pathetic_berserker

Supporter. Dont realy need more copies of the older titles but a new PC game costs between $70-$100 US off the shelf here so I'll rationalize it that way. ---------- Post added at 08:44 ---------- Previous post was at 08:43 ---------- What is a scenario editor if not a mission editor?

@ Iceman 77 Ahh gotcha now. Quite right. I've never felt the need for anything like steam when playing Arma in fact I could add salt by saying that as I keep all the patches, I've never felt the need to be online to install or play. But historicaly BIS have never been one to put all thier eggs in one basket unless its thier own so I get the feeling that BIS wouldn't have made this move without some very compeling reasons. Having to put up with steam anyway for other games, my interest now is whether it actualy does improve things compared to say SIX or has any effect on MOD development etc. ---------- Post added at 15:24 ---------- Previous post was at 15:20 ---------- I don't think the A2 experience automaticaly translates to A3

Just how minor was the issue? All I heard publicly was that the team had faced some difficulties and needed steam to save devepoment time and ensure a timely release. Can you elaborate on the small nature of this problem? yep.......that really puts a few of minor gripes about steam (my own included) into some sort of context.

You do realise that using multiple cores actually requires the game to have a question it can ask multiple threads to solve. Most games have to work most of the time on an if/then basis so don't often have a use for many extra cores. Even the newer games wich appear to utilise multiple cores quite well are not utilizing them so much for game mechanics ,the work load is being driven for graphic reasons by DX11. Its already been stated in a multithread topic somewhere that the A3 grahic engine, being DX11 will make your perfomance graph look fuller.

Correction, Steam are the winners. I know I don't have a high opinion of steam, though as far as I know many of the steam issues are also developer related. So if BIS gets its stuff sorted we might all do well out of it. If they screw it up and the modding community suffers then theres always Star Citizen for me. How about finding out how much I have to download before starting it? Whythe need for another screen in a bloated UI? Anyway these are moot points, delta patching means A3 shouldn't give these sort of problems, and it not like it apppears we have a choice anyway.

Too right it, And I all the years I have never had a problem with non-steam ArmA yet all I find steam wants to do is update itself or its games. Just last week I piked up Rage out of a bargin bin only to find it was steam activated and then precceeded to tell me it was updating @1MBs for 5hrs, WTF! The least steam could do is tell me how much it wants to down load but it seems to have issues with transparency. Oh well, like or not, I'll grin and bear it. But no matter how people feel about steam the reasons for the decision are not good.

Wrong, I just ran benchtest2 and had all 6 cores at a steady 50% usage. Feels right on the money to me.

I think that poster of 'supporting' game makers was just the people they approached for feedback about what game makers would like to see in a console. In other words, Sony has approach BIS for ideas about what the console should be and BIS didn't say go away. And they shouldn't, they will want to make games after ArmA3 and DayZ are out and about, so best to keep your options open, EVEN if it is a ArmA3 port to console. Like it was was said earlier, as long as we aren't going console to PC, and the PC games remain scaleable, all should be good.

Have always realy enjoyed the combined arms approach of ArmA campaigns and would actualy like to see more flying missions. Finding a creative way to make these optional would imply an alternative mission, wich means more work for BIS, and then those that would like to experience all the missions would need to go back and choose different paths. Unless they make these path choices part of strong, entertaining story arcs, I say learn the debug commands.

When kids got involved in the topic I thought of reaching for the barge pole and flaming arrows myself so maybe, yes. It has segued into something that isn't directly connected to females being usable in ArmA.

Get a little more excited each passing day.

Dosn't realy solve the problem of females as a class. If you read about some of the difficulties those few addon makers have had to get females models working ingame you'd realise that having a functional base class to inherit from is what is really needed. I think Scarecrow398 is probably right in that A3 would be too far along for females to be included if not already but that doesn't stop them leaving the door open for future updates and expansions. Agreed, and theres nothing stopping folks creating sexist material with the hapless females we have available now. Anyway say as a topic it does blow up, could it really be any worse than this thread.

Well I'd hope 2 methods, First, I woulld extend the players custom face idea to include the whole avatar so people would simply choose to be male or female as part of thier character profile then in mission the appropriate uniform would be selected. Additionaly it would be good to allow mission makers to over-ride and ensure missions have the flavour they desire.

And I thought I had implied earlier that my opinion on those kind of findings is irrelevant as it doesn't change what is. If you so desperately want to keep repeating yourself I'd say find another topic or someone who can help you effect the change. Thank you for bringing it back on topic.

