General Discussion (dev branch)

[progamer 14]

Wow. Nice addition to dev..

Yea thanks for the command! Hopefully we can see people take advantage of custom textures more!

[L3TUC3 32]

If you spawn an empty Panther, the interior has the damaged texture by default.

[instagoat 133]

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/10/25/tula-5-45x39mm-ads-rifle/

Maybe worth a look, for replacing the SDAR for the redfor divers?

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I'm glad they got the ramp to work on the h barrier watchtower. Now can you do something about it's bad textures, Having dark, black shadows all over it makes it look bad. The same with the other h barriers walls (excluding the ones that you had in OA and A2. But glad to see you are at least working on it. Now if you can let units walk on the deck of the trawler we should be happy.

I do believe that BI needed something to test the whole "walking on moving object" scenario, and the trawler is perfect. It moves with the waves, and it is possible to walk around on it, but it is overly tedious and glitchy in it's current state, though, i am determined BI wont give up, because being able to move on objects in different environments, especially the ocean with rolling waves, is key.

[John Kozak 14]

Here's a screenshot I have from the latest CoD game:

They actually managed to do this right - note the unzoomed but blurred area around the scope.

Now, since even CoD has it, can we get this in ArmA? :D

[windies 11]

Here's a screenshot I have from the latest CoD game:

http://cloud-3.steampowered.com/ugc/723120602324229571/AA94EEFA600263F8AEEC6E9823D2E0D8C6BAB00C/512x288.resizedimage

They actually managed to do this right - note the unzoomed but blurred area around the scope.

Now, since even CoD has it, can we get this in ArmA? :D

I always wondered why they don't do it backwards and render the scoped in view at high quality and use RTT for the outside of the scope since you're going to blur it anyways so visual definition and quality isn't a high priority. It might not be possible though, I have no idea.

[chortles 263]

A technical question: How well does COD: Ghosts do at holding 60 fps during that view? Considering that IW is so "60 fps über alles" that on Xbox One they had to choose between native 1080p or 60 fps so they went with the latter and upscaled-720p... whereas the PS4 version could do native 1080p, hence my interest in the frame rate performance of IW's implementation on PC.

The reason I ask this is that apparently a while back the devs seemed to view "RTT scopes" as a matter of "if we can't do it at 1:1 frame rate then we're not going to do it"... and the early PIP/RTT implementation in Arma 3 during alpha (maybe beta) was definitely not 1:1 frame rate! Even now, the Hunter PIP/RTT (dashboard flatscreen and rear view mirrors) are closer to if not 1:1 frame rate seeming but noticeably far lower resolution than the rest of what's rendered on the dashboard...

[John Kozak 14]

A technical question: How well does COD: Ghosts do at holding 60 fps during that view? Considering that IW is so "60 fps über alles" that on Xbox One they had to choose between native 1080p or 60 fps so they went with the latter and upscaled-720p... whereas the PS4 version could do native 1080p, hence my interest in the frame rate performance of IW's implementation on PC.

The reason I ask this is that apparently a while back the devs seemed to view "RTT scopes" as a matter of "if we can't do it at 1:1 frame rate then we're not going to do it"... and the early PIP/RTT implementation in Arma 3 during alpha (maybe beta) was definitely not 1:1 frame rate! Even now, the Hunter PIP/RTT (dashboard flatscreen and rear view mirrors) are closer to if not 1:1 frame rate seeming but noticeably far lower resolution than the rest of what's rendered on the dashboard...

From what I've tried, FPS is totally the same. It's not a good proof though - since overall their engine is several years old (and currently much worse graphics-wise, than ArmA 3).

However, I'll bet their PiP actually is of significantly lower resolution - hence so strong blurring filter. It is, however, enough to give the correct feeling of looking through scope (inside area is also brighter slightly, compared to "regular" brightness) and gives an idea of what's happening around.

In ArmA, such view can also be rendered with reduced LODs/view distance - don't know if that is possible, but I think it'll not eat much FPS if it's done this way.

