hoak

While ArmA 3 Alpha doesn't appear to have infinite turning speed, the speed to a 180° turn (or greater) still approaches arcade fantasy speeds for a armored and encumbered infantryman. Kinesiology as applied in Military Science to the study of tactical movement, weapon handling, stress, and marksmanship performance illustrates the disconnect here in ArmA 3 scale. Generally the speed of movement in ARMA 3 feels about right for traversing a handgun, SMG, light carbine or assault rifle for about 40° (or less), at greater angles where the Operator is rotating his torso to the limit of extension, and still greater his hips and legs, and still greater to where he has to improve his stance by stepping -- turning speed should be progressively reduced. It would also be a good measure against arcade movement and 'gaming the game' to have negative acceleration at certain limits to avoid 'snap turns' etc.. Fast head eye movement to improve peripheral view via the ArmA head movement is still available and a much more realistic approach to this -- though even it might be improved by adding dynamic FOV on head/eye axis movement to better model how we see...

You 'don't know why', because I don't use it in 'every reply' -- only those that reference you, and your trolling. To make certain your confusion is allayed I use the word in reference to you because: you are a Troll, a Shill, and you are trolling -- it's a fact, not an insult and again not used in every reply. Oh, so you 'won', congratulations! A life achievement I'm sure... Did you want a special prize? You obviously have a very different definition of the word 'know' then most people that understand the meaning of the word and intend in any context of empiricism... You do realize that your sentence is a sophomoric non-sequitur, that I'm not 'name calling' (you are trolling), and I don't need to 'prove' anything -- the facts exist independent of your ignorance of them, and that your criterion of 'proof' doesn't satisfy anything... Another one of your informal fallacy arguments, that's also a non-sequitur... It's is not 'good' and it's not merely 'lacking features right now'; it's cheap (free actually) and is being used in ArmA primarily for that reason. It's sub-standard in terms of fidelity, has a broken sub-mixer, doesn't do proper distance and geometry culling, doesn't support proper steradian boundary effects and many other capabilities beyond your understanding, rational apprehension and the scope of this thread that are essential to realistic scale audio that can not and never will be supported on Xaudio2... Many? Proves? Obviously, in addition to being a Shill you you don't understand the meaning of 'proof', the insignificance and miss use of 'many'... Some Developer/Publishers choose to use XAudio2 because it's: 1) free, 2) is portable, and is supported by some other tools for reasons 1 and 2... All of which proves nothing other then you're still trolling; keep it coming until you achieve your intended outcome and this Linux thread (and a few others) are locked then you'll disappear from the forum just like you have elsewhere -- and someone will give you a head pat and the recognition you so badly need...

Oh yeah, it's just LOL! So much LOLROTF! I bet you actually LOL'd! First, I didn't call 'people trolls' I called one person a Troll -- which he is; he has virtually no time/posts on this forum, is in abrogation of the forum rules, and did not cite sources for any but one of his counter claims. Second I didn't demand an apology, I said if he wanted citations he'd have to make the effort to approach me privately off this thread (per the forum rules), when that didn't work I suggested an apology; which any polite accountable person would understand... I'm sorry you found them so convoluted and challenging; going forward, I'll try to simplify even more -- just for you... I'm also truly (sarcastically) sorry for not wanting to turn this thread into a Microsoft vs. SGI and the Khronos Group argument, no less a historical recitation of how OpenGL was purloined by the aforesaid, no less another idiot Microsoft vs Linux bottom of the barrel BS fest. Everyone has an opinion and a preference -- but facts are facts and are there for anyone to ascertain that is willing to make the mental effort above and beyond a constantly sanatized Wikipeida. Yup, there's no reason this can't happen and many that it could... Just getting the ArmA games (all of them) off Xaudio and on a decent cross-platform sound renderer, sub-mixer and manager like FMOD would move the game forward to a SOTA audio back-end that would offer enormous dividends going forward that could pay for the cost of an ArmA port, even if ArmA 2 and 3 never were.

