Arma 3: Community wishes & ideas- DISCUSSION

[Bobylein 1]

The english word you are looking for is "Authentic" :D

Agreed 100% Varanon. That would definitely make an impact.

That's too yea, but not what I meant :D

I meant it could feel spongy, like certain other "modern" shooters and arma 2...

The Altis Challenge:

Place a unit with a map and a compass in the middle of Altis.

Choose a very big placement radius so that you can end up everywhere on the island (You may want to place a vecicle).

Make sure that your own position is not marked on the map (difficulty on veteran).

Hit preview and try to find the main town.

only with my favorite recon vehicle, the fennec ehhh strider!

[chortles 263]

yep it's a really nice idea but it could cause "strange" (does not know the english word) movement feeling

And that lack of "strange", "spongy" movement feeling has become a selling point for Arma 3 at this point...

[Varanon 892]

yep it's a really nice idea but it could cause "strange" (does not know the english word) movement feeling

In what respect ? It's actually quite natural that you can not turn as fast when you are encumbered. Or prone.

Note that I deliberately did not mention movement speed, although that would be "authentic", but the proposal is aimed at CQB. No need to make people with more weight lag behind others so that the lightly encumbered players have to wait. That's the consensus that should be allowed between game and reality. My main gripe right now is the turn speed and the resulting "large weapon CQB". These changes could effectively address these issue without needlessly slowing players down (they can still run as fast as the unencumbered soldiers). I think the possibly different movement speeds and the resulting "I have to wait for the slow guys" is what most people don't want (including me, I admit)

[Bobylein 1]

And that lack of "strange", "spongy" movement feeling has become a selling point for Arma 3 at this point...

exactly! I had no problem with it in arma 2 but I heard many people saying that's it feels now soooo much better and I agree, thought it causes new problems..

[Varanon 892]

And that lack of "strange", "spongy" movement feeling has become a selling point for Arma 3 at this point...

I challenge that notion. You will probably say "my friends think so", but there's also a lot of people who think otherwise. Besides, without it actually being implemented and able to test, I honestly wonder how you can already dismiss it as destroying the "selling point". You're basing a general assumption on your own feelings. Sorry, that does not work.

[Bobylein 1]

but it is a selling points for some people I know because

the movement does not feel to shitty anymore

edit:

godamn, ninja edited

[Varanon 892]

exactly! I had no problem with it in arma 2 but I heard many people saying that's it feels now soooo much better and I agree, thought it causes new problems..

In Arma 2, the whole movement was based on a mouse smoothing that basically didn't work correctly. Here, the idea is to base a slower turning speed on different factors, including your weight, stance and speed. If you arr lightly loaded, run at normal speed and upright, you wouldn't even have any impact on what you have now. Only if you are running crouched and are overloaded would it affect you. That's something completely different from Arma 2

Edited August 26, 2013 by MadDogX

[Alwarren 2767]

retracted

[raven_jj 1]

I guess the movement idea would be nice with a little twist: You move normally if you put that big, cumbersome weapon in down position. That way you are able to maneuver, but your reaction time includes putting a rifle to your cheek.

By having your gun close to your body it allows you to turn faster.

Also, the bigger the gun, the slower the "weapon up" animation.

Edited August 26, 2013 by MadDogX

[maddogx 13]

Discussion from dev branch thread moved here.

[spamurai 3]

I would love to see better damage/destruction to environmental objects (buildings, walls ect). Thromps idea is an awesome example, but I think it's a bit of overkill. We could get away with something simpler and still achieve a much more immersive and improved effect in game over how the ArmA engine currently handles destroyed objects.

Thromps idea looks like it uses a form of dynamic mesh deformation to slowly chip away and break up objects? As is mentioned, this would appear to be expensive on a large scale, like destroying an urban environment. Not really practical on such a scale, but very cool.

I know everyone who plays ArmA also loves playing Battlefield 3 too! ;)

Ok, maybe not... but one has to admit that the Frostbite engine that handles the visuals in a Battlefield game is impressive for what it achieves at that scale. I think it has a novel solution it uses in it's Destruction 2.0/3.whatever engine that handles damage/destruction of world objects. The net effect gives the desired appearance we all seek, but not as dynamic as Thromps idea.

