pd3

Not within a tenth of a second, no you'd have to be a superhero. Real world timescales and what I'm capable of doing in game are incongruous. Having said that, after playing the game some more, I'm going to say this. I am utterly blown away at how well my shitty old computer runs this game, honestly. Okay, I threw a fit over the turning speed, and yeah, it'd be nice to see that redressed in some way to both appease the newer people and the old school players in the future be it the next in the series or whatnot. However I've delved into a few multiplayer games already, and it's so easy to jump into a reasonably full game, on altis no less, with a fully functioning dynamic conflict server running, and play a half decent co-op. So I recant what I said about A3 being the lowest point in the series, that would go to Armed Assault, but only because it was a very awkward transitional game that eventually became Arma 2, which was better optimized. I perhaps gave the game too much flak, and thus far in most of the scenarios I've played, they've been mostly ranged and therefore the more FPS like tactics actually HAVEN'T been viable, thankfully I was perhaps overreacting. I would still probably hate playing on a deathmatch or competitive server especially if there is CQB because it would be just a complete clusterfuck. That being said, for the simple reason that A3 manages to look great, play well even online in spite of some lag here and there, (I grew up thinking 125ms was FAST in the old Quake days). I would say it's worth the money. I'll always keep Arma 2 on my HD simply because it still does things that A3 cannot as yet. However overall, I would say the playability of the game compensates for some of the design compromises they've made. So in all, I guess I'm acknowledging that A2 and A3 are two different beasts and they each do particular things exceptionally well, and I can appreciate that aspect of A3. However if the game did not perform as surprisingly well as it does, I don't think I could offer that endorsement. So yeah, it's not perfect, but it's far from horrible.

I've decided to dabble in a bit of multiplayer and I don't know if this is aberrant or not, or whether my expectations are simply much lower, but it actually wasn't that bad! In fact I had a lower latency than I would have ever had playing way back in the day. I mean, it's not like playing on a network, which is what I typically do, but it was actually pretty damn good! There was latency, but it wasn't horrendous. Can anyone tell me how well listen servers work and how common they are? The one game I was playing I'm not sure if I recall whether the person was running a dedicated server or not. Either way, it was pretty damned good. Sorry if people are upset by the performance, but honestly, that is one area I cannot fault BI. They've done a fantastic job making this series reasonably playable online.

Is there any way to associate the assets with Arma 2 and CAA1 with this so I don't have two copies? And can this way involve not using Six updater? As within a few short seconds of installing the updater it started installing things that I didn't even want on my computer, and I really don't want it to touch Arma 2 at all. I have a lot of customized addons and I don't want those overwritten.

That is encouraging, at least they're trying. I've decided that considering the game runs far better than I had ever expected it would on this older hardware, that I will buy it. I'll use A3 for my close-in CQC type needs, and I'll use A2 for massive battles using the Flashpoint scripts. I still say that with some marginal practice, that it is far too easy to spin around like a dervish on crack and fight flanking attackers. But that's just me.