Edited November 8, 2013 by DarkWanderer

[nodunit 397]

A technical question: How well does COD: Ghosts do at holding 60 fps during that view? Considering that IW is so "60 fps über alles" that on Xbox One they had to choose between native 1080p or 60 fps so they went with the latter and upscaled-720p... whereas the PS4 version could do native 1080p, hence my interest in the frame rate performance of IW's implementation on PC.

The reason I ask this is that apparently a while back the devs seemed to view "RTT scopes" as a matter of "if we can't do it at 1:1 frame rate then we're not going to do it"... and the early PIP/RTT implementation in Arma 3 during alpha (maybe beta) was definitely not 1:1 frame rate! Even now, the Hunter PIP/RTT (dashboard flatscreen and rear view mirrors) are closer to if not 1:1 frame rate seeming but noticeably far lower resolution than the rest of what's rendered on the dashboard...

PIP on the mirrors of the HEMTT seem to be a good midground, not 1:1 like the civilian truck (that refreshes slowly) but not nearly as blurry as the hunters mirrors either. Either way RTT would be considered a cheat to be used for weapons because it doesn't render shadows, so snipers or whomever would be looking into the distance without overhead obstruction mattering, and then everyone would complain about that.

[John Kozak 14]

I always wondered why they don't do it backwards and render the scoped in view at high quality and use RTT for the outside of the scope since you're going to blur it anyways so visual definition and quality isn't a high priority. It might not be possible though, I have no idea.

That's actually how it is done now in CoD, I believe. And it is what several people (and me) have proposed for the ArmA way back in Alpha.

Either way RTT would be considered a cheat to be used for weapons because it doesn't render shadows, so snipers or whomever would be looking into the distance without overhead obstruction mattering, and then everyone would complain about that.

PiP view will be outside the scope, not inside :)

Edited November 8, 2013 by DarkWanderer

[St. Jimmy 272]

I always wondered why they don't do it backwards and render the scoped in view at high quality and use RTT for the outside of the scope since you're going to blur it anyways so visual definition and quality isn't a high priority. It might not be possible though, I have no idea.

The same what I've wondered.

But naturally then if blurred badly people would complain that they can't see what's going on outside of the scope when they're aiming :D

[nodunit 397]

PiP view will be outside the scope, not inside :)

That's actually how it is done now in CoD, I believe

It's so simple it's genius! And I suppose with a blur such as that there wouldn't really be much need for shadows.

Only thing is that would probably stir up a bit in that yes it solves problems for scopes but not other applications such as vehicles.

[Smurf 12]

It's so simple it's genius! And I suppose with a blur such as that there wouldn't really be much need for shadows.

This solution was given numerous times before. Problems I can see with it:

-LOD problems, both for the in scope and out scope views on fast transitions. Could be avoided with a little "go to" scope camera movement instead of the insta one we always had and have; also would avoid kinds of "quick scope", think in time to allign the sights.

-Out scope lower refresh rate.

-Since the scope is floating in the screen, don't think is possible to blur the rest of the screen.

-People would complain saying that they choose to look into the scope or outside of it, an artificial handicap (blur) annoys them.

That said, I heard about but didn't see any concept of any type of PiP scope.

[nodunit 397]

Sometimes you got to take a few compromises.

[blu3sman 11]

But it's absolutely unrealistic to have blurred outside image. It simulates shortsighted person with wrongly focused scope.

[Smurf 12]

Sometimes you got to take a few compromises.

Sure, not complaining at all.

Since this isn't possible (at a decent framerate), I take this over this any day. This would be the perfect trade-off (good FPS, no full screen zoom, manitain some close awareness) but I don't think is possible.

All in all, at least I am happy with the scopes we have now. The visual recoil on the other hand... (check TMR mod).

[blu3sman 11]

This would be the perfect trade-off (good FPS, no full screen zoom, manitain some close awareness) but I don't think is possible.

It IS full screen zoom actually. And i suspect it is possible to do if not using aiming deadzone.

Edit: I'm wrong, forget about it, it's not possible currently

[progamer 14]

Bullets are not affected by the velocity of the vehicle they are fired from: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15924

[das attorney 858]

Bullets are not affected by the velocity of the vehicle they are fired from: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15924

If you're going to put up a ticket about that, you might as well update it or make a new ticket covering the effect of velocity on the firing vehicle. Action and reaction etc.

