dm

Oh dear... FPDR

Because playing with m4/m16 after m4/m16 after m4/m16 or ak after ak after ak is any different...

I love it when non-developer types say this

also, this :D

Not explicitly, but there is nothing preventing one of the other nations that uses it from selling to CSAT, the storyline goes: Colombia and Mexico being 2 users of the GAU-19. I was really hoping to hit you with a succinct defence here, but we have a problem: Ingame, the strings identify it as "Cannon Caseless 30mm" (clearly not a GAU-19, for it is too high a caliber and uses caseless ammo) However, the configs identify it as "gatling_20mm (annoying that its different, but still clearly not a GAU-19) So that avenue of retort is all fucked up :/ The only thing that could possibly identify it as a GAU-19 is the muzzle, which happens to have a triangular shroud over the end of the 3 barrels. However beyond that, there really isn't anything that identifies it as a GAU-19. If the texture had some GAU-19 markings on it, I'd be inclined to side with you, but it doesn't. Finally, if we look at the size of the barrels, we can see it is clearly MUCH larger than 50 cal: It looks to me very much like it should actually be a 30mm cannon firing 30mm rounds, so certainly NOT a GAU-19 in anything other than resemblance. Setup, to show no cheatsies:

Actually, the majority of the western tech (real world) Iran uses was sold to them in the 50's - 70's before the religious crazies ousted the Shah and turned the place into a wonky theocracy. The AH-1s, TOW and Sidewinder missiles were originally sold to them, they started reverse engineering them once the crazies took over and people were no longer willing to sell to them. Rivet counters. :j:

wrong

Another bullshit rant in the metalcrazy "hate on the developers" crusade. 1. The turret is anything but low poly. Its "ugly" because the Merkava is "ugly" in real life, and the polycount seems to match that of the other assets (can't know for sure until I get my dirty hands on the raw p3ds, but it certainly looks ok) 2. Maybe you just have a shit PC, because it looks crisp and sharp to me. Upgrade, then whine more that you dont get 349536497532 FPS on your super PC. 3. lol, real life would like to say hi. As mentioned, the Merkava does not have a hatch in the turret for anyone but the commander. 4. Because every military vehicle always has all of its weapons mounted all the time. Tho you'd be bitching about it being completely missing if it wasn't there at all... A quick image search (lol, research, who needs to do that, right?) shows the Merkava is seen quite often in all 3 "configurations" - w/o mount, w/ mount, w/ mount & gun. 5. In your opinion all of arma 3 is a "quick placeholder". This is why people call you out and say "you do better then" (see below). Because until you do, you're nothing but a whiney cunt that trolls the forums. Because removing an existing part of a model to suit a design decision is lazy... Also, weren't you just warned about insulting the devs? (Please, keep it up, then they can ban you and we can go on and live our forum-lives in peace) Compared to you, who sounds like a whiney teenager... And, this is a very different analogy, and actually a perfectly good example. You know how this whole thing started? Oh, yeah, thats right. Some guys decided that there weren't any games out there that did exactly what THEY wanted, so they set out and made their own. Here we are, ~15 years later, and they have to put up with smartasses like you, who have contributed exactly nothing to the creative process, yet preach about game design as if you're the next Peter Molyneux or Sid Meier, when really you are a nobody. Do you? I'd suggest you go learn to make mods, then you can see what is really involved. But you'll just bitch and moan incessantly about that too. But, I do know about the limitations involved, and can say that while it would be possible to add the remaining items to the vehicle, they introduce complications (as Damian has already mentioned), which for the gameplay "advantages" they bring are probably not worth the effort. Not to mention having to somehow balance the mortar (yeah, thats gonna make you rage too, isnt it ;) )