From what I've seen, no. Honestly, this sort of performance comes with the territory of high fidelity quasi-sims (I know BI has engaged in some rebranding chicanery as of late with regard to that claim). Additionally who else is doing ANYTHING even remotely close to this? Honestly? Codemasters and the new "Operation Flashpoint", not even close. There's very little if no basis for comparison here. You can't expect the world when you have modest hardware and are attempting to simulate combat engagements with high fidelity visuals and broad, expansive environments. Claims that other games that don't do exactly what this series does is a fallacy of relative privation. Honestly if that's a mitigating factor then those "people" I would characterize as spoiled and entitled, a lot of my gaming youth was played on shitty hardware. You've put the cart in front of the horse, there's a reason for the steep requirements and that's because the market for such software has ALWAYS been a niche interest. Only with the advent of pseudo-realistic shooters have we seen an increased interest in this particular genre, and I must say, not for the better it seems, save for BI's pocketbook. Because if it were that simple it would've been done already, that's utopian logic. "Why would anyone hate optimization?!" You're begging the question, stop that. The thing is the majority of people whining are people who really have no place whining, you're never going to get the same kind of performance from this series that you would out of a heavily dumbed-down, made-for-the-lowest-common-denominator cash cow multiplatform game. And outside of that, you really have no basis for comparison, so there's just no point in even moaning about it. This series is metaphorically speaking, a machine with many more moving parts than most, and thus much more tricky to optimize. I fully understand the business aspect of budgetary constraints vs implementation. I'm honestly glad BI hasn't "sold out" more than they already have (I'm trying not to make that sound pejorative, but let's face facts). Dare I even ask? Inb4 >muh clunky >muh jumping They do actually, because I would rather their budget be allocated to actually making functional aspects of the game better. How can you complain about "stupid ass design decisions and mechanics" and then somehow equally prioritize sound? Optimizing the game also requires much of that budget as well. The community can fix the sound issues, it's not ideal but it works for now, they cannot fix hard coded problems, come on son. BI is not made of money, in spite of their pandering to certain demographics, even I know that they gotta make this pay, and the reality is we live in a zero-sum world. Allocating from one takes from another. ---------- Post added at 02:42 ---------- Previous post was at 02:38 ---------- That's my opinion dude, and you're entitled to yours. That's how opinions work. I am not god-king of the internets, opine-away friend. ---------- Post added at 02:51 ---------- Previous post was at 02:42 ---------- Dude, I've been openly criticizing the game since I started seeing footage of it that I found disconcerting. Again, it's a genetic fallacy to state that I'm not entitled to an opinion if I don't buy or play the game, I have eyes, and I have a brain that is capable of deductive logic. I REFUSED, alone on the basis of seeing some of the things that I did, and on the basis that they likely would not get fixed to support a company that I felt was more or less driving a knife into the backs of their core supporters in order to pander to those who have specific biases influenced heavily by mass market games. I'm now posting this basically to more or less confirm some suspicions I had about the game, because there were some naysayers again, plying the genetic fallacy that I was incapable of making an assessment on certain gameplay mechanics had I not played it. As well as also make some endorsements based on my unique experience with the game based on how it performs with my own hardware. I don't know what it is about the majority of people on these forums who seem to be aggressively critical of people such as myself, and their appetency for genetic fallacies, but it doesn't matter if you have 800 hours of "game time". You admitted shortly thereafter that you openly hold a bias about the game and refuse to consider other points of view based on irrational and truly myopic conditions. Secondly, I never said I was a fan of the game, in fact of all the games in the series, I would absolutely say gameplay wise it represents the nadir in some fundamentally critical ways. That to be truthful one couldn't appreciate that claim if one is too easily entranced by visuals and things that we've come to expect from the series for nigh on ten plus years now. Arma 3 looks and runs well, the gameplay dynamics in some way are not bad, however in the ways it has failed in my opinion, they are critical, and critically upset the balance the game has maintained for the worse. I'm considering buying if only because it's cheap now, even though Arma 2 will be my go-to for a long time to come. All I'm saying is, I won't tolerate as a consumer some of the egregious mistakes/insults that BI has made to certain portions of their customer base in future editions in the series. And if BI doesn't care about that, then inevitably a market alternative will emerge, and I will put my money elsewhere. ---------- Post added at 02:56 ---------- Previous post was at 02:51 ---------- And I'm willing to accept that for Arma 3, although again, if this becomes a trend of simply half-assing game mechanics in favor of a more FPS-type feel, I will know that BI has more or less set their mind to pandering to a demographic that cares little for the roots of the series. And yes, that would be one of the few appeals against "clunkiness" that I would agree with. You should be able to exit a throwing animation, however I would say that it shouldn't be instantaneous, as if it were just some interrupted frame that simply cancels, that would look terrible, and it would imply movement speeds that human beings are simply incapable of. A MASSIVE portion of this game's challenge comes from working within a set of defined limitations that prevent you from having a wide array of movement options at all times, that's for the realm of circle-strafe nonsense festivals such as Nexuiz and Quake, etc. ---------- Post added at 02:57 ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 ---------- I don't do massive internet multiplayer because I cannot stand lag, at all, period. I play on networks and occasionally remote games, often on private servers. I can imagine it's probably bad, but my perspective on that particular issue is skewed because I cannot stand latency at all. That being said I really hate this modern trend of tooling game mechanics toward being multiplayer friendly. They ruined Mount and Blade that way. ---------- Post added at 03:03 ---------- Previous post was at 02:57 ---------- Visually, Arma 3 is a triumph, and performance wise, for the visuals and and the scope it allows, it is as well, in spite of some critical faults. No question about that. Honestly, I get in the neighborhood of that with my old quad core and radeon graphics card that isn't physx capable. So knowing how old my hardware is, in the neighborhood of 30fps is reasonable. -EDIT- I actually hadn't configured the game well prior to that, and I'm actually now getting into the range of 45 and sometimes (rarely) the low 50s. I guess the crossfire setup is holding out okay. Granted I don't have everything on ultra, but it's not set to low either and I'm playing it on 1920x1080, I still think that considering how old my system is, that A3 runs and looks fantastic on it. -EDIT- I grew up in a time where computers were WAYYY more expensive, and I had to play with shittier performance than that. All I'm saying is, A3 isn't really any good for me right now with my current hardware except to fiddle around with the mechanics. A2 performance and gameplay ways FAR better serve my interests, but nevertheless, I don't think it's all that bad. It's not great, but it's not abyssmal. However the mechanics are deviating toward catering to a demographic that I honestly and openly loathe, I retreated from other series back in the old days to OFP because they simply didn't care about making those people happy, they had their battlefield games and what not, and we had OFP. I was quite pissed off when I found out about certain aspects of the game, I did a lot of research, I did mess around with it on other individual's computers, however I'll admit it, I was pretty butt-ravaged when I found out what BI had done with the weapon movement, I get that there's a rift in the community and valid concerns about smooth controls, but my sympathy is more or less cut off when people start passively endorsing unlimited turn speeds. Okay, we have customers now paying for the game that like that, dogs also sometimes get fleas, but at least BI could do the right thing and offer some consolation to those who have supported them when they were being attacked by the likes of PC Gamer magazine when they were a fledgling operation. I've bought more than a few copies of their games over the years and inducted many players as a result of my enthusiasm for the series, so yeah, immature or not, I was a little offended. I know I'm not "owed" anything, but long-term this is an issue with the game mechanics that absolutely cannot remain as it is in future releases. ---------- Post added at 03:11 ---------- Previous post was at 03:03 ---------- Honestly, the reason why I didn't give any sort of opinion on MP is because I don't really play much internet multiplayer at all, in fact almost ALL of my multiplayer gaming is done via LAN, so I'm not even going to contest that, and I would defer to somebody who has a bit more experience with it. I hope they do something eventually, even if it results in two very divergent ways in which the game is played. I noticed that, in A2 they were grossly underprotected, I actually had to use an infantry armor addon to get things to an acceptable ratio for my liking.

