hbk

I agree that it's doable. I just can't think of an interface that would be suitable for that level of micromanagement. Real soldiers don't need to be ordered exactly where to go when they need to defend an outpost. Only for very specific roles you may want to plan like for the AT position. For now you need to post everyone in your squad AND tell them where to look. Even with a more sympathetic interface, that's unreasonable. So yea, while I agree that it would be miles better with a more adapted interface, there still should be "auto-behaviors" that go well beyond "engage at will". As for my "pursuing", I was thinking in terms of vehicular combat, it obviously hardly makes sense for infantry (even if it's still applicable, it's basically the difference between careful behavior and aggressive behavior).

They tried to do it with the current "quick orders" menu. But it's pretty bare-bones. And admittedly, if they start to add a lot of options to this menu, well, it won't be that "quick" anymore. That's the risk. But yea, lots of contextual actions are missing. Still, I think it would be great if there was some way to "macro" stuff, and not just simple scripts. Whole behaviors like "go stealth unless detected", "assume defensive positions", "search and engage", "engage and pursuit", "move hastily", behaviors your character would automagically manage by issuing commands to your squad mates. I shouldn't have to tell my gunner to suppress or my AT solider to shoot at the tank and forget that puny medic he's wasting bullets into. I also shouldn't have to tell a rifleman to man a static MG if we're not moving. Well, you get the point I think. Edit : Commander AIs already know how to handle many of that. It shouldn't be that hard to attach a commander AI "brain" into into the player and make him bark orders.

Although there are a number of issues with the OFP-era UI, and of course there are quite a number of issues with AI behavior (getting stuck, action delay, driving, etc), one can't deny this is one of the most advanced game AI there is. And this needs to be stated. That being said, I wonder how operating a squad would perform if we could be able to "borrow" an AI commander module, like having an AI commander attached to the player that would give your squadmates orders for you (there could also be a number of macros in order to reproduce the set behaviors of commander's AI like "move" or "clear the area"). Obviously such "borrowing" would be optional and could be disengaged at any time granted the player wants to deal with all the options available. I think this would solve a lot of issues for a lot of players and should not be too hard to implement. It always amazed me (well not always, but for quite some time now) that there is no macro command like "everyone heal with the medic/ambulance" or "everyone resupply". I mean AI commanders are definitely able to manage squads adequately, so this kind of workaround would work wonders, I think, granted you'll always find people that wouldn't like it, hence the optionality.

This. Oh very much this. Also somewhat in the same vein tank gunner should be able to automatically choose main gun/coax gun when engaging enemies. If tank commander targets a soldier, tank gunner should switch to MG, and switch back to sabot/heat when tank commander targets an armored vehicle. But given the current state of things I don't know if such things are feasible without a complete AI overhaul (not saying current AI program state is awful, just that stuff quickly get very complicated and what seems basic stuff oftentimes is not basic at all to implement).

Actually if we also are to talk about UI issues (which was more or less also asked in the captain's log), I think it would be great to split the actual difficulty menu into different menus which would be "quality of life settings" (all the HUD options basically, could also be named "realism settings") and "difficulty settings" (which would cover stuff like extended armor and AI settings). Just a thought. Right now it feels weird to change UI settings in AI settings under the same menu, even if indeed those UI settings have an impact on "difficulty".

Yes, and doing this by adding a global skill multiplier is not satisfactory at all. A good mission design would have to take into account "difficulty options" such as "easy = less enemy patrol units" on infiltration mission for example. Which unless I missed some really big feature is impossible right now (without some specific mission scripting that is). Right now if you play an infiltration mission which you deem too hard, you can lower the enemy AI to brain dead status ... and that's all. It would be much more satisfactory to keep wary enemy units, but just have like half the patrols. You still have to be on your toes (won't survive long if caught) but have a bit more leeway in your approach. On the other hand for squad to squad urban warfare you may prefer to lower enemy and friendly reaction time and aim to be more in line with player skill but keep the number of enemies and friendlies to give the scale of a big battle. Just two examples from the top of my head.

