Varanon

In what way does this differ from counting switchableUnits/playableUnits at mission start ?

As long as the replay is based around a user interface handler, I doubt that it will ever work on dedicated servers. There's a BIS_fnc_UnitPlaySimple, but I think that's the old one that used to jump around like crazy...

You guys rock! Thanks.

Check the threat title and think again. All the previous discussion was about inertia, not the movement system as a whole. But right, I could go on as well, but it's worthless discussing this. Especially with people that "discuss" without arguments. ---------- Post added at 06:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:55 PM ---------- Mouse acceleration means scaling mouse input. This is NOT restricting mouse movement. For example, when aiming deadzone is enabled, it could still move the arms/gun with "full" mouse speed, and only start slowing down when there is an actual need to start turning the body. As such, animation is not only relevant, it's the key to the whole system.

Agreed. However, see my previous sniper example. Or the whole CQB sniper problems on Wasteland servers. This IS a game-breaking problem, or at least one that makes the game imbalanced.

Also, while we're at healing, also make self-healing fire the HandleHeal handler ?

As i suspected: All of the above is no in any way related to the discussion at hand. - Entering buildings has nothing to do with inertia - What about pistols ? "You can [use ?] pistols" ? What does that have to do with inertia ? - Can move around without getting stuck ? That's great, yeah, and a big improvement over Arma 2, but has nothing to do with inertia. - Stance system ? Pardon me, where does inertia come in here ? - Tactical pace ? Likewise In other words, you have not in the least talked about the problem that was discussed. You basically said "movement is better" and quote a lot of stuff that you perceive as better (and in some things I even agree), but has nothing to do with inertia. Thanks for making my point. Yes, because the good parts are, well, good, and don't need improvement. By your logic, we would not discuss any downside just because there are good sides ? Are you kidding ? Sigh... never mind, you obviously did not understand a single thing about the problem. That's why I didn't say it. So where am I talking bullshit or is that just stuff that you want to read into my post ? Ah, here we go again: Please address my pet peeves first. Listen, no one asks for things to be fixed at once, or being prioritized. But it should be allowed to actually DISCUSS things (and some people can do that without using swear words). You are interpreting things because you want to interpret things like that. Yes, very happy, because you made my point by disqualifying your previous statements. And using a lot of bad words to do so.

I was referring to the mechanics: Negative mouse acceleration sounds like it is just dampening your mouse input before feeding it to the actual input of the engine. Something that will have, IIRC, a dampening on the mouse move would behave differently and feel much worse. ---------- Post added at 02:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 PM ---------- As I described. Lie down in A3 and turn slowly. You will notice that it plays an animation, but the body turns without actually heeding the animation. I.e., the body axis turns as much as you turn the mouse, with no regards to any constraints given by your pose or body physique. The animation would need to determine the way you turn, not just simply turning the body axis disregarding the animation.

It's not necessary to use negative mouse acceleration for that purpose. Turning on the floor should simply replay appropriate animations. Right now, you see that when turning on the floor, it does play animations, but the body simply moves on it's own without the animation having an actual effect. Same goes, by the way, for turning around in any pose: There is an animation playing, but the body turns around on it's own, making the animation seems weird and out of place. This is the place the problem could be attacked. When turning around, the actual turn should not be based on simply rotating the player, but it should play an animation that results in the player being turned. That way, there's no need for negative mouse acceleration or anything like that. Of course, the way I present it is simplified. This method would not account for minute changes in heading, but those can still be done by simply rotating the body.

Uhm... What was so hard to understand about the flanking thing ? Or is it difficult to hit someone standing one meter in front of you with a sniper rifle ? That kills you no matter where you are hit ? Don't dismiss the problem because you can find an example where it doesn't apply. You need to see the problem in the cases where it does.

I'm not claiming it is a "BIG" problem. But the example with the sniper shows that it is in some ways gamebreaking. And you can deny the presence of this problem as much as you want by calling my video "vague", the problem is there. Also, you claim you didn't see it in game ? Well, open your eyes then, because I heard a lot of complaints about Wasteland being infested with CQB snipers and machinegunners. THIS is the problem in game. Do you ? I fail to see the vagueness in this video. It's just showing what is possible. Yeah, it does not show any real-life applicability, but it shows the technical side. It's much more concrete than the usual "Arma 3 movement is better" without any clarification as to what IS better.

Oh, it doesn't ? Let's look at the oh so beloved Wasteland. A sniper lies somewhere in a bush killing people from long range. Someone of the other team flanks him. And starts shooting. The sniper notices, but since he can spin around on the floor like mad, he can turn around and one-shot the guy with his ultra powerful sniper rifle. Don't tell me it doesn't affect the way you play the game. It's not. And for the record, no one is claiming that it needs to be fixed with priority or at once. But it is a point that needs attention, and as such, i see nothing wrong with discussing it. It's an unimportant criticism ? To you perhaps, Not to others.

