Arma 3: Community wishes & ideas- DISCUSSION

[Daniel 0]

No music? How are we supposed to feel any sort of nostalgia ten years down the line if there's no music?! :p

That Su-50 is sexy, there should definitely be a place for it in Arma 3. It's already packing the digi-cam.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Daniel

[Corvinus 35]

May be it's a silly nitpicking from my side, but there is no such plane as "Su-50". It's called PAK FA as a whole program, and "T-50" is only a several testbed models within this program. Sukhoy firm never gave even numbers to their fighters before, and I don't think they will start in the future. So calling a testbed "Su-50" is the same level of wrongness as naming Ak as "Ak-47" - there never was such a rifle, or naming AKS-74U as "Krinkov".

[[evo] dan 79]

Wouldnt the J20 be much more appropriate given the fact that the Iranians are supposed to be supplied by the chinese?

[purepassion 22]

Yes the J-20 is an outstanding aircraft aswell

[antoineflemming 14]

Original Post Deleted (was in the NO DISCUSSION thread) this is exactly where the camera is: between the eyes, very close to the human vertical axis.

are you posting just for the sake of it? blending the view, really? are you 5?

you want stereo view/anaglyphic on a 2d monitor without stereo the default red/blue glases?

maybe you want the following:

Please stop posting if you have NO idea what you are talking about

Tell me why, when I have black shades on, I do not see them? Tell me when I'm wearing orange eyepro (eye protection), my vision looks normal. Tell me why when I have goggles on, from my view there is nothing on my face. Tell me how this is realistic. The camera is centered on the head, between the eyes?

Explain these then:

Why do I not see my charging handle?

Why do I not see more of my arm when holding a rifle?

Why does it always look like the character is holding the rifle at the hip, when the character model is holding a rifle upright, almost shoulder height.

Why do I not see ALL of the carrying handle here, as I do when I actually carry an M16? Why do some sights/scopes go beyond the camera if it's at the right position? Does the character over extend his arms to look through the sights? Is he resting the sight/scope on his cheek or something?

THIS is the third person view:

Yeah, sure, go ahead and tell me the first person camera is fine.

Okay, I'll even give it to BIS that they may have been only focusing on the non-peripheral vision when choosing this camera view. FINE, but then ADD Peripheral vision. Let the player see more, and let that be peripheral vision. I should see the entire carrying handle. I should see my charging handle. I should my freaking elbows. All of this would be blurred, it's peripheral, but it should STILL be seen. Honestly, if I've got a character with short sleeves, I should be able to see the sleeves without turning my head.

FIX the first person camera view to make it more realistic. Standard shooters have a more realistic first person "rifle" view than ArmA. At least make it actually look like the soldier is holding the rifle at his shoulder.

This from America's Army 3 is a more realistic view than what ArmA currently has:

[PuFu 4600]

Tell me why, when I have black shades on, I do not see them? Tell me when I'm wearing orange eyepro (eye protection), my vision looks normal. Tell me why when I have goggles on, from my view there is nothing on my face. Tell me how this is realistic.

because there is no such model in the pilotLOD (first person lod) for a good reason. There is no head nor headgear.

ACE approach is a bit different for instance, they have an overlay color on top of the view.

The camera is centered on the head, between the eyes?

yes it is.

Don't believe me, install BIS tools, grab the A2 soldier sample provided by BIS, and check the memoryLOD yourself. It's not rocket science (for most).

Why do I not see my charging handle?

Why do I not see more of my arm when holding a rifle?

because of the FOV. You can duble tap "-"(minus) key for extended FOV (default control scheme), or you can set your own wider/fisheye FOV in your profile.cfg.

Why does it always look like the character is holding the rifle at the hip, when the character model is holding a rifle upright, almost shoulder height.

That is something i agree with you on, there should be an intermediary animation between hip and sights on (as it is now, you won't see someone else (3rd view) switching from the current view to down the sights.

Yeah, sure, go ahead and tell me the first person camera is fine.

I just did. Yes it is. It is not my fault you know little about how models are setup. Maybe you should first learn that and then come back and post again.

Okay, I'll even give it to BIS that they may have been only focusing on the non-peripheral vision when choosing this camera view. FINE, but then ADD Peripheral vision. Let the player see more, and let that be peripheral vision. I should see the entire carrying handle. I should see my charging handle. I should my freaking elbows. All of this would be blurred, it's peripheral, but it should STILL be seen. Honestly, if I've got a character with short sleeves, I should be able to see the sleeves without turning my head.

see my reply above. You CAN do that...

