-=seany=-

Kind of a weird response to this thread in today's SITREP. It's great to see that BIS acknowledge this thread. But they say it's "Interesting" to see what "we think their priorities" should be. Like they are surprised by what people have chosen. I always knew that Performance would be number one (imo that should not have been added to the Poll). Lots of people will always want more performance. BIS then posted a link to their Road map, which really doesn't say what bugs they intend to prioritise or even acknowledge problem areas they need to work on, just what features they intend to add. The fact that sound is second highest should be a serious wake up call to BIS. Unless sound had serious problems (which it does), it would normally be pretty much bottom in a poll like this. It's like they don't recognise the problems with sound. Its not so much the samples, they all sound great imo. It's the engine, the positioning, occlusion, Volume balancing, etc, etc. Basically all the things that make you feel like your in an environment (combat or not) and let you react to sounds around you. Arma2 had this working fine....and BIS spent a large part of post Arma1 release development getting this right....so why do we have to go backwards in Arma3? And how come BIS don't seem to understand how broken it is? Why do I have to turn my volume down and then back up every time I use the Titan AT launcher? Why can't I tell where I'm being shot from? Why can't I hear a chopper or any other vehicle until it is on top of me? why can't I hear the nature and environment sounds when I have my volume set so that Gun shots from my own weapon don't deafen me? Why can't I hear battles and attenuated explosions etc in the distance? All of this was fine in Arma2....it's the regression that annoys me most...

Sound and Vehicle physics

Thanks for the explanation and new tickets. One thing I noticed yesterday is that wheeled vehicles (Gorgon) seem to be easier to drive at slower speeds using analogue throttle. Is there a difference between the transmission on wheeled and tracked vehicles, or is it perhaps they have spent more time tweaking some vehicles than others?

Yes! thanks for the ticket. There are so many annoying things with Arma3 tracked vehicle physics. Every time I get in a Arma3 tank I cringe and wish they had just kept Arma2OA's tracked vehicles physics, they were near perfect and a joy to drive. Another thing that is annoying me recently with Arma3 tanks is how difficult/ impossible they are to drive at a crawl speed using analogue control. This is very important when using a tank with a human crew. The gunner needs you to drive smoothly at 2-5 kph (often while supporting infantry) while he scans the terrain. This was perfect in Arma2, but in Arma3, lots of the tanks seem to have a weird minimum speed of 14kph or so. So you cant crawl easily at slow speeds, the tank keeps stopping and stuttering. There is also this weird cruise control where some of the vehicles get up to 14kph (approx) and just keeps going by itself...wth is that about? There is also this problem I reported a while ago about tanks inability to turn AND accelerate at the same time: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=17645 All these little things just add up to make tanks in Arma3 a chore to drive. Tank physics and sound are probably the 2 biggest problems I have with Arma3 right now. They need some serious attention. Both these things are more annoying due to the fact that both sounds and Tanks Physics in Arma2 where fine for the most part. The definitely didn't have any of the glaring problems that Arma 3 does with these features.

How come a "Lite" method needs separate data anyway? Couldn't they just lock the LOD/texture setting for the models in the "Lite" versions to a lower setting until you bought them?

Can anyone actually find a thread here or on Steam forums where user(s) thought that the Arma2, Free, Lo-res, DLC versions where a bug? I can't remember any. I think this reason for changing the DLC method is BS. People keep taking about BIS's monetary gain from the new DLC method, but they never say this is a problem in the new DLC overview blog, they just say they didn't like the old method because people thought it was bug....no they didn't... So BIS can either keep the old version, as it works fine and is best for the end user/community.....OR they can come clean and admit that they want to change the DLC method because they feel they lost too much money (or didn't make as much as expected) with the previous Arma2 DLC method. Most people would accept this reason. If they are so worried about people thinking they were bugs, then keep the OLD method but also display a brief, small tool tip/hint when you use the item that tells you could buy it (and give Shift P option) and have it higher resolution. That would be fine by me.

