roshnak

Wow...

Pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

This seems like such an obviously inefficient method that I'm surprised that BIS hasn't come up with a better one by now. It also doesn't seem like this would be the thing that is specific to multiplayer scenarios.

I love this and I love you. Also, Block 40 HUDs make me sad.

If your CPU isn't running at 100%, then it is not being used as efficiently as possible, so yes, if your processor isn't running at or near 100%, then it is not being utilized to it's fullest potential. It would also be helpful if you defined "playable framerate" because that isn't the same thing for everyone. Some people are fine at 30 FPS, while some people get uncomfortable below 40 and almost everyone is fine with 60 or higher (although there are studies that show some people being able to detect flicker up to like 200 FPS). You can't really say what Cryengine and Frostbite can never do. Just like BIS, those devs are capable of modifying their engines to suit their needs. I also find it interesting that you are telling people to quit playing the game in a thread where people are posting constructive analysis of performance problems...

Pretty sure he's referring to the way the missions are designed, in that they are very inefficient and run a ton of poorly optimized scripts. About graphics settings: It's been pretty much proven that on most computers, adjusting graphics options gives only a small boost to performance. I think most of us realize that Arma is very CPU limited right now.

It would be interesting to see a gamemode where players were the hostages.

I would think that people would want Arma 3 to have more features than Arma 2. Now, I know that it actually does have more features, but my point is that "that stuff wasn't in Arma 2" isn't a reason to not hope it will be in Arma 3. As for the missing weapons and ERA, I can only assume removing them was a conscious design decision, since they were clearly already implemented at some earlier point.

Whoa, I did not see this. The vast majority of law enforcement are not even close to highly trained with their weapons. In the U.S. most departments only require you to fire your weapon 2-4 times per year, and there are very few officers who fire more than the required amount. I have no problem with the police, but they are not the best example of trained shooters. As for dispersion effects, it's really hard to put numbers to an action that is entirely dependent on both individual skill and psychological effects. No two people are going to react the same way in a gunfight; accordingly, you'll find a great deal of disagreement about how those factors should affect dispersion values.

Well I was always assuming getting to cover would be the first thing you do, before even returning fire, unless there is no cover to get to. If you don't get to cover you should be dead (I'm assuming that video was a set up and not actual gameplay, as there was no excuse for not killing you in that situation). Again, I have very little idea how the system works yet, but my concern was more of what happens after you get to cover, because if I can't shoot back at that point then my team and I are just waiting to be killed. I've played games with a screen blur suppression effect before, and it rather than force me into cover it usually forces me to try and move as quickly as possible so I can see again. Anyway, suppression effects are really tricky to get right, and I guess we'll have a better idea how it works on Friday.

30 FPS is not an acceptable framerate. 60 is the standard that that most developers generally shoot for.

Agreed.

It's worth noting that the OP isn't necessarily asking for bigger explosion effects so much as more variety to the explosion effects.

Well that's probably why the tank is inspired by the Merkava, and not the Merkava itself.

Well, I didn't say remove the suppression effect altogether, since the developers clearly want it in there. I said maybe tone down the screen blur. If you want to simulate dust and shrapnel from bullet impacts, you can just modify the bullet impact particle effects to do that. As for how I would react in real life, I believe that all modern militaries train their troops to return fire as quickly as possible in response to suppression fire. If you don't then you die. Edit: Yeah, that's why I said that I can't know exactly how it was implemented yet, and that it was just my initial impression. Thanks for being receptive to feedback and not telling me to get lost and stuff.

Yeah, but within like 2 shots the screen was so blurred you couldn't see anything. To be honest, if we are going to have suppression effects, I'd prefer the Arma 2 system of inducing aim shake, and it would be better if it was based on volume of fire. Obviously I have very little idea of the precise nature of the suppression effects in this addon, but my initial impression was that it seems a little bit unreasonable that one shooter can put someone else so thoroughly out of commission that quickly, without landing a single shot.

I know suppression effects are a controversial topic, but that effect in particular seems really extreme. I can't see how it would be at all possible to have a firefight with that much blur. I hope you'll consider toning it down, as my suspicion is that it will lead to a situation in which whoever fires the first shot will win the engagement, regardless of how accurate they were.

This would be a pretty good argument if Arma could come even close to simulating the advantages and disadvantages of different aircraft. Especially since a large part of what gives modern aircraft an edge is their avionics packages, which is completely unsimulated in Arma.

It' not really his work. It's a port from another game. And to be honest, there is no excuse for not selecting the whole model and clicking the mirror button before you import into Arma. I tried to say it nicer in another thread, but if he's not going to be polite I guess I shouldn't be either.

I miss repeated bullet impacts kicking up lingering dust clouds in WGL. That was super cool.

No, man. If it's too polished, the game might get popular or something.

Thanks for being awesome and creating new content. It looks great.

I don't play COD either, but Battlefield hasn't had a decent server browser in the history of the series, so I wouldn't use it as a benchmark. As far as server browsers go, though, Arma's is pretty bad. It updates slowly and has issues with displaying ping properly. Beyond that, the scoreboard is definitely lackluster, most of them have scroll bars for large player counts these days. I don't necessarily see a problem with the lobby itself, though. The inventory system is still kind of clunky, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. I'd say the biggest problem with the GUI right now is still the action menu, which is dated to say the least. I really can't see a reason why there isn't a universal action key and the ability to switch weapons with the number keys. Sakurachan's Keys addon looks like it's going to be taking things in the right direction, but weapon switching is still going to be needlessly clunky, and Keys almost certainly won't be usable on many multiplayer servers. As for weapon switching, it would be cool to see something like ACE's system of selecting your primary with Shift+1, GL with Shift+2, pistol with Shift+3, and launcher with Shift+4. It went something like that anyway.

Ha. Also, there sure are some elitist tendencies coming out in this thread. And some pretty cool prejudices against people for playing different types of video games. Edit: You forgot the part where he said "between 3 and" in front of that 7.

I don't see how UV maps could possibly cause copyright or licensing issues. That said, you can extract the textures from the .pbos and they always seemed like an acceptable base to me. On the other hand, I honestly feel like there are way too many retextures already. I understand if you want to retexture vehicles for your clan or whatever, but do we really need dozens of repainted stock units?