Buildings are constructed with a core skeletal structure. For example, each level of a building has a solid floor and there might be a central core support like the stairwell joining them together. That's the building's skeleton. Then the outer walls of each floor are actually modular sections or "panels". In a modest rectangular sized house, you might have 6 panels for each floor. 4 "L" shaped panels at each major corner, with a flat panel connecting the long side corners of the rectangle together.

Destruction of the building is handled through fancy slight of hand by the GFX engine. When a panel is struck by a weapon system of the right class, the panel is "exploded" and removed, leaving a gap in the section wrapping the buildings skeleton. Some creative use of the excellent particle effects engine makes the panel appear to break up and blow out into pieces. The adjacent panels change animation state to make it look like a round(ish) hole was left behind by the now missing panel.

In this fashion, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 achieves a remarkable effect that feels very dynamic, with a building being blasted apart piece by piece, but it's not truly dynamic like in Thromps idea. It's just clever use of special effects as smoke and mirrors.

However, the highlight of the system is the illusion of the actual destruction and collapse of the building event. When a preset condition is reached for damage to the building, the "death" animation of the building is triggered. The condition in BF:BC2 for buildings to collapse is that all panels on the main floor must be destroyed. When this condition is reached, all surviving panels remaining on the building are exploded and removed. Then a pre-rendered animation sequence is played which shows the buildings skeleton (floors/stairwell/roof) collapsing in on it self. The final frame of the animation is the resting static state of the building left behind in the world. Every building is eventually destroyed in the same sequence, but the quality of the pre-rendered animation (using simulated physics) always looks natural.

It's amazing what impact it has on the atmosphere of gameplay in BF:BC2. When a building falls down in BC2, it's a "everyone stop what you are doing and watch this!" moment, and it's remarkable. When BF3 came out, the Destruction of buildings was muted from it's effect in BC2, it doesn't have the impact that it had in BC2 and that was a shame.

Now, imagine a system similar to Destruction 2.0 in ArmA 3.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Spamurai

[Aebian 18]

Don't know if this already posted but i wanna some truck trailers for the hemtt to drive around :D

[pharoah 65]

Don't know if this already posted but i wanna some truck trailers for the hemtt to drive around :D

hopefully with a trailer long enough to accommodate an MBT or M4.

[smokedog3para 365]

Be nice to see a demo of how the new vehicles can be towed can't see anything in the action menu and I found nothing using google.

It would be a good idea if the hemett box could drop the drops sled off the back for missions it would make it use full, also a variant with no box just sled on the back so it could be used for other objects to be transported or vehicles to be transported for missions.

Edited September 10, 2013 by SmokeDog3PARA

[sektor 2]

I'm not sure if this is the place to ask, but i want to know about unguided launcher projectile trajectories, will they be simulated as curved trajectories or just a straight line ones? I know OFP had that, and Arma2 did not, although ACE put that feature, but for players only, not for AI. If i got my facts wrong, please correct me.

[mistyronin 1181]

Uhm, did you know about Bell V280?

It's promotional freak video deserves to be watched:

It could be the cargo helicopter/plane hybrid used by NATO.

It has already been selected by the US Army JMR-TD Program.

[progamer 14]

If this is in the wrong place, please move it to the correct location.

Arma 3's weather is absolutely amazing, but many things are missing from having amazing weather in Arma 3. I have always dreamed of having amazing weather in Arma 3. With the inclusion of TrueSky, we now have a great head start into weather for Arma 3. Maybe one day we can have that perfect storm...

I link to Wikipedia as it is a quick way to get information and is mostly correct.

