-=seany=-

To me, you posting these "counter bitching" replies constantly are worse than the complaints themselves. People are entitled to complain. Is the game a complete disaster? No of course not. There is a small amount of "rage" that you always see around the forums for any game (particularly around release), but a lot of peoples disappointments are legitimate and they have the right to post about them. The games release has some flaws, expect to get complaints. I actually see a lot of first time posters and lurkers coming on here today to voice their concerns. There will a lot more of them too. You also post extreme examples/analogies in your replies such as the "Toys at Christmas" / "pile of hormonal rage" BS. What most people are asking for is not unreasonable. If you or BIS expect there not be quite a few complaint or disappointment type posts then you are in for a shock and a lot of repeating your self for the next few days /weeks.

Lol nice one. At least it's logical :D

You aware of some other way of creating new turrets? The quantity of each factions units...eg the number of assets they all have are fine...we want more variation...what is so hard to understand about this..? Actually, I know you understand, you are just being pedantic. I also never mentioned new planes.. don't where you got that from. ...No, I mean "back to work" on the already created content...They are probably working on the models that they intend to include after the release..like the new jet etc..Or DLC. You said people who are complaining want new toys.. No, most want the same NUMBER of toys (PER faction) but add more variety to them. Also, by this statement you seem to be implying that they are actually working on more varied units/vehicle turrets in the background and what we have now are place holders or some thing? I think it is pretty unlikely. And you still haven't said whether you like that fact that separate factions are using recycled components/units...Well, do you think this looks good? I assume you must do since you are so eager to defend it. Why the heck do even care so much that people are unhappy with the reuse of assets and are asking BIS for more variation. What do you have to loose exactly if they do improve the variety of assets?

Wrong, most of the recent complaints are not wanting MORE content ( I personally am pretty happy with the amount of units AND they said they will add more after release, which I believe). Most people who are complaining now, are complaining about the reuse of assets between the two major factions, you know they copy and pasted turrets and UVs etc..? Answer this: Do you think the newly released faction's armor, sharing the same turrets looks good, or even logical? I have yet to see anyone who does. Why would they? I agree with this and I think it's a valid complaint. Nothing to do with "self entitled generations". :rolleyes: All most people want is the modelers to go back to work for a bit and give us some variety and visual distinction for a handful of assets.

The A2:OA m1a2 TUSK was the same m1a2 model from Operation flashpoint, really? And the A10, and the M2a3 ERA, and the BMP etc etc etc? I must need glasses. And even if they did copy paste these assets....it's still no where near as bad as sharing assets between the two major factions ( which is what most people have issue with). That would be like them sticking the Shilka turret on the Tunguska body. Or the BMP gun on the Bradley. Eg: ridiculous I have to agree with Metalcraze, I seriously doubt they will replace the copy/paste turrets with different ones, or create a different set of UVs etc for the other major faction. I hate seeing people make predictions like this as we really don't know, but you have to admit..it's pretty unlikely. I really hope I am proved wrong.

Obviously no matter what they release there are always a few people who have (legitimate) issues. But compared to the Altis release, the recent full content release has not been received well at all. How many threads are there praising it? None. How many threads where praising Altis? Quite a few. The point I was trying to make was that they get praise when they deserve it, they also get a lot of complaint posts when they cock up or they do some thing people arnt happy with..this is fine...We don't need people making threads telling us not to complain. Also..ahem.. beach umbrellas too colorful? If only all the issues where so trivial

I agree with the OP, nice screens to highlight just how ridiculous it looks too. The models are good, but the re-use of assets is insane. Particularly among the tracked vehicles and vehicle turrets. I just don't understand why they have done this. What bothers me more is I really doubt they will do anything about it, I mean it is quite a large part of the game. I don't mind one minor faction (independent) sharing assets, it normally makes sense this way anyway. But all three sharing so much? Please BIS give us some visual variety! I hadn't even realized yet that all the UAVs are also copies and static defenses too. Very lame and very disappointing. Is there even any logical reason as to why two complete different waring factions are using the same assets? Aside from look cheap and boring, Friendly fire is going to be an issue.

