pd3

To an extent, yes I do believe mouse movement may well be tied to FPS, however the steps I've taken have greatly mitigated the problem and I'd have to say my computer isn't all that great compared to what you could buy over the last 2-3 years. I have personally found that my personal issues with it went from completely unusable to manageable, I don't expect BI to fully compensate for the fact that my computer is getting old, but it is nice if they can optimize where they can, same with anything I can personally do on my end to make the experience better overall.

Thank you very much for this, unfortunately I -was- running a legacy build until today, when I tried arma again it was the most up to date version after implementing the changes with the acceleration fix - so I don't know what has fixed it. I can't be terribly scientific about the changes it has made in my particular situation However I can say that my mouse movement problems are largely gone after the update and the implementation of the acceleration fix, I haven't noticed any difficulty in having to drive the mouse harder to move my perspective the same amount, so that is reassuring. The issue of being in close proximity to structures if it still exists seems less prominent to me from what testing I've done so far. I recommend anyone else with these issues give that a try, as well as fiddling with the acceleration and smoothing options in-game. My system isn't super beefy but something has helped, it would be beneficial to try both avenues if you're having difficulties IMO.

A few things I've noticed seem... off I suppose. One of them being that everything appears to be smaller, not sure why, maybe it is because I haven't messed around with arma for a while, but has the dev team messed around with the FOV by any chance? Secondly the sound. Things sound less-loud, specifically for pistols, I have some custom pistol sounds that I implemented that now feel like they're normalized to the point where they're not conveying the power of shooting the gun they're associated with, definitely not a fan. I'm not sure why this is considering the sounds themselves are retained, it's just that the sound itself seems as if it has been changed somehow. I'm playing with JSRS Dragonfyre and the ambient sonic echoes sound like they're now about the same volume which just sounds weird. I know some people might want to save their ears, but honestly fuck that, I want drum-blowing explosions when I hear a .50AE go off, I know what they sound like when they fire, the report is concussive even when you're standing less than 10 feet away w/o hearing protection. I'm sure there are some other issues, but those are the ones that I've noticed up until now. I'd really like to know what is the deal with the sounds, it is quite bizarre that my own custom sound modifications are being affected in such a way.

Yeah, that's the first thing I noticed, not a fan. absolutely-disgusting-face.png

Why are they doing this? It is great that they're trying new things and attempting to expand game functionality, but why remove the simple and easy to use 2d editor? It should be an option, how is this not the first conclusion the dev team is making on the issue?

I would have to verify that but it did seem as if the majority of time times I experienced poor mouse response were closer to structures. I don't know, I certainly hope that's not the case, I would prefer that to happen in conjunction with another keypress or something as opposed to doing so voluntarily.

Hm, Dariyah appears to be in the index, not sure why those two missions don't get assigned properly with C2ISTAR.

Just a random question about C2ISTAR once more. What criteria is necessary for troop transport missions to be assigned properly? Is there an array of compatible islands, or is it based on associated infrastructure (roads), or specific buildings? I tried using it on the map Dariyah, which does IIRC use legacy Arma 2 buildings, and it has no roads. Some objectives work fine, such as "kill troops at location", "kill HVT", "destroy vehicle", etc. The only two that don't appear to work are "defend objective" and the troop transport mission. In the case of the defend objective mission, it simply doesn't load at all, in the case of the troop transport mission, it only assigns the drop off location. Just for my own understanding, and anyone else who is interested, what exactly is required for those two malfunctioning missions to work?

That would be cool but it's no big deal if it isn't expanded. I figured as much about it's originally intended use, I just thought I would experiment with it to test the extent of its use.

