roshnak

I don't understand how you can possibly link authenticity with controls. That doesn't make any sense. Seriously, what are you talking about? Do you consider using a mouse and keyboard to be more "authentic" than using a gamepad? Last time I checked neither of those tools came even close to approximating how I control my body. P.S. As a person who is not a member of the "new user base" -- I'm not sure why we are talking down to new players, by the way -- the old mouse controls sucked hard. There are ways to implement weapon weight without making my mouse controls feel like garbage. Also, everyone complaining about being able to spin around really fast should probably try turning up their sensitivity enough to pull that off and then try actually shooting something. High mouse sensitivity is not usually super conducive to accurate aiming, especially not at the distances that engagements often take place at in Arma. On topic: I have a lot of pet peeves with this game. It's a list that's been building since OFP, really. That falling through the floor thing I mentioned earlier is a pretty big deal, but my number one issue with this game is still probably the action menu. It's just such a weird and awkward mechanic.

This seems like a really bad idea.

Have I mentioned that it's possible to straight up fall through the floor when walking around on the upper floors of buildings?

I've never heard of an airplane flying nose down to maintain straight and level flight. I don't know whether the speed readout is in KPH or knots in this addon, but even if I assume I'm flying at 300 kts, that's not fast enough to cause this behavior. Again, this is a problem that is present in all Arma planes; I'm just wondering if anything can be done from the addon side to fix this stuff, because it's really dumb.

That is a problem. It doesn't quite fit that everyone is driving brand new SUVs in an apparently war-torn country. I mean, the car I'm driving now is 20 years old. The military equipment could also definitely use some wear,

It's pretty hilarious, though. Honestly, there isn't any more or less user created content than any other Arma release, really.

I still think this system needs work. As it is now, the level of protection may be technically realistic -- excluding modeling plates, which is kind of a big deal -- but it's not producing realistic results. The game needs more severe hit reactions. There should probably be a noticeable flinch from first person when struck in the armor, along with a decrease in aiming stability -- personally, I think 1-2 seconds is too short, and it should be somewhere around 3-5. Perhaps being struck in the helmet should cause a second or two of blurred vision. The game also probably needs, at the very least, some simple wounded animations. I honestly don't think a rudimentary bleeding system would be terrible, either. It worked out fine for America's Army. The simple fact is that there just aren't enough consequences to being shot non-fatally in this game, and the addition of body armor makes non-fatal hits even more common.

Can you do anything about the insane amount of lift the plane has? The flight path marker is almost always above the nose, which leads to flying with your nose pointed below the horizon in order to fly straight and level. This might just be a problem with Arma's flight model, since it's been a thing on every plane in the series, but I thought it was worth mentioning anyway. P.S. This plane is cool, good work.

16 GB from 8 GB isn't going to make a difference in Arma. 8 GB is already more than the program can use. From what I understand it can use like 4 GB of RAM on a 64-bit OS and then the other gig is from your pagefile I could be slightly off on this, but either way 8 GB should be sufficient for Arma. Faster RAM makes the game run better. To "apply" it you'd have to buy faster RAM.

This is a terrible idea. Monetizing content creation will not help anyone but content creators. Some people might be okay with that, but I'd rather Arma not become a marketplace for third party content. Flight sims are a great example of how terribly far this kind of strategy can go, with addons costing as much as, or more than, the game itself. And I don't think anyone can say that Minecraft, with its mods drowning in Adfly links, has a pleasant modding community.

The units probably all have the same grime and stuff because people don't want to create new specular and normal maps (I don't know if grime shows up in the normals, but if it does, it might create a legitimate problem) for their retextures. Templates aren't really going to help with that. I guess maybe stitching. Also - and I know someone is going to be upset with me for saying this - don't we have enough retextures? It's easily the lowest effort modification you can do. How many copies of the exact same uniform or vehicle in different colors do we need?

Please define "playable framerates." That term alone isn't very helpful, since people have different definitions for "playable." I think you mentioned 25-30 earlier in the thread, and that is not what I would consider to be playable. Personally, I don't like my framerate to dip below 40. It's just not very helpful if I'm arguing that the game runs awful and you're arguing that the game is perfectly playable, but in the end it turns out we are both getting 30 FPS. I'm also not sure that the OP posting his settings would do much for the argument, unless he has his view distance maxed or something. It's been pretty well established that as long as you have a moderately powerful video card, adjusting savings is only going to go so far as far as improving performance, and it only really changes your experience before AI are put into a mission. A lot of people can get 60+ FPS on an empty map. It's only when stuff starts going down that framerate becomes an issue, at which point no amount of lowering graphics settings is going to make the game demand less CPU for AI calculations.

People have already called you out on this, but I figure I'll jump in and say this is just not true. If anything, this series is being made for an obsolete generation of hardware. You might say that it scales to a generation of computers behind. None of this is true. Please refer to my post on framerate in video games. It even has links to sources.

Because of the way Arma scripting works, it wouldn't be very hard to do.

