Jump to content

dm

Member
  • Content count

    5184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Community Reputation

-9 Poor

About dm

  • Rank
    First Lieutenant

Recent Profile Visitors

596 profile views
  1. Apparently even all that stuff is on the rocks at the moment: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/09/23/navy-delays-warship-training-contract.html At the end of the day, cry looks great, but when you actually try to do anything with it you can't. I know of 2 cryengine projects that were both funded to the tune of $40 million each, and the end product that was delivered was VBS based...
  2. Fix the Slammer!

    1. Wrong 2. They do see: here here here and here
  3. No women at all

    Because it IS horrible. I know, I've done it. I'm not the one suggesting these issues are mutually exclusive? They all stack up against the notion. 1. Your words, not mine. 2. If my opinion does match with that of BI's, it makes it the correct one to have. 3. No where have I ever said that having women in the game is bad. All I have ever said is that adding them properly (which is what BI have hinted at being the only way they will add them now) is a fuckload more work than ANYONE here has even guessed at. Because no one ever takes in when I explain just what needs to be done (I have, a couple of times in different threads) Rigging and creating a new skeleton is easy. Yeah, it takes time, but its still easy. Getting the engine to actually use that new skeleton? Yeah, good luck with that. (See images in reponse further down) Again, where do I say these issues are mututally exclusive. They all add up to more hurdles against the work being done. Well, mr know it all, this is what happens when you use a character with a different skeleton to the one defined ingame: So yeah, I'm dressing it up to be harder to do than it actually is... 1. Here is the fundamental lack of understanding about how the game engine handles characters. You would need to re-work all the systems that involve character interaction (so, wearing gear items, holding weapons, driving vehicles, climbing ladders, sky/scuba diving, etc etc) to allow for 2 different sets of anims/2 different skeletons/etc etc. But you knew that already, right? 2. You can not just "adjust" the male skelton, because the skeleton/animation system is simply not designed to allow for it. See images above. 3. Well, you can see in VBS (and other peoples Arma experiments) that females using the male skeleton are not only too big and bulky, but also move wrong. But you don't really care about the actual technical details of it do you? What it comes down to is a fundamental inability to read and comprehend my posts. Find and quote me saying "I don't think that there should be women in the game" and I will shut up. But you won't be able to find that. Because I never said it. All I have been doing is explaining the reasons why it is unlikely to ever happen (for A3, by BI) because of how much work it is to achieve properly. Yes, technically informed arguments based on years of knowledge about how the engine works and what would need to be changed in order to achieve female characters the way BI have stated they want to achieve them are weak arguments. I would love to know what a strong argument is (I'm guessing it will be "we want them, BI should add them". ) Yes, the male-replacement models are easy, but they are full of so many shortcomings that BI have said they dont want to do it that way. The animations being the key problem, because (as I have said for the 356235232th time now) the engine is NOT set up to deal with 2 different animation sets using the same skeleton. It just doesnt work. And for everyone saying "oh but having manly women wont break our immersion" I simply can not believe that you will not be the same people who would instantly be complaining that BI did "a half assed job" if they added females this way.
  4. No women at all

