Iroquois Pliskin

Um, that's the error you get, when you're missing the whole of original ArmA II. Try uninstalling, then deleting all .cfgs in your User Documents, or wherever they're located - look for them. Edit: Ninja'd. :P Looks like you only have Operation Arrowhead (Takistan island).

If it's limited to that Stratis E3 demo, then I think we might not break it. A lot. :) Alpha should be a bonus for Pre-ordering ArmA III, and seeing as Stratis is beautiful and looks to be very much complete, that's a lot of value.

I'd say AI is is included in "basic gameplay", though the case with them properly lurking in underground structures would be an extra feature. ArmA is a great game and concept: you have these rules (laws?) that govern ballistic trajectory, vast, populated, unparalleled in detail islands, but often the illusion and immersion breaks, when you place a single unit (yourself?) and go exploring the world, i.e.: you get stuck on a rock there, killed by a wall here, not fitting into the doorway over there. You get the idea. :)

/tinfoil: one of the reasons why ArmA 3 Alpha is being postponed is due to this DLC, which presumably hasn't reached its sales peak.

Fixing basic gameplay in accordance with available technology is the utmost priority, everything else can be added in expansion packs and DLCs. Speaking of DLCs: not many bought them for ArmA II, because it's not that kind of platform, which grows on you to the level, where you'd be dishing out cash for more units and campaigns, when the vanilla game is broken and unpleasing aesthetically. If they don't provide a smooth experience for the player, as he's standing in the basic training camp area, then there isn't going to be talk of further development on the same platform. Of course, the same 2000 people will buy anything, but that's not exactly optimal profit, given the hard work involved, is it?

Nabs - newcomers, of course. You're telling that to me? :D The KA-50 Vikhr spammer from Armed Assault 1? :D There have been horrid multiplayer balance design decisions in the past, I'm not letting this one slip by once again.

I don't see a disconnect, all I suggest is viewed through the prism of 5 years of experience, as if I was given a chance to start up Armed Assault 1 for the first time - the Noob's eyes. :D This game needs nabs, a LOT of them in order to have any semblance of online gameplay. There is a lot of good complexity, which makes ArmA the way it is, but controls, interface, multiplayer balance (LOLTung vs. no flare aircraft at release) is not upto par with the rest of the world. And that particular remark was to address the clowns, who can't see the reasoning behind the brilliant ideas proposed by various people in this thread, they'd rather have a 3D editor, than do away with death animations, none-existent physics, scroll list interface and crap controls.

Well, I gave them clear example footage on what context I was operating, yet none addressed it. :D PFoy7hdMD1c LOL

You could also research more in this general direction, but I think the current generation 7770 with AMD's solid GCN Architecture (which started @ 5800-Series AFAIR), coupled with a new manufacturing process is the best bet for the price range. :) A lower-yield Nvidia's Kepler, like the GT 640 would be another option, but even the 7750 beats it hands down. The non-GTX Kepler cards are not worth it. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gt-640-review,3214.html

Since wheels, suspension, doors and other articulated components are "animated", there needs to be a definition - rigid bodies could be one, but in this case ragdoll fits best. Not to mention collision detection between these bodies. Remember, PhysX vehicle simulation is derivative of basic character ragdolls. (See 2.x -> 3.x)

You mad, bro. :J I remember Stary Sobor with the most extreme AI settings having 15 tanks. :D And every single respawn camp around the village would be booby-trapped. xD

That be sarcasm? :) I'm speaking for Common Sense, which isn't so common nowadays; the end result in online activity will be the judge, as always. Keep in mind BF 3 Armoured Kill expansion already has been released, and if they can wedge bigger maps on the PC version in BF4, then it's going to be a problem for ArmA and its antiquated interface. ---------- Post added at 12:50 ---------- Previous post was at 12:46 ---------- Good to know. In full agreement on those scroll lists with you, since currently, AI command takes up 24 (twenty-four) keys; another angle is the introduction of dedicated weapon selection keys to the number row to simulate infantry tactical vests, as opposed to the current World War I mechanics of huge rucksacks with everything in a single compartment. Winning all around.

Are you nuts? Articulated vehicles with fully-working suspension are ragdolls. The PhysX engine is built around ragdolls, it will fully replace the current ArmA II Ping Pong mechanics. Some people, Jesus wept. I remember the old thread: "we doent ned phyziks, wat is tis - 21st Century? We ned 3d editoor with crap death animations and tetris mechanics in collision detection." ---------- Post added at 12:29 ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 ---------- fJS35p5g8l8 ---------- Post added at 12:33 ---------- Previous post was at 12:29 ---------- UNwgRch5PMY BF 3 is running Havok, but PhysX can also simulate different materials and their properties. Regarding competition: Be quick or be dead.

