almanzo

So I tried the dev branch today and the new rotorlib for the first time and I must say that I am intrigued. Having just bought DCS Huey and Black Shark 2 and started my heli career there I've found this very interesting. Keep in mind, I don't have many hours of flight in DCS behind me yet, maybe 10 hours or so trying to wrap my head around it, but there are a few differences from the get go that was a bit strange. First of all, using the trim was rather difficult, much more difficult than DCS due to the lack of visual refrerence (the small hud thing that DCS has as an option is really helpful). Also, all of the choppers beheaved differently than I expected when taking off. I struggled really really hard to achieve a ground hover on ground effect, and the chopper seemed to bank very steeply to the right (way more than expected). I don't know if this is just me, but it felt hard to control. At the same time, the input lag people talk about was difficult to cope with as well. Flying with autotrim on and using mouse and keyboard was actually much easier. I felt I had better control, and I was able to be more efficient with the Littlebird than I was with the stick. It does take some time to unlearn the old ARMA flight model techniques though, especially the throttle control, but I welcome the challenge. I was rather decent at flying prior to the model change, now I feel like a complete noob again :P All in all, my impressions is that we are on the right path, but in terms of how it should behave I will leave that to the people here who knows their stuff.

The only thing I don't like about ARMA 3 is that it is a little bit to "easy" to use. In ARMA II, everybody could of course jump into a Hummer, man the turret and be able to kill enemies. But being efficient in it, you needed training. From a gameplay perspective, having one player spot and lead fire while the gunner had to adjust the sights related to the distance based on the report given from the assistant gunner was really, really cool. In ARMA 3 on the other hand, all assets have you sitting inside a relatively safe vehicle with range finding and zoomable optics on the most basic armed vehicle available. If this is realistic or not is one thing, I guess it might be in 2035 or when ever the game is set... But it is not much fun. You are not at risk at getting shot by small arms fire, neither does it require much skill since you can both zoom AND read accurate distance measurements from the optic and aiming system alone. Then of course, is the issue of the copy pasting. In ARMA II (and all of the other titles in the series) each faction had unique vehicles with unique features, benefits and drawbacks. Different calibers, rates of fire and different weapon systems made knowing both your own equipment and the enemy equipment important for survival. Also, it was much easier to differ between enemy and foe. The lack of variety I can actually live with. As long as each faction is capable of deploying troop transportation for both small and large teams with weapon systems, LAVs, tanks, artillery and various other assets I am ok. The current amount of vehicles for the military factions is ok, but the generic nature of them is simply horrid. Add the fact that modding vehicles for ARMA III is more difficult, both due to the higher resolution of the models and the need to config Physx makes this matter worse. And another aspect, the amount of bullets needed to kill, even though ballistic vests might save you in real life, it shouldn't let you continue to fight like nothing happened. And of course, performance, even though they are really, really working on it. However, there are alot of really, really cool improvements in ARMA III. Physx is a welcome addition, the movement is drastically improved, the stances are simply awesome. The new maps are freaking impressive (even though Chernarus is my all time favorite ARMA map), the improvements down the line with heli flight model, sling loading, fireing from vehicles and the improved marksmanship is very, very cool features. The AI have been drasticly improved, and the weather, lightning effects, graphical fidelity and so on are simply staggering. Oh, and the radio protocol. Smooth job! There are alot of great things in ARMA III that I miss when playing ARMA II, but it does indeed go both ways. But what stands out most for me in ARMA III is the lack of focus. Some of the changes introduced gives the impression of a less realistic and more casual type of game, while some other new features makes it more hard core and unforgiving than it has ever been. It's a bit confusing, to be honest. I do welcome the new efforts done to ease new players into ARMA with the bootcamp, and I think the campaign is suprisingly good (Not CWR good, far from it... but good. Way better than ARMA II).

Viking19: I loved NorFor for OFP, especially the MB with the cute little sign on the back saying "Du er kanskje raskere, men vi har våpen" (You might be faster, but we have guns) That said, thank you very much for this mod Vasilyevich! I love seeing my country represented in the ARMA verse! I am just a bit curious on why you decided to make it, since your not from here? Can you explain why? ^^ Again, this is pure brilliance!