FIX the first person camera view to make it more realistic. Standard shooters have a more realistic first person "rifle" view than ArmA. At least make it actually look like the soldier is holding the rifle at his shoulder.

Well, most "standard shooters" don't have engagement ranges beyond 50-100m tops. If you'd have the same FOV in Arma, you would be engaging 2px @1920x1080 resolution.

But well, i couldn't be expecting anything else from your part, could i?

You still haven't explained how would you make a stereo view on a single screen though, without additional gear. God, why haven't anyone else thought of that until now?

FPDR

Edited December 18, 2011 by PuFu

[LeeManatee 4]

a question about gear / loadout

is that possible?

this is probably complicated as hell, idc.. but.. is that possible to make weapons / gear avaible / unlocked on multiplayer missions if you unlocked em in singleplayer

and getting promotions mb.. (?) - very sceptic about this..

like.. you bought arma 3 and you got your id, and there is some data on database like...

id: 123456

face: 04

gear avaible: 1; 2; 3;

camo: 02;

weapons unlocked: 120; 123; 156;

some statistics like

prefered weapon:

prefered role:

just some bits to brag about ;p

etc

edit: and to be able to fly a chopper you had to be qualified - means you must complete training mission on boot camp, etc so not only vehicles but weapons aslo..

so when you join a server some stuff is already preset, so i'm able to get in a chopper, while some new player who doesn't know how to fly can't get in there...

but ranks will mean how many people can be in group etc, like if you are leutenant you can command several people, while when you are general you are able to command.. <-- nevermind thats sounds not that good

^ sounds like fps approach, but thats not that bad..

i'm personaly fine with things as it is now, but still, it could be interesting...

just a suggestion

also.. bleading out and forcing ai & players to use 1st aid module ;) with option on / off at difficulty settings. not like syncing each unit to this module

even on pvp missions, and it should be exacly like default 1st aid module in arma 2. it will add more fun, so if sniper shot some1 and team mates trying to get him in a cover you keep an eye on him and shoot em and other stuff

Edited December 18, 2011 by n7snk

[antoineflemming 14]

because there is no such model in the pilotLOD (first person lod) for a good reason. There is no head nor headgear.

ACE approach is a bit different for instance, they have an overlay color on top of the view.

yes it is.

Don't believe me, install BIS tools, grab the A2 soldier sample provided by BIS, and check the memoryLOD yourself. It's not rocket science (for most).

because of the FOV. You can duble tap "-"(minus) key for extended FOV (default control scheme), or you can set your own wider/fisheye FOV in your profile.cfg.

That is something i agree with you on, there should be an intermediary animation between hip and sights on (as it is now, you won't see someone else (3rd view) switching from the current view to down the sights.

I just did. Yes it is. It is not my fault you know little about how models are setup. Maybe you should first learn that and then come back and post again.

see my reply above. You CAN do that...

Well, most "standard shooters" don't have engagement ranges beyond 50-100m tops. If you'd have the same FOV in Arma, you would be engaging 2px @1920x1080 resolution.

But well, i couldn't be expecting anything else from your part, could i?

You still haven't explained how would you make a stereo view on a single screen though, without additional gear. God, why haven't anyone else thought of that until now?

FPDR

I actually mentioned that because I mentioned the shades (not the tactical glasses). If the shades were to be seen in first person, and the camera centered between the eyes, then you would see the bridge of the shades (you would not be able to actually "see" through the shades).

I question whether the view is actually between the eyes because the camera view of the m16 for example suggests that the view is actually higher than what it should be. If the camera were at the correct position, it would not look like the rifle was held at the stomach or something. It is too low in the first person view. I actually have held an M16 before. It would actually look like the weapon was held at the shoulder. The camera view is NOT realistic in this regard. I did the double tap minus key thing, and it is still not correct. As I said, the weapon still seems too low. Since only one model is being used (no floating hands), the first and third person views should represent the same thing. And, okay, there's not headgear or head in the first person lod. Well, I think they should work to find a way where glasses are functional. Whatever that means. If it's got to be an overlay, then so be it. If it's seeing the actual glasses then so be it. It would add to the immersion. When in the diving gear with the goggles. If BIS can get it to work, then that would be awesome. It doesn't hurt to try. And trying to do this doesn't necessarily mean that BIS can't do something else, so it's not like an important feature would have to be dropped. As far as shades, I want to select eyewear and know I'm wearing it. I want to wear shades and it actually limits some of the blinding sun effect. Then eyewear actually plays a role in the decision-making process of the player: What gear do I outfit myself with based on terrain, enemy, mission, time of day, weather, etc. Make gear selection METT-TC dependent (mission, enemy, terrain, time, troops, civilian consideration). Make players have to think for just about EVERY decision that they need to make. Also would be good if night-vision was an eyewear or headgear choice, not simply an item choice.

