roshnak

It could just be the screenshots, but I think the gun could use a bit more reflectivity. Or maybe a different envmap? I don't really know how Arma textures are set up. There's a lot of white showing up, which shouldn't really be the case if it's reflecting the sky and surrounding area. Great work, by the way. It looks awesome, and I'm super excited at the prospect of getting working CCIP in this thing. Edit: I feel like it's a lot harder to fly in Arma than DCS due to planes acting in really weird ways in Arma. Specifically the plan trying to coordinate turns for me leading to some really stupid behavior. I think it might be hardcoded, too. It does lead to an interesting question, though. Is the plane going to have a realistic amount of lift? I find that Arma planes have stupid low stall speeds and tend to climb even in level flight. The A-10 isn't that fast, so realistic speed and lift shouldn't be a problem, theoretically.

Wait, what's unrealistic about it? You already said that the Osprey can be loaded to 34 for transit between bases, with the caveat that it would be too heavy for combat loads. Someone else said that weight isn't an issue. So then what is? A rulebook? From what I can tell, it's fully possible to load a V-22 to 34 fully equipped troops, even if it isn't the safest. If it's possible, then how is it unrealistic? Should we not have the option to load the aircraft to its FULL capacity, not just its official one?

It shouldn't cause the same problems because the entities are removed when the game is done with them, or at least they should be.

Sometimes I wonder if you havve even played the games that you're constantly ranting about. DM, thanks for the answers. To be clear, I'm not really saying VBS shouldn't have these features. I'm saying that these features are not uncommon in other current gen (and in some cases previous gen) games, and VBS clearly demonstrates they are possible in this engine, so BIS should probably work on bringing these features into Arma 3. Also, with respect to the water in the video, I was referring more to the visual effects of it flowing around rocks, which is pure eye candy.

I think the point is more that BISim manages to implement a lot of stuff that we have been told is impossible or exceedingly difficult in Real Virtuality. And much of it isn't stuff that is specific to military uses, it's stuff that has been in other games for a while now.

Regardless of whether or not it's true (and I'm not saying it is), being an insider would make him the last person to say that Arma is intentionally limited in features to justify the multi-thousand dollar price tag of VBS. But being an insider, maybe he can explain why VBS has features like the ones in my earlier post, and what utility they add to the simulator. I've seen several military trainers and none have ever had Grand Theft Auto style doors on their vehicles or water like in the video in the OP. Those are incredibly gamey features. Edit: Furthermore, they are features that come in plenty of games that don't cost $3000. I can understand features like their AAR system, Integration with other products, ability to modify missions on the fly from a trainer role, and ability to dynamically change vegetation generation, but water that flows around rocks has been a thing in games for years now. Why is it falling to the military simulator branch, which has no use for such features, to pioneer these things on this engine?

VBS has a whole host of features that do nothing to improve its utility as a military trainer (speaking of which, I've never once heard of anyone actually using VBS as a trainer). <--- This one is particularly absurd. Almost every game ever uses tech licensed from other companies: Havok, PhysX, SpeedTree, Scaleform, Miles, Bink, FMod, Wwise, etc. So I'm not really sure what point you are making here.

Did you try running it without TMR? If it works, then you can be pretty sure that TMR is what is causing the problem.

Is it even possible to do a proper CCIP implementation in Arma 3? The ACE guys had to use some crazy hacks to get it working back in Arma 2.

Indeed. And it wouldn't even be as difficult as some in this thread are suggesting. Edit: I'll grant that it's more difficult than only deploying while prone, but that doesn't make it actually hard to do.

Pretty sure he's saying that the damage system is not at all authentic. A small amount of randomness is fine, but if you get shot in the upper leg you should have a far higher chance of being killed than if you are shot in the hand. There are also a whole host of location based effects that would be appropriate for this series, beyond worse aim or being relegated to prone crawling. Wouldn't you rather just have a system where the effects of different types of ammunition can be better simulated? It seems like a more productive attitude than, "Can't do X with current system. Abandon X."

The thing that I don't understand is why it was being done this way in the first place. Surely BIS knew what was happening to the unwrecked house models, right?

It doesn't require anywhere near the dexterity, reflexes, or hand-eye coordination that games like Quake did. It's just not designed to, and it's really not what this thread is about. It's been a while, but I thought the OP was asking for an improved UI and features to ease the load of mission making. Personally, I like how deep mission making is, but it does seem reasonable to have a few more modules in the editor to allow players who don't want to learn SQF (who would?) to set up reasonably complex missions. You have to create a description.ext just to enable respawning, and if you forget a semicolon it crashes your game.