What needs to be improved to give a better immersion and compliment such a beautiful looking game:

Mirages:

In Arma 3 I always found the lack of any heat related effects like mirages on the environment very immersion breaking. Mirages can mess with your visibility on certain locations. Places in game like roads and the salt flats need mirages when it gets hot enough during the day time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage

Lightning:

Lightning in game right now is likely work in progress due to it missing sounds. But it currently only showcases one out of the normal three different types of lightning. The three types of lightning are: Cloud to ground (CG), Cloud to cloud (CC), and Intra-Cloud (IC). Lightning in game right now lacks variety as well. I am also pretty sure lighting has no affect on the ground were it strikes at the moment either. Lighting should strike metal metal material, trees, cause you issues if it strikes into the water near you, strike trees qnd give the trees a blackened model, and be a very rare hazard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning

Clouds:

Right now we are severely limited in types of clouds in game. Meaning regular clouds are both rain cloud and regular clouds. With the Truesky technology, we need need more cloud types to make weather better in Arma 3. Clouds need to dynamically affect light levels on the ground and have shadows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cloud_types

The Ocean:

Waves are ridiculously tiny at the moment. We need to be able to make them much larger, crash over at sea (Or white water), and look stormy. We also need a spray effect when a wave its an exposed rock in the ocean. Having waves crashing on the beach and potentially making ocean to shore and shore to ocean operations very hazardous. The visibility would be much lower as a result of an increased level of material in the water. Being able to operate boats in dangerous conditions should be comparable to helicopter in level of difficulty.

Rain:

Rain in Arma 3 has improved drastically in the development branch. What we lack now are rain effects on vehicle windshields that can reduce visibility unless windshield wipers are used. Wet and dripping surfaces while on the ground also help with the immersion of a wet and rainy environment. Rain can reduce visibility drastically and can reduce the quality of thermal imaging making a soldier job that much more difficult. We should also see rain water dripping off of vehicles and being blow off by wind and wind caused by movement like driving and flying.

Seeing rain from a distance:

Windshield visibility:

Wind:

Not much to say about wind other than we lack a sound for it. Having it affect vehicles would be nice, though it would have to be only player operated vehicles as AI couldn't handle wind as we have found out. Wind gusts would turn a potentially easy situation into a very dangerous one. Wind direction would affect take off and landing with aircraft.

Traction loss:

With rain comes dangerous driving and landing conditions due to issues like hydroplaning/ Aquaplaning making travel on a rainy day potentially dangerous.

Aircraft should think twice about flying into large storms and instead fly around them. Weather also has to be synched between every player in multiplayer and cloud setting need to ability to be forced by the server/ mission like grass settings are, to prevent unfair advantages

If I missed any important aspects of weather, please say so below.

Edited October 18, 2013 by ProGamer

[NeuroFunker 11]

i bet, some of this being worked on, will be added later.

[progamer 14]

i bet, some of this being worked on, will be added later.

Maybe...

[mr_centipede 31]

I just played last night with overcast setting in slider up to 80 and I can hear thunder... see the flash(lightning) then after a few secs thunder was heard... quite realistic, though ingame, the lightning strike will probably be off-map or far away from the player (probably not synced in MP too), so you'll probably don't have to fear being struck by lightning when taking cover with electric conductive materials under a tree or power lines...

[progamer 14]

I just played last night with overcast setting in slider up to 80 and I can hear thunder... see the flash(lightning) then after a few secs thunder was heard... quite realistic, though ingame, the lightning strike will probably be off-map or far away from the player (probably not synced in MP too), so you'll probably don't have to fear being struck by lightning when taking cover with electric conductive materials under a tree or power lines...

Interesting, was the time between the strike and the sound influenced by distance? Did you get a visual flash on your screen if you were close enough? And yes it does need to have an affect on the environment, and be hazardous.

[2nd ranger 282]

And yes it does need to have an affect on the environment, and be hazardous.

It really doesn't. It's a nice, immersive effect to have lightning, and it would be even more so if it actually emitted light and had visual variation, but asking for it to actually strike things and cause damage is silly and symptomatic of this forum's SIM ALL THE THINGS sickness. It's not a weather simulator.

[BadHabitz 235]

We need snow

[dmarkwick 261]

Heathaze :)

sFbKIqRJ57k

Thunderstorms :)

ksSqcgXVcpQ

Edited October 18, 2013 by DMarkwick

[Tyl3r99 41]

a wintery effect could be quite good, i.e. frost, ice, snow, hail storms etc...