Arma 3: Community wishes & ideas- DISCUSSION

[purepassion 22]

Do you want stunning particle effects in Arma 3?

Then you can vote up this ticket :pet13:

[PuFu 4599]

From the no discussion thread:

First thing, please, for the love of god, get rid of the fucking realistic/simulation/autheticity and other words for crying out loud. Yes, Arma is a simulation/realistic game. We all know it. But please stop using those every 2 words...

::Gameplay::

-Realistic Body Armor-

Armors damage absorption is not strong enough, considering most bullets from a standard fire arm cannot really get through military grade body armor.

Really, where did you get that information from?

-Realistic Reactions-

Realistic reactions to bullet hits, like if a bullet hits your arm... your character will look at his arm and maybe fall onto the ground in pain. Or if you're running and your body armor gets hit, maybe knock the player down and give him the ability to get up (Maybe with the stand up key)... but I would love to see players getting knocked down by bullets while they are crouched or standing. Or with close bullet hits, maybe make the screen turn dark.

Have you ever damaged/wounded any part of your body? Because i have, in a number of occasions (without being shot that is). For instance i broke my arm pretty badly in a university basketball game, and i haven't noticed it right at the same moment, but when i tried to grab a pass. I didn't roll on the floor, and i didn't collapse or anything.

Secondly, a bullet does NOT have enough kinetic energy to knock a full grown man down.

-Realistic Impact Effects-

On most surfaces, bullets will create sparks and smoke screens.

When you think of most surfaces, do you take into consideration the environment surfaces as well? Sparks and smoke screens is a bit of an overstatement. Have you ever shot a gun on a range against metal targets?

The particle systems could be improved in A3, i'll give you that, but most effects with different ranges of surfaces are pretty well done.

-3d Optic option-

I'd really appreciate to see something like that done, its little hard for the scope to load all of the materials and objects through a splash screen.

I have no idea what you are on about here, and why a 3d scope (or one which magnifies everything, not just the image you see through a scope - via RTT/PIP or anything similar) would allow the engine to load all the materials and object and one that has a 2d overlay (current system) wouldn't...

[Enricksolt 12]

What about Armor's interiors? It will be nice if all the heavy vehicle in Arma 3 have this feature. I know there's a lot of works and effort in it, but the thing that you can actually see through the eyes of a Crewman, it makes the game more immersive, it makes you feel like you're really inside something that "protects" you. Some examples are the M1A1 in OFP or the Bradley and the BTR in Arma 2. Is not necessary to have something like in RO2, just a simplified interiors model will be fine.

[griffz 1]

do we know yet about vertex modeled damage ?

[Minoza 11]

^^That would be sweet, but there was no word about that afaik.

[antoineflemming 14]

It would be nice if main character take a look over his own gear and we get rid of that hud style for handling basic stuff...

I mean, if I want to know which time is it, then I take a look over my wrist, and do not expect to see any flying clock, compass, etc... it turns more immersive...

http://i41.tinypic.com/343jif5.jpg

Then we could see more stuff in this FPS style...

http://i41.tinypic.com/2l8xez9.jpg

This could be an starting idea for changing weapon accessories ... it would be awesome without any hud in veteran/expert mode and some little animations to see virtual changes made on the gear...

http://i39.tinypic.com/250iic1.jpg

+1 this. Oh, and BIS has no excuse now that RTT is functioning in ArmA3. Oh, and Ground Branch also has one model for 1st and third person, so now BIS has some competition now that there's another game coming out sometime that is also purporting to be realistic.

And also no excuse for an unrealistic first person view.

[Flash Thunder 10]

^ That's no the right attitude.

BIS already has a ton of stuff on their plate and they're not a big developer.

You always can suggest it in an update to the game in the future...

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Oh, and BIS has no excuse now that RTT is functioning in ArmA3.

I'd say BIS has plenty of excuse given the comparative scale of their game to that of say, Ground Branch.

[rolo87 10]

+1 this. Oh, and BIS has no excuse now that RTT is functioning in ArmA3. Oh, and Ground Branch also has one model for 1st and third person, so now BIS has some competition now that there's another game coming out sometime that is also purporting to be realistic.

And also no excuse for an unrealistic first person view.

+1 for Robster too!.

I love your suggestions, I think they are real good details. I think the sense of immersion in the game increases with such details.

These are great ideas, nice Robster hehe.

Edited April 18, 2012 by rolo87
Incorrect name

[antoineflemming 14]

I'd say BIS has plenty of excuse given the comparative scale of their game to that of say, Ground Branch.