Nah, it's in the 30fps range whilst testing a modest engagement of infantry. I'm running a 980 black edition quad core, and I was quite impressed it even managed that. Honestly, expecting anything better than that given the relative hardware capabilities is just whining, I'm sorry. This isn't CS 1.6, you can't play it on a shite machine, I've been there when I was younger. I really don't want this series bogged down with ridiculous requests to occlude processing activity to only enemies that can be seen. Somebody literally had to tell some nooblet that this was not an IDtech engine game, and that the fidelity of the simulation depends on taking into account all activity both seen and unseen, performance hits be damned. Okay, fair enough, however my concerns are more about the children who play DayZ and then say things like: "Y THIS NOT RUN ON MY E-MACHINE with ONBOARD GRAIFX!?" I'm going to wax prejudicial here and say unequivocally that we don't need these people crapping up this game with that attitude. Again, fair enough as a matter of incidentals, however goldbricking for performance as somebody with a completely garbage machine should be summarily ignored, better? There are ALWAYS things you can do to improve something, what I'm saying is the performance issues aren't nearly as bad as some would indicate, and I would presume either they're too used to playing games that don't "work" like the Arma series does, or they're trying desperately to run the game on crap hardware and crying about it. Clunky, you mean more accurately represented human limitations. I've never had that problem with A2, had it with A3 though. And expecting to be able to stop on a dime is something that should be entirely relegated to games that are not in this series. IMO, if you needed to sprint and the available space was not there, you shouldn't have been sprinting. Unfortunately there seems to be a certain level of the "dunning-kruger" effect when it comes to people who play games, wherein they just assume a player character should be able to do whatever they want without consideration (especially in a series such as this), as to whether it's actually practicable. IMO, it indicates a level of poor planning or simple impatience that really has no place in this series. I'll steal a quote from the Dark Souls community: "Get gud". I implied this very thing in my initial post. Doesn't matter though. I've already dissected this before, and literally one person could turn around in a little better than a tenth of a second, which no human is capable of. And again, it's that dunning-kruger issue, where players assume spinning around is anywhere even remotely close to what you're capable of doing in real life (it's not even close), and regardless, it shouldn't be a tactical option available, no human can spin as fast as I was able to (and presumably others who hone the tactic). It completely invalidates strategic flanking maneuvers in favor of simply twitching your way out of an admittedly inferior tactical position. If you play fighting games, it's kind of like the difference between a Chun-li player, and a Zangief player. Arma is supposed to be like the latter, you have a set of limitations, and you must learn how to do everything within your tactical repertoire to absolute precision, because unlike Chun-li, who has considerably more agility, you can't (or more appropriately shouldn't) just bounce and twitch your way out of a bad situation. Absolutely not, the analogy for closer range (60m and under) engagements is VERY relevant, and again, it's simply an "option" that simply shouldn't even be a consideration, you make inferior tactical decisions, you enjoy getting shot in the back or the sides, it's that simple. Again, doesn't matter, I was using the default sensitivity and I had to make only a minute movement, and because of the unrealistic speed at which I could turn, there would be MORE than enough time to correct my aim considering there's no inertia to deal with. Honestly, I can't see how anyone who isn't a completely incompetent player or running a machine that is grossly underpowered would not find that a useful option. Again, you're characterizing precisely why being able to turn around so quickly is so grossly incongruous and unbalancing for such a game. Don't try to make excuses for shitty game design. The whole point is, you have FPS tier turning speeds with typical Arma tier movement speeds, and that spells nothing but unreasonable ease in subverting flanking maneuvers. You can constantly twitch left and right to check your flanks and there's literally no penalty. Nope sorry, your argument is not convincing. The relative damage of the weapons seems to be pretty low compared to Arma 2, and in general, aiming and hitting seems to generally be more difficult as a result of weapon sway, and seemingly improved collision detection for projectiles. What that amounts to is a greater total time to line up a shot, and a relatively lower amount of time to turn, respond and return fire. Again, it shouldn't even be an option, period. It's an indefensible argument. If two players managed to find themselves in a situation wherein neither one knew they would encounter the other, the person in the inferior tactical position, barring poor skill on behalf of the player in the superior tactical position - should always lose, end of story. With this current mechanic, that simply may not be the case, and that's objectively terrible. That's as garbage a solution as the expanding ring, which is common in many console FPS games, it's 16+ year old technology. Nope, trespasser had the very rudimentary technology back in 1998 that we need to see now. Simply put, IMO no player should be able to turn himself at the speed his mouse can move (which is f'ing fast), period. And I would even be willing to compromise and have "console babby mode" movement, and "realistic" inertial movement so long as it was an option, and it was multiplayer-enforceable. Divide the community if you have to. So it's literally no different than the previous versions. Being hit with a bullet without plates would still leave the body having to deal with a lot of kinetic energy, and honestly, it's kind of silly to see them simply flinch. I mean it's better I suppose than the previous versions, but it just seems more like you're fighting synthetic humans from Blade Runner than anything else. Next release maybe.

