Jump to content

HaseDesTodes

Member
  • Content Count

    108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Everything posted by HaseDesTodes

  1. 9M135 Vorona Missile some particles seem a bit misaligned in flight Zamak MRL Spread is too low imo the spread is the same as with Sandstorm MLRS. (ballistics computer says 45m at 28km range) i'm no expert, but the Zamak seems like a more low-tech weapons system to me and i would expect it to perform worse. one thing i noticed, and like very much, was, that the Zamak MRL was much less stable when firing quick barrages than the Sandstorm, what has lead to most rockets landing in a cluster a bit away from the target
  2. HaseDesTodes

    Arma 3 Third-Party DLC Pitch Discussion

    Sorry for the "late" answer, but i didn't have the time to read the forums yesterday. Simple: A mod/DLC that has only BIS approved content (matches certain criteria, which are defined by BIS, and is part of the contract) could (if the creators wish so) be eligible to be added to the main data of Arma3 , that everyone has, but -just as the BIS DLC content- be protected by encryption and have limited access. It can then be bought, just as all the BIS-made DLCs on the Steam Store page. A mod/DLC that does not meet the defined criteria, or if the creator wishes otherwise, can be handled as a mod, that needs to be downloaded and activated separately. I don't know how they are planing to distribute the mods, but this would use the same way. Now we see, we already have one way that works for sure (normal DLC way) and the other one is planned anyways. Now you please explain to me, why you think using two different existing ways would cause to much trouble. i'll just answer with this quote from this thread: https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/211491-arma-3-third-party-dlc-pitch-discussion/?do=findComment&comment=3246008 I guess that depends on the the POV. since the feature updates have been distributed to all Arma3 owners, the actual DLC contents have to be the main feature if you buy the DLC, imo. But i guess that's a matter of definition. For the whole Arma community the feature updates probably have made the bigger difference. But as i said, you got them even without buying the DLCs, so for me that was a bonus. In case you didn't buy the DLCs, things might have looked differently. I think we might agree on this. But just to make sure: I wan't that Mods like ACE³ have to remain outside the core files of Arma3 (so a mod), because as soon as you added those to the main game EVERYTING would change, and i guess it would cause lots of incompatibilities for existing mods. That should not be the desired outcome. So it has to be made sure, that, if it was possible to add 3rd party DLC content into the main game (as described), content like this remains optional. If i missed any essential question you had asked me, please point me on it, i lost track writing this, and i'm already a bit tired. PS: Yes i know (and i think i already wrote it), this discussion won't probably lead anywhere. But we were asked to give feedback, and i think the concept BIS has presented is not optimal, so i pointed it out. I have tired to make clear, why i think giving certain additional options could turn out positive for all parties.
  3. HaseDesTodes

    Tanks - Damage improvements

    at least (as i wrote before) 40mm HE (Marshal IFV) and 40mm GMG ammo didn't work (0 damage). 40mm APFSDS did trigger the ERA. i think even 20mm APFSDS did. from what i read here, this is (somewhat) realistic. i think it might be realistic to deal at least some damage (idk, maybe 8-10% dmg per direct hit), so extensive use of smaller caliber HE shells could render ERA usless, for when the big guns start shooting (or maybe to prime the enemy tank for incoming Titan missiles). It might not always be wise to do so as an APC crew, because, as soon the tank shoots back, you're toast.
  4. HaseDesTodes