Please check again: I'm not claiming anything about whether it's game braking or not, whether it gives you an advantage or not. I just claim that the current way of moving around in Arma 3 is ridiculous. That's it. Make of it what you want, but they way you can sprint and change direction instantly is miles away from any authenticity. And closing your eyes won't change that either. If you insist on seeing it, here, have a peek: Heh, you try to explain one vague assertion with another vague assertion. ---------- Post added at 10:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 AM ---------- "dude", I was in the army. Grab a gun and put a backpack on your back, then run and try the same, and you will see how ridiculous this is (check the video I posted). And if you re-check, I didn't bring up Arma 2 at all. I'm not comparing it to Arma 2 anywhere, because I think Arma 2 didn't have real inertia, either, it was just the mouse smoothing that did it. And I don't need to, since Arma 3 does a very fine job at making the movement look ridiculous without needing to compare it to anything, neither CoD, nor Arma 2.

Besides the point. It's not about getting through doors, but doing a 360 degree turn, prone on the floor, in less than a second. Or sprint and do a 180 degree turn. ---------- Post added at 09:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:52 AM ---------- In what respect ? I love this "It's better" without any comment on WHAT is better. ---------- Post added at 09:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 AM ---------- Oh, is it ? So it's ok to be able to turn at ridiculous speeds ? It's ok to be able to run with 100 kg on your back without inertia ? Oh, right, "it's a game". It's just meant to be an authentic game, and this is one of the most not authentic movements I've ever seen in any game.

Just noticed: In Death Valley, I still get my gear replaced by some default loadout. Can anyone confirm ?

CWC told the story of Armstrong (and other characters later on). Survive tells a very short story (basically can be summed up in one sentence) with no involvement of the main character. It's a string of unrelated missions. I'm curious to see how it goes on in the next episodes. I can understand that this is an introduction, but they definitely need to step up the narrative and the story, or it will be boring as hell. As it is now, I can't understand the praises the campaign get. Yes, technically, it's solid, good voice acting, but honestly, no story at all, and what little story there is is happening while you're not there...

Agreed with that, if any changes to the map are really necessary, it would be to make the forests look denser. I don't think most people care to much about an added building, there is enough of that already, but the forests just look empty, as you said, they lack underbrush and all. Here's a picture from Wikiemedia. And another one.

Ticket

Yes. This is the reason I actually tried to use it, because in Arma 2, it was not usable at all

So what ?

One thing that really annoys me: In Camp Maxwell, I rearm, picking up stuff I want to use, and once I start the mission, I got completely new gear. I wonder what's the point in letting you rearm before you start a mission, and then take it all away again. It doesn't make sense and really urinated me off. For example, I got a weapon with remote optics and start "Death Valley", and since the mission insist on not handing out remote optics (no one has them), it gives me a red dot. Why ? Because it fits the way you think the mission should be played ? If you insist on me having a specific weapon/optic, don't give me the illusion of choice. Just tell me "Here's your loadout", and that's it. I can understand that the underwater insertion requires you to get a rebreather, but anything else is nonsense.

I had a problem in the first mission, when you find the commander near his blow up hunter, Adams just stood there and did not go any further. I had to reload. First impression: Not bad, but not great either. Pretty predictable up to now. Lots of voice acting, and the speakers aren't bad either, which is a definite plus. Enemy numbers seem to be OK, too, not mowing down of hordes of enemies and such. AAF really plays their cards well, using their advanced air force against the plane-less NATO (sorry, couldn't really resist :D)

See here (forum post by DnA) Seems as if the plan is to deploy the campaign today

I know. What I meant is in the end, it doesn't matter how you call it, it's not in. As long as the game isn't released, you can basically say anything is an idea. Only if the game is released does it become a feature. I'm not really concerned what it is called, I just wanted to stress the fact that some things didn't end up in the game, even though they have been announced and/or were discussed as possibilities. This wasn't meant to be an accusation, I have to add. But if you raise expectations, you shouldn't blame your customers for being disappointed that they aren't in. Also, the example with the F-35 was meant to show that there were indeed things "cut" from the game. I know they have been explained, and perfectly understandable. Again, no accusation, just a fact. Especially in the light of someone claiming we were "expecting too much".. I did find the half-life 3 comparison a tad bit offensive. There is a difference between thinking a 3d editor might be in, because it was mentioned, and assuming ridiculous things like Arma 3 means Half-life 3 is coming (I completely fail to see the connection). Again, no accusation intended. I'm sure you are all working hard on this project, and you are using all assets available to you. ---------- Post added at 12:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 PM ---------- I wonder how everyone always seems to think that people that complain about things not being in the game complain about broken promises. Honestly, I don't get it. It must be your personal interpretation of it. Fact is and remains: If you cut something, be it ideas or features, and they have been announced before, people will be disappointed that they aren't in. No one but a few people will see that as broken promises. Most will just be disappointed. And I honestly fail to see what is so bad about being disappointed and actually SAYING that you are disappointed. But hey, you're a whiner then... And regarding the bolded text: Showing screenshots of game assets, or announcing things in presentations, can hardly be called conversationally mentioning.

You do have to admit, though, that some features were actually cut. It depends strongly on how they were presented. For example, some videos mentioned the 3d editor as feature for Arma 3. You can argue that it was an "idea" at that time, but it was actually announced, so you could call it a cut "feature" or a cut "idea", it really doesn't matter: In the end, it's not in. You could also say "There's an F-35 on a screenshot. And the screenshot is labeled 'in-game'. That means the F-35 is confirmed". Same goes for some of the scripted prototypes that were presented on earlier videos. We all know plans change, but please don't make people that complain about features that did not end up in the game look like they can't discern Arma3 from Half-Life 3.