General Discussion (dev branch)

[roberthammer 582]

There are no such plans for Arma 3. We're reaching the limits of our animation tech (some would say we've breached them a while ago ;)). While we do still plan some animation work and tweaks, they are very costly due to the limitations we have to work around. The Enfusion engine seeks to take animations forward a lot, but it's not going to be used wholly in Arma 3.

In other words - it needs a better animation system like in unreal engine

[Alwarren 2765]

There are no such plans for Arma 3. We're reaching the limits of our animation tech (some would say we've breached them a while ago ;)). While we do still plan some animation work and tweaks, they are very costly due to the limitations we have to work around. The Enfusion engine seeks to take animations forward a lot, but it's not going to be used wholly in Arma 3.

 

Thanks for the answer, I feared that much.

 

The obvious follow-up question is, will we see a new animation system for Arma 4? ;)

[pettka 694]

Thanks for the answer, I feared that much.

 

The obvious follow-up question is, will we see a new animation system for Arma 4? ;)

We have not announced any such project and people working on Arma 3 are still working just on Arma 3 and its Expansion B)

[DancZer 65]

 

 

• Fixed: Bugged view whilst using TrackIR and entering vehicles

 

 Thank you so much!

 

Edit: Can be closed: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=24950

[Alwarren 2765]

We have not announced any such project and people working on Arma 3 are still working just on Arma 3 and its Expansion B)

 

Well, one can hope :)

[x3kj 1247]

Most of the movement in Arma is very robotic. I'm happy that a lot of this has been corrected in Arma 3 (custom reloads, custom get in / get out anims), but please speak only for yourself when you say something "isn't worth it"

If you have any idea how time consuming it is to create, properly implement and fine tune special animations is, you would know that having an extremely situational thing is not worth the time it would require to create it over other things that are more pressing and less consuming.

[Alwarren 2765]

If you have any idea how time consuming it is to create, properly implement and fine tune special animations is, you would know that having an extremely situational thing is not worth the time it would require to create it over other things that are more pressing and less consuming.

 

Well, that was a patronizing reply. Believe me I am not exactly stupid.

FWIW, all my weapons have custom reload animations, I know how difficult it is, and believe me, it's more than a bit painful to have to work within the confines of the very limited animation system. For example, the hand movement has to match an arbitrarily defined movement of the magazine. Any tweak in the hand movement must be matched in the model.cfg, and more complex movements beyond the mere "linear pull out" is a PITA to match. So yeah, I am quite aware of the problems.

 

However, the lack of things like these are the reason why a lot of people complain about Arma's "dated looks", regardless of whether it is true or not. We still have magic fire mode switches without animations, magic bipod deploys without animations, something that most other games implement already. Yes, the Arma 3 animation system is at its limit, but we have 2015 and it IS time that it gets replaced. With an improved animation system, things like that would be much easier to do. And if you check the animation data (not sure if they are still in), there are "inertia" animations that probably were intended to be played when the player changes direction but never made it into the game, likely for the same reason - limits of animation system reached.

 

And please, spare me that "there are more pressing issues" bollocks. That is quite obviously a matter of preference. Personally, I could hardly care less about Leaderboard support for Steam. Other people will welcome the addition. So I could argue "Leaderboard support is too much effort, there are more pressing issues", and I'd be as wrong as you are now. Besides, the people that make animations aren't the same that make "moar FPS".

[x3kj 1247]

 

And please, spare me that "there are more pressing issues" bollocks

No?  problematic Hit animations (to put it midly), no sub-stance animations for launchers, funny looking stance situations , etc etc...  

All things that can be solved with less efford and more gain then an animation that you suggested that would come into play when all of the following the conditions meet

1) not shouldering a gun

2) soldier stands upright

3) soldier runs

4) moving down a slope

5) the slope must be very steep (> 30° or 60%)

6) movement must be exactly down hill and not perpendicular

7) only for soldiers with light equipment (nobody with a high load would do this, it will bust ankles and knees)

8) soldier must look perpendicular to the hill (this is a FPS), otherwise his head movementrange would be artificially constrained in the wrong direction

 

As former mountain infantry i'd appreciate simulating mountain combat, but since the scope of Arma doesnt include this type of gameplay, it's not worth it. There, i said it again.