    Arma 3 Third-Party DLC Pitch Discussion

    My whole point, is that i think there are might be a better way for the premium 3rd party content, than is is announced. I try to give reasons on why distribution to everyone could be a wise thing to do in some cases. Although i think it should be an option, but not mandatory because that would cause trouble in some cases. Now what does this say about my concerns? BIS can't distribute 3rd party assets to everyone, because they did it in the past? Or is your point, that those artists had a different type of contract/payment? Because it had a great deal of work done by a 3rd party studio, and it was brought up in this context by BIS in the past already. i never said i demanded a free version of anything. All i said, was that the content creators should be given the OPTION to do so, and why i think that it can be a wise decision in SOME cases. Only if they decide to do so. If they decided to go a different way, it wouldn't. Taking the fact that it is planned differently as a sole reason not to change the plan, is -imo- foolish. As far as i understood it, the MAIN reason they went this way, was not to split up the playerbase. The feature updates were just the cherry-on-top. You would still have the option to limit the access to owner only. I personally can't think of how they could have made it better. Terrains are one of the reasons why it can't be mandatory. Btw: The Tanoa example was an introduction to my point in the next line, based on personal experience. Yes, and there are brilliant SP missions available (e.g. in the steam workshop). But i think most players have spent more of their time in the MP environment than in SP. So if you go for sales, you should ensure MP compatibility at least. So whats your point? Mine was, that there are reasons for which modified data can't be distributed to everyone. And that it shouldn't be in those cases. What leads you to the assumption that having the 3rd party DLCs/Mods on the one hand and the BIS ones on the other HAS to be the way it goes? If they are flexible in the way how things are released, both ways should work at the same time. Full WW2 conversion: Publish as a mod, as it would break vanilla Arma3. Arma3 2035 Vehicle pack: Add as normal BIS-stlye DLC I would simply allow content creators on how they want their content to be handled. But at the same time, make sure, that this doesn't change the base functionalities of the game. I could even imagine the old Arma2 approach to be possible, and the premium Mod replaces the poor-quality assets. But that's not the best option imo.
  5. HaseDesTodes

    Arma 3 Third-Party DLC Pitch Discussion

    Jets DLC was made by Bravo Zero One (or in cooperation with them), but it still gets treated just as normal BIS DLCs. Imo, the fact that BIS didn't make a DLC/Mod should be no reason to not allow the creators to distribute their product to everyone. If the creators decide they want to have their assets treated like normal BIS DLCs (and there are no other good reasons, especially technical ones), then why not. If i were a content creator that plans on making an Arma3 premium DLC/Mod, i would want to have as many players as possible buying my product (common sense i guess). I think that a good way to archive this, would be a big playerbase, even if only a smaller fraction of them buys the DLC at first. With more players, there would be a more reasons to use the assets in missions. And if the assets are used more often, players get more reasons to but the DLC/mod. I have heard a couple of times things like: "Oh sorry, we can't come to the event mission, we don't own Apex" (map was Tanoa). Things like those have led to a rarer use of Tanoa in those events. Now imagine the same with vehicle expansion packs. Would you use those assets in a mission, if you knew you'd have only 30% of the usual players? I wouldn't. And why would anyone buy a DLC/Mod, when it's rarely used at all? On the other hand there can be good reasons to limit access to owners only, especially if changes go deeper into the engine, than just adding some new assets. But in my opinion those cases should not be the reason to forbid it in the cases where it would be possible. Nevertheless, it seems like BIS has made their decisions already, and even if we (I) don't like it, there is no point in complaining anymore. I can just wait and see how things will turn out.
  6. HaseDesTodes

    Tanks - Damage improvements

    @Asheara do you think it might be possible to disable (manual) zeroing for cannons if the gun is broken i mean, when the gun is broken you can't change the elevation anymore, but zeroing still works. @ our tank experts what ammo should realistically be able to trigger the explosions of the ERA parts? i tried what happens when i shoot it with 40mm HE (Marshall) and 40mm GMG grenades and had no luck in the game. i would personally imagine them to be powerful enough to trigger the ERA. (.50 cal HMG and 12.7mm APDS (Lynx) didn't work either, but i guess that might be more realistic)
  7. HaseDesTodes

    Tanks - Damage improvements

    i guess it would be cool on the one hand, but i'm afraid more (physics enabled) wrecks randomly flying around could become annoying quite fast and 5 m/s (18 km/h) with arma physics... i can see ICBTT (inter-continental ballistic tank turrets) coming :) @Asheara i am currently doing some damage testing and i noticed some thing getAllHitPointsDamage for a T100 (didn't test anything else yet) gives me there is a ' "" ' where a 'hit_trackr_point' is probably supposed to be
  8. HaseDesTodes