I'm presuming it must be associated with C2ISTAR, and yes I'm aware with the CQB module that there are three variables for activation for ground, helos, and planes. I have never been in a plane when the task was assigned, would that have any bearing on whether certain vehicles activate the objectives when the player is close enough? Also is there a log where I can look at any error messages created while in-game? I did get a message stating that there were more than the optimal amount of objectives "> 80", however I couldn't see if there were any other error messages. EDIT Okay, so I tried a variety of things and it seems as if being in a plane contributes to some rather strange outcomes when having missions assigned to the player. - Troop transport missions "resolve themselves" if one is in an attack plane and merely flies around both the "pick up" and "drop off" objectives for a short amount of time. What's more, none of the actual entities associated with the mission actually spawned (troops, etc). - Missions in which the player is ordered to destroy a target do not appear while the individual is flying a plane, I did however land a plane on a nearby road in such a mission, run to the objective waypoint and activate the mission causing the relevant entities to spawn So, I just don't think it works, which is a pity as it would be nice to have some dynamically generated objectives for an air-type role.

My point, since you've seemed to have missed it was: That BI will eventually do so when it deems the time is right, and if it has any respect for the actual consumer base will not cater to external influences that don't represent the primary interests of the community. Psst - in case you hadn't noticed a LOT of people are confused and rather unhappy about the most recent update. This is kind of one of those hypothetical "zero-sum" circumstances I have been alluding to. Making disingenuous attempts at demographic gerrymandering is missing the point, it's obviously not a primary concern and thus far the need for female characters has been served quite well by the addon community. My responses were highlighting how you were trying to ignore the blatant attempt at influence by individuals who really didn't have a terribly great amount of personal investment in the game. To quote Semiconductor He's pointing out some seriously whacked-out logic, again, more dishonest demographic gerrymandering. It is objectively BAD for your business to try and serve demographics who haven't already demonstrated any interest in your product by diverting resources from people who have. This isn't an "untapped market", this conflates more with expending a disproportionate amount of resources at the likely expense of existing customers, as I've said before, it's a matter of zero-sum game. Secondly, there's nothing stopping people from creating accounts and ostensibly "ballot-box stuffing" in that particular circumstance, because it's a contentious issue and because of the influences at play, that is something that simply cannot be ignored. A better metric in determining whether or not a given feature is desired is based on whether those who have a vested interest in the game take the time to express how an aspect of the game is/not being served by the existence or lack of a given feature. Case in point, quite a few people have made quite a few threads expressing considerable trepidation about the functionality of the most recent patch. We're simply not seeing that with regard to female avatars from most individuals who AREN'T observable outliers. That being said, in the spirit of realism, I do think BI may consider implementing this for the next game based on current events. To summarize some other points, because you don't quite seem to get it: - This is not a matter of a moral imperative being observed or ignored, to claim so is merely a matter of opinion and can easily be discarded as such - BI should prioritize its application of resources, and it should do so based on whether it is a worthwhile endeavor for the improvement of the product as it pertains to its existing user base - BI should primarily listen to the expressed concerns from its committed users, not culture critics and other outliers who have a greater interest in altering human behavior than affecting the actual functioning of the game, when such influences exist from outliers, there needs to be automatic resistance and evaluation as a matter of principle. It must be reconciled with the interests of the people who have invested in the product. - BI needs to have confidence that its product will attract the appropriate consumer base by focusing on making the product better for those aforementioned committed users; not for people who have never demonstrated an interest in the game prior, that again is bad for business.