[PuFu 4600]

I actually mentioned that because I mentioned the shades (not the tactical glasses). If the shades were to be seen in first person, and the camera centered between the eyes, then you would see the bridge of the shades (you would not be able to actually "see" through the shades).

Yes your right, BUT it isn't. Your point is?

I question whether the view is actually between the eyes because the camera view of the m16 for example suggests that the view is actually higher than what it should be. If the camera were at the correct position, it would not look like the rifle was held at the stomach or something. It is too low in the first person view

.

why do you still want to argue with me on this subject? In the time it took you to write the last 2 post, you could have...yes...checked it YOURSELF.

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

@ Antoineflemming,

The camera is where PuFu says it is. Possibly you are overthinking it? The average person doesn't sight their weapon from just above their nose. They are either right eye or left eye dominant. By having a centrally positioned viewpoint it will surely distort the appearance of the weapon you are holding.

The clips below were shot using Go Pro helmet mounted cameras. While they are not in the "exact" same position as BIS's "camera", they will demonstrate what I mean.

Also, even if you were able to put a camera directly over the eye socket, it would still need to account for the different axis that the eye would be in when sighting. Just observe someones eye for 10 minutes and you will see that it is in constant motion. It does not lock into position with the head.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=df7_1324033638

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a85_1323842767

[antoineflemming 14]

@ Antoineflemming,

The camera is where PuFu says it is. Possibly you are overthinking it? The average person doesn't sight their weapon from just above their nose. They are either right eye or left eye dominant. By having a centrally positioned viewpoint it will surely distort the appearance of the weapon you are holding.

The clips below were shot using Go Pro helmet mounted cameras. While they are not in the "exact" same position as BIS's "camera", they will demonstrate what I mean.

Also, even if you were able to put a camera directly over the eye socket, it would still need to account for the different axis that the eye would be in when sighting. Just observe someones eye for 10 minutes and you will see that it is in constant motion. It does not lock into position with the head.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=df7_1324033638

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a85_1323842767

My main point is that the view seems zoomed in too much. Not trying to argue. I know that "true" FOV would have the view being zoomed in even more, assuming that you are the person with the rifle (and therefore distanced from the screen). What I am saying is that, looking at the view as through the eyes of the soldier (as if the eyes are a camera), the view is zoomed in too much. That's all. BTW, I always thought that the camera was positioned off of the left eye, so that's why I suggested centering the camera. I do understand and accept what you both are saying, though.

I did play around with FOV and, while I liked seeing more of the weapon, of course there was distortion in the view. So I still think the camera should be moved a little closer to the head. I guess one thing would be to maybe have separate FOV settings for first and third person. Would that be a good idea to some people? I only say so because I am personally fine with the third person FOV (yes, I do occasionally use 3rd person, really just for screens).

@PuFu: On question about the no switching animation. So, the pulling up the sights is just a change in camera position? Am I understanding that correctly?

[smookie 11]

My main point is that the view seems zoomed in too much.

Yes it's true, but it is due to circumstances stated earlier (game balance). Is it a real problem?

[metalcraze 290]

@PuFu: On question about the no switching animation. So, the pulling up the sights is just a change in camera position? Am I understanding that correctly?

If you've noticed it looks like the soldier bows his head to look through sights (especially noticeable when lying down - when not looking through sights the soldier looks over the gun and over the grass too f.e.)

The camera position is fine.

[PuFu 4600]

My main point is that the view seems zoomed in too much. Not trying to argue.

I don't know how you are not trying to argue when this is precisely what you are doing

BTW, I always thought that the camera was positioned off of the left eye, so that's why I suggested centering the camera. I do understand and accept what you both are saying, though.

it was on the left side in A1, although it was fixed somewhere down the line, i am pretty sure the latest patch has it centered between the eyes.

So I still think the camera should be moved a little closer to the head.

why don't you comprehend such a simple thing: if there was such a head in the pilot lod, the camera would be placed right between the eyes, at the start of the nose. I told you before: check it yourself before using your keyboard to post.