    Arma 3 Third-Party DLC Pitch Discussion

    i guess that pretty much depends on the mod/addon. imo, every new asset that fits into the Arma 2035 setting could be distributed to everyone, while total conversion like stuff, be opt-in mods. but i guess i wrote that a couple of times before, so writing it again probably won't change anything. we will just have to see how BIS will handle this, when the time comes.
  9. HaseDesTodes

    General Discussion (dev branch)

    i guess keeping it this way (the way oukej said they will work) is the best way then. close to realistic, intuitive (bombs always act the same, regardless of target selected or not) and -very important- already/almost finished, if oukej didn't lie about that :) . do those advanced bombs "glide" like dumb bombs would or do they have increased gliding qualities? because that would be imo the ideal way bombs in Arma could act. afaik in stable, you can drop bombs on targets further away, when you have the laser as sensor target, because the bomb will steer towards the target from the beginning. so the bomb has a more flat trajectory. idk, how realistic this is, but i could imagine this to be possible (even though, without extra wings, bombs should loose some speed this way) now if the bombs dropped at laser targets, headed towards the position, of the target at the moment of the launch and then LOAL, it would be a nice compromise between range extension and realism. it would be even better to randomize the position the bomb is headed towards a bit so you get 10-20m spread. heck then it could be even enabled for selected sensor targets, without 100% precision on static targets. and if i extend this concept, vehicles with radar could even calculate a lead for moving targets
  10. HaseDesTodes

    General Discussion (dev branch)

    yes, target had to be spotted by visual sensor, i didn't heat it up, so it couldn't be thermal. what i mean't was, that even though the bombs shouldn't be able to lock-on anything but laser targets, that bomb did. the ai noticed that it had been locked and pops smoke. @oukej so i understand this now this way: regardless of if a target is selected by the vehicle sensors or not, bombs will always drop like a dumb bomb then use LOAL. would it be possible, to make bombs dropped on a selected LASER target, to have it locked from the beginning?
  11. HaseDesTodes

    General Discussion (dev branch)

    looks like they fixed it already wanted to make a video, and it now both work the same way look what happens when you drop a bomb with the vehicle selected by the sensors only (no laser used) the AI even uses smoke, so there is some kind of weapon lock involved (you might not see notice it at first, i later drop the remaining 3 bombs, and they all hit the target as well) edit: logistical issues day, but for some reason, my client did 2 updates today
  12. you can switch between firemodes by pressing the "change firemode" (standard f) key and you have to be on dev branch for now
  13. HaseDesTodes

    General Discussion (dev branch)

    i did some (more) testing. the bomb will lock on the laser that is closest to the point of impact (CCIP). this might change, haven't tested (and should be hard to get reproducible results) this with moving targets/lasers, so with the target selection Monkey has described it could change. some more things, as blufor, i (same for my bomb with LOAL) was able to get locks on BLU and IND targets, as long as IND was an ally, so i would say you can lock on all friendly laser targets. i was not able to see IR strobes on my vehicles sensors and in the targeting camera (marked as x, like the other targets), but my bombs were able to lock themselves on them. so they might cause some confusion for bombs. when i dropped the bombs with the laser targets selected in my vehicle's sensors, the bombs would not auto home in on the target area. but when i did the same with the vehicle selected it did.
  14. i found a similar issue to the overshooting one. i don't know if it's new, but: when using PCML in straight mode, at 500m in VR (targeted from the side) it hits the ground around ca. 130m before the target (Gorgon) it hits the ground around ca. 200m before the target (Quad Bike) overfly mode works fine. there might be more targets that cause this issue, i will report back if i find more. i tested all (hope i missed none) basic versions of the ground vehicles (transport covered for trucks, unarmed for cars) and i found the same issue with Prowler, MB 4WD, Cart, Hatchback I also noticed, some damage anomalies (eg. SUV didnt take any (noticable) damage in straight flight), but i guess damage will be worked on later.
  15. HaseDesTodes