Ar, ar. Though I think the ones that would meets scrims requirements have little swivel left.

Not to argue a point but scientific merit is gained when other scientific piers test findings and ultimately agree to a common point. But I digress. To me the statisical findings of that paper show a problem with the range of females in the studied roles, not that females are, across the board, unfit to do the job. Reread the writters conclusions. The study also relates to the US Army only. So tell me how your argument has anything to do with the topic. And be clear on this. This topic is about including female avatars in A3 that are able to drive, use guns change uniforms etc. NOT about whether females are fit to serve in roles that policy makers have already green lighted. Otherwise you've proved nothing other than you have a point to prove.

And whether I agree with you or not it has little relevance to a 'combined arms simulator/game' wich needs to somewhat reflect what we see on the ground and cater for a larger group than just the inf elites. Women as incapable set pieces simply drops way short of the mark.

I rekon there would be very very few who could cary 2x50kg shells at a time for several hrs if at all. If you had actually been reading my posts you would have noticed that there are no naive asumptions used or any silly exagerations. Just a point of fact. Women are being accepted into military forces around the world. It is happening and has already happened. Your argument is already known and has been heard and weighed by others that make real decisions and now women are being accepted in ever increasing roles in the military. Simple. 1 repeated argument about female weakness is not enough to change this. A few opinionated anecdotes is not enough to change this, because like all things in this world, you can never please everyone. A few highlighted cases of failing systems in one service doesn't change the game for other nations or services within that nation. And I'll reiterate that the 'basic biology' you keep refering to is still statisics. All of science uses statistics to verify the theories and anecdotes before they are widely considered 'knowledge'. And there are layers of statistics within the statistics you are refering to. For instance, statisics will show that men are generaly stronger than women, yes, but 'generaly' doesnt tell you how many women would still be capable of doing the task or how how many men would be incapable doing the task, specifics are needed. If this were possible they may have actually had a rationale for not including women. But the truth is the range of human capability required is too broad to create a system wich can effectively exclude females (without resorting to blatant sexism) or the bar would be set too high and the high quality of individual accepted into the military would be so few as to make forming an army impossible. ie. many men are accepted that may be below above average females. I get what you are saying about tilting requirements for females in the US military but this is really an internal matter for them to be rectified. And IF they change policy on this it's still unlikely that it would change much from a 'do we include female soldiers in ArmA' standpoint, as indications are that women are actualy being accepted even further. And this is also a very US centric view that ignores the rest of the world. If your argument is actually about the inclusion of female soldiers in A3 or not, I'm not sure. Because as it stands it's no more usefull than arguing against any other asset that is in existance and being used. If your argument is about not having women in the military at all then I'd look at it as being a different topic.

@ scrim 1 word minimums. And yet I've heard anecdotaly that for many, after basic things get easier, as they get more time and resources to focus on the required lifestyle. I find it odd that you are such an expert on generalising about the entry standards for all services of all nations and thier ineptness at managing thier resources.

^^ And stating the obvious doesn't change the fact that many forces around the world have seen fit to include them. Folks better equiped to make this choice have already made it.

Actually scrim as long your talking stats and numbers, Dragon01 right. Sure there could be loads of truth in them, but they're still numbers that don't account for the individual women who do make the grade. The numbers you refer to don’t reflect the gulf between the absolute ultimate of human performance and what is considered minimal to be used as sentient gun platform. And crying about numbers and generalistic norms at this point in time is usless. They are already out there in our faces.

^^ room clutter would be cool, but the only real need I can see is re-enacting my early high school days with all the mock WWF battles. 30 boys and all the desks and chairs in the middle of the room NOW! On a slightly more serious note the current map building and object system doesn't lend it self well to toppling but there may be something in the idea of destroying furniture. Unfortunately the most credible route of placing objects on a per mission basis is still hampered by the lack of a good 3d editor.

^^ And as this is a game wich is meant to be entertaining, it could be good to move away from generalizations and averages once in a while.

I think this is a good comprimise, though I'd still like to see RTT as a graphic option, in fact I'd be happy with anything thats not a black background with a cut out. cringe

The A1 demo was one actually a hell of a lot'o fun. I have a little doubt that says there won't be an alpha any more, maybe it was seeing the local Electronics Boutique store advertising pre-orders. Sceptically I held off as I thought I'd hear it first here. Though I suppose there would be no harm in laying down the money anyway