Yes, because porting is always easy... :j: The way you post :) Because it is more than just the models that would be needed. I know a lot about a little. That is all Yes, they are identical. Both games can not handle multiple skeletons using weapons/vehicles/anything else rtm driven - you have the standard male skeleton, and that can do everything. As soon as you add a new skeleton, it can not, by default, use weapons/vehicles/anything else rtm driven. It is the nature of the system. My are non-armchairness? ;) Yes, you may be talking about non-weapon-toting, non-vehicle-driving, non-clothes-changing, non-scuba, non-skydiving, non-ragdoll civs, but do you think that BI might have decided that they want all or nothing? There is more to it than just plain models, there are levels of design (what they want the models to do) and integration on the engine side to consider. Well modders have the luxury of "infinite time". BI is a business, they have to pay staff, they have to meet goals, they have to achieve deadlines. Where does the manpower come from to do this? You assume that they're all just sat around drinking beer/whiskey now that release has happened. Who is supposed to take the time (quite a bit of it) to do this work? Oh, I think I know pretty well what BI are capable of. I would happily be paid to be their "union" rep tho. At least that way I could push back both ways ;) I'm not delusional, just a realist. I never said it was hard. I just said it was a lot more work than you claim it to be :) Again with the "its not much work" when really it is, a lot of work. An awful lot of work... Well that's great for you. Pretty sure that DnA and RiE feel differently tho. :) Because the aforementioned devs have stated time and again that they want A3 to be better. And being better means cutting features that are incomplete. Females being unable to use weapons or drive vehicles (or do anything else cool that was introduced for the human models in A3) seems pretty incomplete to me. Again, in your opinion. From an "educated" point of view, it is a lot more work (even to do your "simple" port) than you suggest it is. :)

The difference being that the animals have a very simple set of abilities and animations (they don't need to be able to operate weapons or vehicles, or speak, for instance) so amount of work to create the animals is but a teeny tiny fraction of the amount of work required to create a new human (inc all animations/functionality/interactivity). mmmm, and so the armchair expertise raises its head again. Ok, so dayz has the models, except some genius decided to make a new skeleton for them == incompatible with A3, not to mention that dayz does not have confirmed interactivity with vehicles (a key aspect of A3, not so much in dayz). There is far more involved with getting functional females ingame than just "port them from A2 or dayz", especially considering that all the people complaining about the lack of females would be the first in line to complain about incorrect movement animations/inability to use weapons/inability to operate vehicles/inability to function with one of the hundred or so other ingame systems that are designed to use the current male skeleton/animations. And once again: I'm not against the idea, I'm just playing devils advocate because I know exactly how much work is involved in getting them to work properly vs. the fairly minimal gain in game play.

There were females in Resistance, original OFP had Angelina and "she" was used for a few cutscenes... Arma 1 had Marian Quandt, and she was also used only for a handful of cutscenes... Arma 2 had the various female civs, but since they couldn't hold weapons or use the majority of vehicles, they were really only for "set decoration". Again, playing devils advocate here, but: functionality wise, how are female character models any different to males? Do you expect them to have less [average] carrying capacity and less [average] stamina than their male counterparts? Do you expect them to be shorter and lighter [on average] than their male counterparts? That you jump to objectifying women into the porn category says more about you than the flow of this thread ;) That's a straw-man argument if ever there was one, does not being able to play a character of your own gender negatively affect your gaming experience? Are you not as effective as a player if you're playing as a character of the opposite gender? And to finally boil it down to some measurable metric, does it really bother you that all the character models in the following screenshot don't have breasts and their hair in a bun? What/how does it negatively impact on the game play that these characters are all male? Again: devils advocate - I understand the immersion aspect of having female civilians to populate the terrain with (most certainly comes under the "eye candy" category), I'm just questioning the game play value...

I'm going to [continue] to play devils advocate here and ask: Why? They're not integral to the story, they don't prevent any of the sandbox features from working, and in actual gameplay terms they add exactly what? Don't get me wrong here, I am 100% for representing both genders fully, but I also know exactly how much work is involved in adding eye candy (in both senses of the word, and lets face it this is the only reason people want them).

And you still don't need MLODs for that either ;) To be fair, no one ever achieved that for OFP either... Exactly, everything is much harder to achieve to the A3 standard (that is why there is less content than before - it takes increasingly more time/effort to make something than before). An artist working 8 hours a day would expect to take a week, maybe two to make the T-72 in OFP, then it was 4 to 6 weeks in Arma, then 6 to 8 weeks in Arma 2, now 8 to 10 weeks in A3. Still, you don't need to be spoon fed MLODs, tutorials, tools or whatever in order to achieve anything - again, in the OFP days many people wrote their own tools. Something the "community" seems mostly incapable of doing these days.

