roshnak

What does this have to do with weapon customization? Also, DayZ isn't really an MMO. It's almost certainly not a 1:1 carry-over, but it does prove that BIS is capable of finding solutions to these kinds of problems if they want to. It think the basic answer to his question is: About as hard as it was to get the features into DayZ in the first place. Probably not significantly easier or harder. On the porting weapons front, the only thing they would need to bring over is the art assets, although modeling a new M4 wouldn't exactly be a monumental task, and it might even be a good idea to remake those assets, anyway, to maintain consistency with Arma 3's art direction. It's not like they would need to have all the extraneous functionality of the DayZ weapons. The Arma 3 weapons should have more customization proxies, anyway. I don't think anyone thought that when BIS was going on and on about weapon customization, what they really meant was "one item at a time on a side rail and an optic." In what sense does it have more potential? It's literally a more focused (read: limited) version of Arma. I'm sure DayZ will be quite successful in meeting its goals, but it's less versatile in every way than Arma is. It certainly won't be the launching platform for an entirely new game like Arma 2 was for DayZ. As for the DayZ engine, it's designed to do very specific things which make it good for what it does, but you wouldn't want to play Arma on the DayZ engine. Frankly, I don't want to play DayZ on the DayZ engine. The only reason that DayZ is getting more features than Arma is that BIS is dedicating more of it's time and resources to DayZ. They could easily divert that time and resources to Arma and make it a better game. It's also incredibly shortsighted to think that DayZ can be a flagship product for BIS. They've basically cornered a niche market with Arma. They can't do that with DayZ. There are already plenty of competitors -- granted, none of them are that good right now -- and it's only a matter of time before someone outdoes DayZ. Honestly, BIS's biggest strength has been that no one else makes games like they do. You can't really say that about DayZ, and I can't see a way that won't be a huge problem for them.

Yeah, but then you would have to start dealing with AIs and stuff inside buildings outside the "bubble" and how they deal with furniture that is/isn't there based on distance from players. The AI doesn't handle indoors well anyway.

The effect in the first screenshot has been brought up before, but I'm glad someone else thinks the reticle in the second screenshot is bad, too. It's physically unpleasant to look at and I have no idea what effect BIS was trying to recreate with it. Edit: I hadn't noticed it on some of the other optics. Does it only affect magnified optics?

I had full functionality while using remote control on units. Deleting a unit after controlling it does seem to crash the game, however. Killing it with END and then deleting it doesn't seem to cause any problems.

The AI mods are just working within the same non-optimal framework that BIS is, except they are layering more scripts on top of it. So BIS working with AI modders or adopting their mods is just adding more hacky patches when what really needs worked on is the system itself. I'd also say that people spend too much time on these forums debating whether or not other games do things better than Arma does. It doesn't really matter if every other game's AI sucks compared to Arma; Arma's AI still isn't very good.

People aren't saying that the AI in CS is better than the Arma AI at doing what the AI in Arma does, they are saying that the AI in CS is better at doing what the CS AI does than the Arma AI is at doing what the Arma AI does. Essentially, the AI in CS isn't designed to operate in the same environment that the AI in Arma is, but it operates pretty well in the environment it is designed for.. By contrast, the Arma AI does not operate that well in the environments it is designed for. This is the kind of thing that BIS does from time to time that just feels sloppy and unacceptable. It feels like problems are covered up rather than actually fixed quite often.

For anyone who may have been confused, this is what a straw man argument looks like.

Last time I checked VBS wasn't a "civilian simulator" -- whatever that means -- and it has female civilians and soldiers as well as civilian children. Just because something isn't important to you, that doesn't mean it isn't important to other people. There are quite a few people in this thread who seem to think that having female civilians, at least, would improve their gameplay experience, to say nothing of the women playing the game who might like to play as their own gender. This really shouldn't be this big of a debate in this day and age. I can understand and would even expect there to be people saying that this shouldn't be a top priority, but it's honestly pretty saddening that so many people just flat out deny there being any value to representing both genders in this game, and going so far as to suggest that it should not be done at all. It's astonishing to me that anyone would say that having female characters in this game -- or any game -- is a completely superfluous addition.

Yep. As for furniture, yeah it would wreck performance pretty bad. There are a few possible solutions, but the best one would probably be a module that populates buildings with furniture in a certain area. This could still cause performance problems if used wrong, though, as well as maybe some problems with AI and unit placement.

Regardless of why it got merged, we can't really discuss the flight model in this thread, so that's pretty lame.

There are probably more things in this post I want to reply to, but this is the most pressing. Once again, he didn't say that you can port anything from DayZ. He said that the fact that DayZ has fully functioning females is evidence that implementing fully functioning females is not only possible, but not nearly as difficult as some people would like to make it seem. Yes, it would be a lot of work, but no one ever said making a video game wasn't a lot of work. Edit: And here it goes For the reasons stated throughout this thread, that is the wrong decision. So is a lot of stuff. Different uniforms for different classes of soldier, sleeves up, sleeves down, short sleeves, long sleeves, helmets with goggles on them, helmets with paint on them, beanies with and without microphones sticking out, different colored helicopters, different color backpacks, different color hats, optics with different colored reticles, graffiti on walls... None of this is stuff really has any functionality have functionality; it's all arguably eye candy, but that doesn't mean it doesn't add to the game. Our primary method of engaging with video games is visually, after all (yes, other stuff is important, too). Nice.

