General Discussion (dev branch)

[pettka 694]

You do have to admit, though, that some features were actually cut. It depends strongly on how they were presented. For example, some videos mentioned the 3d editor as feature for Arma 3. You can argue that it was an "idea" at that time, but it was actually announced, so you could call it a cut "feature" or a cut "idea", it really doesn't matter: In the end, it's not in.

You could also say "There's an F-35 on a screenshot. And the screenshot is labeled 'in-game'. That means the F-35 is confirmed". Same goes for some of the scripted prototypes that were presented on earlier videos.

We all know plans change, but please don't make people that complain about features that did not end up in the game look like they can't discern Arma3 from Half-Life 3.

I don't mean to offend you, but what part of "most of the time" doesn't sound clear to you? There were several videos stating that 3D editor is something we would like to have in our game. There were even some videos stating that we would like to have game released by end of 2012. Both of them, and even several more, were mere wishful thinking.

I would even dare to say that existence of F-35 from Arma 2 has been explained by Master lord Joris as we needed some proof of concept and the plane was at hand. If someone has read the explanation and still doesn't get the meaning, I don't know what more could we have done. But all of this is derailing this thread, what I am sorry for :icon_evil:

/// Edit: I have looked through the discarded features that were actually implemented to some reasonable extent, the funny fact is that none of them was even mentioned in public :icon_twisted:

Edited October 18, 2013 by pettka

[roberthammer 582]

no offence but i like how the F35 is showed in the arma3 tactical guide , while the F35 isnt in the game at all - same goes to C192 and few weapons :icon_twisted:

[maddogx 13]

• FIX: Swimming at water surface
  

^^ What exactly does this mean? Is it about this bug? :)

[fragmachine 12]

You do have to admit, though, that some features were actually cut. It depends strongly on how they were presented. For example, some videos mentioned the 3d editor as feature for Arma 3. You can argue that it was an "idea" at that time, but it was actually announced, so you could call it a cut "feature" or a cut "idea", it really doesn't matter: In the end, it's not in.

You could also say "There's an F-35 on a screenshot. And the screenshot is labeled 'in-game'. That means the F-35 is confirmed". Same goes for some of the scripted prototypes that were presented on earlier videos.

We all know plans change, but please don't make people that complain about features that did not end up in the game look like they can't discern Arma3 from Half-Life 3.

Exactly, sounds like BIS is just trying to feel/look better in their own eyes by using word-play and don't really care what community thinks about it. Would be much more fair if they could admit that announced idea being scrapped is idea being cut-off. In that matter idea had to be a feature - and it was announced to be in ArmA 3, none speaked of possibility of not being in-game of that or this certain feature.

And any other circumstances that apparently affected the game design, features etc. cannot be a bargaining chip in pushing and shoving between developers and community. It is not mature. Mature is statement - yes, there were announced features to be put in game - halfly working prototypes etc - but were scrapped/cut off. Sorry.

[Zorg_DK 10]

^^ What exactly does this mean? Is it about this bug? :)

No, that hasn't changed.

[Alwarren 2767]

^^ What exactly does this mean? Is it about this bug? :)

Don't think so, just tried it and that problem still persists.

(EDIT: ninja'ed)

[Varanon 892]

I don't mean to offend you, but what part of "most of the time" doesn't sound clear to you?

I know. What I meant is in the end, it doesn't matter how you call it, it's not in. As long as the game isn't released, you can basically say anything is an idea. Only if the game is released does it become a feature. I'm not really concerned what it is called, I just wanted to stress the fact that some things didn't end up in the game, even though they have been announced and/or were discussed as possibilities. This wasn't meant to be an accusation, I have to add. But if you raise expectations, you shouldn't blame your customers for being disappointed that they aren't in.

Also, the example with the F-35 was meant to show that there were indeed things "cut" from the game. I know they have been explained, and perfectly understandable. Again, no accusation, just a fact. Especially in the light of someone claiming we were "expecting too much"..

I did find the half-life 3 comparison a tad bit offensive. There is a difference between thinking a 3d editor might be in, because it was mentioned, and assuming ridiculous things like Arma 3 means Half-life 3 is coming (I completely fail to see the connection).

Again, no accusation intended. I'm sure you are all working hard on this project, and you are using all assets available to you.

---------- Post added at 12:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 PM ----------

I understand the pain of conversationally mentioning features you would like to see make it ingame, and then have that represented as promises, and then have the non-development of those ideas represented as cutting :)

I wonder how everyone always seems to think that people that complain about things not being in the game complain about broken promises. Honestly, I don't get it. It must be your personal interpretation of it.

Fact is and remains: If you cut something, be it ideas or features, and they have been announced before, people will be disappointed that they aren't in. No one but a few people will see that as broken promises. Most will just be disappointed. And I honestly fail to see what is so bad about being disappointed and actually SAYING that you are disappointed. But hey, you're a whiner then...

And regarding the bolded text: Showing screenshots of game assets, or announcing things in presentations, can hardly be called conversationally mentioning.

[maddogx 13]

Okay, that's enough off-topic. Like the man said:

all of this is derailing this thread

[raven_jj 1]

Actually I don't know, what the water fix fixed, but for me it broke a couple of things:

1. Sometimes I can't stay at the surface, Using "X" to swim up works glitchy (it's like switching above-under water a million times a second)

2. When i surface, sounds stay muffled like under water

3. I don't see any positive changes

[Smurf 12]

Just don't do this:

/// Edit: I have looked through the discarded features that were actually implemented to some reasonable extent, the funny fact is that none of them was even mentioned in public :icon_twisted:

And the swimming in the surface remember me of this:

I don't even know that is the problem but it looks so wrong.