Have you read "The zombie autopsies"? It is a rather amazing book, where the humanitarian status of zombies are actually debated in terms of medical ethics. When is it ok to dissect a zombie in order to study them? Read it, it must be quite interesting for someone in your line of work. It's rather well written, too. And I have a question: The rules states that any contribution to the contest are only allowed to use CBA. I would like to participate in this part of the contest, about health care in danger. My idea is simply to make a mission featuring some of the challanges to humanity war proposes, but in that regard the stock ARMA 3 assets simply doesn't cover it. Therefore, I simply ask if there is any way to allow the use of "All in ARMA" by Kju, of course if given permission by .Kju and Bohemia Interactive studios. The reason I wan't to use said assets is simply due to the fact that there is humanitarian units in "All in ARMA", assets that stems from ARMA II Operation Arrowhead. They would prove an invaluable asset in a contest like this, for people who would like to make missions but doesn't have the skill to do modeling work or stuff like that.

I would just say that I am most likely going to participate in this segment of the contest, and only this segment. I think it's great of both BIS to do this, and of your organization Christian. I guess it will be a mission, but we'll see sometime soon.

Yet women serve in combat roles in armies around the entire globe. This is nothing but ethnocentric bullshit. I served with women as a conscript, I was an engineer. We shared camp with the second batallion of our army, they had women in all levels. Female recruits, privates, sargents, leutenants and captains served with me. Their effort was just as good as their male counter parts.

I do honestly think that they didn't foresee how popular the editor and modding possibilities would get with ofp. I think of video games as culture, and as the most powerful medium known to man in terms of story telling, and I also view the ARMA platform to be one of the most powerful tools to explore military story lines. The only campaign even close to explore that has been the old Ofp one, and it's one of the best experiences I have ever had in a game. I'm only saying that you are missing out bigtime ;) Only the old OFP campaign is worth playing though, in my opinion. But damn is it worth it :P that being said, of course modding and the editor is what keeps arma alive.

My first thought was also to make an exclude list instead of a list of vehicles to actually spawn. Must be easier to maintain than an allowed spawn list.

I agree completely, especially since vehicle sounds are so extremely loud that they simply destroy ACRE and teamspeak in game. My slider for "effects" is set to allmost nothing due to this, but it's sad that I'm not able to enjoy firefights as much as I would if I could only turn down vehicle sounds.

But you are still completely missing the point. I bought all previous DLC's from BIS, due to the fact that I knew that every single person would be able to use said DLC's in the exact same manner as me. I knew that my community would use content from said DLC's in our missions, because our mission makers new that everybody in our community could use said assets if present in the mission. I play in a community with 40+ people, most likely a bunch of our members are not going to buy the DLC, thus making it impossible for our mission makers to include them in missions. We can't have slot limitations based on DLC ownership. No matter how you look at it, my community will most likely never used DLC assets in our game sessions. Now tell me, is there any reason for me to buy the DLCs, considering the fact that I'll never get to use them, since 90% of my time spent in ARMA is with my community? No, there isn't. That's the problem. Instead of giving me an incentive to buy, it's giving me a strong incentive to not buy it. There is no valid reason for me to get them, due to the fact that I am hardly going to have a use for them. That's the main issue here, and it's true for a large portion of the community, especially organized coop players. In addition, you have mods like TacBF that 100% relies on balanced gameplay and having assets at the mission makers control. I am willing to bet that TacBF won't use DLC content in their mod. Not a chance they will. And yet, I agree. BIS aren't doing this out of greed, and it's pretty obvious they are looking for a solution that doesn't tamper with the community. It's not a good idea for them either, despite becomming less influenctial, the organized coop crowd is still an essential part of the ARMA community. They care about what we say, and I have faith that they'll find a better solution to all this.

To all of those "omg this is a military sim, go carts have no place wtf". Tell me what Altis would look like without any civillian presence. No cars, no people, no vehicles nothing. Assets like this can help alot for mission makers to create scenarios that feels alive. The devil is in the details. One of the things that bothers me most with ARMA 3 compared to ARMA 2 is the lack of variaty in the civillian faction. No civillian planes or choppers, only modern cars, no police cars, no firetrucks, no utility vehicles, NO TRACTOR!!!!!, no women... the list goes on. Now, karts wouldn't be the first thing I would make in order to improve on the civillian faction (I would very much like women), but hey, it's more civillian content. Imagine someone making a sp campaign having a small mission at the start of it or a cut scene of the main protagonist at the track letting off some steam before the whole war breaks loose. Not unlikely. Just like the original operation flashpoint, where all of the guys from the game meet up after the war to have a beer with the main protagonist flying there in his small civillian plane. I loved that mission, especially considering these guys never take a rest. Even after the war and in civil, they walk in formation and talk to eachother by military chargon :P

My guess is the marksman DLC

I fully agree, but this has been debated over and over again. I doubt we'll see female soldiers in ARMA III, but I hope we'll at least have our female civillians back. I guess the population of Altis are very conservative, locking up their women at home not allowing them to go outdoors.