Many people, even some with extensive military training behind them never learn how to properly adjust (focus and converge) binocular optics... Adjusted properly it is impossible to perceive anything but a perfect circle unless the binocular instrument in question is damaged or otherwise misaligned, or in some cases of sever facial deformity or injury. Creating correct to-scale ratios of FOV and perceived image size due to eye relief (focal length) is also only possible with masks that are perfect circles; anything else will be grossly broken scale as far as realism is concerned.

Originally discussed here for ArmA 2 it's still disappointing to see this aspect of realism is again ignored/forgotten or marginalised in ArmA 3. Binocular optics ('Binoculars' and NVG) are still not properly converged in ArmA III. Any properly converged binocular optical instrument, be it: 'Binoculars', NVG, a Binocular Range Finder, or Binocular Periscope will present a perfect peripheral circle not an oval, not to semi converged circles or any other theatrical effects originally created for film... Examples of incorrect, cinematic, fantasy portrayals of binocular view can be seen: here, here, and here... All properly converged binocular instruments present a view like this, and this... Some might remark that realism isn't as important here and being able to use more screen real estate on wide aspect ratio displays; in that case a clipped circle would offer more viewable area and still portray a more aesthetic realism -- two illustrations of that can be executed be seen here and here... It would be nice to see ArmA III present realistic optical aesthetics and limitations of FOV... As well, but perhaps better approached in another topic; it would be nice to see some of the of the optical displacement and magnification effects of NVG realistically portrayed in ArmA III as the means to do so are already in the game... Vote the technical recitation here on the Arma III Tracker...

Well your confusion problem (a subjective personal issue I might add) could be just as easily, and far more realistically be assuaged by having a realistic and technically correct binocular reticule (as oopsed to the useless and non functional one we have now) on the 'binovision' mask like: ...Or ...Or learning to hit your 'B' key, unaim your rifle, or toggleing your camera view (if you're really that forgetful.... Or, a 'Special Interface' with bright red flashing text reminding you you're looking through a rifle scope, or binoculars, with voice over repeating 'You are looking through binoculars.'... I certainly hope BI doesn't deliberately choose such an approach of dumbed down and broken scale to make the game easy -- by the same logic we could end up with idiot lights, circles and arrows or special colored windows reminding you that you're in a house and not a tank, or even 'better' ArmA 3 will be re-monikered: ArmA Call of DooDoo Medal of Action Super Magic Surprise Prize! :(

Not sure what you mean xyberviri, or that I agree depending on what you mean. I do agree more people should visit the tracker and probably vote more issues then brought them there, as the vote system is obviously heavily skewed and biased toward issues people knew and understood enough to seek a forum topic that linked them there or to find the tracker outright and report or confirm a report. That said I don't think there's anything wrong with getting confirmation from the forum before creating a tracker post or concurrently to doing so. A lot of people new to firearms, serious and scale realism gaming for example are justifiably completely in the dark about a topic like Correct Weapon Handling & Canting, and even if they're seriously browsing the tracker, may blow past a low vote volume issue like this that appears technical or tedious. Having a forum thread to inform and survey interest seems reasonable to me...

