dmarkwick

Try changing the Buldozer control assigns.

^ I would suggest looking at your .rpt file for clues. Either way, you're probably looking at using DAC in it's scripted way rather than the module way, as there are definitely engine/content changes that affect DAC in its freshly downloaded state. In its scripted form, you can hunt down the errors and correct them.

If you're playing SP and would just like to ignore weapon sway for your own personal gaming reasons, try: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setCustomAimCoef

Yes I see this regularly, particularly with complex setups or high-numbers of units. But I also see something similar in my scripted smoke effects - I believe there is some script execution scheduling problem/optimisation going on that halts 3rd party scripts when things get complex. The most obvious example of this is when I try to execute a roving camera view script (so I can look around and check things out), when the mission is getting old and with lots of things happening, the script doesn't execute straight away and will often suddenly execute at a (much) later inopportune time :)

I would suggest turning up the AI where you can, but turn DOWN their accuracy, to give you a more sustained experience. It's not too much fun to get one-shotted as soon as you're seen.

^ Yeah #MeToo ;) I don't usually do the prepurchase/early access thing with games, but ArmA is an exception to that. I've never regretted it.

I have to agree about the general vehicle volume. I can't hear vehicles now unless I'm within only tens of meters - I should hear vehicles from hundreds of meters. With heavy & air vehicles I should hear them from kilometers.

I can foresee a time where viewer products would include a version of the face-cushion that includes a transparent area at the bottom, specifically for keyboard/controller use.

CK2 is a great game even without the DLC. For free it's a cert.

You can edit the mission file directly with a text editor and remove any references to those objects, like the spawning of them and the addon reference required for them. You'll find the addon reference at the top of the file, and the spawning you'll need to hunt them down further down in the file.

Not if they're not viewblock or interactable :)

My problem with the trees is that they're not viewblock objects. Is this different yet?

I wouldn't be too quick to try & chase such an already oversaturated market. All it means a thin slice of a fat pie, while ArmA currently enjoys a fat slice of a thin pie. There's not much reason to chase other demographics just because it might be possible, there's room enough for specialisation. In fact I'd say the more specialisation the better.

When I heard about NMS a few years ago, and saw the initial screenshots, I was excited to imagine a colourful Chris Foss-esque universe of crashed interplanet ships, living ecosystems, and flourishing civilizations. Was I over-hopeful? Maybe. But despite the downsizing of content do I feel like I'm exploring? No I do not. Everywhere I go everything looks different...... while looking the same. The assets are mostly spread with predictable evenness. Everywhere has robot security droids that reveal that all I'm doing is tourism. The only single mechanic that shows anything different is the recording of species, of which the entirety is known about already I just need to tick each box seemingly. The aliens I encounter are robotic mannequins with no discernible difference between species. I see like one or two at any time. Where are the cities? Where are the civilizations? Where are forests, deep oceans, continents, roads, areas of industry? Where is the food chain and the drama of nature, where is proof of animals conforming to their environment? Everywhere looks generically different. In that once you've seen 10 or 20 areas, you've basically seen pretty much what you will continue to see for as long as you play (future updates notwithstanding). So yeah. Once I'd grimly moved myself across a few dozen planets, I quietly put this thing down. I didn't feel I was really doing anything. All IMO natch :) I know some people really like it. One guy at work here really likes it.

Ooh, nice thanks :)

Every now & then a thread like this pops up, with posters saying something like "please concentrate on [insert my favourite bug-bear here] instead of [insert something I'm not interested in here]". But the situation will be the same as any other company - BIS will have different teams working on different aspects. There will be a gameplay team(s) and there will be a features team(s), the entire company doesn't work on a single aspect. IMO BIS has worked equally on both aspects. They try to cater to the sandbox/mp gameplay & features while also trying to provide standard gameplay content.

I feel for you :( On ongoing projects I use a leapfrog system. I alternate between two or even three similarly named saves, that way I can preserve some small "history" if something goes south. Not as good as a repository, but then not everyone wants to fiddle with such things just to make a mission.

ArmA LoD system is not a static thing, it can change its behavior based on current performance measurements for example. So a tree that might behave one way at a certain distance in an empty mission might behave differently when there is a lot of stuff going on in the screen.

Great post :) I agree, this era is the best gameplay-wise. My guess is that BIS will still continue to pursue its current course because it likes to incorporate new ideas & technology. There is not much to do with thermal visualisation in a 50's-70's scenario, likewise with remote devices (drones etc) and other techs. For my part, I should like to see variance among individual maps, so one map could be set to be snowy rather than summery, flooded, overgrown, populated, abandoned, pristine, disheveled etc. Every building not only enterable but procedurally populated with items. I'd also like to see the improvement of AI, not to make them simply more difficult (can be done by the simple mechanic of increasing their spotting/aiming etc) but give them a more human spread of ability. Myself I'm happy to see AI do occasionally dumb stuff because that's what I see when I see human players :/ But I'd like them to be able to self-organise a little too, not endlessly stream through the same bottleneck over & over despite the obvious number of bodies lying around, but to occasionally try some other other tactic like simply waiting, or deciding that target is not worth the expenditure. Or to organise a sensible building search with sensible tactics. All these with varying levels of competence. When I see a unit go down at a distance, I want to be unsure if he died, or dove down, or was wounded. I want to walk into a scenario where I can tell by looking around what must have happened, blood, shells and holes revealing a story. So for me it's environmental and emergent rather than equipment-specific I guess.

Sims are good for getting a grasp on the basics of navigation & other procedures.

Meh, exploration always did feel a little flat. Everywhere I went there were already drones and outposts - I wasn't exploring anything.

I use DAC, and AI will call for support.

And I might define "friendly fire" as the unintentional act of killing a team-mate. Intentional FF is just.... teamkilling.

Oh OK you're one of those guys :) Good luck beating your face against the internet :)

Not an argument against what? That you think reflections are unrealistic? It's not realistic to see your position on the map - you can disable it. It's not realistic to see how much ammo you have left in your weapon - you can disable it. It's one of many things you can tweak to get your realistic scenario. You have some problem - it can be solved. I don't see the problem.