    General Discussion (dev branch)

    not exactly sure what point (of time) you mean, but i assume you mean the point, at which you drop the bomb. as already said by Strike and Monkey a very important reason is, to make sure the enemy has less time to react, but an other important thing for me, is that you can drop bombs from ranges/altitudes, that do not allow your vehicle sensors to pick up the targets, so locking is not possible. e.g. when i was testing, i dropped a bomb from 5000m altitude from around 9000m (laser) distance (insert trigonometric calculation for real distance here :) ).with CCIP and great view distances, it's at least possible to get the bomb close enough to find the laser target while you stay far away from enemy aa systems.
  16. HaseDesTodes

    General Discussion (dev branch)

    just tested the LOAD a bit and it looks really nice. you can now drop bombs from extreme distances into the target area, and it will hit the target. BUT i also tested without the laser, and you can still drop bombs on static targets with 100% accuracy. can we expect this to change to a more balanced method?
  17. if only this was true... drivers can sometimes be stupid i think, if it's actually a driver issues it should be similar to this one (https://feedback.bistudio.com/T121965) (DayZ SA) so the things to test would be: 1. in Nvidia control panel, set the global setting to use high performance GPU. if you get better fps now, revert it to what you had before and 2. manually add the Arma3_x64.exe and set the GPU to the dedicated GPU if 1. doesn't work you might still try 2. in the case no one here can help you you should file a ticket in the feedback tracker. feedback.bistudio.com
  18. CPU, GPU, PSU, HDD, SSD are all good. RAM: i guess if you get your PC built you can't specify if more than that, so it will have to do. there are some variants of that memory i saw, that are not listed on the QVL, so it's not ensured to be fully compatible. nevertheless it should cause no troubles, as the builders should be smart enough to only use compatible parts in order to minimize compatibility issues = work for the customer support. If you had the choice you should (at least) go for 3600MHz modules. The price differences i found for modules listed on the QVL was like 10-15€. (there was even a discussion about RAM impact on the top of this/the last page: https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/187603-will-my-pc-run-arma3-what-cpugpu-to-get-what-settings-what-system-specifications/?page=140 Cooling: 3 case fans are good. more interesting would be your CPU cooling. anyhow you might want to get some dust filters for all sucking fans (if not included). they should ensure that not to much dust gets into you case. you will still have to clean it from time to time as Gunter has mentioned already. especially the filters will need regular maintenance. otherwise the airflow can get significantly reduced. Monitor: I don't think a 100$ monitor would be a good long term investment. But since you already mentioned, that you want it only as a temporary solution, i'd say it might do the job. you should still expect pale colors, an unfirm case and generally a bad quality.
  19. from my experience arma often suffers providing stable/high fps. (it might be my i5 4770k that is getting old) the point with gsync and freesync is, that the image gets smoother, especially at low fps (or unstable frametimes). i have the impression, that since i use a 144Hz freesyn monitor, arma feels (a bit) less slugish (especially in CQB), and since i don't have a ultra fast GPU+CPU, i don't think the 144Hz made the difference. i guess i should experiment on how it feels with 60Hz+freesync and 144Hz+no sync it might not be necessary with the i7 8700k, i can't tell. under 300$? there is no G-Sync monitor i see below 350€. it's nVidia so you will have to pay extra money for that (but that aside, you can be quite sure every Gsync monitor is performing very well). if you plan to upgrade the monitor anyways there is no need to go for a gsync right now.
