Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mistyronin

A2 vehicles a solution or A3 lack of content?

Would you like optimized A2 stuff be in A3?  

276 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you like optimized A2 stuff be in A3?

    • Yes, I need lots of stuff, don't care if it was in A2 before.
      210
    • I'm happy with what we have now, I'll wait for DLC for new stuff.
      33
    • No way, I want more exclusive A3 stuff for free!
      33


Recommended Posts

you can be airdropped by helicopter but you cant jump out midair if you are a pilot or co-pilot.

i agree but isn't so fun and it destroys immediatly the immersion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Stallion isnt going anywhere for some time, since it performs roles the MV-22 can not (heavy lift, for example).

Well, hope you are right. I fear that the final USMC intention is to remove all heavy helicopters and replace them by Ospreys.

In that case, I'd love and encourage if BI would add them ingame ( in A2 I had even make missions based only in a CH53 addon ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, hope you are right. I fear that the final USMC intention is to remove all heavy helicopters and replace them by Ospreys.

In that case, I'd love and encourage if BI would add them ingame ( in A2 I had even make missions based only in a CH53 addon ).

this is only a of mine brainstorming, one problem is that the Opfor doesn't have a counterparts chopper or planes...... but some assets and veichles are strongly recomended to port in a3, i mean the warfare buildings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is to offer a constructive fast-patch solution for people who feel disapointed with the lack of vehicles.

So, please DM stay on topic.

DM is in this particular case, one of the few ON topic: There is no fast patch solution on the pipe. The quasi solution is to use AIA, or simply use A2 addons folder as an addon folder for A3.

That's our both opinions, but there are more people in this forums, and they have all their right to express it without being harassed.

BTW the devs have the final decision. So if you feel you have expressed all your reasons, you may dedicate your time in other threads.

I'll say this with no pun intended: the opinions towards such a "fast" solution from people who don't understand the whole "fix and improve" process is nil, at least in my book.

this is only a of mine brainstorming, one problem is that the Opfor doesn't have a counterparts chopper or planes......

Russia does.

In that case, I'd love and encourage if BI would add them ingame ( in A2 I had even make missions based only in a CH53 addon ).

Is there a CH53 in OA or A2 that i missed? Wasn't this thread about that fast-patch solution, not yet another wishlist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say to the no fixed wing crowed is in the arma sample models folder lies an A10 and an Su34 "stop your jibba jabba and get some nuts", or sample models that can be used as fixed wing for A3 with a config.

I have said before Toh got the rearmed in a patch it merged a2/oa into toh with the hinds dlc, so just wait and i'm sure we will get the same for A3 in time till then if your not happy start to learn modding and all of its necessity's to get it in game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DM is in this particular case, one of the few ON topic: There is no fast patch solution on the pipe. The quasi solution is to use AIA, or simply use A2 addons folder as an addon folder for A3.

I'll say this with no pun intended: the opinions towards such a "fast" solution from people who don't understand the whole "fix and improve" process is nil, at least in my book.

weird thing, so if you use a arma 2 like a mod ok, if you ask to dev to improve this addon only for few ASSETS is a huge work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
weird thing, so if you use a arma 2 like a mod ok, if you ask to dev to improve this addon only for few ASSETS is a huge work

The key difference being "if you use Arma2 as a mod" you use it "as-is" with no "optimizations". Meaning: no PhysX, no weapon attachments, none of the A3 enhancements.

Whereas, if you "ask the dev to improve this addon" then the devs have to do all the extra work to set up the physX (not trivial), the wepaon attachments, etc etc etc.

Not to mention the fact that A2 uses a completely different config structure to A3, so basically everything would have to be re-written from scratch... Not a "small work" by any stretch of the imagination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of A2 content doesn't even support thermal imaging scopes for example, these thermal textures would all have to be added to non AO assets.

A2 into A3 is more than just drag and drop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll say this with no pun intended: the opinions towards such a "fast" solution from people who don't understand the whole "fix and improve" process is nil, at least in my book.?