[St. Jimmy 272]

Just don't do this:

And the swimming in the surface remember me of this:

http://t.imgbox.com/adyroAur.jpg http://t.imgbox.com/adwcXm5w.jpg

I don't even know that is the problem but it looks so wrong.

The problem probably relates to this http://i.imgur.com/GvZR3JL.jpg

It's so shallow that you're standing on the ground really. The water texture starts something like 0,6-0,7m (in height) before the real water kicks in.

What comes to that surface technique that MadDogX linked it could probably fix this? First person and same in third person. It looks like my feet aren't in the water in first person.

/And what comes to "FIX: Swimming at water surface" well more like a "we broke swimming" :D

Edited October 18, 2013 by St. Jimmy

[ShotgunSheamuS 1]

Exactly, sounds like BIS is just trying to feel/look better in their own eyes by using word-play and don't really care what community thinks about it. Would be much more fair if they could admit that announced idea being scrapped is idea being cut-off. In that matter idea had to be a feature - and it was announced to be in ArmA 3, none speaked of possibility of not being in-game of that or this certain feature.

And any other circumstances that apparently affected the game design, features etc. cannot be a bargaining chip in pushing and shoving between developers and community. It is not mature. Mature is statement - yes, there were announced features to be put in game - halfly working prototypes etc - but were scrapped/cut off. Sorry.

I think from this, BI should maybe consider learning from this about what they say in future. Clearly there are loads of missunderstandings, and all because BI were discussing what they would like to bring to ARMA 3 even though it wasnt an official announcement. But see it this way, some people just hear this "blah blah blah F35 blah blah blah blah 3D editor blah blah blah blah blah...." Now that said, also bear in mind, you guys are devs, working on the game, anything you say does not get taken with a pinch of salt. It gets taken seriously, saying you would like to do this and this in arma, is like saying I want to do this in ARMA and I will do whatever it takes to impliment it because im a developer, and I will see it through... Some people are like that, so whatever you guys mention, can be considered as a "semi-official" announcemnt... Rather avoid it.

I'm pretty much sitting on the fence here, both Petka and the community make arguments and both can be considered valid given the perspective, but BI should learn from this. In future, dont mention or even show things that arent guarenteed to be in game, instead, surprise us =) The new rain and rainbows were a big surprise, so keep going that route, makes people more excited seeing something awesome they never really knew about!

Thats all I have to say on this.

[chortles 263]

@ ShotgunSheamusS : And now you understand the origin of "No Promises"...

[instagoat 133]

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15517

Question, anybody who understands the engine and modelling tanks, as well as devs, is this worth thinking about?

[HKFlash 9]

The answer lies with the Dentist... also known as ... zGuba! :icon_twisted:

[kuIoodporny 45]

It's great, but this is how things actually work or are being prepared. Figured it out some time ago ;) data can always be improved though.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?166066-Arma-3-tanks-config-guidelines

Edited October 18, 2013 by zGuba

[Tonci87 163]

It's great, but this is how things actually work or are being prepared. Figured it out some time ago ;) data can always be improved though.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?166066-Arma-3-tanks-config-guidelines

Are you saying that an improved armor penetration system is actually in the works? Awesome news. Hey when will we see a Devblog featuring your work?

[kuIoodporny 45]

Yes, the armor is already improved. But there's still alot work to be done; you'll find the hints of what has been done in devbranch changelogs and also what will be done in A3 Tank Config Guidelines thread.

Edited October 18, 2013 by zGuba
url

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Are you saying that an improved armor penetration system is actually in the works? Awesome news. Hey when will we see a Devblog featuring your work?

He's saying that it's already working similarly to that, for at least a month I believe. All models might not be up to date tho.

He documented it here quite extensively.

Edit: Ninja'd.

[instagoat 133]

Nice, once I wake up tomorrow I´ll revise the ticket with some sensible stuff on damage behaviour.

[Polygon 11]

^^ What exactly does this mean? Is it about this bug? :)

I like how GTA5 handled this issue by forced camera acceleration beneath / above a surface.

When bigger tents will be added back? There's only small atm. BTW - player cannot climb up H-barrier watchtower fort. object. Maybe it's time to make it functional?

[maturin 12]

Without crew damage being one of the most common results of penetration, the armor system is still hobbled. No one expects most AT weapons to cause catastrophic kills. They make tiny little holes in armor with a lot of spall and noise and light that kills or stuns the crew.

And this can't be accomplished with damage proxies alone.

[KingoftheSandbox 10]

We had walls falling down through small arms fire yesterday twice. funniest moment was as the AI shot a wall in front of us. The wall fell down and killed one of us. Again im talking about small arms fire/rifle fire, no 50cal involved!

[barakokula31 10]

We had walls falling down through small arms fire yesterday twice. funniest moment was as the AI shot a wall in front of us. The wall fell down and killed one of us. Again im talking about small arms fire/rifle fire, no 50cal involved!

Hurray for the HP damage system!

[mr_centipede 31]

Well, to be fair... it is kinda realistic. The wall after being shot a few hundred rounds will crumble away. The not so realistic is the animation... We may not have a dynamic destruction animation, but for me, I think the pre-baked one should do the job. Just like in ARMA1 where you have to blow up the Ortega bridge... that was a really nice animation...