When I am annoyed at something the devs do, I will let them know. When they do something good I will let them know. Look at the Altis release; how much praise did they get? Loads. How many complaints where there? Bugger all. For this latest Dev update there are a lot of complaints. When there are a lot of complaints it's for a reason... I say let them flow. People arnt posting them for nothing. Cause and effect..

Pretty annoying (and insulting) to see a Dev calling our complaints about using copy and paste for all the turrets as nonsense...Within 2 minutes of dropping all the new content onto and airfield to take a look at them, you have a double take and go..."did they really just do this"? You are saying that they didn't copy and paste the AA turret, the APC turret, and the Artillery turret? (not to mention a lot of other assets). I can't believe that given no time constraints or other issues we are not aware of that the Arma3 Devs/Modellers/project lead would really choose such lazy asset design and be happy with it. I'm sure they would have wanted unique units. If they didn't, then they are very out of touch with what most Arma fans (and gamers in general) would want or expect. Aside from looking ridiculous, Target IDing is not going to be easy.

I haven't tried it in Arma3 yet, but this most likely the same system that was in A2OA and it is awful. Once you play online and there is the slightest De-sync or lag, rounds miss 90% of the time. All they have to do is include what the ACE team already created for an FireControlSystem. Trying not to sound like a broken record, but it is flawless and begging to be implemented into the base game. As I mentioned else where, this is seriously cringe worthy and bothers me a lot. I don't know how they can do this and feel ok about it. It looks terrible. Is it really that hard to get a modeller to make a few of extra turrets for a AAA game that has been in development for how long now? What other game has done this? Even all the BF games etc at least have unique models between major factions. I feel duped for being so welcoming of the future setting, there is no point to it at all. They haven't made any good use of the opportunity, functionality wise or aesthetically wise. It's like they just used it to cheap out on model variation and work load. The MG thing is just bizarre too. I can see it being very frustrating. Are there any main battle tanks that have been created in the real world in the last 50 years that don't have some kind of MG for the Tank gunner?

I agree with the copy and pasting (turrets particularly), it's lazy and looks bad. It makes no sense either. I doubt they can or will do anything about it though. :/

May as well all post tank problems to this thread, I posted most of this in the Dev discussion thread but it will be buried in no time. Why does the East MBT have no MG? Why do two separate factions share so many parts? Artillery gun, APC gun, AA gun? It's bad enough we have to put up with the lack of interiors, at least put some effort into how the outside looks... At the moment it looks bad and lazy. I really am unimpressed by it. Why do some vehicles crew's positions get thermal optics but no NV optics or vice versa? The Artillery pieces look particularity bad to me. The gap between the huge turret and tank chassis looks silly, the turret ring looks too small. Make it join like the merkeva's Chassis and turret. Also, the NATO Artillery tank's chassis and Turret look like they where textured/modeled by different people, both using different levels of detail. It's obvious that the turret was an after thought and made late in the (rushed) development process. It looks odd. The handling of the tanks is pretty uninspiring (I feel the same way about most of the A3 vehicles tbh, the offroad is pretty ok). The way they stop/accelerate turn etc just feels unnatural. There is also another problem with vehicles: why can't you move forward and Turn at the same time? When you give a steering input it cuts forward power. The sounds effects for the tanks are bland also. There is no feeling of power or the sense of the engine laboring to move the weight, just two bland engine tones (read drones), one for moving and one for idling. Another problem is with the model LODs, they are pretty rough. The Turret ring disappears on the Artillery tank for example...leaving it levitating above the tank... Finally of course we have the same crappy Fire Control System/Zeroing. No real changes to how any of the tank gunnery is operated. Not even any new cool things they could add in given it's supposed to be the "future".

