A2 vehicles a solution or A3 lack of content?

[twisted 127]

like to see the arma2 and oa stuff supported . but for those who own the games. they're too good to give away for free. besides more money to bis means they can keep on keeping on.

[phlux1 10]

I mean, I think what BIS have done in allowing AiA to be made is a step further than many other developers would go. Porting old content across is time that could be spent on new features and entirely new assets that fit the 2035 setting, rather than bringing over weapons that have no place being there. Already there are several very good mods that introduce new weapons, these will continue to grow in number and soon you'll have access to an arsenal that was built with ARMA 3 in mind and ranges across a variety of timelines, I think that's a better deal than importing poorer quality ARMA 2 assets.

[Tyl3r99 41]

voted

[chortles 263]

And as long as you're happy with the fact that BI is going to completely ignore all these whiny "I dont like the future content, give me AKs and M16s" threads, then I'm happy seeing them created over and over and over and over (not...).

Ahahaha yep, this... I actually roll my eyes when I see "modern weapon" mods and just move right on to another thread.

Since people seem to think that creating such whine threads will make BI chuck out all their development (again) in order to make Arma3:The Arma 2 carbon copy.

+1 to all of this... I've been onboard Arma 3 because it was so not like Arma 2, both in content-wise and in gameplay specifics...

[mistyronin 1181]

I mean, I think what BIS have done in allowing AiA to be made is a step further than many other developers would go. Porting old content across is time that could be spent on new features and entirely new assets that fit the 2035 setting, rather than bringing over weapons that have no place being there. Already there are several very good mods that introduce new weapons, these will continue to grow in number and soon you'll have access to an arsenal that was built with ARMA 3 in mind and ranges across a variety of timelines, I think that's a better deal than importing poorer quality ARMA 2 assets.

Well I don't exactly know ( maybe a BI dev could give us some light ), but I believe that porting some vehicles would be a way lot faster than creating new stuff, and would allow people to have more toys to play while the devs can keep working on new stuff. The point is focused more on the vehicles that would fit in 2035 ( Osprey, F 35, etc. ).

It's a way to "buy time" for the devs to allow them to finish all what they had planned without the stress of having to read everyday in the forums that A3 has few stuff. And would, also make waiting more sweet.

Besides that AiA it's not officially supported and has lots of problems.

[phlux1 10]

Besides that AiA it's not officially supported and has lots of problems.

AiA would have been shut down by any other dev is what I was getting at.

but I believe that porting some vehicles would be a way lot faster than creating new stuff

Not the case sadly, they have to meet standards before they could release content into ARMA 3, it's not about the people on the forums, it's about everyone else. The Arma II models are very much lacking compared to ARMA 3 and in most situations it's easier to start from scratch than modify. So to go through and upgrade every vehicle to take advantage of things like the higher poly-count for cockpits, different glass shaders and functioning PIP would take a long time. If they were to port things with too few upgrades they'll find the community at large disappointed in the lack of polish.

[mistyronin 1181]

Not the case sadly, they have to meet standards before they could release content into ARMA 3, it's not about the people on the forums, it's about everyone else. The Arma II models are very much lacking compared to ARMA 3 and in most situations it's easier to start from scratch than modify. So to go through and upgrade every vehicle to take advantage of things like the higher poly-count for cockpits, different glass shaders and functioning PIP would take a long time.

I believe people of the forums are quite representative of Arma 3 players. And the point would be a "fast port", obviously it wouldn't have the same quality as the other A3; but if explained properly ( maybe some disclaimer ), I think it would be a win-win.

It could even be removed or improved in the future. Look at it more like a patch for the actual situation, more than a long term solution.

[chortles 263]

I believe people of the forums are quite representative of Arma 3 players.

http://i.imgur.com/XJWjpvY.gif (921 kB)

... yeeeeeeah, not quite.

[phlux1 10]

I believe people of the forums are quite representative of Arma 3 players.

No, it's representative of the hardcore fans and the hardcore fans alone, most people don't go out of their way to post on game-specific forums. It only takes a cursory glance at the number of users on the forum vs the number of copies sold to know that the forums are not an accurate representation of the overall community.

[mistyronin 1181]

... yeeeeeeah, not quite.

Well I'd love to extend this poll to all Arma 3 owners, but I'm powerless. But I really think that forum users are quite a valid sample ( give if you please some degree of errors, to make it more accurate ).

At least are the people who care enough about the game to give their opinion. So the ones to which the game should be more focused on.

[phlux1 10]

At least are the people who care enough about the game to give their opinion. So the ones to which the game should be more focused on.

This is a fallacy. Please read my previous post.

[mistyronin 1181]

This is a fallacy. Please read my previous post.

So in your opinion people who register in the forums to post about the game are not the ones who care enough to give their thoughs.

Fine. I'm not agree, cuz that's a contradiction to me. But I respect it ( your opinion ).

Now, if you don't have more to add we could return to the main topic, that I believe ( for the amount of participation ), could be nice info for BI devs.

[phlux1 10]

So in your opinion people who register in the forums are not the ones who care enough to give their thoughs.

I didn't say that...

Please don't get all uppity at me and accuse me of contradicting myself. Many players do not post on these forums, I've played the ARMA and OFP series for years and have been part of two major outfits. I joined the forums last month and I'm starting to feel like if I'm not whinging I'm not welcome.