@PuFu: On question about the no switching animation. So, the pulling up the sights is just a change in camera position? Am I understanding that correctly?

yeah, depending on how the memory lod has been setup for the weapon. The misalignment of the sight for the m14 is caused by a misalignment of this point.

[antoineflemming 14]

Yes it's true, but it is due to circumstances stated earlier (game balance). Is it a real problem?

No, it is not a real problem, but I didn't think suggestions have to only be improvements of some major fault in the game, or did I misunderstand the point of this thread?

Either way, PuFu, I'm sorry you consider my trying to explain my suggestion as arguing. When a suggestion I make comes under attack, I like to explain that suggestion and understand why someone has fault with it. I certainly did not mean to offend you in any way.

Edited December 20, 2011 by antoineflemming

[twisted 128]

Anyways: The core of the problem lies in the aiming. You can fire that acurate while not using ironsights because you have onscreen crosshairs. If the crosshairs would be removed (maybe just turn them off by default for every dificulty level) we would no longer be able to shoot at 300m without using sights. Add a floating zone wich cannot be set to 0 and those "Ãœber-accuracy" problems are gone.

.

yes. plus no more MG fired full auto like a rifle held up to eye from standing pls. :coop:

[Messiah 2]

Anyways: The core of the problem lies in the aiming. You can fire that acurate while not using ironsights because you have onscreen crosshairs. If the crosshairs would be removed (maybe just turn them off by default for every dificulty level) we would no longer be able to shoot at 300m without using sights. Add a floating zone wich cannot be set to 0 and those "Ãœber-accuracy" problems are gone

Whilst I agree with your point that crosshairs and the such make 'hip shooting' far to easy, I don't really agree that its any sort of 'problem' - the game allows you to turn them off if you feel its not realistic or too easy, server admins can do the same to level the playing field across a mission.

I'd liken it to any FPS out there, you can choose to play it in 'kindergarten' or in 'nightmare' mode, its down to your own personal choice. If you were to turn the crosshairs off by default, you'd be opening the game and inevitably these forums up for a tirade of 'errrr, why no crosshair' comments, which ultimately just detracts from the game (for those of the more casual nature) and sales for BIS if its deemed to 'unfriendly' for people who want to pick it up casually.

Lets remember that not everyone purchases the game for the same reason, I only initially picked it up after spending a few weeks on my brother's copy of OFP in the editor alone, the realism part (pinch of salt with OFP I'll admit) didn't concern me, it was the scale, scope and freedom that got me hooked.

[iratus 71]

I'd liken it to any FPS out there, you can choose to play it in 'kindergarten' or in 'nightmare' mode, its down to your own personal choice. If you were to turn the crosshairs off by default, you'd be opening the game and inevitably these forums up for a tirade of 'errrr, why no crosshair' comments, which ultimately just detracts from the game (for those of the more casual nature) and sales for BIS if its deemed to 'unfriendly' for people who want to pick it up casually.

That's a good point. "Default off" is maybe not a good solution. And crosshairs are allready not aviable at harder difficulties, so it can stay as it is.

As long as server admins can force crosshairs off for everyone there will be no balance problems.

However, floating zone is a different thing, because it can not be forced by a server setting. And people with floating zone = 0 seem tho have an atvantage, at least as "weapon lag" is limited to the floating zone. There would be ways to change it, for example by (re)introducing a minimum floating zone as in OFP or a server command to force a minimum floating zone. But some players may simply be not comfortabel with FZ at all, so it's still questionable if this is a good idea.

IMO it is important that "weapon lag" should be no longer limited by the FZ setting but rather allways limited to max. FZ. So heavy weapons would "lag" the same amount regardless of FZ setting.

[antoineflemming 14]

Whilst I agree with your point that crosshairs and the such make 'hip shooting' far to easy, I don't really agree that its any sort of 'problem' - the game allows you to turn them off if you feel its not realistic or too easy, server admins can do the same to level the playing field across a mission.

I'd liken it to any FPS out there, you can choose to play it in 'kindergarten' or in 'nightmare' mode, its down to your own personal choice. If you were to turn the crosshairs off by default, you'd be opening the game and inevitably these forums up for a tirade of 'errrr, why no crosshair' comments, which ultimately just detracts from the game (for those of the more casual nature) and sales for BIS if its deemed to 'unfriendly' for people who want to pick it up casually.