I'm purposely being oblique so as to not stir up any more controversy than there already is. If you're referring to this statement: What I was trying to communicate is that highly divergent interests ultimately dilutes and reduces the quality of a given product, some products can survive in this way, but their focus is entirely different from that of BI's business angle. The more, as the turn of phrase goes: "basic bitch" consumers you have (no gender specificity intended), the overall less exceptional and distinctive your product is going to be, that is PURE market causality, and we've seen it with every major AAA franchise. They don't innovate because they are now buoying their sales by the lowest possible denominator, and those people tend to get lost when you try to innovate via design and gameplay at too fast a pace. In fact the absolute bottom margins of that demographic are effectively not going to appreciate certain levels of innovation at all, it's simply out of their grasp. BI needs to make money, sure, however it also needs to protect it's brand unless it wants to compete with super-mediocre large franchises, which it will have to if it does not pay attention to things such as demographic creep. The first-person gaming market is absolutely saturated, and the way BI has maintained it's corner of the market is by protecting and cultivating its brand. So, "yes" more money is good, however brand dilution is bad. To what extent BI can compromise in design before a considerable consumer demographic falls away and loses confidence might not be an exact threshold, but anyone with any sense can see where it might begin to occur. I hope that clears things up, I just really didn't want to be using controversial terms unless somebody had a fit and became offended, but let's be honest here, a rose is a rose by any other name. BI simply cannot afford to survive serving an extremely demographically diluted customer base, even within the various sub-groups found in our user base, they essentially stemmed from the core Arma-playing individual, not any other single demographic could sustain the product otherwise. Now the subject of female avatars has little to do with this subject, EXCEPT - if BI starts to capitulate to wholly external influences that have no actual interest in the product itself, but peripheral aspects of it. The old story about a mouse wanting a cookie is prescient in this case.

I'm surprised somebody actually got the reference of my name.

That is an assumption without merit, in fact that directly contradicts what is commonly understood about the quality of products as they penetrate an audience with a greater divergence in expectations. Pandering to niche demographics for any reason is a disruptive process, especially if it is politically motivated. It doesn't matter if it's fans of Battlefield, Call of Duty, or individuals espousing a given set of socio-political ideals. It does not comport well with what Arma is and how it functions, in fact in many cases it seeks to subvert many of those fundamental qualities until it becomes an exceedingly average, convoluted mess that pleases nobody. This is pretty much the reason why many multiplatform games have become so exceedingly mediocre and repetitive. On principle, the integrity of the series must persist above all other influences.

Not trying to be an asshole or anything but you do acknowledge that is -entirely- your own perception, correct? The problem I have with a lot of people of a particular socio-political persuasion is that they believe that nearly everything is or should be some sort of shared, public resource and should fall under the purview and governance by edicts that pretty much control how everyone behaves in any given situation. If you venture into closed social spheres, expect a little friction at first as people figure out who you are and what you're all about, that's pretty much universal for men negotiating the world of other men, so you should make necessary adjustments to your expectations instead of presuming some level of special treatment. You have no idea how other people are treated by other players when gender isn't a factor, I've been playing games online since 1996 and I can definitely say that it is a universal human trait for people to respond to members of an outgroup differently than those whom you are familiar with. This sort of irreverent regard for others happens ALL THE TIME online, and likely has gotten better in some circles than it was back in the 90s. Again, I'm trying to be a dick, but if you want "equal treatment", you're about as close to it as you're going to get if you're treated no better or no worse than your average random person happening upon a group of individuals who are familiar with one another. Unless you're insinuating you wish to have some level of treatment adjusted by some metric for equality of outcome, then I'd say your treatment was not that far different considering the fact that you are in fact much further removed from the typical game-playing milieu as a result of your circumstances.

I'm messing around with the sample mission Operation Landlord, and I noticed that the created mission objectives don't seem to work if the player is in an aircraft, is that something that can be changed? I know that the CQB module specifies the distances at which spawned units will (if at all) spawn from, however the custom objectives in the mission seem to not work if the player is flying a plane of any kind. Is there anywhere I can change that?

Lol wut. If BI adds female characters, I hope it's because there's some reasonable, legitimate real-world pretext to do so other than pandering to a presently near-nonexistent demographic. Intent matters, it's not about snubbing anyone, it's about prioritization. If there is a legitimate premise to give such a design feature a serious look, then it doesn't matter, nobody's going to get upset.

As long as old users aren't forced to download addons via some software and can instead manually install them and manage them on their own, I really don't care. I however want nothing to do with systems that force me to relinquish that amount of personal control over how my game is set up.

The AI in general have a prevalent issue with being "super-capable" in ways that make the game less enjoyable. I would recommend lowering the "weapon sway" variable for the ai in increments until you find something acceptable.

