Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by HaseDesTodes

  1. 15 hours ago, GuthixAwesome said:

    GPU: GTX 1080 8GB

    Monitor: ASUS VG248QE 24


    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.


    15 hours ago, GuthixAwesome said:

    Motherboard: ASROCK Z370M ITX/AC
    DDR4-3200 2X8GB


    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.

  2. 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.

  3. 5 hours ago, armored_sheep said:

    We don´t plan to distribute 3rd party DLCs to all users. Only 3rd party DLC owners should download the data like regular game DLCs published for other games on Steam.


    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?

    6 hours ago, armored_sheep said:

    We have no idea how to publish 3rd party DLC without fragmenting the MP population. We are aware of the fact that if a server will use such premium DLC only players that have bought that DLC will be able to join and play there.


    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.

  4. 6 hours ago, lexx said:

    I think the main question is always "What does this add to the game?" - if it doesn't fill a certain hole in the gameplay, it's kinda useless to add.


    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.

    • Like 1

  5. On 29.11.2017 at 2:09 PM, Beagle said:

    Thats even worse with the Slammer as it seems to run on one gear only.


    if it really has only one gear, then maybe it is meant to have a hydraulic transmission (or a generator + electric power train).

    that way there should be no more drastic changes in engine RPM (acutally it depends on how it's made).


    but i guess that would be to much high-tech for 2035 :)

  6. @teach

    first thing:

    DLC will come out in less than 3 month (afair), and they should have been working on it for at least half a year (probably 1 year now). unfortunately i can't seem to find an up-to-date roadmap for Arma3 right now, so i can't provide any "solid" evidence on dates.

    this topic was opened  more than a year now, and now you come to request a totally new feature. you can be 99.995% sure, that it wouldn't make it in the game if you request it so late. so it seems pointless to me suggesting it or hoping it will come.

    second thing:

    it has pretty much been been said that it WILL NOT be added to the game.




    • Like 1

  7. @lex__1

    i had noticed in the past, that (AI) squad commands don'T fade out properly.

    so i was able to hear AI at 2.5km distance (sound fully turned up)

    i did report it, but as usual BIS didn't really care to answer https://feedback.bistudio.com/T124627


    i linked a video i made in the report, and i can hear the AI voice commands very quietly, if i turn my volume to the max. especailly between 0-15 sec, idk. why i made that video so long.


    i don't really know if that's the way you can hear it, but i think it might be related.

  8. I thought about this for a while, and found it wouldn't hurt if express my concerns about this.


    In the past BIS have made sure, that non DLC/Addon owners were able play with owners and this seems not to be the case with the way this is announced (at least how i understood it).

    I usually play on the EUTW servers, which is a mission that doesn't use any 3rd party assets, for one simple reason: accessibility. Even if it's super simple to join a modded server and download missing mods using the launcher's server browser it seems to be a step many players are not willing to take.

    Because of that i fear, that it would be difficult to run a server (in terms of having it populated) that uses one or more premium mods, if having them installed is mandatory to join and play on the server.

    I think that we can expect the new premium mods to contain at least one mod that is mainly an asset expansion (vehicles, uniforms, equipment, etc.). All those things could be added like it was done with the DLCs, so non-owners could play together with owners on the same server, but couldn't use them.

    I think premium Mod/DLC creators should be given the option to have their assets behave the same way as BIS DLC assets. So that they can decide if their creations are suitable for use along with vanilla assets or not, but also if they would like it this way. I'm sure there can be reasons to restrict the use, so i think it should be possible, but not mandatory.


    Having mods forced in order to join a server, can lead to a low player count, what often makes a server less attractive to other players, so the server gets on a downward spiral. And players might begin questioning, if they should buy a Mod/DLC when there is not enough content that is utilizing it.

    I'm sure there will still be some/many well organized communities that get to fill their servers, but i think, that if one is trying to sell a product increasing the potential amount of customers can be a good way to go.


    One thing i am concerned about with what i suggested, is, that this might get to some "pay to win" scenario.

    If there are very powerful assets that require premium access in a PVP situation, players might feel that they are forced to buy a DLC/Mod in order to keep up.

    Only ways i currently see to prevent this kind of situation are:

    -mission creators make sure the access is balanced (put a high price tag on those assets, restrict amount per team, etc)

    -the way it is announced: you need the mod in order to play on a server that uses it

    -create low quality versions of the assets, that are free to use for everyone, and keep the high quality versions as mods (almost like BIS used to do it with BAF, PMC and Armed Forces of the Czech Republic)



    I don't really expect much/anything at all of what i wrote to happen, but i wanted at least to express my concerns about this topic.