I agree, and it's sad to see this topic constantly trolled and shilled (in this thread and others) into a ridiculous Microsoft vs. Linux thread which its Author and proponents clearly did not intend. I'm personally not emotionally invested in Windows, or Linux (I collect Operating Systems), and have zero brand loyalty -- ergo if someone makes a better something I'll buy that one, or both if each offers something the other does not... My only investment in this thread is in hoping that BI its Fan and Supporters recognizes the opportunity cost of a problem > solution approach; that while it may work in code development; as an approach to market, licensure, and venue -- has taken bigger unsuspecting and unprepared companies then BI to their knees with too little too late... Being co-dependent on an onerous (and vulnerable) company like Microsoft for your well being is a lot like trying to get along living near Grizzly Bears by making them your pets -- this only works out until they get hungry, bored, or anxious and regard you as food or in the way... The Microsoft Legal Team has a bigger hourly budget then BI grosses annually and can dispatch a company the size of BI just out of competitive spite, or need of Attorney fees, or boredom faster then a Grizzly can turn a man into strawberry jam -- this isn't conjecture, they've done it, repeatedly... BI is a fantastic company, that builds and supports excellent games like no other Developer/Publisher. They offer expandability, mod tools and very long term support that have made BI games one of the best bangs for the Gamer's buck in existence. It would be tragic to see this jeopardized. Platform portability and agnostic design is a smart long-term hedge; having all your eggs in one basket, in a cave, with hungry bears and 'Soft Target' signs with bright red arrows is never a good idea.

I added to the tracker post notes to keep the recitation there as factual and technically correct as possible... I understand some may have a personal preference that don't reflect the facts, realism, or scale -- but that's not what I intended to present or argue.

Per my tracker post on canting, I wanted to wait to see if anyone actually cared before making a tracker post for Improperly Converged/Depicted Binocular Optics -- don't want to waste BI's time and resources with issues Fans don't even recognize no less care about.

For many just a port of the original ArmA to *nix would be the 'killer game' as far as the GNU *nix platform was concerned. It appears that few posting to this thread have been around long enough to experience the quality, depth, and sheer volume of content, mod assets and Fan created tools for ArmA that in many cases raise it to feature and aesthetic parity with ArmA 2, in some regards ArmA 3, and some even surpassing that... As well, the many development forks in the BI Real Virtuality engine could benefit from concurrent Linux port work on the RV2 iteration of the engine and the kind of of source level exploration that comes out of a full-on port, even if these iterations of the engine are never ported. Few Developer/Publishers understand long term, deferred gratification and benefit that comes out of 'slow burn' support for a dedicated productive community the way BI does, so this would seem a perfect fit. The win:win benefit of co-opting Linux Fans and Developers may be appear to offer small return due to the apparent size of the audience; but really productive talent has always been just a tiny minority of people that actually get real work done and in turn gets people excited and things moving en masse...

Incorrect, it's a custom AMD part, with custom features -- the GPU core is not compatible with any of the E, A, and C series AMD APUs driver interface. Dwarden, I think you are right, it has been so long since the offer came over the bow, I'd long lost track... But if there's anything out there still standing in the way of ArmA Linux offers it could be a great revenue opportunity for BI to get some preeminence on the Steam/Linux platform, leverage the enthusiasm and commitment of Linux Developers, renew and leverage the value the enormous ArmA asset wealth BI has via its Fans, Mod Developers and mod support sites, as well offer a good test and asset hedge against what may loom in the way of future licensing costs, limitations and restrictions that may prevail by developing exclusively for Microsoft.

It does not 'mount a card' DirectX or otherwise it incorporates an APU that has some feature parity with AMD GCN 'cards' -- though it is not a 'card', is not the same architecture, and does not offer the same backplane or driver interface as the products from which it was derived... :eek:

The first citation was on your forums and can be found here from 2009 following Svartalf, one of the Developers at LGP that had contacted BI about the possibility of doing a port of ArmA... There was a thread that seems MIA where someone from Phoronix and Svartalf both posted indicating they'd received no reply from BI, with BI Fans speculating that it was because BI would be taking a risk sharing code and assets with an third-party... It has also been indicated in many leaked Microsoft emails, and by second party reports from Developers that used to work on DirectX -- that DirectX it is no longer under active development... Of course there are stories like this one but if you've been a Parter with, or followed this company for more then a decade you know by now it's good to hedge your bets on Microsoft's mixed, vague, boiler-plate PR messages as very few leaks there are accidental...

