pathetic_berserker

If it its like A2 then shadows at low settings are being rendered by the GPU but at high settings by the CPU so the performance increase would still be dependant on hardware. And yep the new shadows do look great.

Chuffed to feel more brilliance coming from BIS after more than a decade of playing the series. Completely with the sentiment of this thread ++

I'd go Pak Fa, not because Russia would sell it to them but because someone in China would steal the plans and sell it to them.

This as a toggle in veteran, I think thats an Ok idea for Warfare in veteran mode where there is heaps of commanding going on as well. Of course toggle removed entirely for Elite.

Actualy I realy dislike the level of contrast they use. I find it over the top and very unreal, actualy closer to sureal. But from an artistic/game perspective I recognise how it could be used to psycologicaly blur interface issues. Adding a slightly dream like quality without actualy implying a dream helps blur the gap between player and screen, aiding in suspension of disbelief. Cute, but not to my taste. Anyway thank you for disecting the issue and I look forward to seeing it in the tracker.

Rekon they would still have issues with MP right now. Look the Op is kind of right but this being Alpha there is a number of things that can be done. 1. Be patient 2.Use the feedback tracker and fill in the details. 3 If feeling the need to get community feedback post as much info as you can, so system specs and detailed video settings, not just the generalised all 'med' all 'ultra' kind of thing, that realy dosn't say much. As far as the MP issue is concerned I'd say there is definately a combination of things goin on. But one thing I have noticed after finding some MP games running better than others is its largely dependant on the mission. I think in the rush to get stuff out some mission makers have cut corners (not tested) and a lot of missions are taking too long to clean a lot of the garbage (ie dead bodies etc)

What we don't know If BIS is going to to include combat capable females. Enough to speculate on how difficult it would be to include them (IMO looking at sample model its probably not excessive to want fully functioning civies) Enough to know whether they could be incorporated in a simy realistic fashion ie utilise the encumberance system to reflect real life physical attributes. Whether BIS has the resources (that is people spare to create models and configs who dont take away form others needed to program and script) What we do know Females serve in the military across the globe and will probably continue to do so. Females will (based on released footage) be ingame at least as NPC's. Inclusion would reinstate females to OFP functionality. Inclusion would broaden mission, story and modding possibilities. Particlarly as having more than just functioning soldier avatars has been convenient for the franchises life span. That the next poster will possibly have not read any of this thread and simply spouted something that has already been repeated too many times. What some fear That functioning female models will ruin the game just like they did in the OFP days. Not seeing females in Alpha means OH NOSE they got no girls. (see stupid feedback issue) Being Alpha means thay still have time to pass on girl germs. The shear amount of rubbish and repetition in this thread makes it worthy of closing but I would settle with; Anyone who feels the need to go on further should be made to read it in its entirety and ask them selves if they are contributing something new before posting. Anyway I'm now also guilty of repetition. So heres to letting the thread die.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1004 Anything like this? Has happened only twice to me, both times while scoring kills in MP.

I get your point but they're here now and functioning female avatars or not theres no getting away from them. My view is, I'll be playing with the functionality of this game longer than I'll be playing with them. I'll happily delude myself into believing they'll move on eventualy or get educated

I supose that question would best be answered by some bastard map maker who sees this response then goes out of way to create the environment. lol. Honestly though there are probably numerous examples, particularly in user made environs, but not having the function means you never think to use it.

Fair call I supose. Admitedly, sticking to the OP literaly is the best thing to with threads like this, its a complete mess in all directions. But it became clear to quite a few that the OP's request was indicative of a larger issue with female avatars. I don't doubt that it's a lot of work but consider also how many skins, equipment models etc the community is likely to make for the male model. Then consider that it appears BIS is going so far as to including female character models (wearing bikinis) anyway. So connecting the dots, the 'only' thing that is really being asked here is that the female model be fully animated comparable to the male one. Then atleast the door is open for BIS and modders to expand later instead of difficult band-aid approaches similar to A2.

