roshnak

This has nothing to do with crosshairs or zoom levels. It's because players aren't as afraid of getting shot as people are in the real world, have a more stable shooting platform than they would in reality, and don't utilize fire and maneuver tactics. The way firefights happen in the real world is that one element initiates suppressive fires while another element closes with and kills the enemey. The way firefights happen in Arma is that everyone lays down, scopes in with their magnified optics, and waits for people to poke their heads out. If you want to change that, you should be arguing for the removal of magnified optics from the game. Look at how Shacktac's firefights play out as an example of the kind of things that happen in Arma without magnified optics but with zoom and crosshairs.

There are valid arguments for why 3 of the 4 things you're complaining about are realistic.

No, but you could spot someone standing or moving at that distance, which is something you couldn't do in Arma without the zoom ability. I guess it's just a matter of what is more important to you. I have to say, it sounds like what you really have a problem with is Arma's camouflage mechanics over large distances. Also, I don't understand why you think the zoom is a replacement for binoculars. You understand they have a higher magnification than the zoom does, right? If zoom was such a broken thing, people wouldn't be throwing magnified optics on everything, which they are.

Yeah, that doesn't sound unreasonable to me. Yes, these features are crutches. They are crutches that make up for inherit handicaps in video games.

I believe that zoom also causes LODs to update, so zooming in should make trees and bushes more detailed than they were when you were zoomed out. I don't really see how being in an open area makes a low FOV feel that different. I'm already playing at a significantly lower FOV than I would like. Narrowing it would make the game very unpleasant for me.

Perhaps third person should be removed from Veteran difficulty. I disagree on everything else. You're wrong, at the very least, in claiming that high FOVs cause motion sickness. In many (most?) people, high FOV's -- around 80 - 120 -- help alleviate motion sickness. Using an FOV that is too narrow -- which I believe 60 is -- is like walking around with low power binoculars or reading glasses held up to your face, depending on how low the FOV actually is. Beyond that, FOV is more complex than you make it sound. I've seen it stated around here that the default FOV in Arma is set up minimize distortion as much as possible. That's all well and good, but it doesn't simulate our actual field of view. It's like looking through a window the size of your computer monitor. This means that moving around with the default FOV in Arma is kind of like walking around with an old school diving helmet on. Some games have a higher FOV, allowing for some minor distortion in the name of granting players more situational awareness. Other games -- often in the horror genre decide to set the FOV unnaturally low in order to create a sense of claustrophobia or to make a game feel more like watching a movie. The really good games (in my opinion) allow users to set their FOV directly in the options menu. Furthermore, zoom serves an important function in Arma, in which action often takes place across larger distances than a typical shooter. Even with an FOV of 60 degrees, it's unlikely you'll have the fidelity of vision in Arma that you would in real life. We can see and distinguish things in real life that you can't in a video game because they're only being drawn as a couple of dozen pixels or less. The zoom function makes up for that deficiency in the game renderer and gives players the ability to have both a more accurate level of situational awareness as well as identify and distinguish objects at more realistic distances. Also, your aspect ratio is all messed up in that screenshot. You can tell because things that are supposed to be circles (the lense of the optic) are squished horizontally into ovals. edit: Since bullets don't come out of the iron sights or optics, no you can't. The crosshair was also redesigned in Arma 3. It's designed to reflect the ability of humans to determine roughly where they are pointing an object that they are holding. It's kind of like how you can point at something fairly accurately without thinking about it. Basically, you should be able to fairly accurately engage targets at relatively close ranges without specifically aiming down the sights. Perhaps the crosshairs need to be widened a bit and not scale with zoom to more realistically limit how accurately players can engage targets at distance.

Sounds like a feature to me.

Yeah, but how relevant is that to a commercial video game? Obviously VBS stuff doesn't have to look very good or be that polished. It's just got to be functional enough to satisfy the client's needs. Do the advantages VBS has over whatever RTI is putting out apply to a $60 video game in which the customers don't have the full time support granted to the military? On the other hand, I also don't understand what people think is so great about RTI's stuff. As far as I can tell, the only thing we really know about it is that it has good graphics. How do AI behave? How are weapons implemented? What kind of damage model exists for humans and vehicles? How are vehicles simulated? Is there an inventory system? How does it work? If all people are interested in is better graphics, they may as well stick with Arma, since it's the one thing you can count on improving in each release. Edit: Also, every time I see that Battlelog quote in your signature it makes me want to tear my hair out. I hope that's not what "next-gen Arma" looks like. :(

With the caveat that I'm really not well versed in the tech side of game art, it does seem a little picky to me. PBR, in terms of game art, seems to be shorthand for this general method of rendering materials.

