General Discussion (dev branch)

[haleks 8212]

And it doesn't belong in this thread. This is for discussing what BIS has added in the dev branch, not what they should add or what their priorities should be.

All right, sorry for the off-topic.

(But, on the other hand, I didn't see any thread to discuss what wasn't fixed/added in dev... :rolleyes:)

[maddogx 13]

All right, sorry for the off-topic.

(But, on the other hand, I didn't see any thread to discuss what wasn't fixed/added in dev... :rolleyes:)

This thread should fit the bill.

Thread created for users to highlight old, yet still valid issues. Can also serve as a discussion platform regarding feedback tracker issues, management and feedback.

Please keep the discussion civil and on the topic. Thank you.

That being said, complaining about BI's priorities isn't really helpful at all. If you want to highlight a specific issue that hasn't been fixed in a long time then by all means post about it and link to the corresponding ticket on the tracker, but "WTF why are they doing X instead of Y?" style posts are pretty much worthless. (Especially when there is no logical connection between the two, like with AI and sounds.)

[instagoat 133]

Hey, question...

Is the strider supposed to be completely invulnerable to AT mines, SLAM mines and other explosives, or is this a bug? I've got two SLAM and one AT mines, one truck triggering all three and not being harmed by them in a little skirmish I am building. I am almost tempted to do a test setup and check the other MRAPs... has the weapons thread got any findings on this recently? At least the AT mine (5+ kgs of high explosive) should throw the truck on its back.

[haleks 8212]

@MadDogX : Thanks; sorry if I was ranting a bit : this game can be as amazing as it can be frustrating. ^^'

@InstaGoat : Sounds like a glitch.

[2nd ranger 282]

Can anybody hear sounds of vehicle being hit when you're inside the vehicle?

I can't hear anything at all :( When I'm in slammer and hit by rpg, no sounds...

Yeah, sometimes when BIS tries to add a new sound in a dev update, there ends up being no sound at all for that thing. It happens alot. Same for the recently updated artillery impact sounds. Currently there are no artillery explosions at all on dev.

Is the strider supposed to be completely invulnerable to AT mines, SLAM mines and other explosives, or is this a bug?

I haven't tried to blow up an MRAP in a while, but a few months ago when BIS upgraded the MRAPs' resistance to explosives, they became almost invulnerable to things like SLAM mines, yeah. At the time I remember testing it and finding that nothing short of a demo charge would produce any immediate damage.

[DancZer 65]

Yeah, sometimes when BIS tries to add a new sound in a dev update, there ends up being no sound at all for that thing. It happens alot. Same for the recently updated artillery impact sounds. Currently there are no artillery explosions at all on dev.

I have, but i hear the sound before the explosion in "Support" showcase.

[starky396 1]

Yeah, sometimes when BIS tries to add a new sound in a dev update, there ends up being no sound at all for that thing. It happens alot. Same for the recently updated artillery impact sounds. Currently there are no artillery explosions at all on dev.

I haven't tried to blow up an MRAP in a while, but a few months ago when BIS upgraded the MRAPs' resistance to explosives, they became almost invulnerable to things like SLAM mines, yeah. At the time I remember testing it and finding that nothing short of a demo charge would produce any immediate damage.

Isn't the point of an MRAP is to be a Mine Resistant vehicle?

[2nd ranger 282]

Yes, I wasn't complaining about it, it was a required upgrade - they used to be ridiculously easy to kill.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

MRAP = Mine Resistant Ambush Proof. This means mines should really not be that serious of a threat. Ambushes with things like small arms, 7.62, should be no problem for it. Those vehicles are supposed to include the Tempest, Hunter, Ifrit, and Strider.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Unfortunately the Tempest isn't as MRAP-y as it should be which is a shame. Would make a nice unique vehicle for CSAT.

[royaltyinexile 175]

Current build shows horrible infantry pathfinding issues to me (on Altis).

Thanks for the feedback. I can confirm that there has been some work on AI pathfinding recently, but it was not yet (and, indeed, may never be, depending on tests) released to the public dev-branch.

However, it's possible that some related part of the work did sneak out into the wild, which may be causing some problems.

We'll take a closer look at what was committed, examine the current behaviour compared to previous builds, and see if we can resolve any problems.

