xxbbcc

I have version v1.52 of ANZINS weapons - that seems to crash the current OF beta. 1.50 works correctly - is 1.52 an unofficial build? (I think I downloaded that from the ANZINS forums (or maybe Armaholic).

I've had the same experience: with this beta the game freezes up and it doesn't react to anything. No .RPT.

I think you're very unfair to BIS devs. Most threads have several pages with information scattered around multiple posts from multiple people. Devs could, for sure, use their time to comb through all of them and collect the info but that would take a fair amount of time - time that they can use to fix well-known issues instead. If players take their time (about 10-15 minutes at most) to compile this info for the devs in the CIT, the devs won't have to waste an hour or two to do the same. (The player already knows the details, so typing it is just 15 minutes as opposed to a dev who has to hunt down bits of information.) BIS people already proved that they follow CIT tickets so we can give them the courtesy of making it easier for them to use their time to fix problems. Seeing how it's a nice bunch, I think they deserve our help for which they give us a better game in turn.

Thanks BIS! You guys are awesome. Happy new year after all this work.

BIS is one of the few companies that's worth supporting. Go buy the game again if you plan on playing with multiple copies at the same time.

Wow. These look fantastic. Thank you.

I agree, the game should remove the clock system (it's near impossible to know what it means, especially in battle). Using compass directions is absolute (no questions about a given marker's direction) and very easy to use. When I was a new player to the game some years ago, it took me a short time to get used to the compass directions and after that it just became second nature.

Couldn't be less important. I have it off as I prefer having the extra frames for the same CPU cycles.

You have a valid point there but that's not a working business model - especially since the games (according to others - I don't follow the game market anymore) are somewhat older.

^ This.

LordJarhead, your soundmod is simply fantastic - thank you.

Than you, these look great.

Wow, thanks to all the team members! It's hard to describe how grateful I am.

Exacatly which part of my argument shows ignorance? I admitted I didn't know how Steam and Steamworks weren't the same but seeing how both requires Steam to be installed, I fail to see how that makes a difference. Why should anyone be enthusiastic about it at all? It's s a 3rd party service that makes software more expensive and limits your rights. Why would I, in any way, be expected to even know about it? (Which I do, but that's not important.)If BIS wants to make a specific Steam version of the game (in addition to the normal one), I'm ok with it - if a customer feels like paying extra for no added value, who am I to interfere with that? I, however, (and I repeat myself, so I'll stop) don't want that trash on my computer. If you do, that's your choice but if BIS makes that choice a requirement, they'll lose money on the other side.

You're making a circular argument - use Steamworks integration to better integrate Steam into the game to fix issues with Steam. How about just not having Steam at all and then no issues to fix and no need to integrate. If BIS wants to sell the game on Steam to people who want to buy it there, fine, it's their decision. If they're also making a Steam-specific version to Steam users, that's fine too. However, if the game starts requiring any registration with Steam or use Steam components in a mandatory way, I'm leaving immeditately. I'm not willing to sponsor a company (Valve) whose only purpose in existence is to make it problematic to use the product I own and paid for.

As far as I'm concerned, it is the same thing. It doesn't matter that I didn't know the difference between the two - I'd promptly leave Arma if any connection to Steam would be introduced as a requirement. An option, in which I could choose to not to install absolutely any part of it would probably be fine. Just for the record, I consider Steam and their infrastructure spyware.

This is not the first time I voice this request - I do realize there's an Arma 3 Wish List thread but I think this request is somewhat different from game engine/feature requests so I made a new thread for it. What I'd like to see in Arma 3 is content (at the very least islands, buildings and plants/clutter - plus troops/vehicles/weapons would be better) ported forward from Arma 1 and Arma 2. I know this would take a lot of work but I'd like to be able to have all these islands in a single game, not in 3 separate ones where all games have different controls and different features. I wouldn't mind paying extra for these but I'd like officially supported ports, not fan-made content. I wouldn't expect these ports re-done to Arma 3 quality standards - in their current form they're already high quality. Having them available in Arma 3 would be great. What do you think? PS: To clarify, I have no problems with fan-made addons in general. However, I'd like BIS to port their own content in an officially supported way so that when there are game changes, these ports are also updated.

Well, that's even worse than Steam.

It was exactly CAA1 that made me add this request - Kju walked away from it and now there's no support because a single individual rarely has the time, motivation, knowledge that Kju had to do it alone. He did an awesome job but now his work is pretty much abandoned. I, for one, couldn't ever get it running - it always crashes on me and eventually I gave up. It is exactly because of this that I'd like an official port - if we pay for it, we can expect BIS to maintain it and fix problems with it. ---------- Post added at 10:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 AM ---------- Why would they waste time with it? If we pay for it, BIS can hire people to do the work. Plus it wouldn't be 'development' work - the islands are already done. Some porting work could be needed but most likely that'd include tweaking textures and data for the new engine. (If there are data differences.) Actual engineers may not even need to be involved that much - maybe for an installer and some tweaks, the rest could be done by the art team.

I do NOT want Steam and will never, ever, ever buy anything there.

I'm not sure how much work this'd take - all animations carrying items would have to be redone for left-handed people. Also, what would we gain by having this other than a very minor bit of realism?

I think you misunderstood my question - you wouldn't be required to buy it. I, too, have both games already and I'd still want the port so I can use the latest game engine (with the latest rendering engine + performance advances) but still use the old islands.

Why do you think so? Even now, I have ~20 excellent fan-made maps on my computer, in addition to the stock A2:CO islands. It doesn't remove me from the community in any way. Sure, the paid DLCs could have that effect but the way I look at those - it's simply a way to support the development of this game. I do realize that it's a lot of work for BIS to develop these huge islands and the other content, so I bought all the DLCs. (I personally hate PMC, but I still bought it to have all the content.)

Do you think it'd matter if a player buys the "A1 & A2 Island port" for ~$60 plus A3 for ~$40 OR they buy A1 for ~$10, A2 for ~$20 and A3 for $40? Even if the island port would sell for ~$30, the final numbers are the same for BIS. Plus I already have both A1 and A2 and I'd still be willing to buy the island ports for the convenience of using those islands in the new game. A1 and A2 (the current Arma game!) are by no means graphically outdated. There're some visual differences, yes, but it's minimal. It's entirely possible that the A3 rendering engine could make up for it. ---------- Post added at 12:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 PM ---------- It doesn't matter what I mean by 'enough' - if BIS gets enough supporters to pay for it, they can do it. That's why I posted the poll - to see what people think.

I specifically wrote "not updated to A3 quality standards". The islands in A1 and A2 are of very high quality, along with buildings, vegetation and clutter. I see no need for any updates other than those required by engine changes to how islands are loaded. Troops, vehicles and weapons would be a nice extra, but I'd be fine if the islands were ported. I also know the amount of work that would go into this - I'm a software architect, working on fairly big systems. And from a business point of view - if enough people are willing to support the port, it makes sense business-wise to do it. I'd be willing to pay ~$30 for a port of A1 islands and another ~$30 for the A2:CO islands. That's comparable to the price of the new game.