roshnak

It's a vaguely worded statement, that zorrobyte has technically complied with. He's gotten permission from one of the primary authors -- potentially two of the authors, since Dwarden apparently also contributed to the project. He's also done everything within his power to contact SNKMAN and give him a chance to decline permission. FULL CREDIT is being given to the original authors. No one is being harmed economically and no one is claiming credit for work that isn't his or her own. Frankly, I don't understand what the problem is here. He's followed the steps commonly seen as necessary by most modding communities to use the work. I'm pretty sure this is only a problem because a few individuals are afraid that it will create some kind of slipperly slope situation and their addons will start to be stolen wholeale (it won't). You claim that the only tangible permission comes from KeyCat (one of the original authors); it's just as easy to make the assertion that the only people who have voiced any concern whatsoever are people who had nothing to do with Group Link in the first place, while someone who has contributed a substantial amount to the project has given the go ahead.

The thing is, it's been a precedent in numerous modding commmunities for as long as I can remember. If you exhaust all reasonable options in tracking down the author of a mod, give proper credit, and the mod author hasn't in the past made any indication that he or she would be against continued development/use of the mod by others, then it's generally considered okay to use that content. Everyone is acting in good faith here. I understand that you are very protective of your work, and release your stuff under a very strict license, and you have every right to do that. I'm sure no one would try to use your work in the event that you disappeared from the Arma community, because you've made it abundantly clear that you don't want anyone to do so. That's not the case with the GL series of mods, which have been developed and maintained by numerous authors over the course of it's four previous releases.

You have to be able to differentiate between "stealing someone's work" and "updating a project that has been developed by multiple people after making numerous attempts to contact the author while giving full credit where it is due." How do you figure this is going to drive modders out of the community when the whole reason it's being done in the first place is because the author inexplicably disappeared? Furthermore, this isn't the cutthroat world of commercial development. It's a community of people getting together to make addons for a video game they all enjoy. Should we really assume that SNKMAN wouldn't want people to carry on with the development of a project that was already just iterating on the work of others? Pretty sure that's the effects portion of the mod, which is not included in this release.

This could very easily lead to a really bloated UI. I'd much rather they just document the functions in the game manual. People not quite knowing what the AI commands do is a theme dating all the way back to OFP. Then again, documentation is a lot better now then it was back then. But, really, there are just a lot of commands that do very similar things, and could easily stand to be removed. Even if you do want to use the advance and flanking commands, they could at least be nested deeper into the move menu -- or, more reasonably, the formation menu. I think it would save a lot of space if you had a set up like: Formation -> Column -> Column, Staggered Column, File; and Formation -> Echeleon -> Left, Right. It requires more key presses, but it would mean not having to shift my hand all the way over to my 9 key to order my troops, which I think in the long run would make giving orders faster and more intuitive.

The HUD in Arma isn't bright enough to be easily readable in daylight, and BF3 places the player's view unrealistically close to the HUD to accomodate the wider field of view than you get in most flight sims. Edit: Also, why are you manually setting your view distance for multiplayer when it overrides your view distance settings anyway?

It probably also helps that your object view distance appears to be over 5000m. On an unrelated note, it's hilarious that the landing speed of the A-164 is like 75 knots.

The Arma command menu isn't even that bad, it's just bloated up with a bunch of dumb commands that don't do anything. Has anyone ever used "Advance," "Stay Back," "Flank Left," or "Flank Right?" Why do we have both "Stop" and "Wait for me?" Why do we have both "Open Fire" and "Fire?" We don't need the menu full of "Watch compass direction" when you can just hold ALT and tell the AI to observe a position.

You understand that is a backup artificial horizon, right? Like, in case your HUD fails, which it won't do in this game. The HUD should contain all the information you need to fly the airplane. The only plane that I can see needing an ADI is the A-164 (and it has one), since the HUD doesn't have a pitch ladder -- but, really, I'd rather the HUD just have a pitch ladder. Other than that, I agree that it is way too difficult to see the HUD, but that's mostly a problem during the day, when you shouldn't need an ADI (although you do need a bunch of other information that it gives you). Basically, the HUDs need a lot of work.

I feel like you're trying really hard to turn this place into the black pit of despair that is the Minecraft modding community. Why?

But I already disagree with 3 (maybe 4) of the things on this list! Edit: You're thinking of ACE.

Yeah, kinda. It doesn't just snap on. You have to use an allen wrench and stuff.

I'd like to take this opportunity to reiterate that I am still mad about Java. Like a couple of the devs getting arrested in a foreign country? There have been some statements about other problems with the development of the game as well, but I didn't really follow the process that closely. This is pretty much it. Arma 3 has a lot of cool stuff. I just wish it had all the cool stuff I thought it was going to. Just so you know, this kind of post would be totally fine if you bothered to put any effort at all into it. As it is, it's pretty bad, though.