Why does the East MBT have no MG? Why do two separate factions share so many parts? Artillery gun, APC gun, AA gun? It's bad enough we have to put up with the lack of interiors, at least put some effort into how the outside looks... At the moment it looks bad and lazy. I really am unimpressed by it. Why do some vehicles crew's positions get thermal optics but no NV optics or vice versa? The Artillery pieces look particularity bad to me. The gap between the huge turret and tank chassis looks silly, the turret ring looks too small. Make it join like the merkeva's Chassis and turret. Also, the NATO Artillery tank's chassis and Turret look like they where textured/modeled by different people, both using different levels of detail. It's obvious that the turret was an after thought and made late in the (rushed) development process. It looks odd. The handling of the tanks is pretty uninspiring (I feel the same way about most of the A3 vehicles tbh, the offroad is pretty ok). The way they stop/accelerate turn etc just feels unnatural. There is also another problem with vehicles: why can't you move forward and Turn at the same time? When you give a steering input it cuts forward power. The sounds effects for the tanks are bland also. There is no feeling of power or the sense of the engine laboring to move the weight, just two bland engine tones (read drones), one for moving and one for idling. Another problem is with the model LODs, they are pretty rough. The Turret ring disappears on the Artillery tank for example...leaving it levitating above the tank... Finally of course we have the same crappy Fire Control System/Zeroing. No real changes to how any of the tank gunnery is operated. Not even any new cool things they could add in given it's supposed to be the "future". Altis was the Crown Jewel, and it's just as-well to be honest because a lot of the content is not really getting me excited at all. PS I didn't support the decision to use Future hardware just so you could cheap out and use Copy and Pate between Equipment for all the factions. I won't even mention the jet you have re-used for FOUR separate products now... Sorry to be so negative. Believe me, I really wish I didn't have to be.

I tried to use my G27 wheel and its not great. There appears to be a considerable dead zone that can't be removed and very a small amount of steering degrees from lock to lock. Also as the op mentioned the sensitivity appears to change base on the speed you are traveling. I went back to keys pretty soon and just used the pedals instead.

Those soldiers don't look particularly far away to be honest, I can't see how they should be less visible than they are in those screen shots. Your also looking at them through a magnified scope. Also none of them are lying down. Unless you in elephant grass your always going to be pretty visible while standing up. Another thing I notice that is quite odd for a thread about texture sharpness and bland distant textures: You have Ansio. Filtering set to standard. Turn this to Ultra...In fact, go into your graphics card control panel and set Anisotropic Filtering to as high as it will go for Arma3.exe (eg x16). Also what level of Texture Detail are you using, the maximum I hope? Another thing I notice is that you have all Post effects switched off, that means no haze effect etc. These are things in the real world that also make seeing things in the distance difficult, not just ground clutter and texture sharpness. I know (and agree)that the distance textures could use improving but your not even giving the game a chance with those screen shots. Some areas are always going to be easier to be spotted, even in the real world. Altis has quite a few locations like this (such as in your screens) It's just a tactical aspect of the terrain you have to be aware of and work around. But you can help it some what by increasing Arma's gfx settings (if your machine allows of course).

I don't think so. With a flight model you cant really "turn it down" via options, it's there or not. But with improved weather effects, they could add it to the Ultra clouds setting. Those screen shots do look very impressive I too hope they can add it back in. Overall I think the current weather/atmosphere model looks much better than Arma2. One thing that does bother me though are the morphing clouds. They start changing shape and glitching near the screen edges. Most noticeable when turning left or right, some times it's worse than others. Oddly I have not seen anyone else mention this or any bug thread about it, probably just missed it though.

Signed for Altis alone! Thanks Bohemia!