No, it's not. It's a workaround that is in place for so long that we got used to it. A more clever design would be that mission themselves store the difficulty settings intended by the mission designer in terms of how accurate is the elite AI units supposed to be for example. And it should be up to the mission designers to set how difficulty settings should affect the mission (making the enemy less wary for infiltration missions for example, or making the enemy less accurate for squad to squad firefights). Right now there are a number of issues due to the skill slider allowing to tweak too much (yet too little) stuff, and of course due to the fact that AI improvements (which is always welcome) can easily break any mission (see recent example of better leading aim). I completely understand where they're coming from and this is one hell of a complex issue. Up to this day most games tweak the difficulty settings by changing health points/damage parameters. This is not applicable in an Arma game (yeah I know there's an extended armor setting and this should tell us something). So to tweak the difficulty your main option is to tweak AI. And this is one hell of a job. I for one tend to agree with some of the opinions already posted. If we need to take the simple route, it would be best to keep "tactical behavior setting" at maximum possible and mostly tweak precision and reaction time. All of this within reasonable limits of course. Which means it works both ways, an AI which is too slow or too inaccurate breaks as much the immersion as an AI which is too fast and too accurate. And of course all of this should be easily testable by mission makers. So that the "easy settings" still give a somewhat reasonable challenge and the "hard setting" is punishing but not impossible (without exploiting some other flaw). And on top of that you have the question of whether or not we should keep separate settings for ally/enemy when this setting has a variable relevance depending on the actual setup of the mission. Changing friendly AI skill setting hardly change anything when playing a solo infiltration mission for example.

This would seem reasonable but I think the real problem is the underlying complexity of having multiple layers controlling the AI and how unclear they interact with each other. Even without modding stuff the idea of having a global slider which overrides the AI skill settings set by the mission designers is pretty hard to grasp, especially in how you want to tailor your experience and how you take mission designs into accounts like "how hard was this mission supposed to be?" Right now I'd day that regardless of future improvements in that regard I think we would greatly benefit from having at least two sliders which would basically cover the two points you're raising: "tactical behavior" and "weapon skill". Edit: On a side note, I'm one of those guys who where traumatized by AI AK47 headshots at 500m in OFP :p I mean, I could barely hit them with my sniper rifle (was it the M24?).

Back in whatever year it was. OFP. Bought based on some reviews and out of curiosity. Big FPS player at the time. First mission I played for whatever reason (maybe it was first in the list, can't remember): Steal the car. The game I always dreamed of was before my eyes.

All I'm sayin is that OFP/ArmA never was an hardcore milsim to begin with. I understand people would like it to go that way, and that's why you have ACE mods and the likes where you die from a heart attack if you sprint for more than 15 seconds. But the base game is a realistic combined ops simulator focused on infantry. It's not a hardcore daily life soldier simulator. It's not a fully fledged flight simulator. It's not an advanced tank warfare simulator. It's a combined ops sim with a lot of compromises. I know I love it that way. And I know that many other people over the world love it that way. Man I can't believe we're discussing this now. I remember when ArmA came out, everyone bitched about the body awareness they implemented and how it felt clunky and very different from OFP.

I for one would love to play Arma 3 at rock solid 60 fps. And heck I think it's event possible if I lower a lot of detail sliders. But with reasonable video settings ? Not gonna happen. Arma just isn't a 60fps shooter. And I'm fine with that, as long as there is no visible stuttering (which is being improved as we speak and will be improved in the future).

There's no denying that. But, and not that I wish to defend CoD, comparing Arma to CoD is hardly fair anyway (for CoD lol).

Depends on how you look at "content". It's definitely lacking in the "official solo content" area. Only 12 showcases is not that much. Not that I'm unhappy about it btw. I know the campaign is coming and of course Steam Workshop will help streamline UGC access (lots of solo missions, yummy). There's already a lot of pretty good solo missions available actually :)

Every release was better from the previous one from a strict engine standpoint. Of course there were bugs at release but hey, this is Arma :cool: From a campaign standpoint however it was a train wreck :p But I agree that Arma 1, even if the campaign paled in comparison to OFP/RedHammer/Resistance, had a good campaign overall (loved the "choices" you had to make about which mission to undertake next), especially when compared to Arma 2 (could never finish that one, too much bugs, even after all the patches). Arrowhead wasn't bad but felt pretty disjointed. And BAF/PMC was nice but shortish. Hopefully Arma 3's campaign will be up to the task and shine like OFP's campaign shined. One can dream :) Music to my ears. Arma is a realistic game, but it's still a game. If I'd really want to play an hardcore milsim, I'd play VBS.