Are not libraries I forgot, they're Windows APIs and libraries that you don't understand. BI would not need to create the APIs; their analogues already exist in better form on Linux with better documentation and the amount of code required to port existing game assets to use them is small. In the case of audio XAudio2 and X3DAudio are terrible APIs and are impossibly bad software post-processing and sub-mixing that ArmA Fans have been complaining about and pining for FMOD for years... No, you don't understand what a render backplane is, or how it's written... No, you do the waiting, and while you're: learn to read, write and think clearly, understand sentence structure and notice the noun in parenthesis (Steam). The only one implying Linux has 87% market-share is you. You might also make an honest effort at staying on topic -- but clearly those are three concepts that escape you entirely... Yes, I do; you don't understand how to ask an honest question. And for the record, Steam has no intention of building their own hardware, it will just be a target design that may not even be licensed...

Then why do you insist in trolling with the incessant off-topic, hostile and petty digression? You were politely invited to take this out of this thread and discuss it privately -- if you're are sincere in your interest to be informed you'd have done so rather then this repeat demonstration of baiting, moral cowardice, and public ego remonstration. That is neither, 'reality', a fact, or even accurate: 1) the game engine is quite portable and portions of it have already been ported to other platforms, 2) only the render backplane has to be rewritten (if it isn't already), 3) BI has at least two third-party offers to do the work for them... This is just more of your petty sophomoric informal fallacies: if ported ArmA would have Linux game preeminence on a platform that owns over 87% of PC market-share and over 92% PC market-share licensure (Steam), a fast path to OSX and Android (a derivative the engine has already been ported to Android and more exotic hardware in the case of VBS). More informal fallacy; this is a forum with rules -- one of them is to post on topic, no where is it mandated that I must satisfy and educate your ignorance... You, are trolling and being self-indulgent, you were invited to do this privately so the thread could move forward on topic. I'm not 'requesting an apology', I'm demanding it as a prerequisite to my indulging your petty bullshit privately and tutoring you. You haven't referenced any of your own 'extraordinary claims'; but they're off topic and obviously no one gives a shit... As well nothing you've said is a rational, cogent, and mentally organized objection to the premise of this thread, or what I've added to it: Even Matt Booty is iterating another version of Microsoft's message that PC gaming on Windows is not only not a priority, but will be in their parlance 'depreciated'. That the likes of Valve, Epic, Crytek, id Software and other key 3D render technology Developers get the message loud and clear that Microsoft not only doesn't want 'AAA' game franchises on the PC that compete with MexBox iterations of the franchise; Microsoft wants to deemphasis the PC as a gaming platform of 'any preeminence' in the foreseeable future... Is it any wonder that Valve is working at break-neck speed and pouring billions $ U.S. into the Linux Steam platform and Source engine? It's not unreasonable to assume BI might see the wisdom in this as well, if not platform agnostic independence if they haven't already, and just aren't commenting for what should by now be rather obvious reasons.

Sure, there are several threads that discuss this here and on the Phoronix forums, this is one of the oldest that will get you to most (or give you the content to get you there). Don't be so surprised; BI, even with all the success it's recently seen is still a very small company -- there's considerable risk and exposure to their IP in sharing it with an outside Developer; especially so as it their only IP. As well, this was only assumed and may not be the reason for BI not visibly following-up on the offer -- they may well already have had an in-house project along these lines for some time, and there may be extenuating issues of licensure etc... As to the lack of BI participation in discussion of alternative and FOSS OS platform -- look no further then this thread to see the sort of petty sophomoric Windows vs. Linux diatribe that is perpetuated even in this thread, or look at a few other Linux threads to see how far off the charts it goes... As to the Troll posts: if you're going to troll a thread considerably off-topic, only have a few posts on the forum, and are sincerely interested in the off topic subject matter you're challenging you should: 1) do so politely, 2) extend the same consideration you're asking for and answer questions that were asked first, 3) make at least a modicum of effort to stay on topic. If he's sincerely interested he can PM me any time, apologize, and I'll offer up the requite information -- I doubt that this will ever happen...

