Big Dawg KS

Walker, I have to ask: what's your point? This just doesn't seem very constructive. Edit: Oh, it's a poll. Didn't see that part. Still, the poll options seem pointless...

But something as complicated as melee combat needs to be done right. A hack or workaround would not have the quality that BI could produce by integrating it into the engine. In other words, without some specific engine ehnancements any implementation of melee combat would be half-assed. I'd rather BIS just leave it out alltogether than throw together some half-assed system. When they do get around to making a well designed melee combat system, then that's fine.

That's the problem, people are always too far on the extremes; stuff that fits in the original game's setting (essentially more of the same old stuff we already have) or stuff that's so vastly different that they run into extreme engine limitations. There's plenty of room in the middle for games/mods that can take advantage of the current engines and still have different enough settings and/or gameplay to be refreshing. But this is a completely different topic. Melee combat is not going to be an essential part of the RV engine until BIS needs it to be.

I just hope you realize that these two features would be fighting eachother. Adding more stuff to synchronize (and there's no better way to add more network traffic than to add destructable environments) will make the networking problems even more severe. Even the most optimized netcode in the world isn't going to fix the problems when you keep expanding the scope of such an already huge gameworld. Improving the networking may actually require limiting the scope of the game unfortunately.

Really? Then I'm sure anyone with half a brain can put together a post with well presented evidence to support their claims, rather than ignorantly claiming speculation to be fact. I'm not trying to disagree with you about whether or not there is evidence, but your attitude about it is shitty and it makes you a seem a lot less credible. Why would anyone want to participate in your poll if you haven't proven that you can present a decent argument? Or can't you just be patient and wait for an official statement about ragdoll before making such claims?

That's usually because people can't ever make constructive suggestions/arguments, and with nothing constructie it breaks down into trolling. If ArmA 3 were set in the 1700s then I'm sure people would be discussing melee combat more seriously, but being set in a timeframe where melee combat is pretty much obsolete in warfare, it doesn't make sense for BIS to implement a really well-done system. And if it's not well-done, there's no point in having one.

That's because these games greatly simplify the character collision to essentially just a capsule. They ignore collision with weapons, and typically ignore momentum and other physical forces. As a result, it's smoother, but far less realistic (for example, you can turn/reverse on a dime, and still hold your weapon perfectly still). Animations also play no role in collision detection, since usually a single, seperate collider is used for the entire character. As a result, characters have the profile of an upright hotdog and movement can be smoother (nothing jutting out like limbs or weapons). Splintert is more or less correct. ArmA attempts to more accurately model character movement (weapons have collision, animations change the collider shape and inroduce momentum) but as a result the controls have to become much more complicated. This lack of control (which is also limited by the animations) makes controlling the characters very robotic; you can usually only do one or two movements at a time (ex: walk left + turn torso right, stop, turn, walk straight + look up), where IRL you can combine movement of various parts of your body more fluidly. So while you can simplify the system to make it smoother, it will also result in less realistic movement. To sum it up, there's no perfect solution for CQB in a realistic game like ArmA. Unless we were able to wear mocap suits and record our actual movement in realtime while playing, we have to make do with simplifications and abstractions.

Just because there's something supposedly better out there doesn't mean you should just throw away the working system that you have. If BI ever removed SQF support it would require a huge amount of people (devs and community members) to learn something completely new. I mean, there are still people scripting in SQS because they can't learn SQF syntax; which is closer than SQS to more popular programming languages. If a new language is added however, I pray to God it's not Lua (or based on Lua syntax). Lua is just terrible.

This poll has been confirmed as useless speculation. You only need basic logic to see that. :rolleyes: Seriously though, don't be so ignorant. However likely it may be, ragdolls haven't been confirmed (don't forget that even features that may appear as fully implemented in WIP shots could end up being dropped during development), and even if it is present the details are not available, so discussing it is IMO pretty stupid.

I guess next you're going to argue that IRL the Chernarus & Takistani conflicts never took place, so ArmA 2 and OA were completely unrealistic... :rolleyes: The commanche's presence is at least probable.

I would say that once you find yourself in a situation where you need absolutely need to take someone out (and can't just avoid them), your stealthiness has already been compromised or will be shortly after. In that case, I would go for a safer/more guaranteed kill.

Like any speculation around new features, it's not worth getting upset about until there are specific details available. I really doubt BIS will let people just chose whatever the hell they want to wear, it's probably something small/subtle.

