Sniperwolf572

You can't, it's a regression in relation to Arma 2. You can't even freelook around. There are a lot of attachTo regressions in Arma 3 that need to be addressed which are severely limiting it's use.

I'm expecting that it will probably be around 4 missions, each about the length of the "Armed Assault" showcase.

Have you tried turning it off and on again? ;)

I think you're confusing BF2 and BF1942, BF2's carriers were static pieces of scenery and there were no battleships. BF1942's on the other hand could be moved, but in all videos of people actually driving carriers in BF1942, the deck seems to be empty.

They've restocked on keys, so you've still got a chance.

This is coming from another thread, but my reply wouldn't really fit into the scripting discussion, so I'll plant it here. I have to say, they're all spot on rants. Many silly things are explained as "design decisions" and then they go and contradict themselves, like that watch thing where the explained design decision contradicts itself and gets closed because it's not a bug. It's awesome that we have a lot of amazing features in the game and there's a lot of care for expanding things and I commend BI on it, but the constant lack of that finishing touch which would make 90% of features in the game fucking awesomely perfect are missing. I hope that will change eventually. :( I was amazed how customizable the back end for weapons and attachment is, how much thought and effort the programmers have put into making sure the whole thing isn't limited arbitrarily. Even before the compatibleItems change, which then goes on and improves on it even more, you could create custom rails for weapons and you can define which proxy slot they will use, nothing there is hardcoded where I had assumed differently before. And then on the attachments side the only limit is which inventory slot the attachment will use. It feels magical. You go on to create a custom rail, add the rail to the weapon, whitelist some attachments, launch the game and it "just works". Before I had assumed they made the system just so people don't have to create a clusterfuck of variants for the weapons like before within a single weapon pack, but that proved me wrong when I realized the above. And then, I realized what had happened and why the attachments ended up being so limited. The lack of thought in regards to the interface. One example. Give your loaded GL grenade to someone else. Tough luck.

Favicon also seems to be the default vB one instead of the BI one.

Yeah, and you can't smell it.

Would be nice if they were indeed inventory items with a ground model, we can spawn them in holders and make them world clutter easy. So might as well have both. Anyway, F35 is now in game. :p

I agree, it's an incredibly splendid improvement compared to what we used to have. You can get some nice sideways results by forcing the wind to extremes, but then the clouds move way too fast as well as other wind influenced things. Hopefully the further planned improvements will go into a bit more details like bringing back the rain splashes on the ground, rain sounds for different surfaces (like metal or canvas roofs of objects/vehicles) and whatnot.

If you put terrain detail below "High" parallax map for the ground will be turned off which will "fix" the problem, but will also mean losing the detail that the parallax map brings and the distance the ground clutter is rendered will be shorter.

Having tried it, it was/is useless. It's on a worse level of "better than nothing" than Arma 3 currently is. All the movement you see in that video is either due to plane moving and players "slipping", players trying to stay with the plane by running in the same direction it's flying or the clipping through the plane.

Don't worry, here, I found you a soapbox. :cool: ---------- Post added at 13:49 ---------- Previous post was at 13:33 ---------- "I have x-ray vision" "To prove you have x-ray vision, I've placed a pearl under one of these 1000 opaque cups, you have to find it" "I pick the first one" "Nope, I lied, there is no pearl" "Well at least I was definitely spot on for the rest of the 999 cups so that proves that I have x-ray vision!" :rolleyes:

It's obviously not a review. I'm not sure what you expected from a video titled "ARMA 3 - Performance and Graphics Analysis". ;)

While a few points are brought across that I agree with, this was my impression as well, the more the video went on, the more cringy it became. And it's not limited to the Arma 3 video, the only other content, BF4 video, I get the same cringy feeling. Then I looked at the channel to see who "we" that he refers to are and realised it's basically someone that created a channel and refers to himself as "we" as if to project authority.

Had the same, voted 7 hours ago and tried a couple of times then with that same message. Tried it now and got the game. As Tony says, a bit of patience required. :)

That's ok, just explaining why it was done as you came to the wrong conclusion because the game never explains to you what's going on. :) You throw a grenade, then your grenade key isn't working for the next few seconds for whatever arcane reasons, then it magically works again at about the same time the grenade you threw earlier goes off. There's no animation happening, the usual procedure of the weapon text going Red (weapon not ready) > Yellow (weapon almost ready) > White (Weapon ready!) is not implemented for grenades and you end up scratching your head. :confused: While the ticket I linked above does not mention the "One-man-AGL" problem (and it affects more than just grenades) it solves it neater than the current solution does. Stuff in the backpack is not ready accessible, acts as a portable container, no "balancing" explanations that someone has to point out on the forums, it's grounded well in reality and intuitive. Yeah, but that's a rare case that can't exactly be widely applied to the type of grenade throwing that's in Arma.

Same here in regards to the performance. I couldn't stand playing before because of it.

That's not what's happening, and technically it's not a bug. It has nothing to do with the grenade exploding. They've introduced an artificial delay in throwing the same type of grenades intentionally, as to fix the "I've-loaded-myself-with-99-grenades-and-I'm-a-one-man-automatic-grenade-launcher" problem. It's been reported in the changelogs and if you pay attention, you can notice that you can throw a grenade then a smoke grenade/glowstick in a rapid fashion. While I'm ok with a delay, I believe it should be shorter and be shared between all throwables and that they could have solved it in a much better way that adds some gameplay value and the need to think about the relationship between your backpack and uniform/vest. Unfortunately, instead of treating the cause of it, they've chosen to treat the effect in a way that's not correctly communicated to the player. :(

Comparing it to the KB+M is futile I think, as that's not the goal of it, nor is it supposed to improve on that. Compare it to the Xbox controller or DualShock. The thing I don't like about it is that there's a lot of "drag, lift thumb, drag" when large movements are involved, which doesn't seem to beat even the analog stick which you can simply hold in a direction. It might be mitigated by being able to adjust the sensitivity of the trackpad on the fly.

If you haven't already found it, there's a forum group for all the people offering their vocal services, it can be found here. Always nice to have more vocal people around to make the missions sound more immersive. :D

The addon adds new pistols and accessories for them, doesn't replace anything. You should be able to add an ammo box in the mission editor that has all the content from this addon, it's under:

I just tried executing both and I get no errors, it properly hints the fuel. There might be some errors in whatever is being executed above that in your script.

Maybe they're not making the ones that have it on? These exist in Arma 2.

Thanks for explaining this .kju, I'm looking forward to it being expanded. :) As the configs in replacement mods are 99% about inheritance, I'd love to see the config inheritance itself explained into detail a bit as a separate topic, with abstract examples/classes, so people can understand the nature of what they're doing and what's going on instead of just copy-pasting it and using it as a black box. Especially since inheritance itself to me seems quirky coming from other languages. What seems to work for base classes, doesn't seem to work if it's nested deeper and then there seems to be a certain way you have to dance with the engine if the classes you want to inherit from don't appear in the same config file, etc. I question my sanity at times, but I guess that's what I get for missing out on this stuff for two engine iterations. :) Deadfast has pointed out to me some time ago for one of my own addons that it's now (with Arma 3) possible for script mods to be launched without XEH, via CfgFunctions. Take a look at the config here, should be self explanatory as the only other thing in there is the script that it launches.