Well, personally I'd rather see idealized and correct weapon handing and stance implemented first -- that is to say, represent how things are done in the real world most of the time. There are for example a lot of lot of things you can do with a real tank and other assets in the real world we can't do in ArmA III, but we have a decent, mostly consistent representation of how things actually work in the real world most of the time. :confused:

Please fix the unrealistic and poor weapon handling/canting camera in lean; I mentioned this briefly in this thread but this is such eye sore and ridiculous oversight to realism as it's technically and metrically wrong, represents incorrect weapon handling, is aesthetically wrong and hideously ugly (the world does not tilt if you cant a rifle or even tip your head). Other more arcady less realistic games get this right (Red Orchestra, America's Army, Ghost Recon, even Modern Warfare when it had leaning, and the latest iteration of Medal of Honor) -- and this is very easy to fix. We're in the THIRD iteration of what's supposed to be the most realistic shooter in the world, and the first person player perspective weapon handling are the primary instrumentality of the game and it's being portrayed incorrectly. Canting is aesthetically and functionally wrong (read why if you don't know about or understand this subject) as it's virtually always bad weapon handling to cant when aiming as it makes for very poor weapon control and accuracy. Virtually every approach to firearms training, military or civilian, will have you b*tch slapped for doing this from any fire position -- and it's completely trained out of most military riflemen... What's more, and probably most importantly: correct un-canted weapon handling in lean gives the virtual Player vastly better proprioceptive and virtual kinesthetic cues as to how well covered he is (or isn't) when firing from cover in a leaning stance. Please, fix this glaring aesthetic and functional wart in ArmA 3! Vote for the technical recitation here on the Arma III Tracker...

Now you're just trolling, I've made three attempts to take this back on topic, and you've conspicously made zero effort at doing any material diligence. You are however right, for you this is tantamount to religious belief and anything especially facts like the Earth orbiting the Sun will be blasphemy. But make some mental effort to do your own diligence, learn to search Microsoft Technet and and MSDN, you'll learn that the Windows Aero compositer uses OpenGL and (shockingly) can confer as much as a 50% performance hit to OpenGL games and applications unless it's disabled ... Incorrect, they have an OpenGL wrapper that's a derivative of work on Aero that blocks OpenGL games and applications from running at all... Sophomoric, uninformed, troll sarcasm -- sorry I'll not indulge you further, do your homework... :j:

No, I'm not 'saying' it, and it's not a recitiation that requires seriousness or humor: it's a fact: Windows XP, 7, 8, and 8.1 (Windows NT 5.1 - 6.2) themes and all compositing effects are exclusively OpenGL... It won't matter if you're sorry, buy it or don't -- and it's not a matter of what 'everyone' says, it's a matter of what Microsoft does... Why not? Incorrect, first, all ArmA tools are not closed source -- there are many Community developed tools that are open. Second, while it's obviously possible for a Developer (Community or Commercial) to offer open tools on Windows, there is a lot that facilitates this on a FOSS OS that makes it safer, easier and less expensive... You are of course entitled to your opinions, preferences and beliefs -- these don't however change the fact that there is a lot that suggests that days of the Windows OS as the preeminent desktop gaming OS may be numbered -- even according to Microsoft... :j:

