almanzo

Well, since this was a much smaller issue before the update, the engine limitations must have increased significantly since the last update then... It's not about playing ninja, quite a large portion of the community does like to play milsim scenarios where nvgs isn't an option. One good examples is insurgents or militia forces using guerilla tactics to go into a facility to either sabotage or steal gear and equipment. Another one is playing in different time periods. Most people in milsim communities doesn't play with the vanilla asset, but use mods exactly to be able to play with lower tech vehicles and gear. Using a Hummer with an M2 is way more fun than using a Hunter, for instance, as using the Hummer effectively requires training, coordination, communication and skill, while in the Hunter it only requires you to adjust the range, zoom in and fire away. Low tech is often more fun in gameplay terms. Missions without nvgs using flash lights and flares can be alot of fun, given that the equipment actually works. Spotting enemies based on their muzzle flash, using flares effectively, adapting movement speed in order to better control where you can see and such... all of these things are interesting and challanging, and way more fun than just smacking a set of NVGs on and go. And in regards to real nvgs, there are plenty of people on these forums who have used them in real life. Dslyexci himself has made a mod adressing the clearity of ingame nvgs, you can see that here: It's not just about the range, it's more about the clarity of the image, the field of view and the brightness of it rather than range alone. I would love to hear the input of people who has served using nvgs though, so if anyone can I'd love to hear it. Why does this matter so much to you? Would you really mind more effective lights? I'm not suggesting to make the nights brighter here, only to improve light sources. Back in ARMA II, this was way, way better, especially flares. If someone popped a flare it would light up a huge area, now they allmost doesn't work at all.

Uhm, whats your point here? What I am complaining about is that flashlights, flares and so on are to weak to be of any use... I can go buy a flashlight for pocket change that is more useful than the ones in ARMA, and thats the point here. Up close, these things are so bright they'll blind you, and the contrast to the rest of the night is insane, while at the same time you can't see more than 5 meters in front of you... I haven't made a single complaint about how dark the night is, I live in Norway where we have night all day long during winter... I know how dark a night is (on a brighter note, our nights are bright as day during summer :D What I am complaining about is how terribly ineffective light sources are in the game, while NVGs on the other hand, is much more powerful than their real life counter part. Even enemy flashlights are really, really dim... A flashlight in real life can be seen from a very, very long distance during a night, so there is definately a tradeoff to use them.

Did they have night vision during WW II? If not, did they still fight at night? Do all insurgent groups have night vision today? If not, do they still not fight at night? Of course not having night vision will make it way, way harder to fight at night, but it is most certainly not as horrid as this. Flashlights actually has a beam that goes further than a couple of meters in front of you in real life. Night ops without NVGs are fun

Agreed, it makes NVGs a requirement for night ops, and thats such a shame

Metalcraze: I don't know if you can do anything about it, or if it's a limitation with the new lightning system, but the greens in the brightest versions of your screen shots (the top example in both) seem just to bright and to light green. I've noticed this on the other maps as well, the colors seem a bit odd. Are you able to tweak these values for individual maps? This looks like a huge improvement though, thank you!

Lol :P Works exactly as intended, it's not a bug, it's a feature!

Brightcandle from my community Charlie Foxtrot Operations has made a nice video to compare performance in Tanoa to Altis.

thats 15 years ago though... If we went by your philosophy we would all be playing in the VR map, I don't know if you've noticed, but performance is great in the VR map...

I completely agree, and I don't mind the lack of furniture in Altis at all. It would have been nice, sure. But the issue here is that buildings actually plays a HUGE tactical part in CQB. Having to clear them is one thing, but they also provide cover and as hiding spots. Planning to clear a town in Tanoa will be horrible, as you have to either know each model by heart in order to know what buildings are enterable and wich ones isn't, or you'll risk running into some very unpleasant surprises. Legging it to a building for cover, only to find that it's not possible to enter it is horrible. That, and the fact that these buildings lack so many windows. The shutters should be interactive or not present imo, as they reduce the usefulness of buildings quite significantly, and this is quite frankly stupid. Furthermore, from what I've seen so far, alot of, if not most of the multistoried buildings that ARE enterable, only has the first floor enterable. We use two story buildings all the time as base of fire and as observation posts in my group. In Tanoa most of these buildings are simply useless. Unfortunately, this makes the map less useful and quite booring. The tactical potential of being able to use buildings is MASSIVE in a milsim like environment, that this is what we get is quite dissappointing. Oh, and it's quite weird to add a map that is so forest heavy considering how insanely superhuman the AI is in forests. I'm very dissappointed in Tanoa thus far, even thought it looks great!