Ahh that's cool, didn't know that. ty

I think the original Arma2 method was better, where units were lo-res. I have 1st hand experience of the Arma2 method working. I have a friend who wouldn't play as the PMC or BAF units because he didn't want to look "lo res". And after a time he decided he would buy because they looked so much nicer. BIS's reason for not wanting to continue the Arma2 method is pretty weak in my opinion. To quote them: "However, for players and developers alike, this approach wasn't always ideal. For our players, it could quite drastically affect their perception of quality. For example, if a player was unaware of our 'lite' approach, they'd play a game with high-quality content mixed in with low-quality content - thinking this was either a bug or poor production values on our part. There was no real sense of what was and what wasn't DLC." I don't think this is true at all. I can't remember a single forum thread were some one was confused about the lo-res Arma2 DLC textures, or thought it was a bug. Also, they never expand on why the old method "wasn't ideal" for developers. If BIS want to change the DLC method because they thought the Original Arma2 method gave away too much and that lost them a fair chunk of revenue that they feel they should have gotten....then please BIS, actually state this. I (and I'm sure many others) would think this is a perfectly valid reason for them wanting change the DLC method. But, if lost potential revenue is not one of the major reasons for this change, they should totaly stick with the Arma 2 Method. Since we are talking about DLC I'd like to add that I bought every DLC straight away upon release with Arma2 (OA, BAF, PMC). That was, however, until the abomination that was "Army Of The Czech Republic" DLC was released, which I still feel very burned over. I will not buy any more BIS DLC until it has been available for a couple of weeks and I see what the overall feedback is like. The old Arma2 method would have helped (my trust) in this regard. For example, this new Kart DLC, I can't get into the Kart and try it out before I buy it. Given the questionable (in my opinion) vehicle PhysX in Arma3, I am unwilling to risk buying it in case it handles like crap. If this DLC was using the old Lo-res method I might have already bought it. So, TLDR; If BIS feel they didn't make enough money with the old DLC method - Then I can live with and support the change. If Money is not the problem, and they just want a new method. Then no, the old method worked far better for the end user.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1533 Summary 0001533: Some controls still active while chatting Description While chatting in global channel in multiplayer I noticed that sometimes things like compass and watch will pop up while typing. This bug was fixed in Arma2.

I was playing the Last campaign missions and I was thinking how much fun they might be to play with a mate. I think it would be cool if BIS could give use some of the best squad missions from the campaign as Standalone Coop missions. Maybe the could be "unlocked" after you complete the campaign or something. Story wise, it wouldn't matter. It could be just a like a "Drop in" scenario...don't worry about continuity etc...they would just be for fun/more content. Besides I think "drop in" type missions are quite fun (EG you are given a Sit-rep and are just dropped into the middle of an (seemingly) ongoing scenario)

Not necessarily. eg can't hurt to let them know some players would be interested....besides more content will only help flesh out the game.

The Development Road Map sounds great. Looking forward to the new DLC etc. I still hope to see the two most glaring problem areas (imo) given some serious development time though; Sound and PhysX.

I just tried the new CAS jets and had a couple of questions. How come both these planes (the Neophon particularly) don't turn when you bank the aircraft? They feel very, very weird to fly from some one who is used to flight sims. Heck even bf2 etc feel more accurate than this with regards basic flight dynamics and expected reaction to control input. Physx seems to not have done much for aircraft, the feel as wooden and odd as ever. Also, when you are on the ground trying to taxi, why don't the control surfaces operate until you have 80-90% power applied? We need proper nose wheel steering. Can't the implementation of Physx help with this kind of OFP era ad hoc stuff. Also, it would probably be nicer to have rocket pods (on each wing) fire alternately when firing.

Very interested to see some benchmarks on Arma with these drivers myself. This game would surely be a prime candidate to get a nice boost (e.g. CPU limited).

Have they ever actually mentioned why they have not added it?