Well, I'm coming from the idea that if Smookie can implement an animation for sticking up the middle finger, then BIS can implement an animation for moving your arm into a different position. And since RTT is working in-game, then why not? I'd think that, while it's not simple to implement animations, that it's not as complicated as animating movement. Something like this doesn't even require mocap.

^ That's no the right attitude.

BIS already has a ton of stuff on their plate and they're not a big developer.

You always can suggest it in an update to the game in the future...

Yes, I can suggest it in an update to the game in the future, but what's wrong with suggesting it now? Who's to say that BIS can't implement it now. If they truly have too much on their plate to implement now, then fine. But if they don't, and they are willing to implement it, then that'd be good. I can't say that they have ample time, people, and resources to "add all the things", but neither are you in a position to say what BIS can't do.

And, more and more I see that phrase "BIS has a lot of stuff on their plate" being used as a way to say "I don't think your suggestions are good enough/important enough". You aren't in a position to decide who's suggestions are worth BIS's time and who's aren't. And I'm glad moderators/devs don't share your same view on suggestions, otherwise this thread would have been closed a long time ago. Because basically you're saying that there's no point to suggesting anything because "BIS already has a ton of stuff on their plate".

[NeMeSiS 11]

I dont see how RTT would help showing watches/etc with an animation in any way.

Its a cool feature though.

[antoineflemming 14]

I dont see how RTT would help showing watches/etc with an animation in any way.

Its a cool feature though.

No, the RTT would be for showing the face of the watch, if it were a digital watch that is. That's what RTT would be for. It's not a necessary feature, so of course not priority, but it'd add immersion to the game.

[maddogx 13]

I dont see how RTT would help showing watches/etc with an animation in any way.

RTT is in fact massively helpful for representing any kind of digital display. Note that RTT generally means rendering anything to a texture, even if it's just something simple like a GUI. It's not just useful for camera displays and mirrors. :D

[Minoza 11]

Does anybody know if A3 will use DepthOfField rendering?

When i played yesterday, i had the Idea how this could help in Ai-VS player situations in Higher Grass.

As in RL single blades of grass, wich are close to your optics - are getting "blurred out of your view".

Doing it in the same way inGame should enhance our chances against Ai in Areas with dense Vegetation.

Something like that:

what do you think dudes?

Now that is actually first time I see DOF used for something useful in a game rather than just being aesthetic. Good idea!

[NoRailgunner 0]

What about remote controlled systems eg IronDome and SUAS/UAV's operated by one person + that targets/actions can be seen (verified or denied) by HQ too?

[NeMeSiS 11]

RTT is in fact massively helpful for representing any kind of digital display. Note that RTT generally means rendering anything to a texture, even if it's just something simple like a GUI. It's not just useful for camera displays and mirrors. :D

I misread his post, i thought he said that RTT would help with the animations of the mentioned feature(bringing arm up to face), but i was mistaken. ;)

If you really wanted a watch like that you could ofcourse already use setobjecttexture, so i wouldnt question that part of the suggestion being possible to implement decently. Im jsut afraid it will become messy in the animation department.

Edited April 17, 2012 by NeMeSiS
Post makes a bit more sense now, god im tired...

[froggyluv 2133]

+1 this. Oh, and BIS has no excuse now that RTT is functioning in ArmA3. Oh, and Ground Branch also has one model for 1st and third person, so now BIS has some competition now that there's another game coming out sometime that is also purporting to be realistic.

And also no excuse for an unrealistic first person view.

Yes, I can suggest it in an update to the game in the future, but what's wrong with suggesting it now? Who's to say that BIS can't implement it now. ...but neither are you in a position to say what BIS can't do.

You aren't in a position to decide who's suggestions are worth BIS's time and who's aren't. And I'm glad moderators/devs don't share your same view on suggestions, otherwise this thread would have been closed a long time ago. Because basically you're saying that there's no point to suggesting anything because "BIS already has a ton of stuff on their plate".

Theres a big difference between suggesting something and declaring that BI now has "no excuse". Just because Game X has a feature that'd you'd like to see in Arma3 doesn't entitle you to declare "no excuses BI!" -thats freakin ridiculous and spoilt and far different than a simple suggestion. GB is still at tech demo level and literally has 1/1000th of what Arma offers in terms of AI/scale/units etc... Are you going on their forums demanding all that is posssible in Arma and how they also have "no excuses"?

Sense of entitlement here can be staggering at times...