My biggest concern, as stated several times are if I get to play it due to my time being spent primarly in my community and secondary in TacBF. We have costom repos for my community, not an issue. But I am pretty sure not all of our members are going to buy the DLC, that means they are not going to be used in our missions, simple as that. ---------- Post added at 01:05 ---------- Previous post was at 00:51 ---------- Strange as it is, there is allready a mod out that allows full usage of the kart dlc, and in the very mod thread, a BIS dev stated that they are ok with said mod... Weird thing, you can find the link somewhere in this monster of a thread...

I honestly don't mind the fact that they desided to release content they made for fun, considering the fact that alot of people requested them to do so. And I also am very grateful that they decided to test their new DLC scheme on a smaller scale first in order to get feedback. I was a tad suprised that they charged for it though.

I am pretty sure game modes like Altis Life and so forth will have the new DLC's, in many scenarios and missions I agree that it's not an issue. It's mostly an issue for communities and for large scale PvP. I can pretty much guarantee you that you will not be able to use your DLC content on Tactical Battlefield or as a member of a coop community. Now, alot of people in said communities are going to buy the DLC regardless. They will have limited use for them though. A community can't adopt policies that excludes a huge portion of their player base, recruitment is hard enough as it is. I don't know, but I am pretty sure that people who play in communties represent a rather big portion of the ARMA community. ARMA III have caused an influx in new players, but coop communities has allways been the backbone of ARMA, along with people who play singleplayer content. And I would like to end this post with a polite request, can we please stop accusing people of wanting a free ride? It's pretty obvious that those who voice concerns are considering not to buy out of fair that they won't be able to use the new DLC content if they buy.

First point, I am pretty sure most people here have read the information. It's rather rude to insinuate that other people are lazy in order to try to win an argument. Second: Point me to one person actually stating that not being able to play content they haven't payed for is an issue for them? Most people who complain plan to buy the DLC, but are worried mission makers will keep away from using them due to balancing issues. third: Most people do indeed realize that BI tries as hard as they can to avoid splitting the community, and nobody except one post accused BIS of being greedy (and that person also appologized for his post and retracted his statement). BIS asked for feedback, as they allways do, and with BIS and their track record, I am pretty sure they are following this thread quite closely. No one here wants to cheat BIS out of their money. Forth: This is a sticky situation. My suggestion is to run with the old system, that way I know I'll be able to play with the content I'm buying. I wouldn't hessitate to buy that season pass for both my ARMA III accounts the moment I know everyone will have access some way. And your DayZ argument doesn't make sense. DayZ came a very long time after Arrowhead was released and instead of being a DLC it was a full fledged stand alone expantion pack offering shitloads of content. And the majority of DayZ players didn't even own ARMA II in the first place, they litterarly bought the game in order to play the mod, the game itself didn't interest them. It's not even remotely comparable. ---------- Post added at 13:27 ---------- Previous post was at 13:25 ---------- Addons and mods are not behind a paywall, DLC content are. Very huge difference.