[Javi_KT 10]

I would like to see some of the stuff of arma 2 in arma 3 but we should wait until the full realease. I think they are going to surprise us IMHO. In 7 days we can discuss again.

[pawelkpl 29]

As I stated in another post, I was wondering how many people ( specially the ones that complain about the lack of content ) would be happy if BI added some tuned and optimized vehicles from A2 ( not just a patch like in All in Arma, made all the cfg for A3 ).

Vehicles such as the Osprey, F35, C130, Chinnok, Huey, civilian stuff, etc. maybe a bit "modernized".

It will mean far less work than make new from scratch. It may not be the best super solution, but with few time and more as a patch to make everyone happy, it will give lots of toys to play. As for whatever reasons, the great BI people couldn't get everything finished by the release.

Please vote :)

You read my mind, yesterday update made me the same way thinking, one plane on one side, they should at least give the same plane for all sides...

[mistyronin 1181]

Please don't get all uppity at me and accuse me of contradicting myself. Many players do not post on these forums, I've played the ARMA and OFP series for years and have been part of two major outfits. I joined the forums last month and I'm starting to feel like if I'm not whinging I'm not welcome.

It's what I understood from your posts, anyway it's not personal. Just that I'd love to keep on topic ( you can write a pm to me to keep that interesting debate about representation in the forums )

BTW, this post is not intended as a place to whine, it's been made to offer a constructive suggestion that may help devs.

Obviously it only has the opinions of the people who are part on this forum and answer to it. Other people opinions would be awesome. But as they haven't registered, for whatever reasons, we will have to work with the opinions of people who had.

[sofianebilal 10]

I would like to see some of the stuff of arma 2 in arma 3 but we should wait until the full realease. I think they are going to surprise us IMHO. In 7 days we can discuss again.

sorry but you dream !

may be well after the realease !

[Javi_KT 10]

sorry but you dream !

may be well after the realease !

Then it's a strategic fail, because nobody has any expectations about the release. If i were BIS, I wouldn't have shown everything before release and in my opinion they didn't.

[mistyronin 1181]

Then it's a strategic fail, because nobody has any expectations about the release. If i were BIS, I wouldn't have shown everything before release and in my opinion they didn't.

Theoretically in the dev branch we have

all sandbox release content

That's one of the reasons to create this post.

[phlux1 10]

Misty, reading through this thread, you're really just shooting everyone down rather than engaging in discussion.

[PuFu 4591]

1. Content doesn't come out of one end for free, or in seconds. A2 content could be supported for A2/OA owners, similar to AIA. It is, from where i am standing, NOT a priority either way.

2. I have been for less content but with improved quality and functionality. Some lacks functionality atm. I am unpleased by the copy paste situation indeed, but then again, most of A2 content is up-ported from previous titles. Everyone i know in the viz/modelling/mograph industry would tell you it is easier to start from scratch in most situation rather than improved on old content

3. This sort of thread is stupid in it's nature: You ask if one wants more for free. The answer will, in 90% of the cases, always be yes. It's human nature.

4. Truth be told, i would rather have BIS figure out a way to automate the server-client allowance and synchronization for addons.

5. When i want something really bad, i do create it myself.

[defk0n_NL 2]

1. Content doesn't come out of one end for free, or in seconds. A2 content could be supported for A2/OA owners, similar to AIA. It is, from where i am standing, NOT a priority either way.

2. I have been for less content but with improved quality and functionality. Some lacks functionality atm. I am unpleased by the copy paste situation indeed, but then again, most of A2 content is up-ported from previous titles. Everyone i know in the viz/modelling/mograph industry would tell you it is easier to start from scratch in most situation rather than improved on old content

3. This sort of thread is stupid in it's nature: You ask if one wants more for free. The answer will, in 90% of the cases, always be yes. It's human nature.

4. Truth be told, i would rather have BIS figure out a way to automate the server-client allowance and synchronization for addons.

5. When i want something really bad, i do create it myself.

This not about getting the content for free. Its a poll about supporting the old content.

Anyone with A2/OA/PMC/BAF can just copy addons folder (minus Modules,UI,UIFont,Anim pbo) to a modfolder and have a it working on arma 3.

Matter of fact ive just spend 3 hours browsing the absolutely massive amount of models in the editor.

Its a damn waste if you ask me. Basically everything OA and up has almost the same fidelty as A3, minus car interiors.

but yer.

What people are saying is it would be nice if it can get some official support or mod tools for porting.

At least, thats what i believe.

[dm 9]

This not about getting the content for free. Its a poll about supporting the old content.

Except the title suggests that the content should somehow (magically?) be "optimized" for A3...

[defk0n_NL 2]

Except the title suggests that the content should somehow (magically?) be "optimized" for A3...

Under optimized i see, adding physx confs to cars. Making assets bugfree.

and their are a couple of bugs on the AIA tracker that only BIS can solve.

If one meant reskinning models then that could be a lil much. just sayin.

[dm 9]

Under optimized i see, adding physx confs to cars. Making assets bugfree.

and their are a couple of bugs on the AIA tracker that only BIS can solve.

All of which requires developer time and effort (a reasonably significant amount, when it comes to configuring physX).

Where does that time/effort come from?