Arma is back with a vengeance Love the new "movement feel". Love the new stances system, much more "fluid". Love Altis :cool: Love the new graphics engine. Beautiful. On dev branch 3600 view distance on Ultra = 30 to 60 fps depending on the load on a somewhat average rig. Love Steam workshop integration. Reassured about "futuristic" setting still being reasonably contemporary (plasma guns could be fun but that's not what I'd want for an Arma game). Love the improved AI mechanics (even if work in progress :p) Love the realistic holosights (at last!). Love the improved sounds. Arma's never been this good before.

OFP -> 9.0 Arma -> 8.0 Arma 2 -> 7.5 Arma 3 -> 6.6 I wonder why you've spent so much time playing Arma 2 when OFP is such a better game.

Yeah, like averaging fanboys and ranters would make any sense. OFP/Arma games have always been poorly received by the press (not that I would care). Metacritic is an indicator of press reception, nothing more.

This. Oh very much this. The game is awesome. Of course said game is still in beta and lots of stuff could be improved (not a big fan of FAKs for example, but this has more to do with limited wound and heal mechanics than FAKs themselves). But the core gameplay is very much the same as previous games in the series, and being able to play with such level of graphical fidelity and view distance (on a rather average comp by today's standards) with a movement system that feels so good and responsive while still keeping the series DNA of mostly realistic simulation is just ... good :D

Yes, of course. But if your GPU isn't up to snuff, you don't have much of a choice.

Depends where your bottlenecks are. If you have a good GPU and a not so good CPU, turning down resolution will hardly help. Arma 3, as with all previous games (OFP included), is GPU and CPU hungry, but depending on your settings and hardware, bottlenecks will vary. If you intend to play with huge view distance for example (>2km), with "balanced" hardware, CPU will tend to be the main bottleneck. If not, then GPU will tend to be the bottleneck. On my rig (3570K + 660Ti), I can put everything on Ultra as long as I don't go past the 2km view distance limit (object view distance, terrain view distance is almost irrelevant on current rigs as long as you don't overdo it). But the moment I try to get like 2.5 km view distance, overall fluidity tend to take a hit (motion jitter). As always, trade-off is the key. There's no hidden setting that's gonna solve your FPS issues. Choose which settings you are ready to sacrifice and live with it. As for people whining about the game's optimization, well, yes, some stuff could be improved. Now show me which games does it better and we can talk in a reasonable way. I'm not dismissing hardware specific issues btw, but my experience with the Arma series basically comes down to "if it slows down, lower the settings or increase your hardware". There's no two ways about it. 2km view distance with this level of quality comes at a price. Edit : Not a big fan of the guide btw. Nicely presented but has a tendency to present very specific settings which are most likely irrelevant on many rigs. Edit 2 : Actually, if you want to raise FPS in simple way (frame render time), there are simple approaches as long as you know where your bottlenecks are. First of all, you have to understand that there is one setting which rule them all = view distance (object view distance mainly but terrain view distance can help a little bit too). So first of all, lower view distance (1km is more than enough for most infantry situations). Then. If GPU is bottleneck -> Lower effective resolution (decrease sampling percentage below 100%) and/or lower PP effects such as AA/SSAO/aniso. If CPU is bottleneck -> Lower object settings. Oh and terrain settings also. If memory is bottleneck -> Lower texture quality. Most other settings will have an effect to a degree but (unless I missed some other one) none will have such dramatic effects as lowering object settings (increases object "pop-up"), or lowering resolution/PP (decreases image quality), or of course lowering view distance.

Right click is your friend.

Good points : - Just. Freakin. Beautiful. - New sleek interface (look & feel). - New body awareness dynamics are much more responsive, much more dynamic, in a nutshell, much more pleasant. - Reflex sights now work as they should. - Still Arma. - Nice animations. - Tactical pace is a life saver. - Infantry mission is nicely scripted (if a bit short). Bad points : - Long load times. - Doesn't run as smooth as I'd like it to be. - New gear interface is pretty but rather cumbersome. - New editor layout is disturbing. Arma 3 is looking good. Very good. If BiS can address some of the performance issues, this game will just be perfect.

Under Win7 (and probably Vista), the Vsync setting in CCC has no effect. You can set it at whatever value, activation of Vsync depends on internal D3D settings that may or may not be set by the game/app. Edit : There are some tools to override these settings. The only one I know that works is D3DOverrider.

Out of curiosity, can we know why?

It can hardly be summarized, as a tweak efficiency is highly dependent on hardware configuration. What will work for some will have no effect for others, and vice versa.