I didn't say twitch shoot. I said highly skill based. Every single good competitive game requires a high degree of individual skill. A good competitive game allows for a player to come out on top of almost any situation based on their individual ability. Arma has a low skill ceiling, in that individual skill can only carry you so far. There is nothing wrong with this. Arma was never intended to be a competitive game. It was designed to be a war simulator, where the idea is not to fight on even terms. Please note that I am not saying that Arma is not fun to play in an organized PvP scenario. I'm saying that in Arma, unlike in, say, Street Fighter, the better player does not necessarily win or even stand a very good chance of winning. Edit: Someone should really change the title of this thread.

Yeah, this mod was inspired by CoC Unified Artillery I had it working in Arma 2 but the author never really got it into a releasable state (He really hates sqf). Still, it was way cool, and frankly a better setup than doing it through the command menu.

Rotation on the horizontal plane? Also, people who don't work for BI should probably not make statements about what BI cares about.

Not really. It has virtually none of the features that make for a good competitive game. Competitive games are fast paced, balanced and highly skill based. By it's very design, Arma can't be those things.

AI should be using cover appropriately regardless of weapon resting. In fact, weapon resting shouldn't really have an effect on how the AI uses cover at all. As for your second point for the most part, you wouldn't even be able to tell if the AI had "enabled" weapon resting from a purely visual standpoint. They already stand near cover with their weapons close to surfaces. Weapon resting is not the same thing as deploying a bipod. It's just stabilizing your weapon against a surface, it's not stuck to the surface you're resting it on. You should be able to freely move it without pivoting around any specific point. Furthermore, do bipods even commonly pivot freely? All of the bipods I have seen have been rigid. Edit: I seem to recall I44 or something had a weapon resting mechanic whereby the weapon was automatically stabilized if it was near a surface. That was great.

I'm almost certain they wouldn't. How do you deal with servers having different versions of an addon? How do you deal with the game needing to be restarted to load addons? The simplest solution is to allow addonmakers to add a name and version number to be read in the config, then when players connect to a server with addons they don't have, it boots them with a message "Missing addon X version X, addon Y version Z, ..." That way people can just get the addons they are missing themselves.

Um, no, it's PhysX based. VBS 3 uses PhysX. Why would they incorporate PhysX and not use PhysX to do physics calculations?

I didn't assume it meant a direct download. That's why I said "or direct you to another server."

Really? I've been playing games in this series since Operation Flashpoint. During that time, I've also been playing Battlefield, Day of Defeat, Counterstrike, Natural Selection, Left 4 Dead, Payday, Sim City, Minecraft, Unreal Tournament, Falcon 4, and Neverwinter Nights, among other games. Do you see where I am going with this? There is no reason that people cannot enjoy both Arma and Battlefield. Playing this game does not make you special. It's a video game, not a cult. And guess what: There are things that so-called "arcade" games do better than Arma. For example, there are "arcade" games out there that do a better job of simulating the operation of small arms than Arma, which you would think would be a pretty big focus for a simulator. It wouldn't be the end of the world if Arma was more accessible to new players, if they didn't have to scroll through dozens of keybindings (many of which are left over from previous games) to change their controls, or if they could open a door, or get in a car, or pull out their pistol without scrolling through a list of actions with their mouse wheel. I know people who would be plenty interested in Arma if it wasn't so horrendously clunky. They don't like that they get stuck on tiny bits of scenery when they move, or stuck in doorways, or that it's possible, common even, to fall through the floor or stairs of a multistory building. There are aspects of Arma that haven't been changed in over a decade. Do you think it would maybe be okay if this series stepped into the modern age?

It's not quite as simple as adding automatic mod downloading. For one thing addons range from megabytes to gigabytes in size. The game has to be restarted to load addons. How do you manage file locations? How much server bandwidth is allocated to uploading addons to people, or does it redirect to another server? There are all sorts of things that make automatic downloading something of a logistical nightmare.

I don't understand why AI would need to be able to use weapon resting.

Dozens of populated servers is not that many. Many games have hundreds of populated servers and games that are really flourishing have thousands of populated servers. Also, don't be fooled by how minor UI decisions seem. It doesn't matter how good a game is if the UI is so frustrating to navigate that people quit before they actually get into the game. Call of Duty and Battlefield may not seem that great to you, but it's worth considering that one thing I've never done in those games is planted a bomb instead of getting into a car (and I'm certainly not new to the action menu).