Perhaps this, before aliens?

[Tankbuster 1733]

Call me old fashioned if you will, but in my opinion, this could have taken a higher priority?

 

 

[joostsidy 682]

It is called 'hull-up position' in tank tactics and it is a feature, jeez, this is a military simulator, you have to know how it works. 😉 And why didn't you post this in the official NO BIS NO thread where all the complaints go? 😉

 

@denzo no hard feelings 🙂

[lex__1 422]

24 minutes ago, joostsidy said:

It is called 'hull-up position' in tank tactics and it is a feature, jeez, this is a military simulator, you have to know how it works. 😉 And why didn't you post this in the official NO BIS NO thread where all the complaints go? 😉

  

@denzo no hard feelings 🙂

It has long been in the tickets, but attention to it is in the past.
Previously, this happened much more often, but the complete elimination of the problem was not achieved.

Repeatedly reminded of this, but to no avail.

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T124274

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T120795

http://i.imgur.com/4n1LodS.mp4

 

 

 

[joostsidy 682]

9 hours ago, lex__1 said:

It has long been in the tickets, but attention to it is in the past

 

It is painful to watch, especially since I am a tank fan.

 

I'm not an expert on the case but my guess on the cause of these problems is that at the start of A3, BI tried to use existing new physics and car simulations, to speed up and improve development. Unfortunately, these systems were not so suitable for tanks, it was very noticable on gear boxes for tanks, the tanks were very underpowered. To solve this, BI applied some tricks like adding gears and maybe fiddling with the mass of the vehicles to make them seem more powerful. However, if you fiddle with physics systems, you can get strange results, like the jumping or automatic un-flipping you can sometimes see.

On top of all of this is the limitation of the terrain features, the Arma engine has problems with vehicle models intersecting with other models or the terrain with high velocity or force. This can lead to unexpected high counter forces that result in launching of vehicle s in the air. These characteristics are related to why helicopters fuselages cannot roll and flip over when they crash. The Arma engine would launch them in the air, because their hull models intersect badly with the terrain.

 

So I think it is a game engine limitation with many layers that might not be fixed in Arma 3 at this stage in development.

 

[lexx 1331]

On 6/15/2019 at 12:28 PM, Tankbuster said:

Call me old fashioned if you will, but in my opinion, this could have taken a higher priority? 

 

I'm pretty sure the current Amsterdam team can't fix bugs like that, so to answer your question, I guess for them it is a higher priority to work on "Aliens".

[FoxFort 341]

They've tried addressing vehicle physics with TANKS DLC, so, yeaaah what you see now is apparently best they could achieve.

[lex__1 422]

1 hour ago, joostsidy said:

It is painful to watch, especially since I am a tank fan.

 

I'm not an expert on the case but my guess on the cause of these problems is that at the start of A3, BI tried to use existing new physics and car simulations, to speed up and improve development. Unfortunately, these systems were not so suitable for tanks, it was very noticable on gear boxes for tanks, the tanks were very underpowered. To solve this, BI applied some tricks like adding gears and maybe fiddling with the mass of the vehicles to make them seem more powerful. However, if you fiddle with physics systems, you can get strange results, like the jumping or automatic un-flipping you can sometimes see.

On top of all of this is the limitation of the terrain features, the Arma engine has problems with vehicle models intersecting with other models or the terrain with high velocity or force. This can lead to unexpected high counter forces that result in launching of vehicle s in the air. These characteristics are related to why helicopters fuselages cannot roll and flip over when they crash. The Arma engine would launch them in the air, because their hull models intersect badly with the terrain.

 

So I think it is a game engine limitation with many layers that might not be fixed in Arma 3 at this stage in development. 

 

We have objects that are destroyed by collisions, and there are objects that are not destroyed by collisions. If in this example, we take interaction only with destructible objects, then not with all destructible objects similar behavior of vehicles occurs. I am more inclined to think that not all objects are adjusted to eliminate this behavior. This is more like not the lack of ability to implement this in the RV, but the lack of work to fix the problem.
Not all collisions of a tank with objects cause similar effects.
Pay attention to the soft destruction of the first awning, a little hard destruction of the second awning, and the hard destruction of the third awning - it was like a shot from a tank.