Choose a High preset, match 3D & interface resolutions, then disable AA, put AF to very high, turn off VSync in-game and in your GPU control menu, Video memory to default, Texture detail high, Shadows high, Terrain high, Objects high, HDR high/V. high. There's another important setting which controls ambient occlusion, I think it's activated via Post Processing @ normal - play with it either normal or low/off. Your CPU is the bottleneck here, if anything - a High setting across the board will stress your powerful graphics card more, thus balancing FPS. Shadows @ normal for example are rendered on the CPU only. Ideally, you'd want to be running the above settings at 1920x1080 resolution to unload that (relatively) weak processor of yours. ---------- Post added at 22:00 ---------- Previous post was at 21:47 ---------- Zoom lag, especially on foliage: either VSync, AA or Post Processing (ambient occlusion) are turned on - either of these settings will ruin your day. Were those HDDs 7200 RPM? LOD issues are because of wrong texture settings, leave Texture detail at High with Video memory @ "default".

This problem usually occurs, when a patch becomes corrupted during download/copying; you didn't get any error messages during the original ArmA II installation, did you? A Moderator or a Dev more knowledgeable could pinpoint that specific error code for you. You wouldn't be buying it "again", since you don't have Operation Arrowhead expansion, which is essential to online play nowadays. Here's a non-Steam version, https://store.bistudio.com/arma2-combined-operations ---------- Post added at 19:30 ---------- Previous post was at 19:15 ---------- I found an exact description of your problem, virus100, http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?103716-Error-Found-in-file-ADDONS-*-pbo-(00000000!-00000001)&p=1693362&viewfull=1#post1693362 Patch 1.00 to 1.05 - http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=8820 See if it solves it.

Can't really tell because of the quality of the footage, but it could be a BMP-3, which also doesn't have ammo in the turret, and which used to be our favourite fireworks display vehicle in ACE 2 - it simulated cook off and various armour penetration values. :) Ka-boom!

Regardless, of what tanks BI use in ArmA III, I'd like to see crew and ammunition compartments. Scenarios with the crew staying alive, when a tank is fully disabled, but not completely destroyed as it currently happens in ArmA II, would bring so much variety to the gameplay, unless of course the ammo section is hit, then it's full-on fireworks like we have now. They can already simulate engine blocks in various vehicles.

That's an extreme cook off of a light BTR vehicle, most of the ammo would be fine-grained HE and easily combustible, storage also happens to be not in the turret. Modern MBTs have their cannon ammo in the back of the turret for a reason. P.S. You better edit it, since that vid is worth an infraction, confirmed by myself and others. :P EDIT on your Edit: In this case, the turret flew due to the initial pressure created by the AT charge, which illustrates my point even more: no turret, yet you see such a catastrophic failure of design, that is storage of ammunition in the main hull section.

I prefer the source version, Ðрмата :) It says that all turret functions will be remotely controlled by the crew, who will be seated in an isolated, armoured capsule, which supposedly can withstand a hit by any modern tank munition, provided the exterior armour of the tank is even penetrated in the first place. Similar to a Humvee M2 CROWS system. :)

It's okay. We'll make it all better, no need to worry. ---------- Post added at 15:56 ---------- Previous post was at 15:27 ---------- a8EExGmf5OA TRraq0UdWU4

And then, they probably came to their senses. I'm afraid to think how much ammunition is stored just below that autoloading pecker on the image above. :icon_mrgreen: P.S. Flying T-72 turrets is a function of ammunition stored directly below it.

Streaming 100 different models and textures has a toll on performance, no matter how good your system is. Chernagorsk was unplayable on release. See above. You want big towns and cities? You get the same building models due to constant LOD issues.

The most recurring diagram for the Cyrillic "Ðрмата" is the one I posted. Here's another, http://topwar.ru/12698-minoborony-utverdilo-proekt-armata.html Again, engine in the front, autoloader right below the turret with the whole armament and crew wedged in between; no idea what's happening in the back. Such dreamers, their best bet is to copy basic design principles of the M1 Abrams or the Merkava and to displace the turret with its ammunition all the way to the back.

As suspected, Then that's a very bad design decision, coupled with empty space for infantry the whole rear half of the tank is useless, being vulnerable from either a side or rear hit. Whole layout looks like the engine would be spaced in front, not exactly ideal for an MBT. I <3 M1 Abrams, as you can tell. :) ---------- Post added at 14:56 ---------- Previous post was at 14:46 ---------- http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-519.html If that's their philosophy, then it's a death trap.

I suspect, that by having empty space in an MBT, other components would suffer: either fuel capacity, ammunition storage or even a smaller engine, resulting in not a very optimum performance. Turret itself doesn't look like it could hold the standard count of ammunition.