I noticed this as well, and I assume it is inteded. What it seems to do is to limit the sensitivity of TrackIR a lot while aiming down sights in order to make it easier to center the sights. Furthermore, I think this is also an attempt to solve the issue where you can look around while aiming down zoomed optics. The RCO has had this issue since beta, where you could look down the scope and look around with the same amount of zoom as the scope has, as the view wasn't locked when zoomed in as it should be.

I would really much like the possibility to tweak the color scheme more, the new update brings a more bluish tint, compared to the older, more yellow approach and palette that has been with us somewhat since at least ARMA II. There are things I like with the update, but the colors hurt my eyes and look very unnatural, especially on modded maps. Chernarus in particular. This is especially true for the greens, the grass looks way off and way to light, and the airport at Stratis has a weird orange field in front of it now that just looks very unnatural.

Seriously, 20-30 fps is about 10 fps lower than what I get when playing with my community. I did play the armed assault showcase yesterday and occationally dipped below 30 with everything set to highest settings and draw distance and object distance at 3000. When playing with my community though, I typically hit around 37 - 45 fps depending on the map we play on, and that is with a mod set of above 20 mods total. And that is on an I7 920 overclocked at 3,8 ghz, a CPU that is 7 years old now. My GPU is a 7970 and I have 24gb of system memory.

I would like to take this opportunity, for someone who have complained alot in the past, to congratulate BIS on a job well done with the latest patch. Midrange and longrange textures on Altis looks much better, the new sound engine is miles ahead of the old one and I also would like to say that I'm liking 3den alot so far!

Unlikely, as it seems the new LITE version is removing some of the scripted functionality in IF, such as parts falling of or the armor system. I don't know if you've used the old IF Full mod with other mods or vanilla content, but if you have you would have noticed that vanilla AT or even vehicles doesn't do damage to the Iron Front tanks at all, none of ARMA 3 weapons did as the system in Iron Front was scripted. Seems like this is increasingly difficult to support and it makes it very difficult for mod compability across mods, so I can understand the decition. Sad though, really sad.

I would love to see a video demonstrating it.

Thanks! I was hoping that you could fix the camera on a target so that it would stay on it, and I confused CCIP with that. I had a feeling that I was wrong. From your video, I take it it's not possible to fix the camera then? Just to be sure, I mean like this: https://youtu.be/-hbv-GTRniI?t=60

I'm 30 years old and have played the series since OFP... It's a feature I know little about though, and I have no issue with learning from others who are more competent at that particular area, as I'm mainly infantry focused myself. My knowlege of the real life counterparts are very lacking, and if I have understood the target pod feature correctly, it requires a copilot?

Wait, what?! What kind of servers are you running on dude? I have a old I7 920 oc @ 3,8 ghz and an AMD 7970 with 24 gb ram and I run the game between 30 and 55 fps in multiplayer... Then again, I don't play public servers, and definately not wasteland or anything like it.

Life and RP servers has been around since ARMAs inception. So in that regard, there is nothing new here. The increase in popularity is rather odd though, I must admit. It used to be a very small community of likeminded people. I guess this is one of the obvious drawback of ARMA and DayZs sudden commercial success. There is a market for scams and exploits now, sadly. I would love to see a class action lawsuit from modders exploited, but yeah.

I completely disagree, if there is one thing ARMA III is lacking, it's more vehicles, units and gear. And in particular, I find the civillian faction really lacking. No women, very few cars, only tourist models, no public transport, no service vehicles, nothing. I like the carts, as they serve as perfect props. But it wouldn't be my first choice when expanding on the civillian faction. Women, however...

