what is the most annoying thing for you in arma 3 ?

[Chairborne 2594]

Low CPU utilization.

I'm not one of them but there's people who spent thousends of euros on a gaming computer and still has difficulties playing this game.

I think the next barrier BIS will have to take down is this one.

[shipbreaker 13]

Couple of annoying things:

1. In terms of game mechanics, Arma 3 still looks quite like old Operation Flashpoint, what I don't understand. OP, A1, A2- ok. But A3 seems to be done, basing on obsolete ideas.

2. AI cannot find straight path to location. If you order AI to dismount and go east, they will for example disembark, go north 10 meters, than around vehicle, and finally- to the location. It's even worse, when you order them to mount.

3. Performace drops for no apparent reason, even though I was running smoothly second ago.

4. System of orders, slow, complicated and unusable, when you have to do something very quickly.

5. Many things cannot be done, or way to achieve goal is flawed. Exchanging gear with your squadmates is a horror.

6. Not working scripts sometimes, not working events, ai going crazy on ocasion.

7. Literary hundreds of small bugs.

8. Animations are bad, crude, playing only one at time with no fluent change between them.

9. Oversteerable cars and other vehicles.

I could list such things all day.

[Polygon 11]

No Physx building destruction simulation so we can storm through in tanks.

Overall, lack of better tank vs environment interaction simulation.

To fulfill most of the player's needs here, BIS must become as big as Rockstar and somehow merge all the best of DAYZSA, VBS3 and A3 engines. That's the only path to perfection, I see.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Polygon

[heavygunner 179]

The always complaining community.

[-=seany=- 5]

The always "almost there" company. :)

[neodammerung 8]

The always righter of wrongs fanboys :p

More seriously, can we focus on the game and not on people ?

[dav 22]

Yea because he pointed out the first logical thing to do to help you out :rolleyes:

Guys are you for real? Like i didnt know about holding the right mouse button down. Genuine face palm. I am just saying the sights even with right mouse button held down or track ir in my case are too small.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Dav

[roshnak 41]

Guys are you for real? Like i didnt know about holding the right mouse button down. Genuine face palm. I am just saying the sights even with right mouse button held down or track ir in my case are too small.

Too small for what? I don't really understand this complaint, to be honest. Are you saying that they are unrealistic in their size? That they are too small to be usable, for some reason? That you can't see them well?

To me they seem to be fairly realistically sized, with the obvious exception of the rear sight aperture usually being wider than is realistic.

[dav 22]

Roshnak if you cant understand that the sights are too small then stay out of my post. You are not contributing to my statement only trying to start a war on this thread between you and me. So if you are unable to understand a basic statement do not reply to my posts please.

[andersson 285]

What's wrong with trying to understand you?

[haleks 8212]

@Dav : You may not realize it, but you're ain't making much sense...

[dav 22]

The iron sights when zoomed in are too small. Simple.

[Jona33 51]

The iron sights when zoomed in are too small. Simple.

All weapons? Most of them seem all right to me, Mk20 has useless iron sights though.

[miketim 20]

Try playing on a larger monitor or something... I play on a 23" 1440x900 with default FOV and sights on the MX Carbine and Katiba are fine..

And as Jona said... MK20 is trash ironsights, but that is because of the type of sight, not really the size.

[dav 22]

Well I am playing at 1920 x 1080 on a 28 inch monitor I just wish they were taking up more of the overall screen space. I like the Lynx site thats closer to what I like.

[Grumpy Old Man 3546]

Well I am playing at 1920 x 1080 on a 28 inch monitor I just wish they were taking up more of the overall screen space. I like the Lynx site thats closer to what I like.

maybe I'm not getting your point, but it sounds like you want those iron sights to obstruct your screen much more like they already do?

Hell, the lynx ironsight is covering almost one third of the screen when zoomed in, how is that a good thing?

[danny96 80]

Everything that annoys me in game is:

- Bad CPU&GPU&RAM Utilization

- Bad midrange texutres

- Sides system (It's hard to have NATO vs other BLUFOR faction etc.. you must use too much scripts)

- AI Driving (It's much better but still It unreasonably crashes sometimes), seeing and aimbotting through bushes

- They removed openable doors - could be used to shoot from vehicles etc..