  20. About PSUs: The reasons for which i would go for (and for which i have) high efficiency PSUs are, 1. (obvious) saving power: Lets say your PC hardware demands 500W With a 1000W 80+ Bronze PSU (peak efficiency is 85% at 50% load=500W) your PSU will use 588W Now you have 88W wasted and transformed into heat. With a 1000W 80+ Platinum PSU (peak efficiency is 94% at 50% load) your PSU will use 532W that might only be a difference of 56W so not much for a moment. Let's assume you play 5h a day for a year (wishful thinking for a working person) and your PC needs those 500W when you do. That would be 0.056kW*5h*365= 99.68kWh (not sure about prices in the US, but i found a price of 0.12$/kWh). that would be a difference of around 12$ for a year of powergaming. now with a lifespan for a good PSU of about 10 years (i think my old one was about this age (maybe only 7 years, idk) and it still worked when i replaced it) you would have a difference of 120$ between a Bronze and a Platinum grade PSU. I have to admit, the numbers i gave you a (much) higher than what would be realistic for an average player, but it should make one thing clear: The long-term savings can turn out so high, that you should take them into consideration. 2. heat if we stick to the example from above you have a difference of 56W of produced heat inside your case. a slightly weaker CPU has a TDP of 65W, so the wasted power is almost as much as a CPU at full load. that heat will have to be transported out of the case or it will affect the other components. so it will usually mean either a higher noise level, or higher temperatures or even a bit of both. BTW: you said you were currently unable to build a PC. Why is that so, did you borrow your only screwdriver to a friend? because it shouldn't take much more than that. PSU max power: Core i7-8700k: 95W TDP GTX 1080: 180W TDP estimations: Mobo: 20W SSD+HDD: 20W RAM: 10W USB devices: max 30W (probably much less) other devices (fans, lights, etc.): 15W peak multipler (CPU,GPU,MoBo,RAM) : 1.2 OC multiplier (CPU,GPU,MoBo,RAM): 1.3 total maximum power consumption: OC+Peak load: (95+180+20+10)*1.2*1.3+20+30+15= 541[W] OC, non peak: 461W normal max. power: 95+180+20+20+10+30+15= 370 [W] now. even with those REALLY high values+ multipliers you would not need more than 650W (so 1000W would be unreasonably high) even a 500W PSU should be sufficient, because (good) PSUs can provide more power for a moment, so peak consumptions don't cause a system crash/shutdown. on the other if you plan using more than one GPU in your system at some point; you will need a higher power PSU by that point. Monitors: 144Hz alone will make no significant difference for Arma3 because you will rarely (if at all) get enough fps to notice the smoother image. G-Sync: should make a much greater difference, because the image gets much smoother, especially at lower fps. display resolution: with the GPU you plan buying you should be able to go for higher resolutions than 1920x1080 (full HD), but if you dont have the money you could also turn up the rendering resolution to 150%. but as with the PSU, you should keep in mind, that a monitor will accompany you for many years, if you threat it well, so buying a worse one now, might mean that you will have to buy a new one in a few years, or live with an inferior model. i know money plays a great deal, but going for such a good PC and then getting a low-midrange monitior doesn't seem reasonable to me.
  21. the Ibuypoower Rig how the link has set it up for me: CPU: Intel® Core™ i7-8700K Processor (6x 3.70GHz/12MB L3 Cache) Mobo: MSI Z370-A PRO RAM: 16GB Major Brand Gaming Memory DDR4-3000 Memory upgrade to DDR4-3200 Memory +60$ GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 - 8GB updgrade to NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti EVGA GAMING 8GB +72$ or NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 - 8GB (GDDR5X) (VR-Ready) +130$ Case: iBUYPOWER Element Gaming Case (Front & Side Glass Panel) SSD: 250GB WD Blue SSD upgrade to 500GB WD Blue SSD +41$ HDD: 1 TB Hard Drive -- 32MB Cache, 7200RPM, 6.0Gb/s PSU: 600W Standard 80 PLUS Bronze Processor Cooling: Asetek 550LC 120mm Liquid CPU Cooler i assume you are from the US: =1479$ (+tax?) with max upgrades: 1710$ with +RAM and +SSD +1070TI = 1652$ (+8% VAT ca. 1785$) why don't you build it yourself? CPU: Core i7-8700k 370€ MoBo: ASRock Z370 Pro4 110€ RAM: G.Skill Trident Z 16GB(F4-4133C19D-16GTZKW) 260€ GPU: for example MSI GeForce GTX 1070 Ti Armor 8G 500€ Case (depends much on personal taste, but for example this one: Sharkoon VG4-V (ca. 35€)) 30-50€ (or more if you want) SSD: Crucial MX500 500GB 130€ HDD: for example Seagate BarraCuda Compute 4TB 100€ PSU: for example Seasonic Focus Plus Platinum 750W ATX 2.4 (SSR-750PX) (80+ Platinum) 