    • Like 2

  9. 3 hours ago, Janez said:

    I tried Enter as well but it wont work either. Same flashing text. Unless I unbound it from certain function that makes it not to work.


    Edit: Also, there used to be Skip in pause menu iirc, which is not there in this campaign as far as I can see.


    i have "Use default action" bound to the "enter"-key, so whatever you have bound it to, skipping might work with holding it.


    and i have only bound the airbrake to space, so that might be the reason it'S not working for me.


  10. 11 hours ago, oukej said:

    The bomb already can't lock on anything else than laser/IR strobe. But it can be dropped without a lock - then it flies towards a position of something that was marked by the launching vehicle and only later it seeks for laser/IR strobe.
    But it's probably not been the cleanest solution and we'll try to come up with a better one.


    let it fly straight at first, then start homing in on the closest valid target near the marked target.

    if the needed flight path corrections are to great, it's the pilot's fault that the bomb misses. but if the bomb can't find any target it should fly just like it was dropped with out any target.

    i guess that would be the best solution here; no imba after-drop flight path, but still precise if a laser/ir strobe is in place



    btw. i knew bombs couldn't actually lock vehicles, but my skill in expressing complex thoughts in english is relatively limited


  11. 8 minutes ago, oukej said:

    Actually - they don't "track" a moving vehicle. They fly towards the position where the marked target was at the point of the munition release.
    At a given distance from that position they'll seek for something they could guide onto (a laser spot in this case). If nothing's found they'll continue flying towards that initial position.

    Possibility is to remove this faux "lock on after launch".



    can't you simply disable the ability to lock on anything but laser/IR strobe targets for the bombs?

    i think that's the main cause for the problems. and afair this was the way it used to be before sensors got changed.

    • Like 1

  12. yes it's probably the same model.

    BUT the discussion about the RPG/bipod on an A3 launcher is based on a rendered image from a different game. that's all i wanted to express.

    i'd really like prone position with launchers and RPG-7 with PGO7 sight and bipod, but i don't think we should assume this is coming because of the DayZ RPG image.

  13. 2 hours ago, Undeceived said:

    Completely agree.


    The only small point I would criticize in the campaign (it's a rather technical one) was


      Hide contents

    the major suddenly being setpossed in the chopper from the church.

    This was a confusing part as I saw the exfil marker and went out of the church, but the major stayed there. I thought it was a bug and reloaded as it didn't make sense for him to stay there. Went alone then, boarded the chopper only to see him in there too.


    This could have been solved in a better way IMO, but of course I know why it was made this way (the majors AI would have been killed by a mine immediately due to its poor collision detection - I myself stuck to the outer church wall). At least a small cutscene showing him leaving the church compound after the player has left it would have been better though. After that he could just follow the player ("I'm wounded, take us out of here!")



    when i played the campaign during exp. testing phase (the first version released on exp) it worked as it "should" be


    the major stayed in the church, until i went out to far, then he went to the exfil location and got into the chopper.


    i would guess, what you described was implemented in order to make the mission "failsafe". so when there are to many mines in the path, the major just gets setpos-ed.

    even though it's not necessary that the major survives, i think it's better this way, than the other way around. it might become really frustrating when you carefully place the mines and take out all the enemys, but then the major dies because of a mine he steps on.

    sure there would be better ways to achieve this, but i think, since they probably fixed this last minute it's not to bad.


  14. 28 minutes ago, Vidikk said:

    Worked with one more condition:

      Reveal hidden contents

    In addition to everything you mentioned in "The Major" I didn't use the mine dispenser and got the achievement.


    it shouldn't matter if you did, as he explicitly stated it.

    so if you fulfilled everything else, and didn't receive it, then started over and didn't use it, it should be a bug.

  15. i have finished the campaign in around 3.5h (could have done it faster)

    small spoiler


    and i'm still not done

    damn you BIS for pointing out, that the work is never done


    it had some very nice ideas, and i really like the story.


    there were a few things that i found could need improvement:


    a GPS would be nice

    when you are in the memory scenes, you have to walk away, and sometimes ways are blocked, so you have to walk the other way out. bet would be to make it possible to go back to the "present" by holding return again.

    the major in the defense mission doesn't move to the escape on his own. (he moved first, when i was almost at the road)


  16. 40 minutes ago, Moldisocks said:

    Was it reported via the forums? if so can i please have a link to it.


    this is even just 8 posts before your initial post.