Well, it's obvious that none of us have a deep understanding on the process BI uses to develop Arma 3. Because we don't work with them. And as far as I know, neither do you.

Even if I have a degree in computer science and worked in a few PSP games, every software team is a complete different world, and the workflow can change a lot. So I wouldn't even dare to assume anything.

What we try in this forums ( and specifically in this topic ), from our ignorance, is to make constructive suggestions that may help BI devs. As it's also obvious, they will decide to take them or to not do so.

Until this point no BI dev has answered that this idea is not possible, or would take more time ( correct me if I'm wrong ).

So we just have your and DMs assumptions that this would take longer than make new content from scratch. Which mean that right know your assumptions are as right / wrong as ours.

------------------------------------------------------

A lot of A2 content doesn't even support thermal imaging scopes for example, these thermal textures would all have to be added to non AO assets.

A2 into A3 is more than just drag and drop.

Obviously, and it has been stated before. If BI decide to add this fast patch, we wouldn't expect the same quality to A3. People who vote yes, means that they accept that this content would not be high quality, just a temporal patch.

Edited by MistyRonin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I can say to the no fixed wing crowed is in the arma sample models folder lies an A10 and an Su34 "stop your jibba jabba and get some nuts", or sample models that can be used as fixed wing for A3 with a config.

I have said before Toh got the rearmed in a patch it merged a2/oa into toh with the hinds dlc, so just wait and i'm sure we will get the same for A3 in time till then if your not happy start to learn modding and all of its necessity's to get it in game.

first of all, it isn't a simple port job to get things working properly in arma 3, secondly the quality of arma 2 models are absolutely terrible, sorry. but the leap in quality between arma 3 models and arma 2 models is simply huge. you port them over, and they'll look right out of place and ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
first of all, it isn't a simple port job to get things working properly in arma 3, secondly the quality of arma 2 models are absolutely terrible, sorry. but the leap in quality between arma 3 models and arma 2 models is simply huge. you port them over, and they'll look right out of place and ugly.

I think it has been talked all along this post, that A2 stuff has less quality than A3, but even if they look out of place and ugly it seems that most of the people ( according to the poll ) still think its gonna be better than nothing.

Edited by MistyRonin
Orthography

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it has been talked all along this post, that A2 stuff has less quality than A3, but even if they look out of place and ugly it seems that most of the people ( according to the poll ) still think its gonna be better than nothing.

Then the forums may get a flood of complaints hat they were just copy pasted to Arma 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best answer to this post is what Kju has proposed .

Then the forums may get a flood of complaints hat they were just copy pasted to Arma 3.

Right now, for what I could read in other entries, people prefer addons from other games than lack of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it's obvious that none of us have a deep understanding on the process BI uses to develop Arma 3. Because we don't work with them. And as far as I know, neither do you.

wrong assumption.

Even if I have a degree in computer science and worked in a few PSP games, every software team is a complete different world, and the workflow can change a lot. So I wouldn't even dare to assume anything.

Yeah, but i am talking about actually wornking on asset creation for BIS game here, not some random mobile video game.

What we try in this forums ( and specifically in this topic ), from our ignorance, is to make constructive suggestions that may help BI devs. As it's also obvious, they will decide to take them or to not do so.

Not everyone on those forums is ignorant. There are community members around who have done freelance work for BI before, and will most likely do more in the future. So when talking about ignorance, please try and use "I" instead of "we" and "my" instead of "ours"

Until this point no BI dev has answered that this idea is not possible, or would take more time ( correct me if I'm wrong ).

And most likely, you won't have a direct answer on the topic either way.

So we just have your and DMs assumptions that this would take longer than make new content from scratch. Which mean that right know your assumptions are as right / wrong as ours.

It is a quite a bit more than assumption in this particular case, trust me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a quite a bit more than assumption in this particular case, trust me.

Ok, I didn't know that you and/or DM have participated in the development of A3 ( neither I have seen proof of, so it's still your word ). Anyway, that's why I used the expression: as far as I know.

When I used the pronoun we, I was meaning the common players who make suggestions.

