Big Dawg KS

Aside from the thermal and maybe the IR lasers, the technology behind all of these features in ArmA are not based on VBS. In fact, gestures came from ArmA first.

Yea, and training new devs is still far less costly/risky than retraining everyone and redocumenting everything. As far as programmers go, I suppose as long as there are some senior devs who are familiar with the intricacies of the engine and there is sufficient documentation, getting new guys up to speed (provided they have sufficient general programming knowledge) and onto a task would be pretty streamlined.

Correct, BISim is a seperate entity with different priorities. There is certainly much cooperation, but this generally limited to things that can easily/readily be shared between the products (ex: sharing models or specific engine changes). BISim devs do not (for the most part), unfortunately, work on BIS projects (not that I'm complaining :p).

DM's attitude/tone aside, everything he said was a valid excuse. You really shouldn't argue with him; he knows what he's talking about. Just about all of his information was inaccurate, which is all Deadfast was trying to point out, and you can't form a credible argument on incorrect facts. The only thing I would like to correct from Deadfast's post is that SQF did in fact exist in a primitive form in OFP, but it doesn't really matter, everything else was pretty much accurate. As for the actual topic, I think that most of the arguments for a new engine are based on a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge on the subject. Working on VBS, I've seen the RV engine capable of doing things I would not have ever expected it to do. So I know the engine has great potential, but as DM already pointed out the team working on the engine has limited manpower and resources. There are a lot of things that need fixing or improving, and all of these issues have been considered and prioritized. It's not like anyone is ignoring them. They absolutely can be addressed given enough time. Now, switching to a new engine would at this point be foolish. The entire team would need to learn a new environment, become familiar with new technology, tools, etc. before they can even stary working on the game, and would then need to reimplement every single feature from the existing engine. They would run out of money just trying to reach the level of capability they already have, before they even got to adding anything new. ---------- Post added at 01:49 ---------- Previous post was at 01:42 ---------- You may be right, but you have to understand that it would be a tremendous risk for the devs. Engine optimizations/improvements alone won't pay the bills, and with the current size of the development team they can't afford to take devs off of the revenue generating projects to do this. As BIS grows and becomes larger, as I hope/expect it will, then at some point in the future they may have enough resources to do just what you suggested and have a dedicated team working on engine optimizations & support of liscensed 3rd party projects. It's just not feasible with their current size.

It's not VBS.

From what I've seen there's ragdoll on units when they get struck by vehicles but don't die. Seeing as how you can use script to have units enter death states without dying in ArmA 2, I'd imagine you'd be able to switch units into ragdoll at any time in ArmA 3 (or maybe I'm just hoping) as well. What it would look like when they get back up though is more concerning to me. It might just be an instant transition to prone or something, though it would be cool if there were some kind of interpolation.

NP, I'm glad you got it to work, and that you were able to find a solution to the problems I was having with it (what did you end up doing btw?). I've spent lots of hours messing (and mess is the appropriate way to describe it) with animation configs trying to improve movement and add new functionality using only what RTMs are already present, and I'm glad something usable finally came of it. If you are interested in any other projects, I also had semi working lowered animations for pistols (the way AI holds them when not in combat) and launchers, though I was running into obstacles with certain hardcoded action maps. They could be transitioned to via script, but not bound to the existing raise & lower key actions. AI was also another issue. It would be cool to have these states (as well as holstering pistols and slinging rifles like in OFP) but it's just so much work. Perhaps someone who is more motivated could make an attempt.

I had the same issue. First try restarting Steam as an administrator (Right click on shortcut > properties > Combatability; Steam might give you a warning but start it anyway). Then launch the game again and it should start the installer for the Hinds DLC. If not try manually running the DataCachePreprocessor.exe in your take on helicopters\DLCsetup\Hinds directory; this will launch the game with the installer. Once you've run the Hinds installer you should be good to go (you may need to enable the DLC in the Expansions menu though).

Awesome, but no way to get ammo count (like magazinesEx)? I'm hoping.

You may be able to accomplish this without a gesture, though it would require some tedious config work. What you can do (and I've tried this before) is allow the raised movement anim states to interpolate to the lowered states (and vice versa). The result actually looks very smooth, and there's no interruption of movement. There is one issue I had with it, which is that if you try to stop moving during the transition you end up taking a couple extra steps, though maybe you can find a way to fix/improve that. Here's an example of the config (for walking right): class AmovPercMwlkSlowWrflDr: AmovPercMwlkSlowWrflDf { InterpolateFrom[] = {"AmovPercMwlkSrasWrflDr",0.01}; }; class AmovPercMwlkSrasWrflDr: AmovPercMwlkSrasWrflDf { InterpolateFrom[] = {"AmovPercMwlkSlowWrflDr",0.01}; };

It will be the same as in ArmA 2 (and the same as it as been since OFP). Gun shoots where muzzle is pointed. Don't worry about crosshairs.

I know right? Right Click > Install Game... is just too much work. :rolleyes:

Actually I do know, but that's as much as I'm going to say about it. Other than the fact that it is pretty nice of course. ;)

I assume he is talking about how much more fluid they are, but I still wouldn't call them "arcady". Just more fluid.

You have nothing to worry about. ArmA 3 looks great.