Insignificant when thinking of an MG from a tank, but maybe relevant when thinking of something like a GAU-8 on an A-10. (As an example).

Personally, I would not vote up either effect as I think it's more shit clogging up the CPU for little appreciable game effect, but for the sake of completeness, you should mention it. No point adding a ticket focusing on the effect on the bullet without considering the firer (or you have a half-reality if you get me).

[Alwarren 2767]

Potential major issue with addons and the -nologs option:

Can someone please verify this, just to make sure I am not effing something up. When using -nologs as a command line option, unsatisfied dependencies of addons are not reported on startup. I had an extra comma in my addon list, and when I removed -nologs from my command line, it reported a mission addon, but not if I had -nologs on. The same occurred to me with another (not my own) addon.

Apologies if this is already known.

[13islucky 10]

Here's a screenshot I have from the latest CoD game:

http://cloud-3.steampowered.com/ugc/723120602324229571/AA94EEFA600263F8AEEC6E9823D2E0D8C6BAB00C/512x288.resizedimage

They actually managed to do this right - note the unzoomed but blurred area around the scope.

Now, since even CoD has it, can we get this in ArmA? :D

Cod has "true" 3D scopes AND women? Might as well give up on ArmA 3. *sarcasm*

[Gwynbleidd 28]

Potential major issue with addons and the -nologs option:

Can someone please verify this, just to make sure I am not effing something up. When using -nologs as a command line option, unsatisfied dependencies of addons are not reported on startup. I had an extra comma in my addon list, and when I removed -nologs from my command line, it reported a mission addon, but not if I had -nologs on. The same occurred to me with another (not my own) addon.

Apologies if this is already known.

I can confirm this, also if you try joining multyplayer server with addons that are not allowed on that server, you just return to the menu screen without any explanation what happened (if you don't have -nologs in your launch, it will show the list of addons that you need to remove if you wanna play on that server).

[John Kozak 14]

This solution was given numerous times before. Problems I can see with it:

-LOD problems, both for the in scope and out scope views on fast transitions. Could be avoided with a little "go to" scope camera movement instead of the insta one we always had and have; also would avoid kinds of "quick scope", think in time to allign the sights.

-Out scope lower refresh rate.

-Since the scope is floating in the screen, don't think is possible to blur the rest of the screen.

-People would complain saying that they choose to look into the scope or outside of it, an artificial handicap (blur) annoys them.

That said, I heard about but didn't see any concept of any type of PiP scope.

Sorry to say that, but the problems you describe are mainly thought-up:

- We don't have LOD problems or "quick scoping" now. PiP surrounding will not differ

- Out of scope refresh rate must be just fixed to 1:1. Solved.

- Sway must just be done as it was in the age of old 2D scopes. OR stencil buffer can be used - the PiP texture will fill everything, except the scope itself and its contents.

- "People would complain" is just an imaginary problem. You can't talk for all.

And what's most cool with PiP approach - it can even potentially work with TI/NVG scopes. You will have correct "green" picture inside and regular picture outside.

The only real problem might be the FPS drop - however, current PiP implementation in cars doesn't killl FPS and uses resolution high enough to make scope PiP view work as well.

Current implementation, on the other hand, has large problems:

- it allows for cheating (utilizing free view to look aroung while zoomed)

- it is unrealistic, as outsides of the scope are also zoomed

- the sway is backwards, in my opinion. When you look though the scope, you take the aim points as a reference

So I'd not say it is better even than the old 2D ones.

Edited November 9, 2013 by DarkWanderer

[defk0n_NL 2]

I can confirm this, also if you try joining multyplayer server with addons that are not allowed on that server, you just return to the menu screen without any explanation what happened (if you don't have -nologs in your launch, it will show the list of addons that you need to remove if you wanna play on that server).

It is supposed to be like that, its called: -nologs :j:

[Alwarren 2767]

It is supposed to be like that, its called: -nologs :j:

No it's NOT supposed to not tell you about a fatal error that will render your game disfunctional. It lets you start any sort of non-working combination of addons, and by the best of my imagination, I cannot think of a reason it would do that.

EDIT: Made a ticket