Edited April 17, 2012 by froggyluv

[antoineflemming 14]

Theres a big difference between suggesting something and declaring that BI now has "no excuse". Just because Game X has a feature that'd you'd like to see in Arma3 doesn't entitle you to declare "no excuses BI!" -thats freakin ridiculous and spoilt and far different than a simple suggestion. GB is still at tech demo level and literally has 1/1000th of what Arma offers in terms of AI/scale/units etc... Are you going on their forums demanding all that is posssible in Arma and how they also have "no excuses"?

Sense of entitlement here can be staggering at times...

No, not going to GB's forums saying that they can do everything ArmA can do because they are using UE3 and it's no guarantee that UE engine can do everything ArmA can do. But ArmA3's engine can do what I mentioned. In other words, the point which I was trying to make is that there is no limiting claim that BIS can't implement this. There's nothing that actually limits BIS from implementing this. The only reason BIS would really have for not implementing this is that they don't want to/ are unwilling to. Because there are no technical limitations to adding in an additional animation, and applying RTT to one more object.

[purepassion 22]

I can imagine this could hide some potential problems. What would happen if you hold a launcher or if you're driving a car? Would you just let go one hand?

To be honest, I'd rather like to see this principle being used for looking at the map screen so you can still maintain a certain degree of situational awareness.

[froggyluv 2133]

. But ArmA3's engine can do what I mentioned. In other words, the point which I was trying to make is that there is no limiting claim that BIS can't implement this.

Your missing the point. I have a personal list of 10,000 animations I'd like to see -and yes, BI could implement them all at their MoCap studio....but demanding they do with "no excuses" is another story all together.

[Flash Thunder 10]

If that's how you view it then antoineflemming im sure BIS do not read any of your posts as for a lot of people on here.

PC player entitlement FPDR

[max power 21]

No, the RTT would be for showing the face of the watch, if it were a digital watch that is. That's what RTT would be for. It's not a necessary feature, so of course not priority, but it'd add immersion to the game.

RTT is in fact massively helpful for representing any kind of digital display. Note that RTT generally means rendering anything to a texture, even if it's just something simple like a GUI. It's not just useful for camera displays and mirrors. :D

RTT is not required for every manipulation of a texture. What do you think needs to be 'rendered' to do the digits on a watch face? I think all you need are textures, and the ability to switch them. RTT is not required.

+1 this. Oh, and BIS has no excuse now that RTT is functioning in ArmA3. Oh, and Ground Branch also has one model for 1st and third person, so now BIS has some competition now that there's another game coming out sometime that is also purporting to be realistic.

A few things:

RTT is not required.

BIS is not required to make excuses, nor to explain what is on their design document, or what items are there / are not there and why.

[Clarkey1 10]

I can imagine this could hide some potential problems. What would happen if you hold a launcher or if you're driving a car? Would you just let go one hand?

That's a good point, but is there any reason different animations couldn't be used depending on the weapon currently in use? It's more work, sure, but like antioneflemming said it shouldn't require mo-cap just to raise an arm from different weapon positions. At the moment I can only think of five different start positions: Foregrip, Under barrel, Pistol, Launcher and Bino's. Then if the compass was also included in animations like in Robbsters post that would make twelve slightly different animations including switching between compass and watch. There's probably more but if custom reload animations are being done (which is already very exciting in itself) then I wouldn't say BIS don't have an 'excuse' but it definitely seems within their capabilities if they wanted to go this way instead of the 'floating' watch.

[gossamersolid 155]

Your missing the point. I have a personal list of 10,000 animations I'd like to see -and yes, BI could implement them all at their MoCap studio....but demanding they do with "no excuses" is another story all together.

you have a PERSONAL LIST of 10,000 animations? I'm sure that's quite the exaggeration.

[antoineflemming 14]

I can imagine this could hide some potential problems. What would happen if you hold a launcher or if you're driving a car? Would you just let go one hand?

To be honest, I'd rather like to see this principle being used for looking at the map screen so you can still maintain a certain degree of situational awareness.

In that case then I guess it would be more appropriate for VBS2, seeing how IRL you would put the launcher away and then look at your watch. Something like that in ArmA3 would kinda be too restrictive I guess. As for driving, you can drive with one hand lol :P.

And, yes, everyone, I do understand what you are saying about BIS not being required to do anything/it's wrong to demand something of BIS.

When I said excuse, I was talking about something that's excusable along the lines of engine limitations, something that's out of BIS's control. I should have clarified what I meant. So I apologize BIS. That was wrong of me to demand anything of you.

That being said, it is good that there are no engine limitations to adding this sort of thing. I'd still like to see something like this in ArmA3 though (at least for the map).