[toysoldier 35]

Lighting bug with daylight/flashlight on the blood pool texture. Since release!

 

http://i.imgur.com/8Ck3mHX.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/5ED7FJE.jpg
http://www.imagebam....ebcc96375240988

http://feedback.arma...ew.php?id=17244

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

There are no such plans for Arma 3. We're reaching the limits of our animation tech (some would say we've breached them a while ago ;)). While we do still plan some animation work and tweaks, they are very costly due to the limitations we have to work around. The Enfusion engine seeks to take animations forward a lot, but it's not going to be used wholly in Arma 3.

 

 

We have not announced any such project and people working on Arma 3 are still working just on Arma 3 and its Expansion B)

Well... Don't you think it would make the most sense to upgrade Arma 3 to the best it can be, performance and feature wise? Granted it takes time, but i mean maybe somewhere after Expansion, in the case Arma 4 is non-existent (as stated), and Arma 3 is the only thing being worked on (aside form a separate team for DayZ), but i mean animations are an important part of a game too, and recently, i've noticed through out the animations tweaks, a lot of them look un-natural, some body parts stiff, while others move in a... well, unrealistic manner. Falling animations, taking hit animations, all those things could really use an overhaul, and just by looks, it's not something that i would consider a finished product. Especially falling animations (not the kind for parachuting, or HALO). Would you guys ever plan on getting the best for Arma 3 by the end of it's development support?

[Alwarren 2765]

As former mountain infantry i'd appreciate simulating mountain combat, but since the scope of Arma doesnt include this type of gameplay, it's not worth it. There, i said it again.

 

Whatever

[froggyluv 2130]

Not a DayZ hater as a live and let live believer but damn after looking up Enfusion I'm seeing green for the 1st time. Phrases like SQF being "decrepit", "antiquated"...basically slow, old hat that has reached its limit...dunno that really bums me out.

Why not us oh BIS oversee'ers?

[St. Jimmy 272]

Not a DayZ hater as a live and let live believer but damn after looking up Enfusion I'm seeing green for the 1st time. Phrases like SQF being "decrepit", "antiquated"...basically slow, old hat that has reached its limit...dunno that really bums me out.

Why not us oh BIS oversee'ers?

Because they work on DayZ first. The engine can and will likely be used on other projects when it's "done".

Better wait for what they can do with Enfusion and continue maybe from there than start to make another branch from RV and maybe throw it in the trash bin because Enfusion is already enough.

[x3kj 1247]

 

Why not us oh BIS oversee'ers?

 i dont mind it actually, beeing first adopter of new tech always brings extra trouble. So it's nice that Dayz has to play guinea pig and irons out most of the initial problems ;) (ok dayz is not the first guinea pig... but propably the largest)

[Larrow 2794]

Removed: "Command Mode" action from controls as it was redundant and offered exactly the same functionality as the "Select all units" action

If your going to do this can you also allow 'select all units' menu to appear when you have no units for a quick way into the supports menu?

This is one reasons i use command mode instead of select all units as its quicker, less scrolling and everything is on one button, with or without units.

 

Command mode > Supports ( works all the time + all units functionality when you have some ) 
Select All Units > Supports ( does not work if you have no units ) 
F10 > F8 ( requiring extra dedicated button or godly dexterity ) 
Navigate Menu > F10 > F8 ( same as above ) 

Or just rename Command Mode to Select All Units and get rid of the current Select All Units.

[fn_Quiksilver 1633]

Who are the wizards pumping out the scripting commands?

 

Great work, some real handy ones the past few updates.

 

showHUD []  quite a nice treat ;)

[Kydoimos 915]

Anyone else experienced this music / sound issue on Dev? All audio seems to be repeating when you hit 'Esc' too: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=24456

[instagoat 133]

DayZ maybe has a crazy community that will throw money into the thing without wondering if it'll ever get finished, while the Arma community is more critical and possibly because BI regards Arma as a more important product, thus not wanting to use it for experiments and possibly ruining it for everybody?