BTW due to your knowledge about the A3 process ( you claim having been part of it ), would you mind giving us a little summary of the steps? It'll be enlightening to know why it takes more time to adapt a A2 addon, even without changing textures or 3D model, than making one from scratch.

Edited by MistyRonin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont care about the development process, but as a customer who already paid money I have the right to critizise the endproduct. And the endproduct is severly lacking right now.

It just breaks immersion for me when every faction has the same vehicles, or when I see bullshit like the MLRS turret on a Merkava chassis, that still has the retainers where the original MLRS turret rests on the drivers cabin. But the "Merkava MLRS" has no drivers cabin . So its really proof that BIS just copied and pasted shit together. And that is 1. Not the quality Im used from BIS 2. Not the quality I want to see in an immersive combat simulator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, I didn't know that you and/or DM have participated in the development of A3 ( neither I have seen proof of, so it's still your word ). Anyway, that's why I used the expression: as far as I know.

I didn't say that.

BTW due to your knowledge about the A3 process ( you claim having been part of it ),

I didn't claim i was part of the A3 process. It would be a lie. That said i been part of different addon groups for quite a while (IC, ACE, RHS), i and have worked directly with people who work for BI, as developers of freelancers.

AFAIK, DM has worked directly with BI as well as BIA btw.

would you mind giving us a little summary of the steps? It'll be enlightening to know why it takes more time to adapt a A2 addon, even without changing textures or 3D model, than making one from scratch.

Updating A2 models to A3 standards, being a BI employee or some community member doing the same (given the said addon maker knows what his doing and he has a lot of experience under his belt) is precisely the same amount of time and effort.

Not changing textures or model: all the config from scratch, including weapons used by said vehicle. 3d model(o2): additional selection required (i am not talking about hiddenSelections here, which all vehicles in A3 are preped for) new animations, added the physix LOD. Multiply that by the number of models you want in. And again, that would simply be a temporary solution.

Regarding new 3d model versus working on an already 2-3 revisions of the same model: It allows to create the said 3d mesh using a workflow that is contemporary and scoped oriented, it allows to optimize the UV space (some of A2 models have weird layouts, some overlapping, some mirrored on W axis) and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Updating A2 models to A3 standards, being a BI employee or some community member doing the same (given the said addon maker knows what his doing and he has a lot of experience under his belt) is precisely the same amount of time and effort.

Not changing textures or model: all the config from scratch, including weapons used by said vehicle. 3d model(o2): additional selection required (i am not talking about hiddenSelections here, which all vehicles in A3 are preped for) new animations, added the physix LOD. Multiply that by the number of models you want in. And again, that would simply be a temporary solution.

Regarding new 3d model versus working on an already 2-3 revisions of the same model: It allows to create the said 3d mesh using a workflow that is contemporary and scoped oriented, it allows to optimize the UV space (some of A2 models have weird layouts, some overlapping, some mirrored on W axis) and so on.

Well, that makes sense, thanks for the input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ahh, another new DayZ kiddie opens his mouth.

---------- Post added at 02:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:38 AM ----------

You guys should take a look at Crysis Wars. Nuke Tanks, futuristic projectile weapons, alien weapons. Would be an interesting port.

1. DayZ is the plague of the ArmA series, when I played ArmA zombies were mod units you placed on Sahrani for the INDFOR faction.

2. He didn't even mention that. He meant the coilgun tank T-100 that BIS axed and smart munitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if they do something like this, they'd have to figure out what to do about people that don't own A2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Updating A2 models to A3 standards, being a BI employee or some community member doing the same (given the said addon maker knows what his doing and he has a lot of experience under his belt) is precisely the same amount of time and effort.

Not changing textures or model: all the config from scratch, including weapons used by said vehicle. 3d model(o2): additional selection required (i am not talking about hiddenSelections here, which all vehicles in A3 are preped for) new animations, added the physix LOD. Multiply that by the number of models you want in. And again, that would simply be a temporary solution.

