Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

sethos

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    521

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by sethos

  1. Posted

    Has there been any statements regarding the vehicle damage model? Just hoping for something along the lines of the GL4 mod, instead of vehicles just turning black and a small bonfire starts in the middle. Love the idea of a disabled vehicle that might slowly catch fire, with the occasional complete explosion.

    Would also love something like I44's 'wreck' model, where the model is intact but fire pouring out from openings in the vehicle.

  2. Posted

    Adding TXAA shouldn't be hard or time consuming to implement, I don't see why anyone would mind just because they are on hardware that doesn't support it. Also, FXAA 4 is no longer in development, it has been cancelled due to the guy working on / with TXAA.

    As for the argument above, TXAA needs to be implemented by the developers. There is no injector or setting in the Nvidia control panel to force it.

  4. Posted

    It's kind of like complaining about players who have an advantage by having a higher resolution monitor to play on, at some point you just have to accept the vagaries of personal preference vs MP advantage/loss, which I heavily suspect is mostly imaginary anyway.

    Which doesn't make sense because higher pixel density isn't exactly an advantage, I have a 30" monitor running 2560x1600 and I can attest to that.

    I still think it needs a rework, reveals too much due to the LOD switching and makes it too easy. If the engine had no aggressive LOD switching, I wouldn't mind it too much.

  5. Posted · Edited by Sethos

    Mr Charles is correct. The "zoom in" view is actually the 1:1 view, the non-zoomed view is actually an artificial widening of the view for gameplay. The zoom feature is so that you're not losing the "realism" :)

    I'd disagree. I does provide a small level of actual zoom effect you would never get in 'real life' looking through the barrel of the scope. Plus, you get to enjoy the advantage on the game's LOD system, as you use this feature everything that isn't buildings basically LOD switches, which includes enemy troops and you can spot them easily. If this is a 1:1 view of what you see when looking through a scope, I'd love to know how I can get this in real-life because when I look through my M4 with a Ret Dot I certainly don't see this level of detail and zoom focus down range.

    I know it's not an actual zoom, just to make that clear but it feels like one due to some of the 'advantages' it brings that it really shouldn't, especially the engine hiccups.

  6. Posted · Edited by Sethos

    What I'd like to see from ArmA 3 is a bigger focus on free camera options, perhaps even 'machinima' options. In Mission Editor or when a certain module is placed in an SP scenario, you should be able

    to unhook freely from the character and move around, zoom, tilt and whatever you like - Perhaps even be able to set up easy 'recorded' camera movements. Also, the ability to pause / unpause a scenario would be sweet.

    Would love to see a native implementation, for better machinimas, screenshots and hopefully the free cam could work in multiplayer as a spectator mode alternative to the crow / seagull and would also allow a commander to have a battle overview if required or a trainer overview.

    EDIT: And if there's some really daft people who would think it'd be available everywhere, any time - No. It's of course defined in the mission itself by the maker and always available when in the mission editor.

  7. Posted

    You know that you can disable it from the the controls, don't you?

    That doesn't really help when everyone else is using it against you. People shouldn't have a quick button to eagle sight, especially in TvT scenarios.

    Would also help make multiplayer firefights more realistic, people actually spending ammunition and get in actual firefights. Too often it's just a matter of zooming in, one-two shot and on to the next target when the

    targets are way off.

  8. Posted

    You make it sound as if it's a bad thing. As if saying "game lacks support for this nice feature".

    It was being discussed in other places I believe: there is not a single video game in which HT enabled would give any benefits.

    Maybe you should stop assuming? I didn't say that, I didn't imply that whatsoever. The 970 is a 6 core, 6 thread CPU and as this game in fact no games support HT it would only be 6 physical cores max, and not that 12 mentioned - that was my point.

    I wasn't advocating for or against HT.

  10. Posted

    Imagine a system that can knock you down when hit, tunnel your vision when being shot and then recover, imagine being blasted with a 7.62 and then get knocked on your ass in that sweet back shooting animation they made, whilst still recovering with blur, hurt sounds stuff like that. Would love to see a system where getting shot means the player / character actually reacts.

  11. Posted

    Okay then I guess I'll contribute. I say leave it as it is. Whether its rubbish or not, the fact is its been implemented. There is no way to represent getting hit "realistically" and the blood splatter serves its purpose. I might have preferred blurring or something else along that those lines but the splatter does the job fine. It's already in, why bother waste the time and try to take it out, when it serves its purpose and makes barely, if any change to gameplay?