Best,

RiE

[Gutsnav 13]

Anyone notice how the Tempest's glass is about as thick as the Hunter's, same with the armor, and you can still shatter it with 1-2 shots of 6.5mm? And the armor is like butter... Plus the rear compartment is unprotected unlike the real thing? This has been bugging me for a while.

[Victim9l3 11]

I think the problem with MRAPs vs mines is a perfect example of what Arma3 is, or actually, what Arma3 isn't. I appreciate all they have done making this game and all the work they put into it. It's easy for us to sit on the outside and complain about the game when we no idea what they have done to bring this game to us. The problem is that, almost from the beginning, it seems like this game was a rescue mission more than it was a presentation of the next quality installment to the series.

The entire problem with mines and MRAPS is due to the fact that they didn't give us regular vehicles. Everything was aimed at stealth, which does not work at all, or cutting edge futuristic vehicles and weapons that seem "cool". In previous Armas there was variety. 6 or 8 cars per army, 4-8 armor vehicles, different versions of everything. ARMA 3 has failed miserably in that department. We have 1 vehicle for each type.

MRAPs are the only vehicle. There is no choice. They are forced to make MRAP's vulnerable because that would make all the mines they gave us useless. Random vehicles from different country are thrown together and called "Nato".

This game is a result of creators making a list of what they want to see in a game. They created all the things they wanted, then built a game around it. So the game is filler. Making sense was an after thought. Give a Merkava but not give Israel, give us Strider, but not Germany. Make a variety of mines then make all vehicles resistant to mines. And the worst part, make OPFOR soldiers in super high tech clothing, with all the tech that is to come in the future, but make them no different than the Guerillas they fight. Clothing that does nothing special, no Infared protection like designed. No Hud in those glasses. Opfor has a tube going in the back of the head for no reason. The helmet covers their ears and ends up nothing but sun glass holder.

All these military advantages but then back pedal to make balance between armies. There is no balance in war. Just give us another Operation Arrowhead. a game to fix the game.

[miketim 20]

Yup I agree, the problem wasn't as much the futuristic ness, even tho I dislike it, it's that they used that to justify not properly equipped armies, and they really only made what they wanted to use,,nothing much for mission making flexibility like arma 2.

[chortles 263]

Just remember that according to Eurogamer, they weren't even trying to make a "presentation of the next quality installment to the series" in the first place...

[miketim 20]

Frankly I think the whole thing of like "omg y Iran aliens and stooped gear" is worn out, even tho I agree.

It's not going to be changed,fixed,redone or anything, so the choice now is play with RHS Mods when they come out, or deal with vanilla.

That's pretty much it.

[comp_uter15776 1]

I think the problem with MRAPs vs mines is a perfect example of what Arma3 is, or actually, what Arma3 isn't. I appreciate all they have done making this game and all the work they put into it. It's easy for us to sit on the outside and complain about the game when we no idea what they have done to bring this game to us. The problem is that, almost from the beginning, it seems like this game was a rescue mission more than it was a presentation of the next quality installment to the series.

The entire problem with mines and MRAPS is due to the fact that they didn't give us regular vehicles. Everything was aimed at stealth, which does not work at all, or cutting edge futuristic vehicles and weapons that seem "cool". In previous Armas there was variety. 6 or 8 cars per army, 4-8 armor vehicles, different versions of everything. ARMA 3 has failed miserably in that department. We have 1 vehicle for each type.

MRAPs are the only vehicle. There is no choice. They are forced to make MRAP's vulnerable because that would make all the mines they gave us useless. Random vehicles from different country are thrown together and called "Nato".

This game is a result of creators making a list of what they want to see in a game. They created all the things they wanted, then built a game around it. So the game is filler. Making sense was an after thought. Give a Merkava but not give Israel, give us Strider, but not Germany. Make a variety of mines then make all vehicles resistant to mines. And the worst part, make OPFOR soldiers in super high tech clothing, with all the tech that is to come in the future, but make them no different than the Guerillas they fight. Clothing that does nothing special, no Infared protection like designed. No Hud in those glasses. Opfor has a tube going in the back of the head for no reason. The helmet covers their ears and ends up nothing but sun glass holder.

All these military advantages but then back pedal to make balance between armies. There is no balance in war. Just give us another Operation Arrowhead. a game to fix the game.