First of all, alot of people who are complaining about this, are in fact content makers and people who have bought or are considering buying the DLC. I am probably not going to buy it myself, and the reason is simple. I mainly play ARMA in my community, we are about 30-40 players. In order for us to take advantage of the DLC's in our missions, we basicly need everybody to own them. If I buy them now, and some in my group don't I am basicly never going to get to play with them as I allmost only play with my community. In addition to playing with my community, I play Tactical battlefield on public servers. Now, tactical battlefield, being a mod, struggles to populate servers consistently. Some of the DLC's down the line has alot of potential for that mod, but with a lock on new content for a huge portion of the players it's a very huge gamble to take for the mod developers. Include the assets and risk completely unbalancing the entire mod or leave em out so that the entire community can play. I am pretty sure they'll opt for the last option, meaning that the people who buy the DLC won't get to use it on Tactical battlefield servers (especially considering that there are about 1 - 2 populated servers only during evenings). And now too your last point. Arrowhead took some time to pick up speed. I also bought the other DLC's for ARMA 2. I haven't used half of the content in them, as there are allmost no missions or servers using the content. Especially considering Army of the Chech Republic, not even single player missions, a complete waste of my money. I have hardly used any of the maps. Now. The content in the announched DLC's are really, really interesting. I would gladly pay for them if I knew that they would be USED in the community at large in multiplayer. As it is now, it's highly unlikely that they will be incorporated in the majority of gamemodes I play, so most likely if I buy them, it will be so that I can play around with them in the editor. Why should I bother paying for something I am not going to get to use? I simply don't see any point in buying them as it is now, despite the fact that they show a lot of promise. I honestly think that BIS didn't think this one through, and they are also quite open about not knowing if this approach is going to be a good one. These are my thoughts, and I am begging for any word that can ease my concern. I'll buy the DLC if I am able to use it regularly, but as it is now that sounds unlikely. I also must say I think using the Kart DLC as a test was a good idea, it has minor implications for the community. They offer nothing in terms of balance, only a cool, nifty little thing to goof around with. Please realize that it's a bad idea. BIS aren't greedy, and the philosophy behind it is quite obviously to do as little harm as possible while making sure that they'll get a steady stream of revenue. I have nothing against that, I wish that revenue from ARMA 3 will keep on flowing for ages in order to help further develop my favorite game. I have no problem paying more money for ARMA III, I have allways gotten my moneys worth from BIS, and I have bought every single title from bis several times. (7 copies of OFP GOTY (no kidding), one copy of ARMA goty, 2 copies of ARMA 2, 2 copies of Arrowhead, 1 copy of ARMA X anniversary edition and 2 copies of ARMA 3, including all DLC's and expantions for all games at least once for each title.) The big deal, as FrankForsyth requests to know, isn't that people who don't pay get screwed over. The big deal is that people who do indeed buy the DLC's most likely will have a very limited window to actually use said DLC's due to all the people who don't have them. I am just starting as a mission maker, it's quite obvious that I am not going to include any DLC assets in my missions unless they are made up of ONLY DLC content.

The norwegian army has a small project using VR to improve orientation and maneuverability in armored vehicles using VR technology. Simply by using occulus rift and 4 cameras mounted on the hull of the APC, they give the operators of the vehicles 360 degrees view around the vehicle and very accuratly allows maneuvers that else would require the crew to drive with open hatches. Now, this is at the current time very experimental, but given the time frame of ARMA 3, and the cost of these systems in the future, it would sound reasonable to allow this technology also in ARMA III. What do you think about this, dear community? http://www.sweclockers.com/nyhet/17778-norska-armen-kor-stridsvagn-med-oculus-rift

TacBF?

There are quite alot of servers locking third person, and for people who think 3rd person breaks immersion, this could be a blessing. I would love to have it for backing up with tanks and stuff, or moving around in tight spaces. I never use third person personally.

Poor Bohemia Interactive! No matter how awesome the news, the fans will allways expect the impossible, forcing them to never be able to meet their fans expectations :P

I really, really like'em both, but the helicopter DLC is what I am looking forward to the most. Actually, helis and sniping are the two features I really enjoy the most in the game, so the news came as very welcome indeed. It seems Bohemia does indeed lissen to the community again, most of the last roadmap consisted of community requested features, and it suits the progress and the game nicely. I also think the boot camp idea was great. The launcher I'm not that excited about though. I love PwS, and will most likely continue to use it.

Hi! I've been playing the fixed wing showcase, and as a mission, I really, really enjoy it. However, anything but direct fire is simply useless. I can't get a lock on vehicles that are even right in front of me, it's allmost impossible to target anything. In order to get a lock on the helicopter in the begginning of the mission, I must be within 300 meters in order to do so. When flying over 500 km/h it's kind of hard to do. I can't recall this being so darn hard in ARMA II? And as another person here says, getting a lock with the laser bombs is impossible too. The mission informs me of a team designating a target, it doesn't show up at all.

I was able to figure out the cause of my issue. I had "lock on or zoom" bound to the "T" key (the key I used and intended it to be bound to), but I also needed to bind the "T" key to "reveal target". I had only "lock or zoom" bound to it, and so it would lock, but only when looking straight at it at very, very close distance. Now we know why this occours. I don't know why they have seperate keybinds for the two. So if anyone has the same problem, bind both "reveal target" AND "lock on or zoom" to the same key.