 

Now ask yourself the question - Why can we see different behavior of collisions and consequences with different objects in one RV?

 

47 minutes ago, lexx said:

 

I'm pretty sure the current Amsterdam team can't fix bugs like that, so to answer your question, I guess for them it is a higher priority to work on "Aliens". 

In the feedback.bistudio.com tickets I didn’t see the “give us strangers” ticket because it is necessary for some reason ....
Such priorities can be respected when they do not conflict with other priorities.

[joostsidy 682]

I understand that not all objects cause 'launching', but because of the engine limitations, some models need extra work to function acceptably.

[lex__1 422]

4 minutes ago, joostsidy said:

I understand that not all objects cause 'launching', but because of the engine limitations, some models need extra work to function acceptably. 

But it can not be called - as

1 hour ago, joostsidy said:

So I think it is a game engine limitation with many layers that might not be fixed in Arma 3 at this stage in development. 

 

[oldbear 390]

My own feeling is that  BI had add some PhysX grafts on it's own RVEngine structure.

Some Items, objects, vehicles, have been able to benefit from a very large contribution of the external functions, for others, because of the entanglement with other internal functions of the game engine, it is rather in DIY mode or frankeinstein mode, your choice.

I believe it's one of the many reasons that eventually decided Bohemia Interactive to move on.

 

On the other hand, the fence post designed as an indestructible anti-tank obstacle must be located in a family of objects that has its roots in the OFP layer. We all know that moving a parent object link in Arma can have unexpected consequences
 

Not a mission for the small squad left behind and  trying to hold out.

[lex__1 422]

4 hours ago, oldbear said:

Not a mission for the small squad left behind and  trying to hold out. 

 

- Land_cargo_addon02_V1-F
- Land_cargo_addon02_V2-F
- Land_cargo_addon01_V1_F
- Land_cargo_addon01_V2_F

- Land_Slum_House02_F

....or similar.
All of them part of "Arma 3 Assets"

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_CfgVehicles_Structures

I did not see a stop of development of Arma3 or the statement for it.
The most part of tickets is created during 2013 - 2016.
A lot of things were corrected, but a game is still broken in many places.
Breakages of a game are strongly noticeable when the mission (for example CTI) is directed to wide use of all content and Arma3 functions.
   I bought DLC Tank, but ceased to play Arma3 a month before release of DLC Tank,
As corrections happen slowly or content has absurd interaction.
It is probable that else there will pass several years before we hear about Arma-Enfusion.
It is very strange, in long prospect to refuse support of a basis of a game, continuing to release expansions for players.
I will tell nothing about development of DayZ on Enfusion, but upon - there are two broken games Arma3 on RV and DayZ on Enfusion, it is a lot of disappointments and the loosened reputation of BIS.
At us so speak - "Reputation more expensive than money", there will be a reputation - there will be money.
These consecutive prospects frighten me most of all.

[chortles 263]

1 hour ago, lex__1 said:

I did not see a stop of development of Arma3 or the statement for it.

I dunno about stopping, but Bohemia Interactive's been saying for years that they were winding down/reallocating people, and here's the former project lead (now project lead on Contact DLC) reiterating hours ago that "the full-time development team is very much reduced as compared to years ago. On the platform-side we primarily focus on critical issues, things caused by new third-party software updates, multiplayer security, etc." and that "We want to cater to as many as possible things, but less is feasible now (also since backward compatibility with the full game and mod library is increasingly challenging)."

[lex__1 422]

23 minutes ago, chortles said:

but less is feasible now (also since backward compatibility with the full game and mod library is increasingly challenging)." 

