roshnak

Okay.

Without reading anything else, this isn't going to happen. I'm sure that Crytek would be more than happy to license their engine to anyone willing to pay for it, but they aren't going to team up with another developer to help them make a new engine. Also, it's best not to mention other game engines on these forums, since it usually creates a huge pointless argument.

There was an article about Oculus Rift in Time magazine and the author reported the same screen door effect with DK2.

Yeah, it does. A substantial part of a post I wrote on the last page was dealing with just that. On topic, BIS doesn't seem to want Arma to run at 50-60 FPS. For every performance improvement they make, they expand the game such that it always kind of runs the same.

By this definition almost every game ever made is a simulator.

Yep. It's a well reasoned post that was kind of hidden behind a wall of unreadable text. You make some good points. Unfortunately Arma's development process is relatively opaque right now.

See, here's the part where I am getting confused: There are two options here. Either BIS is a small company doing they best they can with an enormously complex game and limited manpower and budget, or they are fulling capable of fixing the problems and they just don't care. No one is saying that developing a game of Arma's scale is easy. It's not an insult to say that BIS doesn't have enough manpower to deal with all the issues that have been with this series as quickly as we would like, because the alternative is that they don't want to deal with those issues. I'm going to give BIS the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are trying, but are limited by manpower, time, and money. This is the problem. Some people keep throwing around the terms "simulator" and "realistic" like they are interchangable. They aren't. A game doesn't have to be a simulator to be realistic. If you look at simulators in the driving and flying genres, you'll see that they are much deeper and more detailed looks into specific mechanical systems. You'll also notice that they are almost invariably very narrow in scope. That's because to create a depiction of something with that much depth and complexity is a huge undertaking. There are a few reasons I don't like when people use the term "simulator" to describe Arma. One of them is that it creates unreasonable expectations that the game can't hope to live up to. The game is so broad in scope that it can't possibly hope to cover every aspect to a simulation level of detail. It doesn't try to and it never has. It gives a pretty good approximation of combined arms combat, though, and that's really all it has ever tried to do. Basically, labeling Arma a simulator opens it up to a whole host of criticisms that it doesn't deserve.

If you broke that up into paragraphs more people would read it.

You should probably leave it up to the ACE team to post an ACE thread, eh?

Seems like a waste of the functionality of TackIR, to be honest. Leaning is an analogue input and can make full use of the TrackIR's range of motion. Binding the side step to TrackIR's lean would just make you snap into a fully extended leaning position once you move past a certain threshold, since it's an on/off situation. It just makes more sense to bind a digital function to a digital input like a key press.

You're misreading calin_banc's point. He's not trying to dissuade people from playing the game, or saying there is a better game out there, he's specifically refuting j4you's argument that Arma has been "dumbed down" from it's previous incarnation as a tight, focused military simulator. It's always been a broader game than that. It has always been a tactical combined arms shooter with sandbox elements. That's what makes it such a good game. It's wide open for the user to make of it what they will. j4you complains about zombie gamemodes and longs for the old days when Arma was a serious simulator, but there have always been zombie missions and rally car missions and all kinds of silly stuff that the community does with Arma. Look at it this way: There are a number of games that have a more realistic simulation of small arms handling than Arma does. The most basic aspect of infantry combat is operating your gun, and Arma already isn't the most hardcore simulation out there.

There are plenty of moderately sized companies with good to great developers. There is absolutely no reason to get into an entirely subjective conversation about which company is the best. This is a topic that is guaranteed to descend into a stupid argument.

A very small number of people complained about Zeus. The feedback on Zeus has been generally positive. No one at all would complain about BIS announcing they are working on implementing one of the top 5 most requested features in the history of the series. P.S. Any time you straw man people like this: You weaken your own argument and give the impression that you either don't understand the issues you are talking about or don't care.

Neither of those things are really true, but that's irrelevant since my point was that the only part of his machine that stands out at all is his processor. I mean, his PC is pretty good, but it's by no means exceptional. Your PC is better in every way than his. Either way, I'm not really sure why you are directing that statement at me and not the person I was quoting.

Well, his RAM and HDD aren't particularly fast, so he only has 1 out of those 3 covered.

I don't see how people answering that they would not buy the suggested DLC, and then giving a reason -- they don't feel like they have gotten their money's worth out of the game they already purchased yet -- is off topic.

In most military aircraft that I am aware of, the gear indicators are not illuminated when the landing gear are stowed, but I'm not an expert or anything.

I don't understand why people are always wanting to pay for more content when the game's features aren't even complete.

Nope.

This is good.

I thought you kind of implied it, since those were the last two features that were brought up, but I wasn't sure, which is why I asked. I generally agree with the idea that many aspects of the DayZ engine are not applicable to Arma (just read any of my previous posts in this thread), but those two features are certainly not among those that wouldn't be useful for Arma, or any other game for that matter. I'm also aware of the fact that BIS has, in the past, taken steps to address upcoming technology. Unfortunately, they have fallen behind the curve again. The first article you linked says, "In the long term, the solution to this will be to move to a 64 bit operating system and to compile the game as a 64 bit application," which would seem to indicate that the referenced method wasn't intended to be a permanent solution.

I don't understand. Are you saying that Arma doesn't need multi-threading and 64-bit architecture?

If they were going to do this, it would have to be implemented way better than it was in previous games, because it made movement in buildings feel so bad that several people made mods to remove weapon collision. Some sort of automatic weapon lowering or something, maybe? Also, no one uses a pistol in combat if they can help it. Ideally you wouldn't even need an animation. Just make it so that any time your weapon is naturally in contact with a surface it is stabilized.

The OP seems to indicate that they are.

It was explicit in that you need permission from the author(s). He has permssion from at least one of the original authors -- two if you count Dwarden. No one who was actually involved with this project has had any objections to zorrobyte updating it for Arma 3.