Yep, there still seems to be zero audio positioning for some effects. We really need Audio high up on the list of stuff to fix. It sucks that is worse than Arma2

Yes, for the sake of the poor BI modellers (so they don't get too depressed :) ), I think it's important to point out how nice nearly all the models (soldiers, vehicles, buildings, weapons etc) in Arma 3 are, they look great! I think it's praise they don't get enough. The posts about copy paste, future setting, config problems, etc kind of always over shadow this point. But as pieces of art in their own right they look fantastic. Thanks BI modellers! :D But yes...I too would be very happy if they could add some variety between the opposite factions, currently shared, assets (turrets etc).

I appreciate all the cool things they are adding to the game. But I do agree, I would really like to see more "uniqueness" between the faction's assets, if that was possible.

Tank/tracked vehicle physics in Arma3 really bother the hell out of me. They are so much worse than arma2 or even flashpoint. What is most disappointing about this is we are now using PhysX, so there is no reason why they shouldn't handle better than ever before. They feel "wooden" and uninspiring...they feel like tech demo physics for an indy game. I used to love driving across the country side in previous arma games in a tracked vehicle, not in Arma 3 though... I have been trying to figure out exactly why Arma3 tracked vehicles feel so bad compared to previous arma games. Some if is down to sound effects not being great, some is down to odd behaviour at or around 0 MPH (there are some oddities when moving from stopped / changing from forward to reverse etc.), some of it is just plain physics problems. One problem I found that makes them feel worse than Arma2 is this: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=17645 Slammer,T100 & other tracked vehicles cannot accelerate and turn at the same time. Steering input cuts acceleration. Observed Behaviour: When driving tracked (T100/Slammer) vehicles, giving a steering input cuts forward power. This adds to the unresponsive feeling of tracked vehicles in Arma3. If you are driving down a road, every time you give a steering input, your speed drops suddenly more than it should and it also causes some vehicles to have erratic steering. It also makes the vehicles seem sluggish. Tracked vehicles are also difficult to manuver at low speeds because of this problem. Expected Behaviour: When you give a steering input while moving, forward acceleration input should still be maintained, as it was in Arma2. Reproduction: A good way to see this problem is to take a tracked vehicle (Slammer/T100) and try to drive in a continuous circle by holding forward power and turning at the same time. The vehicle will keep slowing down until it is turning on it's own axis rather than maintaining a constant radius circle (as it does in Arma2). You can also see the problem by simply driving around and watching the speed indicator/ behaviour on the vehicle.

I notice this seems to be quite bad in Arma 3. Even when you are High FPS like 45 - 50 and you zoom you get quite bad stutter for a moment some times. Haswell with 16Gbs of ram here.

Yeah the new sights look nice...but I agree with Tonci here. A really nice gift to the community (that is not that hard to achieve, especially those interiors) would be a nice FCS

I Play on Arma2 TAW Domination pretty much exclusively. They have an Arma 3 coop server, but no one is ever on it, so I don't bother either. I'd love to though. If it started to get popular I'd be there in no time.

I too use it for many things other than Arma, so that justified the cost for me. It is great in Arma though. Be warned though. It can be quite annoying/ disconcerting/ not enjoyable trying to to use TrackIR with Arma (or any FPS) when you are getting below average frame rates. It shines at it's best when the game is running as smooth as possible. If most of your Arma gaming sessions are at <30-25fps, take this into account.

Very odd. But at least he is honest. I can only make the wild guess that he is realising that the Arma engine can not deliver the vision he has. Sad for both parties, hope DayZ standalone continues to innovate and push the boundaries without him. That is one thing Dean seemed to be very good at.

I agree would be nice to have some better bullet holes in Arma. I also Agree with Dark_Spectre about the Physx in Arma3. This could well be one of the most disappointing things for me. Mainly because not only is the physx is no where near what it should be capable of, but it is actually worse than OFP/Arma1//Arma2 etc in some case..particularly tracked vehicles.