You've described here the issue and solution all in one. It seems like many people forget that ArmA 3's "life" has only just begun, whereas people are viewing ArmA 2 based on all the content there was to offer, including the expansion OA. That's where a good few more assets came into play; but I imagine the ordinary ArmA 2 was just as bare once upon a time. ArmA 3 is also set to have an expansion after these upcoming two Premium DLC's, so there is lots to play for and hopefully we should see a huge wedge of features and content added in to the expansion, which will become what was the OA of ArmA 2, probably.

[Tonci87 163]

I have a general question to the BIS Devs.

Everytime I start Arma 3 Steam installs Microsoft NET Framework 4.5.1 cmd

Can I somehow disable that?

[chortles 263]

Frankly I think the whole thing of like "omg y Iran aliens and stooped gear" is worn out, even tho I agree.

It's not going to be changed,fixed,redone or anything, so the choice now is play with RHS Mods when they come out, or deal with vanilla.

That's pretty much it.

Thank you for actually "getting it", unlike so many people here... as Eurogamer's bit about Arma Futura revealed, 1980s-2010s was never in consideration, and originally Arma 3 itself wasn't.

You've described here the issue and solution all in one. It seems like many people forget that ArmA 3's "life" has only just begun, whereas people are viewing ArmA 2 based on all the content there was to offer, including the expansion OA. That's where a good few more assets came into play; but I imagine the ordinary ArmA 2 was just as bare once upon a time. ArmA 3 is also set to have an expansion after these upcoming two Premium DLC's, so there is lots to play for and hopefully we should see a huge wedge of features and content added in to the expansion, which will become what was the OA of ArmA 2, probably.

Actually, a bunch of the "content level" complaining has been because vanilla Arma 2 was noticeably more diverse and varied in assets than A3 is right now... but then again, both perspectives (yours and theirs) tend to omit just how broken Arma 2 was at the beginning of its life cycle, something which BI overtly decided to avoid for A3, presumably even if it meant leaving out content at launch. (Hell, they chose to omit a SP campaign rather than slip the release date... what does that tell you about their priorities at the time, that they chose to eat the PR hit rather than miss a decided-in-advance release date?) That, and as others have pointed out, A2's content level was augmented by a lot if not the majority of its assets being reworked ArmA and Game 2 content, something which the devs chose not to do for Arma 3 with a few exceptions (the Mora and the Hellcat, dunno what else).

I will note that at least in Arma 3, the devs have implemented features to accompany the paid DLCs instead of holding them off for the expansion, and the expansion isn't a standalone game that ended up superseding the original game (thanks to the ability to import A2 data complete with configs to grant new capabilities/stats when used in OA), so BI seems to have a fundamentally different approach compared to A2/OA when they were seemingly "getting the hang of this new DLC concept".

[vegeta897 13]

I have a general question to the BIS Devs.

Everytime I start Arma 3 Steam installs Microsoft NET Framework 4.5.1 cmd

Can I somehow disable that?

Might be worth noting that my friend experienced this the other day, although on stable branch. So it might be not a dev branch thing?

[DancZer 65]

First AI issue with today's dev build. I not found ticket on feedback tracker, so here you are.

It always reproducible via save game. Can somebody confirm it?

Edited August 27, 2014 by danczer

[Bouben 3]

Might be worth noting that my friend experienced this the other day, although on stable branch. So it might be not a dev branch thing?

I have noticed this behaviour after Steam updated their GUI to the new one (major Steam update maybe?).

[ericfr 0]

First AI issue with today's dev build. I not found ticket on feedback tracker, so here you are.

It always reproducible via save game. Can somebody confirm it?

Yes confirmed.

Cover me reloading, reloading.... nonstop

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Hey BIS, i was using the SDAR the other day, the Multi-Purpose rifle that ca be fired underwater, and it occurred to me, why not have a version of the SDAR with a rail system? This way, it can allow the use of things like a laser pointer/flashlight, and even more importantly, a scope or two. It bothered me that the SDAR wasn't capable of having such attachments, but at least for a scope, it'd be nice to see, and bring life to a under used rifle in game.

[gibonez 18]

Hey BIS, i was using the SDAR the other day, the Multi-Purpose rifle that ca be fired underwater, and it occurred to me, why not have a version of the SDAR with a rail system? This way, it can allow the use of things like a laser pointer/flashlight, and even more importantly, a scope or two. It bothered me that the SDAR wasn't capable of having such attachments, but at least for a scope, it'd be nice to see, and bring life to a under used rifle in game.

Probably has to do with nearly all optics are destroyed when you go under water thus not allowing them on the SDAR would make sense.