The game is really really good, but those things are annoying

[mistyronin 1181]

I agree with you with all but:

- Sides system (It's hard to have NATO vs other BLUFOR faction etc.. you must use too much scripts)

Unless you use mods, FIA is the only other BLUFOR faction. And there is a FIA faction hidden in each side ( IND and OPFOR ). So that can't be an issue.

If you use mods, is as simple as add a hidden OPFOR unit leading the group of the BLUFOR you want.

You don't need any script.

[Grumpy Old Man 3546]

Like MistyRonin said, it's easy to get a workaround, curious what kind of mission would need multiple factions that are hostile to a selection of other factions without being complicated as hell for the player.

Openable doors are still in game for almost all vehicles, take a look here.

[Janez 533]

All weapons? Most of them seem all right to me, Mk20 has useless iron sights though.

Interesting, I find Mk20 (F2000) iron sights decent and find Mk200 (KAC LMG?) rear sight really bad. That diamond shaped rear sight is way too thick and you can loose your target really fast. Too bad Zafir sights don't fold down when attaching optics as well.

[roshnak 41]

Well I am playing at 1920 x 1080 on a 28 inch monitor I just wish they were taking up more of the overall screen space. I like the Lynx site thats closer to what I like.

The Lynx sights are the same size as all the others, the rear sight is just placed closer to the back of the gun and thus is closer to the camera when you aim down the sights. The barrel is also much longer than other weapons, causing the front sight to look smaller. Other weapons that have rear sights that look large because of this are the Katiba, the Sting, and the EBR. The MX series weapons is notable for having the rear sight placed further forward on the weapon.

It sounds like what you actually want is for the weapons to take up more screen real estate when you are sighted in. I'm not really sure how that could work without fudging stuff, though. I mean, the sights are all the size they need to be to fit on the gun, right?

[haleks 8212]

Like MistyRonin said, it's easy to get a workaround, curious what kind of mission would need multiple factions that are hostile to a selection of other factions without being complicated as hell for the player.

I would go even further than Danny96 : I've always been trying, for various SP missions, to have "renegade" groups : people shooting on anybody that is not in their group - no matter the Sides or Factions.

(Just like a posse of bandits or outlaws.)

Right now you can create renegade units, but it is impossible to achieve that on a group.

The addition of ratings applied to groups and group relations scripts would allow mission makers to work around pretty much all Side/faction related limitations.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Pepe Hal

[Jona33 51]

Interesting, I find Mk20 (F2000) iron sights decent and find Mk200 (KAC LMG?) rear sight really bad. That diamond shaped rear sight is way too thick and you can loose your target really fast. Too bad Zafir sights don't fold down when attaching optics as well.

I'm with you on the Mk200 sights but I'm really not a fan of the Mk20 (in general in terms of looks), I find the sights to cover everything below the target and are too wide for my liking.

[sanguinius51 11]

I was going to say a lack of immersion, because I went straight from playing ACE in a tactical server to Arma 3, and I just... it's simply not the same. But, since that can easily be rectified with the right amount of mods, I'll have to go with multiplayer. I mean, honestly, I enjoy Altis life once in a while, but I want to see really TACTICAL servers... patrolling down a street and getting blown up by an IED, or landing in a hot LZ, securing it, and then steadily moving outwards is what I can never really find... and it annoys me.

[andersson 285]

I would go even further than Danny96 : I've always been trying, for various SP missions, to have "renegade" groups : people shooting on anybody that is not in their group - no matter the Sides or Factions.

(Just like a posse of bandits or outlaws.)

Right now you can create renegade units, but it is impossible to achieve that on a group.

The addition of ratings applied to groups and group relations scripts would allow mission makers to work around pretty much all Side/faction related limitations.

It's very easy to achieve that. There is a choice in the editor if you want independent to be friendly to all, enemy to blufor or opfor or enemy to all.

So : Blufor and Opfor fights, then you add independent groups and put them as unfriendly to all. If you want defined blufor or opfor units/groups to fight as independent put an independent groupleader to that group with probablitity 0. Voila.