Your supposed ignorance isn't exactly helping that. If he's trolling it's because you're giving him a reason to... ---------- Post added at 03:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:24 PM ---------- I would actually be quite amused to see that happen. :cool: Some people don't seem to realize that just because the weapon is silent/quiet, it doesn't mean the kill will be.

Perhaps they are independent? Or maybe the tank in that picture has been captured. Either way, it's all speculation so until anything is confirmed IMO there's no point in arguing. I'm also just glad that there's a refreshing change from the same US Army/Marines vs generic OPFOR.

People have been asking for physics upgrades for about a decade, and when BIS decides to integrate PhysX people bitch... Can't say I'm surprised; it's the same story with any new feature people always want. People are never satisfied.

Knives? Not very useful considering how you typically never get close enough to use them in ArmA. You know, guns also work at close/point blank range, and I really don't think using a knife will make it any more stealthy than a suppressed pistol or simply smacking him across the head with the butt of your gun. Still, there doesn't seem like there'll be many situations where you'd be able to get close enough a guy unnoticed.

Evidence is overrated on these forums. :rolleyes: Sometimes I think people here just see/read what they want to.

If these new devs will make modifications to the engine, then it seems unlikely. My guess is that they will maintain their own build as they are probably limited by the license.

If it is an ingame shot, it might be from TKOH. Just looks like it could be terrain from a flight game...

On the contrary, I would say that it'd make more sense for BIS to fine-tune the fundamentals, then expose enough things to allow modders to add intersting new content based on modern hi-tech stuff. It's harder to add missing fundamentals than it is to simply provide new content. I mean, all sorts of interesting UIs and effects could potentially be created by users if BI provided a flexible enough framework. That's also one benefit of choosing the 1980s period; it's right around the time where hi-tech equipment started being used while more traditional doctrines were still in place. In other words, BI could spend all their time developing detailed representations of a few choice pieces of modern military hardware, but it couldn't be enjoyed to its full potential if more fundamental systems were missing. For example, a really neat top-attack missile with multiple stage warhead wouldn't really be all that necessary (at least not with that much detail) without a more detailed armor penetration system. Continuing to focus on the present will also make it harder to implement said fundementals later on (the more you build on them, the harder they become to change). Anyway, this has already gone way off topic. Should probably continue with the hacker ARG.

I have an image in my head of Dwarden hastilly refactoring random parts of the engine code then releasing them as beta. :rolleyes: Just eager to test new things. But seriously, what's this? New things are great, but it's hardly worth mentioning them if you don't clearly document it. :cool: ---------- Post added at 02:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:22 AM ---------- That's a bit odd. Usually beta releases don't contain any data changes, so these two shouldn't have changed. I haven't tried any of the beta builds myself in a while though, so maybe they started including data changes.

Indeed, there's not a lot of evidence there to support some of the speculation I've been seeing. Perhaps after the Take On announcement BIS decided to step up the difficulty of their ARGs. TBH, I personally don't care much for these games; they tend to create a lot of speculation. In my experiences on this forum, speculation usually leads to disappointment. Not that I don't believe BI could be working on something nice, but they're really good at surprising us. ---------- Post added at 02:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:01 AM ---------- I'm not one to speculate, but if this so-called Captain Miller is the main protagonist, and his supposed birth year being 1992 is correct, that would seemingly set it in the near future. That said, I'm still hoping to see BI return to the Cold War period. It's just not explored enough in games anymore; at least nowhere near as much as modern or WWII settings (which dominate all military themed games). Also, leaving the modern scene would allow BIS to polish/perfect more of the fundementals of traditional warfare rather than concentrate on more modern/hi-tech aspects.

You obviously didn't understand my question. Just buying a license for an engine is pretty vague; it may mean that they are just allowed to redistribute the same executable that comes with ArmA 2 (maybe slightly modified) with new content, or it may grant them full access to engine source code so they can expand the engine. It's not clear which is the case here since as far as I know BIS has never before licensed their engine to any other commercial products. The only reason I'm curious is because a WWII setting could increase the demand for certain engine features/tweaks that are currently not present. I'm interested to see how far this game will differ from simple ArmA 2 mod.

So just out of curiosity what exactly did they get with the license? Source code? Tools? Just wondering if we can expect any kind of enhancements with this game, or if it's going to be more like a standalone mod.