Well, we need Oculus to come to market and for games such as Arma 3 to start seeing some reasonable levels of use with it. Once there has been some mainstream market penetration (fingers crossed) we'll start to see more consumer market variety. Something like this is just begging for a civilian market audience. The only thing I could see standing in its way is really really terrible people with really really terrible politics who don't want average citizens to bring their milsim experience to a new level.

It doesn't have to be more "welcoming" especially to a demographic of people who don't care enough about the game to want to play it without something as seemingly inconsequential in relative terms. I don't want people whose lynch-pin criterion for playing the game is something that insignificant as compared to other aspects of the game, the game itself and the community is not well served by pandering to niche special snow-flakery when many other individuals have niche interests that will simply have to be served by the addon community. Now, the fact that the U.S military is opening combat service roles to women may change that, however I absolutely oppose and detest the idea of capitulating ideologically to an interest and a demographic that DOES NOT CARE about the actual game beyond symbolic pandering. It's beyond shallow, there is literally nothing wrong with Arma being a "sausage fest", that is implying that there is something morally wrong with the majority of the player base being male. Arma was built around a specific aesthetic and design philosophy that happens to be enjoyed primarily by a male demographic, if women want to play the game; that's great and they are welcome to. However it's very evident most game playing women don't care about games like this, and I would suspect that the majority of female players who genuinely like the series aren't terribly bothered by the fact that female player models aren't included by default (this lack of a feature may change for the next game for the reasons aforementioned). As I said, it's almost an insulting jab at how shallow culture critics believe women to be that a simple issue of whether an avatar is included by default will change their level of interest in the game, the Arma series is much deeper than that, and we aren't served as a community by attracting or pandering to people who are in fact that shallow as consumers. I'm NOT saying that female gamers are that shallow generally speaking, I'm saying that this sort of game really isn't something that strikes the fancy of many female game players, and there's nothing wrong with that. The reality is, gender and biology does accompany some consistent psychographic features, just look into studies regarding 2d-4d digit ratios in children both male and female. They've found that women who have a more masculine 2d-4d digit ratio unequivocally preferred activities that were generally enjoyed more by their male counterparts. Yes, warfare in general and games that try to simulate it generally exude a masculine energy, and if some women find that enjoyable, there should be absolutely nothing stopping them from enjoying the game as it exists. Unless of course as I stated their interests don't actually lie with the game, and instead gratifying themselves by status-signalling and getting other people to pander to them when they don't represent a considerable niche of the gaming demographic. And what's more, there's absolutely NO moral or utilitarian justification for frivolously trying to attract more of such people for their own sake. If they enjoy the game, great, there's nothing holding them back from playing except perhaps the idiot-goofballs that you encounter at times on public servers, but it doesn't matter whether you're male or female, you're going to find those people. Arma is fine and as a series has FAR larger concerns than placating proportionately minuscule sub-demographics within its user base, I actually believe based on current real world events regarding gender participation, we may see a built-in female player model. However, the motivating factor should not be individuals with no actual interest in the game itself trying to force others to institute these changes to satisfy some level of political narcissism.

That's actually not true. It's not exaggerated, but it most certainly exists, especially if you're wheeling around your perspective at high speeds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Q1s7HXYeXeU#t=103 For the record, I believe a lot of the "tweaking" aspects of the game really should have been left alone, especially the exaggerated fatigue, that could have easily been something that players could have created with addons had they actually wanted it to be that prominent a feature in the game. As for the new hitpoint based body damage system, if it causes an extensive resource footprint, it simply isn't worthwhile, that's something that you keep on the books for the next game. Constantly forcing the performance to jump plus or minus ten frames per second unless it's accidental is unnecessary, it's far better to accept the game as it is, and as the majority of players accept it and work on optimization. The devs could have always considered these new mechanics for the next installment instead of screwing around with a game that is already 2 years old in such a way that it drastically changes it in a way that most people don't want to deal with.

You're implying that is somehow unavoidable when it really isn't, at all.

Yes, I know, thank you for pointing out the obvious.

Suspend your triggering and be civilized if you're capable of it if you want to have a discussion with me.