Thanks for continuing work on this as you can, it really does have tremendous potential.

Basically I'm creating a custom laser guided bomb-type munition, and I would like to know what specific sound bombcore and shellcore use as their flying through the air sounds, as I can't seem to find anything with any classes that inherit from it. I know bo_mk82 and bo_fab250 don't declare any particular flying sounds, but both DO have them, so I'm assuming it's the base class that they're inheriting them from. Does anyone know? If they could post the filename/path or even what the declaration should be? It'd be greatly appreciated.

>dumbed down and oversimplified for pimples >step forward pick one

Please continue working on this if you can, I'm definitely interested. Great progress so far.

All those, and to be honest BI really created a rift in the community by "fixing" certain aspects of the game, pertaining to movement and weapon handling, that most of the original players had no problem with. ---------- Post added at 01:26 ---------- Previous post was at 01:16 ---------- It's not frustrating if you're not desperately trying to play the game like Unreal tournament, and like a game wherein human beings have actual human limitations, and cannot turn and move as if weapons have no weight. Again, it says a lot about the person making the claim that it's frustrating than anything else. Objectively it isn't, it is however to people who... lack certain attributes.

It's actually quite easy to do. Look for the "island-name"factions.sqf file and you basically put some of the I44 guys and units you want to use, save it to a generic mission file. Open up the mission file in a text editor, get their editor names, and input/replace them in the relevant locations in that factions.sqf file.

There's a definite FPS increase, not quite enough that I think I could play flashpoint with it, but the improvement is remarkable. Having flown around it, I will say that I think there's still an excessively high number of fully accessible buildings. This is just my recommendation, but I would seriously consider creating two different versions of your map, one that is full fidelity, with the current number it has, but also one that has duplicates of the same buildings, ones that are fully enterable and ones that aren't or are limited for the sake of performance. You could easily half the number of fully vacant buildings and still have a great experience with this, it would really come down to how strategically placed the empty buildings were to break up the pattern of enterable vs non enterable ones. That being said, it's coming along really well.