    37 minutes ago, Moldisocks said:

    Nothing but my opinion, that's all:
    The rounds for the jets that i assume you are talking about (Wasp, Shikra and maybe Gryphon) are armour piercing and shouldn't explode on impact. Besides, i think that the fact that they don't show you if you have hit you target is an interesting mechanic that will make it harder to targets, which might help to balance the new, already OP jets.


    if you need hundreds of hits to the flank of an apc to destroy it, i wouldn't call it AP, at least not in arma.


  17. 6 hours ago, oukej said:

    The bomb can fly to the position of marked target's location at the point of the release and it should then automatically seek for laser target.
    It should not home in on just any target, be it heat or radar sign. That would be a bug.


    it's a bug.

    the bomb homes in on the vehicle selected by the airplane's sensors. no laser is used.


    • Like 1

  18. island is realy nice to look at, i'm curious how it will turn out gameplay wise.

    nevertheless i have made a small list of flaws i have found:


    an ugly step in the pier parts (part is rotated to much)





    some sand texture that looks ugly there







    a small gap between the concrete and the metal piers






    (realy minor issue) the curbs overlaping to have small ugly steps, and the grass is clipping through them






    • Like 1

  19. i just ran few tests in the editor (not flying, 40m distance to rule out spread):




    BW II vs Infantryman (indirect hits to a wall behind him, around 1m distance to wall): around 50 rounds to kill

    BW II vs Strider (side, center of mass): 40-50 hits to destroy

    BW II vs BTR-K (side, center of mass): around 250hits to destroy


    Wipeout vs Infantryman (indirect hits to a wall behind him, around 1m distance to wall):1 burst (20 hits) to kill

    Wipeout vs Strider (side, center of mass): 1 burst (20 hits) to destroy

    Wipeout vs BTR-K (side, center of mass): 2 burst (40 hits) to destroy


    Shrika vs Infantryman (indirect hits to a wall behind him, around 1m distance to wall): 3 rounds to kill

    Shrika vs Strider (side, center of mass): ca. 30 hits to destroy

    Shrika vs BTR-K (side, center of mass): around 130 hits to destroy


    Neophron vs Infantryman (indirect hits to a wall behind him, around 1m distance to wall): 1 burst (10 hits) to kill

    Neophron vs Strider (side, center of mass): 1 burst (10 hits) to destroy

    Neophron vs BTR-K (side, center of mass): 3 burst (30 hits) to destroy


    Buzzard vs Infantryman (indirect hits to a wall behind him, around 1m distance to wall): around 95 rounds(19 bursts)  to kill

    Buzzard vs Strider (side, center of mass): 40-45 hits (9 bursts) to destroy

    Buzzard vs BTR-K (side, center of mass): around 195 hits to destroy


    Griphon vs Infantryman (indirect hits to a wall behind him, around 1m distance to wall): around 30 rounds  to kill

    Griphon vs Strider (side, center of mass): 40-50 hits  to destroy

    Griphon vs BTR-K (side, center of mass): around 210 hits to destroy




    don't nail me on the exact numbers, especially for the infantry, as i always needed to adjust them to the jet cannon, but you can clearly see some things.


    20mm twin cannon sucks against infantry, even though it looks like it uses HE ammo.

    all 20mm cannons are not realy good against infantry, especially, due to the rate of fire and the limited ammo.

    Neophron and Wipeout have the best cannons for air to ground combat, just as you would expect of CAS planes.

    DLC jets have splash damage, even if it doesn't look like it.

    • Like 2

  20. 3 hours ago, froggyluv said:


     Somewhere along this caravan we lost the ability to delete unwanted addon dependencies from missions.sqm. Used to be able to go in a delete the offender but now there is always an "Error loading Mission" should this happen


    did you change the numbers?


    this is an expaination on how to remove CBA (as an example) from a mission i wrote a while ago.



    "save unencrypted
    open in editor:
    search for " "cba_jr", " in "addons[]= {...}" and remove it

    "class List

    class AddonsMetaData{...in here}

    change the number X to X-1 (so if it was 15 go 14)

    find "class ItemXX
    name="Community Base Addons - Joint Rails";
    author="CBA Team";

    and remove it

    then you need to change for all following class ItemY
    the number Y to Y-1

    this should work (at least it worked for me)"