No it wasn't. It's because 60 Hz is the maximum refresh rate of most monitors. 30 seconds with google brought me to this article that says that 60 FPS is a rare thing on consoles: http://www.giantbomb.com/60-fps-on-consoles/3015-3223/ I'm going to try to stay away from talking about games that aren't Arma in this post, so I'll just say I disagree with this statement. It's true that framerate can be more or less noticeable based on the type of game, but Arma has the same first person screen rotation as more action oriented games, and that is when low framerate becomes most evident. I wish people would stop talking about framerate like the effects it has on people is some universal thing. Different people are capable of perceiving more or less frames per second. Some people can't tell the difference between 30 and 100 FPS - I have no idea how - and others get physically ill when subjected to framerates less than 30. I, personally, am usually fine with around 45 - 50 FPS, but anything around 30 starts giving me a headache after a while. So framerate affects people differently, but almost everyone can agree that 60 FPS looks smooth on modern LCD displays (not necessarily on CRTs), which is why most people use it as a benchmark for good performance. I understand that there is a lot of stuff going on in Arma, but players with reasonably powerful machines should be able to get 60 FPS on the lowest settings. Here's a good article on framerate and the human eye: http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html (Some USAF pilots have been able to detect up to 220 FPS) Here's a site with examples of motion at 15, 30, and 60 FPS: http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

It might not be the only answer, but it would certainly help. Their reasoning from 2008 that most computers don't have enough RAM to justify a 64-bit executable doesn't hold up anymore.

Haha, what? That has to be the least insulting slur I've seen. First of all, he posted his specs in the fourth line of his post and it's fairly top of the line in most respects. I think his point was that if he can't run the game well at max or near max settings with that hardware, what kind of hardware would he need? Second of all, yeah, calling him a noob is pretty much not helpful at all. Lastly, perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to why you think a segment of the gaming industry targets 60 FPS as a benchmark for good performance?

Maybe before we start throwing a bunch of furniture into buildings, we can talk about players falling through floors.

That's pretty awesome.

Well, the whole point of self-publishing is that you aren't beholden to someone else - and a higher share of the profits, of course. So the only real reason BIS would have had to release the game unfinished is if the alternative was if they had literally no other choice. It's not like a publisher would be sitting there saying, "We don't care if you need 6 months to finish the game; we want it out by the holiday season so we can get more money." I'm not sure I understand this logic. It's like saying that a publisher actually has a contract with Gamestop or something. It would be like if you got a bad computer part from whatever computer warehouse is in your area and then the manufacturer saying, "Don't blame me, I just made the thing." I'm not necessarily talking about a contract in the legal sense, here. I'm saying that when a company takes your money in exchange for a product, they have an ethical responsibility to deliver the best product they can. This isn't usually true in video games, though, because it can only be true as long as customers hold companies to this standard, which people who buy video games usually don't. You wouldn't usually pre-order a table, and if you got a table you weren't happy with, you would expect the manufacturer to give you a refund. People who would be up in arms over a being sold a knife set that doesn't cut well, when given a $60 video game they aren't happy with, will just say, "Oh, well." Anyway, this is getting into a broader discussion of business practices in the video game industry than is really relevant, except that a few people on these forums throw around the word "entitled" like it's the worst thing in the world, but it's important to remember that we are all paying customers, and as such, we are entitled to a certain level of service (not that I think BIS have anything but the best intentions toward their customers).

I don't understand what your point is with this. Arma's (somewhat) futuristic setting doesn't stop people from making contemporary addons any more than Arma 2's (initial) Eastern European setting prevented people from making Middle Eastern and Vietnam war set addons. The whole point of a mod is that it is not dependent on the setting of the base game. You could make World War I addons all the way up to Space War 6000 addons if you wanted.

It might have something to do with the fact that it's harder to forward-port addons from OFP and Arma, which, let's face it, a large portion of addons for this series have historically been (mixed in with weapons ported from CS).

It's difficult to have much, if any, sympathy for a company that so horribly mismanages a project that it has to rush an incomplete product out the door. Especially if they don't even have a publisher to blame (although they can lay some blame on Greece, I guess). But I didn't follow the Arma 3 development as closely as some other people did, and the only problem I was aware of existing is the Greece stuff. How do you figure this is a mischaracterization? They do have a contract with their customers to deliver a product. I don't personally think that criticism on their forums is making them not want to work on the game, but if it is, they need to suck it up because they are getting paid. I also feel like some people are exaggerating the negativity of much of the community. Most criticisms take care to express enjoyment of the game or series as a whole. It's not common that someone shows up and says the game is terrible or anything. I think sometimes people can sound more negative or harsh than they intend because someone inevitably shows up to shout down criticism and it kind of drives things to extremes. It's also important to note that most people don't post a lot of positive feedback because there isn't much more to add after you say, "I like X." There's not a lot of discussion that can follow that unless someone disagrees and dislikes it.

More likely they just haven't had time to experience a decade of a series with remarkably few advancements. It's not like the standards that people hold for this game are unreasonable. Most people just want it to be up to par with other modern video games in terms of features and performance. Some people have probably just heard "Maybe next game" a few too many times. I don't know who or what you're talking about specifically here, but I feel like professional performance and game design philosophies are totally fair game when criticizing a video game company, as long as you provide evidence to back up your statements. It's really the policy they should have had from the start. No good can come from announcing features that not only are you 100% sure you can get in game, but have already been almost entirely implemented. I might even go so far as to say you should wait until they are fully implemented. Best case scenario: people no what to expect. Worst case? Everyone is angry at you for not fulfilling promises. I think the real problem people had in that thread was that BIS made all these announcements and then just kind of tapered off talking about them, almost like they hoped people would forget, which left a lot of people confused and frustrated. Not talking too much about what you are working on is a good policy in advance. It doesn't work nearly as well when applied retroactively. On the one hand, this sucks and I get it. On the other hand, though, this doesn't really make anything better. It might even make it worse.

I certainly hope this isn't the case, but if it is then BIS is in real trouble because so many things that are needed to make Arma better are engine side enhancements. Unless they decide to start licensing engines, they will still be using the same engine that Arma is on with all the same problems that Arma has.