Lets remember that not everyone purchases the game for the same reason, I only initially picked it up after spending a few weeks on my brother's copy of OFP in the editor alone, the realism part (pinch of salt with OFP I'll admit) didn't concern me, it was the scale, scope and freedom that got me hooked.

+1 Great post. I think sometimes people get so caught up in how they play ArmA that they don't realize that others may play it differently. In principle, BIS should design the game so that the most hardcore, dedicated, realistism and immersion loving players have all the functions and features that they want, but that out of the box it accommodates the casual player. You shouldn't have to turn stuff of (disable features) for casual gamers to enjoy it. You should have to turn stuff on for the hardcore player can enjoy. And that's okay, because the hardcore gamer IS going to take the time to make sure everything is suited to their needs. They should be the ones who are more patient to tweak the game to their liking than the casual gamer, who wants to jump in without changing much. If BIS would have this focus, then they could better accommodate both. Hardcore, dedicated gamers don't lose any features, and casual gamers now have a simulator that they can actually play. Of course this doesn't mean making ArmA like COD or BF3. BIS should NOT change gameplay. One major area where this focus could be seen is in UI, things like crosshairs and indicators.

[Messiah 2]

That's a good point. "Default off" is maybe not a good solution. And crosshairs are allready not aviable at harder difficulties, so it can stay as it is.

As long as server admins can force crosshairs off for everyone there will be no balance problems.

However, floating zone is a different thing, because it can not be forced by a server setting. And people with floating zone = 0 seem tho have an atvantage, at least as "weapon lag" is limited to the floating zone. There would be ways to change it, for example by (re)introducing a minimum floating zone as in OFP or a server command to force a minimum floating zone. But some players may simply be not comfortabel with FZ at all, so it's still questionable if this is a good idea.

IMO it is important that "weapon lag" should be no longer limited by the FZ setting but rather allways limited to max. FZ. So heavy weapons would "lag" the same amount regardless of FZ setting.

Agreed, but as you pointed out, I'm not sure how reasonable it is to 'force' floating zones onto people via a server, as people are comfortable with different settings. Its not quite like the server forcing a certain mouse sensitivity on those playing, but I could liken the result as being the same, essentially people suddenly facing a different shooting situation. I think most would leave the server rather tha get used to it.

Reintroduction of the minimum floating zone, as you said, is the easiest stop-gap for BIS to do, so that at least there's some level of commonality. Thereafter I'm not sure how far you could take it, people enjoy tweaking the controls to how they like it, so having other settings forced upon you is inherently risky.

[britishlegion 1]

Its not like they are going to put mostly what we want into the game. :l If they were this would be filled to the top lmao.

[madmusti 10]

What do you think about Turkish Armed Forces?

(Before i want post 64 pictures but only 10 allowed -.- ).

[imghttp://www.turkmilitary.com/data/media/259/unledpc.jpg[/img] > 100kb

[imghttp://www.turkmilitary.com/data/media/288/aselsan_83-069.jpg[/img] > 100kb

[imghttp://www.turkmilitary.com/data/media/265/atakt129.jpg[/img] > 100kb

[imghttp://www.turkmilitary.com/data/media/265/1308955630-62.jpg[/img] > 100kb

http://www.turkmilitary.com/data/media/39/5835-B-20110427102549-yk-9-.jpg/IMG] > 100kb

http://www.turkmilitary.com/data/media/39/231.jpg

http://www.turkmilitary.com/data/media/36/286.jpg/IMG] > 100kb

Edited December 23, 2011 by Max Power

[max power 21]

madmusti

I find it quite vexing that after I issue you an in-thread warning for crossing the 100kb limit, you break it hours later 8 times in the same post. +1/2 infraction for each image, bringing your total infractions up to 4. After five, you get a permanent ban, so I suggest brushing up on the forum rules. The default penalty is 1 per image.

§15) Do not hotlink images over 100kb (102400 bytes) in size

Do not link images over 100kb using the IMG tags to display an image in your post. If you wish to post an image larger then 100 kb feel free to post the URL instead of hotlinking.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Max Power

[madmusti 10]

madmusti

I find it quite vexing that after I issue you an in-thread warning for crossing the 100kb limit, you break it hours later 8 times in the same post. +1/2 infraction for each image, bringing your total infractions up to 4. After five, you get a permanent ban, so I suggest brushing up on the forum rules. The default penalty is 1 per image.

Why do not have on the Forum a image Size limit ? So Difficult ? but the Pictures ARE NICE and BIS must see them !

[max power 21]

Try just posting the URL.