How does anyone know they havn't already done the work, or planned to have it or not? Thing is no-one has been told openly either way, all we have is a female running on a beach in a bikini from a video shot quite some time ago. And as we are not priviy to their gant chart it is not our place to say that they don't have the resources or that its too late to include. BIS have always included constant updates to thier games so I'd be inclinded to say there no such thing as too late for BIS. Its fine to say that this isn't a big priority for you personaly and that there are more important things for BIS to do. But how many of those important things require people who can create the required animations. And for me the addition of full functioning female avatars expand the possibilties of story and game play more than any other animation or modeling task that I can see needs filling.

As if the DayZ success was promoted prior to actually being one?

^^ if you had bothered to read the entirety of the thread and new why this thread exists then you might think again about your post. Females have gone from being entirely capable avatars in OFP to usless stage hoars in A2. As a uniquely flexible sandbox I see nothing wrong with requesting fully functioning female avatars to broaden story arcs and add some realism. And thier inclusion shouldn't be any more emotive than selecting any other unit or asset to include ingame. But I understand the tacticool dreamers have trouble seeing the need for mission makers to be able to include story elements, past thier fear of females damaging MP. Though I don't recall female avatars being a problem for OFP gameplay.

Its just a difficulty toggle ffs. if you get 3rd person every one does, if you don't no one else does either, simple. Its also very usefull when making mods and missions to improve sit rep and see what is going on and test stuff. So if you dont like it dont use it and find a server that doesn't either. And be patient. In time the servers will lift thier game. Its still early days.

^^ I think a better question than height would be distance. The function should be one of bridging gaps not jumping over things, Gaps can present themselves in numerous ways but under load the only way to get over obstacles is to step, vault or climb. As soon as jump is used to get over something you lose me.

Agreed to a point. True the majority of real melee conficts will involve a face off or struggle and could involve such a range of possible attacks as to make any attempt scream yep its video game. But I do like the Butt stroke idea as suggested above. Requiring multiple hits to incapacitate a target does reflect the to and fro nature of many melee attacks, the target is given some chance to get away and/or defend themselves, while a suprise attack from behind may still be quite effective. Its also a common military move and similar to bayoneting I would like to see them implemented on a modular basis so that mission and mod makers can decide. As a mil sim there is simply no room for awsome stabby buttons but as a sandbox there is scope for these as functions to help simulate other military periods and battles.

Jumping is out but 'leaping' to cross gaps is OK with limitations? Hmm could possibly live with that idea.

War-Ham-Moar!! Hey just noticed i cant shout...help, im being suppressed!

P85 old school all the way :cc:

^^ seriously its fun :P And though the no divine intervention argument has its smerits its propbably best this function is left to mission makers to decide how its used. As it could easily break a mission or be abused in MP if allowed en-masse. There is also other factors you could consider like wich divinity allowed you to drop your dacks and change uniform and be combat ready in the blink of an eye. Or wich divinity allowed you to get a perfectly wearable uniform from a body that has been shot 20 times and blown up by arty?

The boats seem to have a satchel position by default towards the front. But even as a Diver-explosive expert you have to be on shore to reach that point. http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=807

In another 12 months it may be difficult to find a noobish server that allows tags in MP.

I voted yes, because I want them, but dont honestly believe we need them. If they are included they need to end up in a noisy yelling, grunting tussel. So the victor is animation bound till the knifing is resolved, then he needs to get up from the ground and gather himself. I believe this is how the majority of knifing ends up. Sure there are tacticool methods that are very effective against deaf blind noobs, but over a decade of melee combat training showed me tacticool vs tacticool comes back to prolonged grunty fighting, they just dont scream as much. Probably more important than just demanding another feature, is finding out whether BIS has left a door open for MODs to develope this.

Ok read the thread title literally check the evidence in the first post then watch this vid And tell me you think that OFP terrain textures would be more realistic and an actual improvement over what we have. Also take into account that the scale of the satellite map for Stratis needs to be comparable to Altis or there is inconsistency in the product. So when talking Atlis scale Satmaps we are in fact many times (exponentially) larger than OFP maps. If you go back to post #39 you could also note that the ‘improved’ texture is also ‘blurrier ‘ than the original yet it was considered an improvement as its more realistic. I think this thread is a leg pulling exercise. Not that there is absolutely no room for improvement on the textures. But that the call is largely unnecessary and based on a false premise