If there is one thing my community has experienced, it's that the AI is way too good in forested areas. We spend a lot of time tweaking our AI to find the sweet spot between them being too good and too terrible, and I am pretty satisfied in how we have achieved this. However, all of our tweaking goes out the window once we take contact in heavily forested areas. Therefore, I have given some thought into how to solve this relatively easy. I can't seem to find it now, but I did find references to "forest" in the wiki, and if you look at the map there are defined areas where there are forests and where there are not. In addition, there is also own areas of towns and so on. I don't know if this is a feature of the engine itself, but one example would be ALIVE, that in some way defines areas as different things in order to make objectives for both AI and players. So, my suggestion is simply that you have an engineside check that checks if the AI (or the target of the AI, I don't know wich method works the best) is within a forest, and if it is, the spotting and aiming skill values are lowered as long as the requirements is present. This would make the AI way more fun than they currently are in forests. And yes, I am aware that the AI can't see through trees, however, they see perfectly between trees, while players do not. Camoflauge has an impact on us, but not so much on the AI. They will see us if we are between trees while we might not. I think this is quite high priority, especially given the setting for Tanoa. Fighting the current AI in a jungle scenario sounds like a nightmare.

Since you approach this in such a civil manner, I would like to give you some insight into where I find coop to have it's strenghts over PvP. As someone who has played Coop since basicly 2009 and who is at least somewhat regular as a Tactical Battlefield PvP player. This is how close you'll currently get to what you are requesting. It is not due to the lack of players, or the ease of hacking. It's not due to any lack of "balls" either, I enjoy PvP for what it is, but it's far from the same as COOP for some obvious reasons. Most of the scenarios we play, involve attacking a town or a base where the attack comes as a surprise for the enemy. Doing guard duty in PvP doesn't really cut it, as you conciously know that someone is going to attack you and thus you would act differently than a unprepared soldier defending his base. Furthermore, doing guard duty is quite booring, especially if you are in the heart of the AO, having to wait for the opposition to clear out the surrounding area, do recon work and so forth. The main advantage of COOP is the ability to provide realistic and believable scenarios in a wide variety of ways where PvP simply can not compete. Our sessions last from 30 minutes to around 2 hours and we play without respawn. To die doing a small patrol mission early on simply defending would not constitute fun gameplay, but it's quite essential for milsim to work. PvP is very, very different from coop. You can hardly compare them, as they fulfill different roles. As much as I really do enjoy Tactical Battlefield (by far the best FPS PvP I know of), I would never sacrifice coop over it. COOP allows simulation of a vast array of scenarios that PvP simlpy can not.

Some of these are really interesting though, such as "FOREST BORDER", "FOREST TRIANGLE" and "FOREST SQUARE". But I'm not sure how they are defined. Still, I am sure this can be modded with rather good results, but being such a crucial part of gameplay, this is one simple feature that should be in the base game. This impacts EVERYONE who plays against AI, including official content. They can't, but they are not effected in the same way as us humans are. There has been a debate about wether or not the AI can see through objects a long time, but they can't. But they are pretty effective at anticipating where you might be based on direction of travel and speed of travel the last time they saw you. I good indication of how this works can be had if you play any single player mission against infantry in towns or where ever as a subordinate in a squad with an AI squad lead, with difficulty set to easy. You will then get targets with a red square around them, and this square moves relating to the prediction method the AI uses to predict your movements. So if you ever have been assigned a target, seeing a target marker but no actual target, you have been seing the prediction system in action without realizing it :P The problem with forests is that the AI sees perfectly between trees, and as long as they have a direct line of sight it doesn't really matter how much concealment there is around you. They can just as easily see you between trees in a forest (as long as they have a direct line of sight to you) as they can see you standing in the middle of an open field. As long as you are not behind something, they see you just fine.

In sheer numbers, I'm pretty sure ARMA III has more popularity. The percentage of milsim players is probably much, much lower but I still think there is more of us today than there ever was before. But I agree that OFP most likely was more popular than ARMA II, OFP is by far the most criticly acclaimed in the series as well, having won several game of the year awards.

The live stream this weekend featured a really nice spectating mode. https://www.twitch.tv/arma3official/v/61097495 Is this a spectating mode that was introduced with the new game mode? Is it part of the official content? If so, is there any way to trigger this upon death for instance?