-=seany=-

One thing that sometimes does make me want to not use TrackIR for Arma is when the FPS are too low. I find if your FPS are struggling online etc at about 20fps or lower, it just is not nice to use. Same with most games though. But I'd be more likely to play a 1st person shooter game at lower FPS than say, a flight sim or racing sim.But when its running smooth it's really immersive. The only other irritating thing is the wire, if you use the Track Clip Pro ( which is way more accurate than the hat). They really need wireless TrackClip Pro. It's also extremely fragile.

Same here, I used to use it in the previous games, but with Arma3 it just felt weird, so I have it turned off since alpha.

I agree the heavy breathing is way over done/ irritating.

It's pretty good on foot. But yeah, in vehicles the 6dof is kind of weird/restrictive. Some vehicles it's not setup properly. I'd love to have more freedom to move around. You can only move a tiny bit into the 6dof zones and it suddenly feels like you have a Hans device on. You should be able to fix the Zoom problem by unassigning TIR from that command in the controls.

With regards to the actual requests of the letter, I would also have to agree with Maturin

It really enjoyed reading the reply and found it interesting, thanks DnA As much as we (I) do give out about some things/missing features / poor quality initial content etc. I do really, really appreciate the things listed above. It's good to read and acknowledge them once a while to remind your self of the great new things we have been given/have been improved.

Well, Since they went and locked the Beta forum. Not sure why they didn't move all those (still very relevant) threads to the Development discussion forum....? I want to repeat again my annoyance at the amount of copy and paste between the two major factions. I want to see unique assets for both of the major factions...this means no sharing turrets, static weapons etc between the two Major factions. Also, I want to see the sloppiness of a lot of the vehicles (Physics, horrible LODs, model bugs, bugged or low quality sounds effects, config/damage/armor errors) fixed as a priority. .....Then we can move on to the usual "Arma release" type bugs....The above problems make this the worse content, as far as quality control and lazyness goes, of a major BIS release that I have seen yet. (With the exception of the abomination that was ACR DCL)

I agree that Arma's tanks at this stage could use a serious overhaul to give some much more enjoyable realism. We already have mods that have done it perfectly: ...ACE FireControlSystem..again...

About the sway I don't mind so much, but the Visual and aural fatigue are irritating as hell. Even on a short patrol (not sprinting or even running, light jog at most) with feck all weight, I am looking at a darkening screen, blurred vision, and an asthmatic breathing in my ear for 90% of the time. I hate it. I want to enjoy this new beautiful island, but with the fatigue you just have these stupid visual and audio ques pissing you off ALL the time. For example, to test and have a look around Altis, I made a small mission where I play a machine gunner as part of an AI squad and set a waypoint path along an 800m route with various random enemy squads that can appear along the way. I can then place this around Altis and see different parts of the map while having a bit of a gun fight. The machine gunner's standard loadout fills LESS than 1/2 of the encumbrance bar. Yet even within just small distance, without any sprinting or even jogging, I am seeing darkening screen edges and ott heavy breathing in my ear. This pretty much goes on for the whole patrol, it's just annoying. So what do I do?: player enableFatigue false This is why I guess you are not seeing many people complain about the aspects of fatigue that this command removes. I have not played A3 at all on line yet and I do wonder, how many missions are using player enableFatigue false? I think the fact that they reduced the standard running speed by a lot in Arma3 compared to Arma2 is quite a big change, so I think they could dump the annoying blur and darkening screen effect and maybe replace it with the "wavy" fatigue effect from Arma2 and make it kick in much later than the fatigue affects currently do. They could also limit sprint further for very heavy loadouts if they wanted to offset the removal of the visual effects. The out of breath noise needs to be returned to Arm2 levels also. I suppose I will be told not to complain beacuse I can actually switch it (fatigue) off, which I am grateful for. But that still doesn't mean I might not want some kind of fatigue that isn't plagues with stupid visual and aural effects that kick in WAY too quickly. Does anyone actually like the current fatigue?

120hz will be smoother looking and feeling than 60Hz at any (reasonable) frame rate. Motion blur is less than TN LCD @ 60hz and inputs feel smoother. In other words you don't need to be running at (or even near) 120FPS to take advantage of a 120hz monitor. And yes, Arma3 does allow you to set your Refresh rate to 120hz.

They both use the same new environment/ lighting system afaik. I'd love to know if any of the changes they will make to help with DayZ's multiplayer performance will be able to help Arma3 in the future. I hope so.

Yes the LODs of most vehicles are very, very bad, even from the first change. On one of the Arty tank's the turret ring disappears at about 150 meters making it looks like it's floating.

Thanks for fixing the Truck. It does handle a bit better now, not perfect but definitely better. It does still look like its floating though, the shadow does not connect to the tire contact patch.

Yes, this bothers me too when I see people saying we can just use mods. For all of my Arrowhead and Arma2 play time I was using vanilla/default content in online missions. The only really popular mods that a lot of servers used where JSRS sound mod and Blastcore/WarFX visual mod. There where bugger all servers hosting missions with user made vehicles etc. This is why I am so vocal about wanting the quality/and visual uniqueness (eg no copy & pasting of assets) of the existing content to be improved. This is the stuff I am going to be using Online for the next few years. I'd rather not be cringing every time I drive/shoot/use an BIS vehicle/asset for the next three years.