    But its not just about how hard it is, its about the payoff of what all that hard work actually brings to the game. and gameplay wise, that is very little. So they have decided it is not worth the amount of effort it would need. And they have decided that it isnt one? Why? 1. BI have stated clearly that they are not going to do anything in half measures anymore. So if they do women, they do them fully. 2. Female models, whether combat capable or not are still eye candy. Not in the sexist way most people in these sorts of threads take that to mean, but in the same way having different RWS models for both sides (instead of the "cut and paste" jobs we have at the moment) would not provide any different functionality. They are there purely for aesthetics. I for one see no difference between the two. Either way you have to mess around with new skeletons/rigs (something I know the engine doesnt like), new anims, and new models. If you go the full hog you also have to rework weapons, equipment, interacting with vehicles, climbing, scuba, skydiving, etc etc etc, the list is endless. No, generally thats what happens when you argue with idiots. They bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience [of being idiots] :) Except that A2 had little to no real creative leadership. And as such was a bit shonky (ACR DLC anyone?). RiE and DnA have both state (and again I repeat myself) that they arent going to do anything half-assed anymore. If they do something new, they will do it properly. If you follow the twitter accounts of various people who work at BI, you will see quite clearly that the animators are all working on other projects (DayZ, and others), leaving no one to work on A3. I know a lot more truth than 99% of the people in this thread ;) Except you can't "just port" from dayz. There is so much going on "behind the graphics" and there is so much archaic bullshit in the engine, that just mashing the two things together is NOT going to end well. Except there really is. Many different reasons at that.
  5. No women at all

    This is such a bullshit/strawman argument, much like the rest of the thread I guess. The number of times people have explained why there are no women in the game is crazy, the number of times it is met with non-developers going "well why don't they just do... ...its easy" is even more ludicrous. There are no women in Arma3, not because the devs hate women (I have it on first hand that the truth is quite the opposite), but because adding women is a fuckload of work to do properly for very little gameplay gain. The cost:reward ratio is just too high for BI to really be bothered putting in the effort. There are many other things, more important things, which are better spent developing than eye candy for missions. I can't be bothered to type out the giant long list of "things what need to be done in order to get female characters working in A3 properly" again, because like the last dozen times, it'll be ignored with cries of "well why cant they just <insert half-assed take the data from somewhere else idea here> instead?"
  6. No women at all

    Finally, someone who gets it.
  7. AMD Mantle Support possible?

    That is quite interesting... Why are the screenshots so different in colour/lighting? I'm assuming the only setting you changed between the two was the graphics api?
  8. LODs in A3

    You could just say ;)
  9. Given that the game is rated Mature/17+ I think this age range is a bit wrong...
  10. Because it was inherited from console-land? The problem with this 60 fps "best performance benchmark" is that most games achieve it by stripping away the substance of the game. Take GTA - outside of the player bubble nothing happens, non-player entities spawn in/out within ~100m of the player (ever done the "look down a street and there are 2 red cars 1 black car and a taxi, turn 360 degrees and by the time you're back there is now 2 taxis 1 blue car and no sign of the others?). CoD/Battlefield/et al - has no AI in MP and only limited zombies in SP. Etc etc. In order to achieve the 60 fps "benchmark" BI would have to strip out so much of what makes Arma Arma that I'm pretty sure the same people complaining in this thread would be the same people who are up in arms about how they've dumbed down the game so much its no longer true to its fans/they are sellouts/etc etc...
  11. Is it just me, or is 17 more than 10?
  12. 1. This is a bit like cutting off your own nose to spite your face. 2. At this stage, a mass boycott would simply mean the death of the Arma franchise: DayZ makes them plenty of money, Arma makes them less money. DayZ needs less effort, Arma needs lots of effort. People (leaders, like Marek) are burnt out working on Arma, DayZ is "fresh". From a purely business PoV, it seems much more sensible to me to drop Arma (and its demanding fans) and just go with DayZ (and its fans who are willing to pay $0.99 for additional beans or ammo...). A massive drop in sales would do nothing but validate that opinion.
  13. Haha, what?! This is the epitome of fanboyism. Actually, he's telling the truth. RTI competed against VBS in the last two rounds of US Army simulation competitions. VBS (i.e. RV engine) won both. Ergo, cry engine failed to do what RV does. That's a fact you simply can not deny. RTI also tried to put cry engine on the DSTS system, and after 50 million dollars and about 5 years, it still uses VBS (i.e. RV engine) because cry engine couldn't do what they wanted/needed it to do. Ergo, cry engine failed to do what RV does. That's another fact you simply can not deny. Almost everyone in this thread has no fucking clue what an "engine" is/does. ;)
×