Regarding new 3d model versus working on an already 2-3 revisions of the same model: It allows to create the said 3d mesh using a workflow that is contemporary and scoped oriented, it allows to optimize the UV space (some of A2 models have weird layouts, some overlapping, some mirrored on W axis) and so on.

What has to be kept in mind is how old many of these models are. Some were made with a 2005/6~ ish release date in mind for OFP2, and originally were started to be made prior to 2004. These models and the workmanship/workflows used on them are 10~ years old. The only units that were regularily updated are the Infantry. Pretty much every vehicle in Arma, Arma 2 and all their addons aside from a few exceptions were originally made in the 2004/5 era, and simply retextured and re-used. The Kamaz truck is one of these old models, and may date as early as 2004.

I for one am happy about the new models, and that no Arma 2 content has been included. It's less content than before, but even this content has problems that almost lead me to believe that BI should've included even less and polished that more. Re the tank effects. The T-100 doesn't even have animations for opening the hatches, no gun recoil animation, and all new vehicles -still- float above the ground.

Remove the superflous MLRS and Stratis, and make the rest of the vehicles work. Too late now, but I hope the existing bugs will be fixed. And, as par for the course, there still are many. Fences that turn black when damaged, Tanks being thrown in the air when colliding with each other, AI walking through each other, through doors, Vehicles running over their own infantry all the time, and at least half of all uniforms and headgear are not ingame, not configured or straight out bugged.

Again, less would have been more. For example, throw out the stupid jet. The time spent on that could've been spent to fix the animation errors on the other vehicles and implement the female civilians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What has to be kept in mind is how old many of these models are. Some were made with a 2005/6~ ish release date in mind for OFP2, and originally were started to be made prior to 2004. These models and the workmanship/workflows used on them are 10~ years old. The only units that were regularily updated are the Infantry. Pretty much every vehicle in Arma, Arma 2 and all their addons aside from a few exceptions were originally made in the 2004/5 era, and simply retextured and re-used. The Kamaz truck is one of these old models, and may date as early as 2004.

I for one am happy about the new models, and that no Arma 2 content has been included. It's less content than before, but even this content has problems that almost lead me to believe that BI should've included even less and polished that more. Re the tank effects. The T-100 doesn't even have animations for opening the hatches, no gun recoil animation, and all new vehicles -still- float above the ground.

Again, less would have been more. For example, throw out the stupid jet. The time spent on that could've been spent to fix the animation errors on the other vehicles and implement the female civilians.

Sorry but some things you just said are 100% crazy. Especially that bit about the jet, I have roughly 20 friends who would of never bought the game if it had no jets. They have been an important part of the series since OFP! The sheer number of mods that adds jets just proves my point even further. Also who cares about if its old, more content = more fun!

Bugs can be fixed!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
votes say it all

The votes say fucking nothing. Of course people are going to say "yes I want more free shit"... :j:

Also who cares about if its old, more content = more fun!

Bugs can be fixed!!

This is why BI are screwed.

They're damned if they do - if they release buggy content, people would rip them apart for "poor buggy unoptimized game" - you just have to look at the number of complaints about OA features not working on A2 content to see that...

They're damned if they don't - if they don't forward port all their content, people rip them apart for "crappy, lieing, cheating, no content developers. What were you doing the last 2 years?1!?!!?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The votes say fucking nothing. Of course people are going to say "yes I want more free shit"... :j:

---------- Post added at 18:05 ---------- Previous post was at 18:02 ----------

This is why BI are screwed.

They're damned if they do - if they release buggy content, people would rip them apart for "poor buggy unoptimized game"

They're damned if they don't - if they don't forward port all their content, people rip them apart for "crappy, lieing, cheating, no content developers. What were you doing the last 2 years?1!?!!?"

Wrong. Even with the current content the game is still buggy I found. Also I am not doing that, simply stating my personal opinion. I have been in the community just as long as you probably have so I am certainly in support of BI still!

I simply am a little annoyed at this 1 jet fiasco, surely there could of been another included for dogfights from day one? Other than that I am relatively happy with the current content.

Edited by hetsar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×