As long as the AI has the superhuman ability to identify you through a small sliver between some branches that would normally just look like an obfuscated mess to a regular player, I can understand why people would use it.

Careful now, you wouldn't want to upset BI's new user base. :rolleyes: Man seeing the mouth-foaming projection of MulleDK19 is really saddening to see. Consoleitis is 100% all about sacrificing authenticity for controls. How he can even say that and take himself seriously is beyond me.

Darn, that sucks.

I've noticed a fairly significant difference between the distance the perspective seems to have between some addons and the default BI pistols. I would like to know if this is determined by variables in the config file or if it's information that is part of the model itself that tells where the perspective should move to when you are aiming down the sights. I personally find the distance ridiculously close and find that unlike certain addons, the default BI pistols don't lend themselves to close quarters use at all. I would like to make my own config variants of these pistols if the "head" camera distance is changeable via the config as opposed to it maybe being defined with the model itself. Any info regarding this would be appreciated.

Looks good, I'm going to mess around with it as I have some free time.

Does anyone else have problems with the AI reviving the player and then the player defaulting to swimming animations? Weirdest thing.

The buildings may be empty, especially the large glass buildings, but it's not so much that they have things in them, as it is the geometry that you see of the building becomes WAY more complex when you can see everything inside it as opposed to just an outer wall or something. I would also recommend that some buildings have two enterance/exits if nothing else so tactically speaking they can be used to duck inside and evade enemies.

There seriously aren't enough urban settings for Arma, so this will be interesting. I recall back in the days of OFP there was this one island that had a small city with a bar on the outskirts of town which was rather ingeniously done. Many an interesting gunfight was had there. Depending on how it lends itself, I would really like to try implementing Thompsonb's flashpoint scripts and see how that works out. This definitely looks promising. EDIT Well I would agree with some people saying that not all buildings need to be enterable. In fact I would honestly maybe make some tall buildings enterable, but only make certain floors accessible, all you really need are a few anyhow. Some honestly could be completely completely inaccessible and that would be fine as well. Performance wise the map is a mixed bag, looking down some streets the performance is great, however looking down others my frame rate dips into uncomfortably low values. I have absolutely no problem running any maps for A2, even large urban expanses such as Emita and avgani run perfectly fine. You're definitely on to something great here though, I would recommend perhaps changing the buildings that are fully accessible so that you can't see everything inside them. The really tall buildings with transparent glass were the ones that hit performance the hardest. All in all, it looks great, and I would love to see an optimized version.

There must be a way for this to work out. I don't want to have to run all of my addons via A2:OA in administrator mode simply to get ACR running. I'm also not really interested in using any third party launchers either, I have a whole crapload of customized addons that I don't want some busybody launcher trying to "update". I would very much like to run OA and ACR retail off a batch file. Please tell me this is possible. There's no reason it shouldn't be.

For the most part, however you wish. With a few provisions... You don't spin around like a cyborg on crack whilst prone, weapons have weight, and it doesn't feel like you're floating whilst running. *cough cough* That aside, I am a pretty huge fan of ThompsonB's Flashpoint, dynamic battle scripts. If A3 had something like that it would really improve the game... among other things. ---------- Post added at 02:29 ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 ---------- Until it's fixed, if ever. ---------- Post added at 02:32 ---------- Previous post was at 02:29 ---------- My version of A2 is customized straight to the balls, and I like it like that. A3 has some pretty critical failings that cannot be fixed via mods or scripts, and until it is, it's future hangs in the balance. Either it will become some lukewarm sandbox for BF/CoD players, or the devs will get their shit together.

Has anyone else noticed that some of the desert mercs, specifically desert merc 6 (not sure if there are any others) - have an annoying bug wherein the head of the player persists if you're in ironsight mode? I was using RH MGS weapon pack with the AK102, and the perspective is far enough back for the ironsights that you can actually see the player model's head clipping through your field of view. Is there any chance this can be fixed? I suspect it has something to do with the model itself? Because I tested this with other addons and stock units and none of their heads seem to get into the perspective.

Not cool. I'm a big fan of the old vection based aiming ala the days of OFP. It was a nice compromise instead of getting full physics based movement. I know BI is trying to make a buck, but seriously. Will this at least be moddable? So that human movement isn't arbitrated by how fast your mouse moves? I kind of gravitated toward this genre because I was tired of playing games that completely disregarded reasonable human limitations.