    Plenty of ways to convey getting shot, tons of ways actually that doesn't involve a crappy jelly screen and nothing else. It's a cheap, bad looking effect that does not belong in its current from in a military shooter. And by the extend of you saying they shouldn't change it because it doesn't effect gameplay - Why even bother developing a new graphics engine, fix a lot of cosmetic bugs and whatnot as many of them don't effect gameplay directly? Just fix up the old engine, add some animations and PhysX and get crackin'. I can see your side but it's a weak argument just to say "Leave it in just because". They put so much effort into little cosmetic stuff like muzzle flashes, heat hazes, how vegetation responds, lighting etc. why does something that pops up right in your face every time you get shot just get a free-pass of "Oh doesn't matter" when it looks genuinely bad and not just the overall effect, but the actual blood stains look really bad.

  12. Posted

    No offence guys, but isn't there far better things to discuss than the blood spatter on the screen? I mean it has a miniscule impact on actual gameplay and it seems like alot of you just hate on it because its like COD...

    No, if it sparked a discussion it's worth a discussion. Also, people don't hate it because it's in Call of Duty. People hate it because it's a rubbish and bad looking effect that suddenly made a huge influx in games after CoD started using it heavily.

  14. Posted · Edited by Sethos

    The blood on the screen is a great way to give you an indication that you have been hit.... there's no better and easier way to implement that. Or should I punch everbody in the stomach for the "real feel"?

    You sound like a typical Call of Duty player, no offence. This is a milsim game, not a happy arcade shooter. I don't need big indicators of my health, I don't need a big red flashing screen when I get hit. Oddly enough the game has worked fine in the past, yet now we need to go down the mainstream path? Normally the fact that you are dead, severely injured and drop to the ground or the sound of a bullet penetrating your stomach is usually enough of an indicator. Maybe they could add the Unreal Tournament sounds when we get a lot of kills as well? "Ultra kiiiiill"

    The jelly screen is a casual indicator derived from awful console games, shouldn't be in ArmA - We have done without it.

  15. Posted

    You realise the jello can be fixed in 10 seconds, unlike the new animations system, which, apparently, you guys don't care about.

    Yes I do, so we can't comment on it due to the time it takes to fix? Lots of issues with games today that could be fixed in 2 minutes but nothing gets added or removed unless the developer says so.

  16. Posted

    Good lord, you guys are beefing about everything. That sucks... Simply take what you get.... I think the blood adds a whole new level of immersion, even it isn't very realistic....

    You don't have to like everything. The jelly hit screen is a product of Call of Duty and every other subsequent triple A shooter the consoles have seen, it does not belong in a milsim.

  18. Posted

    mind you if there was a coupon or something similar to get the price you paid off of the game at a later time I would be OK with that.

    No need for a coupon, P&C you get the actual game as well. Look at the Carrier Command P&C:

    Become a P&C Supporter by providing ultimate development assistance; receive beta-access, a digital copy of the full-final game from Store.bistudio.com and Steam, plus the Gaea Universe soundtrack!

    I'm sure it would be exactly the same with an ArmA III P&C

    And you are right about the nightmare concerning explaining Beta / Alpha to the 'common man' and the same will happen here. The casual fanbase will judge it like a retail product no matter what sticker you slap on it.

  20. Posted

    Well, very much seems like it's open, and I have no problem with that. And, you know what, what's the big deal about those people complaining about it being broken? Will that somehow prevent BIS from releasing ArmA3? NO. Let them complain, if they will even test it.

    It's called bad publicity. And no, the "any publicity is good publicity" moniker don't work for a monetary controlled business venture. Seriously, have you people worked in any sort of business position? You can add as many overlays and notices you want and it'll have minimal effect. Even Battlefield 3 'Beta' was a huge PR blunder terms of what they showed off was completely contradictory to the game's true essence - Large scale, open combat which Operation Metro was the complete opposite of. Luckily heavy PR, a strong brand and showing the opposite helped them out. We keep hearing how Bohemia want to reach a wider audience, because right now the entire franchise is fairly niche at its core. Even was a study some months ago how demos and betas had a huge negative impact on how the public perceived the games whilst trailers was the most positive.

    ArmA 2 is infamous for all its perceived jank and problems, releasing a PUBLIC alpha of its sequel, bound to get a ton of attention after a huge influx of interest from the Day Z mod is a PR disaster as the same problems, jank and performance issues will rear its ugly head - No matter how many Alpha stickers and notices you slap on there, it will get received negatively in the groups they wish to attract. And no, 'let them complain' is just stupid, this isn't playground rules of "I don't care, can't hear you lalala" BIS are actually running a business here and they need all the PR traction they can get.

    So unless they want yet another Armed Assault, ArmA 2 situation they need to keep the Alpha locked down behind selective testing, P&C or any sort of mechanism that will only entice people who are familiar with the games history and can handle those kind of problems. It's not a demo, it's not meant to persuade people who are unsure about the game to buy it, it's meant to be an actual test to iron out problems and it does NOT make sense to release that kind of alpha for a game know for those problems, to a huge Day Z enticed audience.

    And no, don't give the general public too much credit on how they read into alpha, betas and tests in general.

×