Then you might want to do more reading to avoid digression into semantic bickering and acquaint yourself more fully with the facts. It warrants mention that OpenGL has been the Desktop interface compositer on Windows since NT 5.1, is now the primary 3D render path on Windows RT and Windows Phone, and Microsoft regards these as their 'future primary platforms'... DirectX will not receive any further development and will be 'depreciated', and yes, the AMD Developer (not Executive) blogs offer some interesting insight as to where Microsoft may be headed. Yes, also called the Aces Studio before Microsoft bought them... And this would be a good arcation to get back on topic; many Microsoft Executives and Pundits that are well acquainted with the company, its Developers and Personal have exposited that Microsoft intends to be out of the PC platform gaming biz. Whether this is in fact the case, is some internal struggle Microsoft is trying to reconcile, or not -- is immaterial to the topic as the company is substantially a black box (or hole depending on how you look at it). What we have seen and know is a very uneven support but cost efficacious (until now) support for gaming on the PC, with future plans to roll gaming in the Windows Store being discussed, and support for Desktop (non Modern API) gaming on DirectX being 'depreciated'... As well, Valve is now heavily invested in and committed to an explicit Linux OS and hardware target platform and and is investing far more in the render backplane and store front then Microsoft is at this point. What's more; Valve holds hundreds of billions of dollars U.S. in game reselling agreements independent of Microsoft, or any Microsoft, Google or Apple Store Front... This does not bode well long term for any Developer that is exclusively developing for, dependent on, or committed to the Microsoft DirectX API (and uses XNA components for Audio). I have already qualified (more then once) this is not an immediate issue or 'threat', but outcomes of long term market strategies that have been in place in part for over a decade that will prevail... Wouldn't you rather see ArmA V on it's own integrated 'Sprocket Linux', costing 20% less then it would if it was to sell in the Windows Store or on Steam? How about if ot included more open tools then we currently even dream of, and the opportunity for the Community to improve them and build even more? Heck, I'd be willing to pay MORE for that! :)

Yes. Yes. Statistically speaking: a statistically insignificant number... But what's coming out of MS suggests GFWL games will be the Minesweeper and Solitaire of the future, ergo the token Windows 'toys'... I came to no 'conclusions', the only conclusions here are yours; I just offered a recitation of what in essence are published Microsoft internal memos and PR you can explore for yourself. This isn't happening tomorrow, next week or even next year; but long range Microsoft doesn't want to support PC gaming -- and their reasoning is all over the map on this one. The news on this started with Microsoft closing its Sim Studio (which was profitable), and a stream of other follow-on activity like sending email to DirectX/XNA MVPs informing them that they are no longer needed -- as well as leaked internal documents. Of course The Vole can change it's mind and direction at any time as has often happened. Microsoft has even done some PR back pedaling on some of this saying that they'll continue to 'support' DirectX (like Windows XP, and Office 2000), but it appears future funding and development of DirectX and DirectX, tools has ground to halt with the dissolution of supporting DX and XNA Partners....

While I can understand a GNU Linux port of ArmA III being a low priority at this time; Microsoft will be abandoning DirectX on Windows, eventually move what remains of Windows gaming to a walled Games For Windows Live garden that's everything awful about Apple and Google with none of the good. Then there's Steam's concomitant move to Linux which would make it prudent for BI to at least be taking a much more visible and serious look at alternative OS gaming platforms. One of the Developers at Phoronix offered to port ArmA II, at no cost if I recall correctly and he has an outstanding reputation for doing exactly this sort of work. Perhaps if ArmA III has moved the BI code base forward substantially BI might feel safe enough to consider a Linux port of an older game like OFP, ArmA, or ArmA II just to get things moving... Heck, with a FOSS OS BI could fully integrate ArmA, DRM, Tools and Website in it's own custom OS fully standardizing the platform and obviating an enormous range of support costs, circumvent cheating and piracy in one fell handsome custom swoop. What's more this last, i.e. the cost of an integrated game OS and game engine as an 'appliance' has already been defrayed by free and open projects like SuSE Studio, which would, in the long haul making developing future ArmA games not only more secure, uniform, and standardized but far less expensive then developing for Windows...

Is ok wipman, your English is fine and you've done nothing wrong -- that thread is very long too with lots of interesting discussion and suggestions. I'm a bit intrigued as to why those voting down the Tracker Post are doing so -- as why would you vote against a feature that adds more realism, offers a lot more 'feel' for when you player mode is making good use of cover from the first person perspective, and takes very little effort to implement... Even though this may be low priority, why would anyone vote against it in that case and not just ignore it? And why wouldn't they even make an effort in the notes to offer an explanation for your objection?