120€ (even 750W seems over the top for me with this setup, so no need to go for 1000W unless you want to use SLI) Processor Cooling for example (be sure to get one that works with your case): Water: Cooler Master MasterLiquid Lite 120 ca 50€ Air: 10-40€ for example: Cooler Master Hyper TX3 Evo ca. 20-25€ you could save on getting cheaper RAM, but even going for the slower (and i wouldn't go below 3200MHz) Kingston HyperX Predator (3200MHz) (HX432C16PB3K2/16) from the QVL it would only be 50€ (60$) =1675€ including taxes (prices from german shops) according to google that's 2051$ (i'm a bit shocked how strong the € got again) maybe the components are cheaper if you buy them in the US , i don't know about that. (they are for sure, if compare them with EU prices + shipping + US taxes) overall the ibuypower offer seems okay, but especially the PSU (only 80+ Bronze) and the RAM (could be faster, especially for Arma) don't seem to good to me
  22. do you already own that monitor? if not, i'd tell you not to buy it. simply because it's only full-hd and and the GTX1080 is (usually) able to provide good fps in WQHD (2560x1440) maybe even UWQHD (3440x1440). and besides, i'd advise to get G-Sync (or freesync for AMD users), because it makes the images run smother. if you already own the monitor, it's okay. you can upgrade later. i don't know if you would be willing to pay much more for RAM, but getting faster RAM should somewhat improve your PC's performance in Arma 3 (and other games). if you stick to the MoBo this RAM should get the best results (CMR16GX4M2F4000C19). It's listed on the memory QVL of the mobo, and therefore should be compatible even with 4000MHz Ram clock. when you decide to to follow Bear's objection and get a regular Mobo (ATX or even µATX), (what i'd advise to do, too btw) you should check the manufacturer's memory QVL for the right ram. SSD: 250GB can become to small, very quickly. if you have many mods, arma alone can use up more than 60GB, add windows an few other games and a reserve and you will hit the limits in no time. you don't have to go for a M2 SSD, but you should definitely get more space. the PSU is very good (80+ Titanium, fully modular, etc. ), but if you can afford, you might want to get one with the 80+ Platinum certificate. i think as long as you keep it for the next few setups (there are few reasons to change it anyways) you might save enough energy to break even in the long term. but please don't nail me on it, there are so many variables.
  23. from what i just found you would have to use one card at 16x and one on 4x. since i have no experience with multi gpu systems, i don't know how useful it would be. all mainboards that i have found labeled as "2-Way-SLI" did support it as 8x/8x, so i guess that it would be more common to use it that way. there are a couple of mainboads specifically labeled as "SLI", like the MSI Z370 SLI Plus. so that might be what to look for.
  24. HaseDesTodes

    Arma 3 Third-Party DLC Pitch Discussion

    Why not? It worked for all premium DLCs that added assets in the past. Depending on what content the new DLCs/Mods are bringing, it can work for some, while it can't for others. Just deciding this from the start can turn out counterproductive in the end. Just give the options (along with guidelines) to the DLC creators, and let them decide what they want (as long as the stick to the guidelines). You should have the means to make it work either ways. So what would be the reason not to use them? Actually i don't exactly have that much of an idea when it comes to how exactly mods are handled in Arma 3, but i have a few ideas how it could work, as long as all clients get at least some data for those assets. 1. Every client gets low quality versions of the added content (low res textures and models). The mods then replace those with high quality versions (Pretty much like in Arma 2). 2. Just like it's done with the current DLCs: You can't pickup/use premium gear and can't get in crew positions from premuim vehicles, but you have the same quality of the models and textures. I wrote the same thing in the past in this thread and i think some others made some suggestions as well.
  25. HaseDesTodes

    Tanks DLC Feedback

    not a big "hole" but CSAT has an unguided AT launcher while NATO and AAF don't have one. i don't see how it could harm, except for taking away dev-manpower, but it already seems to be 75% done.
×