It's possible to bind throttle and brakes separately if you use the analogue options. It still only uses half the throttle range if you do this, though.

I would like to point out that vehicles from different factions sharing turrets doesn't just create aesthetic problems; it creates real gameplay issues involving vehicle identification. One of the primary ways that we identify vehicles in less than optimal visual conditions is by silhouette, which can be a problem if vehicles from different sides are sharing the same parts. Oh, and if all I see is a bunch of sandbags and an unmanned (or autonomous -- that would really suck) static machine gun, how do I know whether I am looking at an enemy fortification? This scenario isn't very likely, but it's certainly possible for someone to find themselves staring down the barrel of a machine gun and not knowing whether it belongs to their friends or the enemy.

You seem to have a pretty huge problem with realism groups. You should get over it. Pretty much any game featuring the military attracts people who like to pretend they are in the military. Day of Defeat and early Call of Duty games were full of "number clans" with rank structures and senior members demanding that junior members call them "sir." Is it silly? Yeah, I think so, but it doesn't have anything to do with this topic. I also don't understand why you are bashing the modding community in the first place. It's not like there was a mass exodus with the release of Arma 3. Many modders from Arma 2 have moved on to Arma 3, or are continuing to work on both games. And sure, there are times when people can get a bit full of themselves, but at least it's not the Minecraft modding community. Well here's the thing: Arma 3 is better than Arma 2. But not for any of the reasons you have mentioned. You are just going on and on about how you hate realism groups and subtly suggesting a purge of the Arma community. None of it has anything to do with Arma 3 at all. The only thing you have said that makes sense is that Arma 2's numbers are being bolstered by DayZ. Guess what? Germany isn't an English speaking nation! This is the internet -- it's full of people who don't speak English as a first language. It might be a good idea to take that into consideration before you start calling people out for being uneducated.

One of the downsides of picking all the most high-tech, specialized equipment for Arma 3 is that there aren't any reasonably "soft" targets. Everything should be heavily bullet- and mine-resistant. My guess is that BIS chose a futuristic looking transport vehicle, but wanted it fill the role of previous transport trucks as far as protection goes. Same goes for the MRAPs and how they are more akin to big up-armored HMMWVs. It wouldn't be very much fun if everyone was driving around in unkillable death-cars. Of course, they could have just chosen some more lightly armored vehicles to put in their game, I guess. All that said, you probably shouldn't be able to penetrate the front of the cab with a handgun. VVVV Edit: What I'm saying is that they don't have a choice. There are no HMMWs or UAZs. Almost every vehicle in the game is resistant to small arms (or realistically should be).

What are you even talking about? I fail to see how Arma 3 impedes the ability to make or play very long missions, just as I fail to see how Arma 2 was any more suited to that style of mission than Arma 3 is.

I agree with a lot of your post, but this is not an example of a great UI. It's clearly designed for a console D-pad. A menu like SWAT 4's could be better, but both of these options would remove the ability to use voice command tools, since they are primarily mouse/controller driven. Really, they could just trim down the communications menu so it doesn't have more than 5 or 6 categories and 5 or 6 options within those categories, which would make it far easier to reach all the commands without moving your hand too far. I also don't agree with this: You know he's talking about OFP: Resistance, the expansion to OFP, not OFP: DR by Codemasters, right? Although, really, both of those sentiments are questionable.

What? I don't think anyone said anything remotely condescending in replying to the question. Maybe you should read fluttershy's reply again? He basically did say, "Backpacks are not planned at the moment, Perhaps in a future update" and then elaborated by giving a couple of reasons for that decision. It was about as polite as one can be.

Man, you've pretty much nailed the material definition.

To be fair, no one is going to see a guy and be like, "That guy's Special Forces. I can tell by his Special Forces Backpack." Backpacks don't have a huge role in defining the look of SF like uniforms and plate carriers do, so from a design perspective backpacks may not be all that important, even though they are obviously a big deal for carrying stuff.

I think this is probably a problem of view distance. I find that it helps to pick out landmarks in the terrain to reference as aiming points. This is pretty much how CAS is expected to work in conventional conflicts. You don't typically expect aircraft to use guns on ground targets (even the A-10). Well, I know the A-164 has a trim problem right now, where the nose always wants to dip. This can make it a bit hard to aim. Other than that, when using a mouse, I like to change the x-axis so that it only controls roll. The way it is now, it yaws if you only move the mouse a small amount, and you don't really want to be using yaw when lining up for guns.

The FOV is wider than you would typically find in a flight sim, which is probabloy why it looks like you are unusually far back in the cockpit.

Did you have that many tris in your subdivided model? Because that would be what was causing all the pinching.

It should be different, according to previous videos. I believe there are separate effects for different environments like towns, forests, and fields.