[R3vo 2652]

Can anyone confirm that the the command "wind" does not return the exact values, which were set with "setWind" when executed on a dedicated server?

 

 

Anyone else experienced this music / sound issue on Dev? All audio seems to be repeating when you hit 'Esc' too: http://feedback.arma...ew.php?id=24456

 

 

Yes, I can confirm this issue, very irritating, I removed all forced saves in my Sp missions because of that.

[chortles 263]

i dont mind it actually, beeing first adopter of new tech always brings extra trouble. So it's nice that Dayz has to play guinea pig and irons out most of the initial problems ;) (ok dayz is not the first guinea pig... but propably the largest)

DayZ maybe has a crazy community that will throw money into the thing without wondering if it'll ever get finished, while the Arma community is more critical and possibly because BI regards Arma as a more important product, thus not wanting to use it for experiments and possibly ruining it for everybody?

It may not be that the Arma community is more critical in the sense of "exacting" but rather, probably due to the *ahem* these-days-expanded definition of "the Arma community" (which, yes, includes Lifers) Arma 3 actually tends to have a higher player count than DayZ, so more people would be affected if the game was disrupted in a big way by bugs in the course of 'transitioning out of RV4 towards Enfusion', whereas DayZ forked from TKOH and then got the RV/Enforce merge rolled into its plan.

Don't forget backwards compatibility... just look at all the drama whenever the Arma 3 devs break people's content/scripts/missions by introducing new ways to do things.

[ceeeb 147]

Can anyone confirm that the the command "wind" does not return the exact values, which were set with "setWind" when executed on a dedicated server?

Similar things can happen in the SP mission editor, it may not a MP specific problem.

In SP mission editor:

If wind is set to auto in mission intel, wind return vector can vary (but stays close to the desired wind vector). Maybe caused by gusts?

If wind is set to manual in the mission intel, the wind return vector after using setWind (with forced true flag) matches.

It seems something changed with setWind commands recently? I did some testing a couple of weeks ago with different results.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

DayZ maybe has a crazy community that will throw money into the thing without wondering if it'll ever get finished, while the Arma community is more critical and possibly because BI regards Arma as a more important product, thus not wanting to use it for experiments and possibly ruining it for everybody?

BI know what they're doing they wouldn't just add something without proof testing if first, of course proof testing it takes time and manpower, and then there's having something to add in the first place. So that's most likely why BI won't be adding anything from the new Engine, as they would have to find or make a few things that could add something tangible to RV4, and then proof test it, and then implement it through Dev Branch, have us test it a bit, and then release it. Now, that would take time when they're already busy on the South Pacific Expansion. Though not all hope is lost for some kind of Engine update come the Expansion at least. We get water reflection and waterline improvements. =D

[R3vo 2652]

Similar things can happen in the SP mission editor, it may not a MP specific problem.

In SP mission editor:

If wind is set to auto in mission intel, wind return vector can vary (but stays close to the desired wind vector). Maybe caused by gusts?

If wind is set to manual in the mission intel, the wind return vector after using setWind (with forced true flag) matches.

It seems something changed with setWind commands recently? I did some testing a couple of weeks ago with different results.

 

Guess it's the best to open a ticket, it's definitely a unclear behaviour of the command.

 

 

Here's the ticket. I've added your statement to the additional information, I hope you don't mind.

 

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=25198

[BIS_Adam 24]

Guess it's the best to open a ticket, it's definitely a unclear behaviour of the command.

 

 

Here's the ticket. I've added your statement to the additional information, I hope you don't mind.

 

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=25198

The wind command takes quite a while before the changes are made.

[R3vo 2652]

The wind command takes quite a while before the changes are made.

 

I know, but that was not the issue I had. I waited several minutes, until the values didn't change anymore.

 

 

 

 

Edit:

Tweaked: Slight change of the engine volume for Speed Boat and Rubber Boat

 

Thanks, gonna test this as soon as possible.

 

Can't really hear a difference.