You don't need MLODs in order to be able to mod. [old man rant mode]Back in my day, we modded for the challenge, the first mods were made without any tools without any MLODs (we didn't even know they existed back then). The first addons were made through hours of trial and error, when eventually we were able to make "new" models by moving the verts around in existing p3ds. Now it seems, it is impossible to make addons unless BI spoon feeds the community everything they need? Kids these days :j: [/old man rant mode]

Not this crap again... FPDR

I really dont get where this is coming from... Here are 2 pics to match (roughly) the composition of the 2nd M-ATV picture linked in steamtex's post Now, we don't know how tall the soldiers in the real photos are, and we know the A3 soldiers are above average height, but we can clearly see that the general scale and proportions are correct. The wheels come up to the soldiers' waist in both A3 and real world. In shot 1, the A3 soldier is actually a little short (the real world soldiers' shoulders are ABOVE the top line of the hood). In shot 2, the A3 soldiers' shoulders reach the bottom of the door, and the top of his head (under the helmet and NVGs) is in line with the door handle. So its pretty damn close. See my post here (and my linked post there) for reasoning why things look "off".

No, the scale isn't off. Ok, EVERY soldier is a gargantuan ~2m tall, but every vehicle is about right. The problem with "scale" is that you look at the world through a wide angle lens by default, which distorts the perspective on everything. This "the scale is off" has been commented on in every game, and I can tell you that from OFP through to OA (I've not looked at any A3 models yet) the size of vehicles was 98% correct (we're talking off by a few cm here and there). I can't imagine they will have gone all squiffy with the sizing after so much time getting it right...

Yes, a 3 year long "quick" cash in... This just proves that you're butthurt about the removal of the performance hogging and unreliable scripted systems compared to A2. A3 has plenty of new features, you're just too blinded by rage to see them. Also, protip: if you hate A3 so much, don't fucking play it. A2 still works perfectly well and seems to fulfill your needs nicely...

Seems more like briefing the kids on what to expect in the swimming pool while in the changing room. You're not quite ready to swim, but you can at least understand the theory. Anyho, the logic of the metaphor is flawed - the explained stuff works fine as long as you dont binarize the p3d....

You'd rather they didnt write any "how to" stuff at all? Because the tools will be released eventually...

It needs new tools because binarize doesnt understand the physX lod or what to do with it during binarization. So when it converts the p3d to the ODOL format, it causes the pX lod to become corrupt, which is what causes the crash. The new version of binarize understands this lod, so you need the new tools in order to be able to pack. Simple.

So what you're saying is, you'd rather play A2? Rite?

Sooo... can I understand that because A3 no longer has M4s and AKs and Abrams tanks in it, it is no longer a mil sim? Becuase it doesn't have "enough" content of the right type/era, it no longer simulates military action? Interesting...

Well if you put OFP quality furniture in A3 buildings, and OFP quality interiors in A3 tanks, the sort of people who start threads like these would instantly be up in arms about the "crappy quality" or the "half finished content". They didn't have the time to put into doing it properly, so they didn't do it. Who knows if they'll populate the buildings with the first campaign release (my guess is not, because if you place the objects into the buildings via visitor they're "there for good", and if you add them in the mission the amount of items reduce performance). Not to mention the AI. The AI don't handle populated buildings well at all. So they may have decided to leave them empty for gameplay reasons.

Very strong case of rose tinted specs here... For that handful of buildings that were actually enterable, most had half a dozen items (1 of 3 tables, a bed, some book cases, a plant, a sofa) at most. This was by FAR better in Takistan. StrokeFist and StrokeGun were not what I would call... usable... And tank interiors, well if you like blurry horrible horror, then sure. Tho this has already been discussed at LENGTH so I'm not going to go over it AGIAN. But yeah, strooong nostalgia is STRONG. I'm sure people would (and do) lable me as one of the hardcore-est hardcore fans, but I started OFP the other day, and this was my reaction: DM: i just fired up OFP DM: #mistake Mondkalb: :D Mondkalb: Now you're two missions into the resistance campaign, right? I'm confident Zipper5 will do it justice in Arma3. DM: nah DM: was more a case of initial reaction: erh mah gerd this is fugly DM: second reaction: rose tinted specs: smashed DM: third reaction: alt-f4