The quality of most of the vehicles in the game is horrendous. From their "physics" (I don't mean just flipping, they just don't feel nice to drive) to their half finished models, terrible LODs, weird armaments (no coax gun), re-use of assets. The list goes on. Every time I come on here I see some new abomination I had not yet had the misfortune to experience myself. What the heck have they been doing for all this time? Even if they did dump a lot of content and restart, they have been showing us these assets in screens shots for ages and they feel about 70% finished. Has any one tried to drive the civilian truck? That's good for a few "laughs". I have seen better physics in Alpha tech demos. The sound is horrible too, it just adds to the dead, lame, weird feeling of driving it. Every time I load the game and go into the editor and drop down some assets to have a play around, it's cut short by finding some crappy bug or glitch or other weirdness that just makes you go, "really BIS?" Are we expected to to report all these issues to get them fixed? Or are BIS going to actually go over all these glaring issues with existing content (particularly the vehicle assets) and polish them up? I would really like an official comment on this. Eg "We are aware that some existing content needs polishing and we will get around to it over the course of future updates". I understand it might take a while, I just want to know we aren't going to be left with these sorry excuses for vehicle physics and sub standard models etc. Don't let this be another ACR. If the vehicles in this game where a user made mod I would have dumped them long ago. They look pretty nice, that is about it. The rest of it is armature hour.

Pretty lame alright. I hope they will replace some of this stuff.

We still need visual different turrets.. that's more important to me at the moment than different types of missile.

Been like this since Arma 1 and it is annoying. It makes you just ditch the damn AI crew and go solo, driving and gunning your self. In Operation Flashpoint it worked perfectly. The AI gunner pretty much kept the turret pointing in the direction of travel, unless you had a target "locked". If you started to reverse he would point the turret backwards after about 50-100m. Then if you stated to go forward, he would again point the gun forward after a certain distance traveled. I doubt it will be fixed anytime soon. They should go back and look at how tanks where used with AI in the original Operation Flashpoint. There was so much that was better. Such as, you used to be able to just left click to lock(assign) a target and right click to fire, instead of this command fire rubbish they added in the first Arma. Where you have to press a key to and click the mouse to fire...etc

Yes this is mine, and a lot of others problem ^ Lots of people who are supposedly annoyed about Lack of content are actually just annoyed about the copy and paste between the two major factions. And we get threads like these showing how much Arma3 has compared to older Armas. Which is missing the point a bit. I am happy with the amount of units for each side, I don't want a numerical increase in vehicles/units from what we have now. But, I do want them to make properly unique assets for each of the two major factions, like we have always had since OFP. EAST and WEST have never shared units, or chassis, or turrets in the series before, for obvious reasons. It make no logical sense, it looks cheap and it has the potential to cause nasty Friendly Fire incidents online/offline. What would make me happy (as far as content goes) would be for them to: (In order of preference) 1. Give different turrets for the AA tank and Arty tank. And also the APC turret (not as important as the other two though). 2. Give us 2 new models to replace the copy pasted Wheeled and aerial Drones. 3. Give us a different main assault boat for one of the factions. 4. Give us unique launchers and Static weapons for the Two Major factions. I don't think this is asking the world, and I think most of the people who are complaining about Copy & Pasted assets would be happy with this. I can't believe that even the 3D modellers that made these vehicles would be happy with themselves or pleased with what BIS gave in the release. The visual quality of the vehicles/objects in Arma3 is really good, so it kind of craps on their work to just use copy and paste. Especially with the tank turrets, it looks horrible and rushed Imo.

Normally all lights in this game series are just controlled with the "L" key.

Errr not the most constructive post in an otherwise very interesting thread. Kind of embarrassing to read actually given how Maruk is reaching out to us. But anyway, I really appreciate Maruk talking about this, it is very interesting. I do bet though that Mr theOPO was playing online when he experienced that performance. I think this is the biggest puzzle for me, how performance behaves online, not just for Arma3 but Arma2 also. The way the server seems to dictate the Client FPS. I think this is what baffles most people and creates a lot of the "my CPU is not being used threads". Can any improvements be made in this area? Will any of the improvements from DayZ's multiplayer Architecture be able to translate over to Arma3 at all when they have it working? Or can that never happen? Thanks again Maruk for trying to answer some of these questions.

I agree tanks/tracked vehicles need some serious work. I really want to see a Fire Control computer similar to ACES's. I also want to see a different turret for the AA tank and Arty tank to more easily distinguish between the two major factions.

Ahh interesting' date=' didn't know that. They did change it about quite a bit though. For some reason I didn't really enjoy it as much as the OFP CTI's. Don't quite understand this. Is it like they had intended to have a version in it, but it never got finished or some thing like that?

I wonder the same thing, about BIS not teaming up with existing popular mission makers to bring an official version. From Flashpoint to Arma1 : I was surprised they didn't work with the OFP MFCTI or CRCTI creators to include a version for Arma1 From Arma1 to Arma 2: I was surprised to see that they didn't get in contact with the maker of Evolution to include an official version for Arma2 From Arma2 to Arma3: Again I was surprised that they didn't try to include a Domination version of there own (I some how don't think Xeno would help them)..Or as you say contact the Invade/Annex guy(s) to include an Official version. As much as they really like and appreciate the user content that is made (mods/missions/etc), which they always mention in interviews. They never seem to be interested in taking the best stuff and trying to get it into the next iteration of their game. I have always found this odd. If they do, they seem to just do a "re-imagining" of it rather than just looking at what the community has made and works really well and just implementing it in the same way. For example: ACE had a great Backpack, Tank Fire Control system etc and they made their own, not-quite-as-good-versions for Operation Arrowhead. The same with Warfare, instead of just copying what MFCTI or CRCTI did, they made their own not quite as good version. Kind of annoying really.

I agree it's very distracting. I hope there is some way they can fix it or make the effect less extreme. Probably the only negative of the excellent new environment.