Doesn't UE4 support phyically based rendering? A quick search also seems to indicate that Remember Me used PBR in UE3 as well.

Yeah, this is kind of irritating. Rarely do I want to save a multiplayer mission that I am exiting, for example.

It's not that far ahead, really. Still not possible in Arma as far as I am aware, though.

That already happens in Arma.

This thread isn't about the content of the DLC, it's about the distribution method. We don't need to know exactly what helicopters are included in the Helicopters DLC to debate whether there should be game interrupting messages or full screen overlays or whether players should be locked out of the driver seat of DLC vehicles if they did not purchase the DLC. Nor do we need to know which rifles are included in the Marksman DLC to suggest alternative systems for distributing it. And on that note, I recently exited an MP server to a pop-up telling me that I had just played in a mission that uses DLC content, click here to purchase. I have to say, that was pretty irritating. I didn't even see any DLC content.

This is probably a little much to hope for, but they could at least make cars not explode, ever. This is one of those small things that it's just kind of mind boggling that they haven't changed by now. It's something that the community has been modding out for a couple of games, now. Like, why is this even still a thing?

I know this isn't really the thread to discuss this in, but I cannot think of a less marketable game for consoles than Arma (that's not true, but it's a pretty poor fit regardless). I think it's pretty funny that they are talking about "unifying" RV and Enforce for future games, since at this point they have been branched off from eachother for precisely one game. It's also not really unexpected that they would choose to use the modern features and enhancements brought about for DayZ for future games. I think what most of us are hoping for, though, is that some of those features get backported to Arma 3.

Well that's not even true. There isn't a situation where you can hit a person 90 times and not kill them in this game. You were missing.

Why? Why do you want BIS to charge for implementing a feature when no other company on the planet has indicated that they would charge for that same feature? How could BIS possibly justify charging money to allow people to use a peripheral that already costs $300 in their game? Also, has BIS indicated that they wouldn't at some point support the Oculus Rift? They already have support for headtracking devices, it doesn't seem unreasonable that they will at some point implement support for the Rift. The Rift has some significant problems as it is and, by the company's own admission, isn't even at a consumer-ready stage yet. I'd say wait until the Oculus Rift is officially released before you start worrying that BIS won't support it.

The wiki page on .rvmats has an image with some settings that get pretty close to that kind of material. You could probably start with that and tweak from there. I'm not particularly familiar with Arma's material system and I don't have the tools installed, so I can't test it out for myself, but it shouldn't be too difficult to get the look right by just tweaking stuff until you're happy.

This should proably be in the editing section, maybe? How much experience do you have with creating textures? I'm not 100% sure what you mean by fluorescent colors. You mean like this? Just use the color picker in whatever paint program you are using. You can sample colors from outside the program with Photoshop's eye dropper or whatever. Do you mean you want to recreate like a fluorescent paint material or something? Because that would be a whole other thing involving editing .rvmats and stuff.

Well, what would you say that the player did wrong in the situation I outlined? The only reason I'm really harping on this is that there are games out there where you have a great deal of agency over whether you live or die in any given situation. Arma is really low on that list. It's not a game where there is a counter for every situation and if you had only made the right decision you could have gotten out alive. It's a game where the same situation can play out extremely differently every time you go through it and there isn't always a correct answer. Darkside said that he never puts himself in a position where he can be killed by a single shot. That's not possible. In order to see and shoot at the enemy you have to expose the only part of your body that basically guarantees a one shot kill.

Really? What about when you are maneuvering under fire and a stray round hits you in the head? Because the nature of this game is that you have to expose yourself to danger in order to engage the enemy, and sometimes they just hit you in the head.

I was under the impression that, in Arma 2 at least, the camera was positioned slightly above the left eye. Is that no longer the case?

I've made multiple suggestions in this thread. Would you like me to repost them? I'm serious, by the way, I will actually go back through my posts and compile a list of suggestions if you would like. Most of those votes are from before the idea was explicitly shot down within the thread. Moreover, since the Arma 2 method was never really on the table in the first place, it probably never should have been an option in the poll. Perhaps if it was removed we would get a more accurate sampling, although I doubt the results would shift too much. I understand that you are likely joking, but I still feel like I should say that this kind of prank has never really been funny and pulling it on someone who is already upset about the game, essentially rubbing their face in it, is likely to sour them on the Arma community and potentially the game itself.

How would the game know when you are on the attack heading and intending to employ weapons?