the game contain. It really disappoint the entire community.

agreed.

again, its not only about the confirmed feature list in this forum, its more about BIS interviews what they told us (and what not).

so, if BIS does not make underground structures, then they should remove this pointless bunker door http://www.pcgames.de/screenshots/original/2012/02/ARMA_3__1_.jpg ... its pointless when there won´t be underground structures and players can not enter it.

and i said IF.

[-Coulum- 35]

agreed.

again, its not only about the confirmed feature list in this forum, its more about BIS interviews what they told us (and what not).

so, if BIS does not make underground structures, then they should remove this pointless bunker door http://www.pcgames.de/screenshots/or...ARMA_3__1_.jpg ... its pointless when there won´t be underground structures and players can not enter it.

and i said IF.

Honestly you guys are being kinda ungrateful. BIS are simply including us in their development process and revealing some of their plans to us. Obviously not everything goes as planned and things will inevitably be dropped or changed. If you don't want to hear about all this stuff then simply don't listen/read to the interviews and what not about development and wait for the official release. That way you won't be so disappointed.

[maddogx 13]

if BIS does not make underground structures, then they should remove this pointless bunker door

True dat.

Also, if they don't plan to include space travel, they should bloody well remove the stars aswell. Such cosmetic fake elements have no place in a simulator.

[dmarkwick 261]

True dat.

Also, if they don't plan to include space travel, they should bloody well remove the stars aswell. Such cosmetic fake elements have no place in a simulator.

*snork*

But anyway, I think it's completely fair that such pictures (the bunker door) should remain. It's all part of the development process, the development, the testing, the discarding or keeping of such developments. deleting the image because it's no longer in seems a little... dunno, artificial? In any case, I cannot see the harm in it, I would rather know about it than not know about it, regardless of whether it's currently in trouble or not.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

so, if BIS does not make underground structures, then they should remove this pointless bunker door http://www.pcgames.de/screenshots/original/2012/02/ARMA_3__1_.jpg ... its pointless when there won´t be underground structures and players can not enter it.

and i said IF.

Wow, dude, you're funny. Some bunker doors are not meant to be opened without blowing up the whole hill/rock formation. :) Hey, by that logic, why was there water on Chernarus, so no subs, no water, noe? I konfused. :(