First of all, I did not say that the developers hate women. I said that the complete lack of representation of a substantial portion of the human race gives the impression that the developers do not care about the representation of that gender. Whether or not that is actually how they feel is irrelevant to how it looks. Imagine being a girl playing this game and realizing that there is no one that looks like you represented at all. I'm really trying not to sound to melodramatic about this, by the way, but women exist and they are serving in conflicts around the world and they deserve to be represented in this "military sandbox." I never said that adding women into the game would be easy, nor did I suggest that BIS use the male skeleton and animations or take data from anywhere else or do anything short of a full, proper implementation. It doesn't really matter how much work it would be because it is worth doing. Furthermore: Surely there are full time artists on the Arma 3 dev team. And don't they have their own mocap studio? What is that being used for right now? Sure, there is other content that still needs to be added (more planes?) but almost 6 months from the official release date, we haven't seen any of that, yet. Maybe that stuff is waiting on the campaign episodes to be released. For all I know, BIS is working on adding women right now. Also, you should look up what a straw man argument is, because what you quoted is not a straw man.

What would be the point of this? It just adds scrolling the mouse back into the equation. Now you can just look at the weapon at hit spacebar. Alternatively, look at the weapon and hit your inventory key.

Roughly half of the Earth's population is female. Women serve in militaries around the world. The United States is planning on integrating women into the combat arms. Women have already been engaged in combat in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many NATO countries already allow women in every role in the military, and those that don't are trending in that direction. Women have been involved in combat with almost every guerrilla force in the modern age. Girls do play video games. They would perhaps like to be acknowledged and represented. Not including women or not allowing them to hold guns (Arma 2) when so many other games at least give some representation to women gives the impression of misogyny or a political statement (I think I remember some BIS devs actually saying they did not believe women should be in the military -- don't quote me on that). The video game industry should be trying to improve the way it represents women, not make it worse by not giving them the same abilities as men or not even representing them at all. These are just a few reasons that are not "it's dumb that there are no civilian women" (it is). P.S. Denying a couple of these arguments literally makes you a bad person. Edit: What else is the art department working on?

This is not really a response to the points made in my post. It's kind of just repeating, "I don't like future stuff" when my whole point is that doesn't have any bearing on what kind of addons people make or whether they make them at all. I listed off a number of addons and mods made for Arma 2 that were not set in a present day conflict in Eastern Europe or a Middle East analogue.

BIS should feel bad. There are videos in this thread from Operation Flashpoint demonstrating how absurdly bad the flight model is. This is one of those problems that hasn't been fixed or even addressed in years and people bring up the problems with every new game release. This has been a problem for over a decade. There comes a point where people lose patience and being polite doesn't come as easy. Also, I don't know why anyone would ever post on Facepunch.

I don't understand all this concern about release content in a thread asking about modding. You guys know the whole point of addons is to add new stuff to the game, right? Like, the fact that Arma 2 was about a modern day conflict in Eastern Europe didn't stop people from making a popular addon (actually, quite a few addons) about a zombie apocalypse. Or the CWR team from bringing the 1980s set OFP into the game. Or the two or three Vietnam addons. Or WWII addons. How does Arma 3 being set in 2035 instead of having a "modern military" setting make people not want to make addons at all? It always takes addon makers awhile to get up to speed with a new release, and this release in particular makes it more difficult to bring work from previous games forward. I happen to think this is a good thing; I'm tired of seeing the same models and textures reused over and over again.

Yeah, those extra 4 months make you real special. Bonus points for fully disregarding half of the human population. I don't see how wanting to see more than one gender in this game is any less valid than wanting more than one airplane or different turrets on vehicles. They are all valid and reasonable concerns.

I know this is the pet peeves thread, but you guys could at least be honest and set an actually usable sensitivity for these "spinning too fast" videos.

That's a really high resolution. Also, what is your object view distance set to?

I don't know anything about animating for Arma, but I wonder if it has anything to do with tools. Oxygen can't possibly be designed for animating in -- I have a hard time believing it was designed for modeling -- since mocap has always been such a big deal for Arma. As far as implementing the clothing switches: I'm still not sure how it would be such a big deal. It really shouldn't be such a huge problem to make the kind of change that Bad Benson is talking about in the engine code for the people who made the engine. The game already checks what faction the player belongs to before allowing uniforms to be taken, no?

Even if it were to require an entire rewrite of the uniform system, all I would have to say is that maybe BIS should have taken into account the fact that more than half the population is female and that maybe it would be a good idea to represent them in some form or other. BIS has been really, really terrible at representing women in its games. They should probably try to change that. Also, while researching women not being able to use guns in Arma 2 I found this awesome post which may be relevant to BiggerDave's "too much work" argument.

I wasn't looking for proof, I was legitimately interested in reading about it. I've found some stuff on B-52s flying slightly nose down, but in general it seems pretty rare. Also, I should clarify, the A-10C isn't flying a little nose down, it's flying with its nose a good 3-5 degrees below the horizon at 300 kph (?) and still climbing a little. Edit: Actually, after doing some more testing, I can't be sure how much nose down the plane requires, since the FPM is not accurate apparently? I just crashed into the ocean with the FPM above the horizon line, so... I don't know. I suspect this is also just a default Arma problem. E2: It's the pitch ladder that is off. The horizon line is too low, I guess. The plane still probably shouldn't fly nose down, but the pitch ladder thing explains me crashing into the ocean with the FPM above the horizon line.

Yep. Still pretty bad that there aren't any women in the game.

Fair enough, I guess, although it would be cool to see some documentation on this. It's still not a thing with the A-10, though, so I'll stand by my request to have that looked at. Edit: It's not that I doubt that it's possible to build an airplane that flies nose down in level flight, just that, to my knowledge, the A-10 doesn't, and neither do any of the airplanes modeled in Arma games. It's clearly not appropriate behavior in the context of these games.