Feedback never accepted in account tickets about mistakes in Mods.
When I speak about "all content", I mean all vanilla content and its functions. Yes, mistakes small, for each separate case. When according to the scenario of a mission the player serially uses all content of a game and its function, the player receives mistakes in different stages of a game and throughout all game - small mistakes are built in a big long line. It has the general wide negative experience in a game.
In 2013 or 2014 the website of feedback was changed and players lost a possibility of vote under tickets because of what many tickets lost attention. The hope of players in correction under such tickets was lost.
We can still see open tickets, the categorized (degrees) of importance, with dates of creation beginning of 2013-2019.
Only it is not clear who at that time defined importance of the ticket.

[oldbear 390]

I can understand the frustration about some issues not treated after all those years.

Sometimes, as I am playing Arma since OFP, it seems a bit strange to find an error you had already get in 2002.

Some issue roots are deeply buried in the incredible build it's now and IMHO, Devs have done a tremendous job to make it works years after years, adding contents and functionalities.

Let's remember what Joris-Jan van 't Land has said in his 'Report In' dev interview of 2016 just after he left as a Project Lead.

 

Quote

 

We're also developing using an ageing engine and tool-set. Real Virtuality still does certain things better than the newest versions of popular alternatives out there, but we're not oblivious to its short-comings (which is why a new Enfusion engine is in development). Still, for an engine never designed with 100+ player persistent and deeply modded servers in mind, amazing things are accomplished with it every day. The freedom offered to modders is another extremely powerful double-edged sword. It gives us plenty of head aches trying to keep backwards compatibility with mods in mind, or to adapt to changes in Windows, hardware drivers, third-party libraries and Steam. In many ways Arma 3 is an uncontrollable beast that we all love very much. The custom content library created by modders is mind-boggling and Arma would not be as strong without this mutual effort to keep it alive and kicking.

There is plenty more to cover; at some point I'd like to do a proper post-mortem and a blog about the brave battles of live support.

 

 

The initial feedback site has been closed because it has been hacked and all the related content lost.

So, even if it's still possible to blame BI for not having flawless security, it is difficult to blame them for being stolen.

There are attacks on sites and forums and we regularly suffer the consequences.

 

 

Edited June 17, 2019 by oldbear
TBH, I admit being an unconditional fan of the game that has helped me to stay alive live for so many years

[lex__1 422]

4 hours ago, oldbear said:

So, even if it's still possible to blame BI for not having flawless security, it is difficult to blame them for being stolen. 

Strange conclusion from my reasoning.
And so: Maybe I do not understand something? Objects are created in Arma3 and are not related to early releases.
Arma 3 Assets:
1. We have objects with severe destruction:
- Land_cargo_addon02_V1-F
- Land_cargo_addon02_V2-F
- Land_cargo_addon01_V1_F
- Land_cargo_addon01_V2_F
2. We have objects with mild destruction:
- Land_Boat_03_abandoned_cover_F
- Land_ClothShelter_02_F
- Land_ClothShelter_01_F
- Land_MarketShelter_F
Both blocks of objects have a similar structure, but a different transition to the "destroyed" state. What prevents, assign the "soft" method of destruction to the first block of objects, as in the second block of objects?
Why it is necessary to change the method of destruction of the first block of objects - since, the destruction of an object reproduces:
- wide explosion of dynamic tank protection
- receiving critical damage to the tank
- obtaining critical damage to the crew
- coup or throw tank.

With other objects that are destroyed in a collision, such consequences do not occur.

 

4 hours ago, oldbear said:

I can understand the frustration about some issues not treated after all those years.

Sometimes, as I am playing Arma since OFP, it seems a bit strange to find an error you had already get in 2002.

Some issue roots are deeply buried in the incredible build it's now and IMHO, Devs have done a tremendous job to make it works years after years, adding contents and functionalities.

You will be surprised by the next disappointment even more. I already see old errors in DayZ-Enfusion. Some are very upset.
But there is also a good work of BIS, there are also corrections of some old mistakes or changes in the interaction of functions.
The main achievement can be noted in obtaining high FPS in the game and good interaction of the new engine with the PC hardware.