So, I went to have another drive around Altis today and I swear they have added a new visual effect I had not noticed before today's Dev Build. When you switch views between First Person, Third Person or Tactical View, there is a "Fade to back" transition. When you are in a vehicle it takes longer. Like it's supposed to be a Camera cut Edit/transition in a TV production or movie. I don't really like it. I don't think it adds anything to the polish or presentation of the game, which is the only reason I can think they would add it. It some thing I have never even considered. To me, it just adds another layer of reminder that you are playing a game, which takes away from immersion etc. Also, even a small transition like this could cause irritation in a fire fight. When I switch between views (when I am properly playing in a fire fight) it can't happen quick enough, even without the transition. Add to this the inevitable stutter etc you get while playing, which can already slow down the transition of view switching, and you just add a layer of unnecessary irritation. What do you guys think? Or have I just gone mad and never noticed this before to day? (highly possible :) ) ****Please try to avoid discussions on whether you think players should or should not use 3rd person / Tactical view. Or how this might be a good way to "punish" players for using it.****

Actually..my bad. It's the exact same in Arma2. I never noticed before. Guess I'm over analyzing Arma 3 a bit when I play it, paranoid of anything new :) :o The only difference is that in Arma2 all the transitions are fade to black, where as in Arma 3 the infantry is a hard cut at the moment. I Guess that will fade too eventually. Anyway, carry on, nothing to see here :D

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=7055 I made this ticket a while ago. I hope they add it, its a simple change.

Totally agree, the ACE FCS is so good it is just begging to be implemented to Arma3. You don't even have to go messing around with Tab lock system (you still need to command AI etc). It can live along side it with no problems. It would be a really simple to implement and worthwhile feature. It would even give some slight credibility to the whole future setting...I mean, what exactly in the game is futuristic, except a few models? (hell even FCS we want is on all current modern armor) BIS "auto range" by right clicking a "lock box" on a target is horrible, it is inaccurate, has no feedback, it is destroyed by even the slightest De-sync or lag and it does not include deflection shooting. The ACE system is accurate as you would expect, has visual indicator for feedback (flashing Range# when distance is too far etc), it cannot be affected by Lag at all as it is passive. It includes a highly reliable deflection shooting ability. It is flawless. Please Devs, consider adding this! Bo5UnOhUrbY Here is a Dev ticket for any one who wants to vote or add feedback: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=4834

It's not for me to tell you guys which missions you should like and which you should not :)...but I used to play CTI all the time (especially in OFP- CRCTI & MFCTI) I have always found that BIS's version just is not that great for some reason. I think the best CTI's where made by the community. I too think they should get a Community mission maker to add a CTI to the Base game. I think this about a lot of things actually (Islands, missions, game mechanics etc) but I don't think it will ever happen. They dont like to use community made content officially. But anyway, even if BIS don't include a CTI you can be sure the talented community guys will make some thing nice for the CTI fans. Such as mentioned Benny version, and also Kastenbier's CTI that keeps the CleanRock CRCTI type going. Here is a link to some CTI missions for A3: http://www.armaholic.com/list.php?c=arma3_files_scenarios_mpgamemodes_capture_the_island ( I guess most of these don't work anymore, but they may lead you onto forum topics etc with newer versions) PS welcome to the Forum Alek10 and asafa223 :D

Nah, I wouldn't think so. Buildings in the Arma series are always pretty hard on the CPU ( this is why your seeing bad FPS near towns, to answer your other thread too). If they where to add objects to the inside of all those houses the game would run horribly.

As I said in the Altis criticism thread. I think also think there are too many old vehicle wrecks. But mainly from a performance point of view. There existence might fit in well with the scenario or campaign story, But I think they could probably get rid of 50% of them and still achieve the same effect. Object counts on maps are a precious commodity.

The only thing that stood out for me at the moment as a little odd where the amount of vehicle wrecks around the island, there seems to be quite a lot. But again, I know nothing of the campaign story etc so perhaps it would actually be like this. I still think they could remove a few of them and achieve the same effect ( I'm mainly thinking about performance here and unnecessary amounts of objects).