Windexglow

Oh, that was ingame? Can't wait for the ultra photorealism and the cheesy characters.

source?

So by that logic, the best game is the least accessible game.

I wonder if this isn't customizing the unit, but providing a new unit to use. Mission creators could create a custom faction/units. The player could also create their own personnel unit, but mission makers would have to place a player_type unit, which would base itself on the local player's data. That way mission makers can give you a traditional vanilla unit, or a unit they made, or what the player picked himself.

Procedural bullet impacts - final velocity of the bullet determines how big the dust is. So you can better judge the caliber of a bullet, and how dangerous it is.

Variables exposed in the module for use in the editor.

Right now I'm on the fence - what will really push me over is if a game store offered a pre order incentive.

I don't think it's the matter that they aren't being concealed, but that they aren't blending in. The background is not detailed enough for them to safely blend into. In real life camouflage blends in. In arma, it doesn't.

Fix me if I'm wrong, but left handed shooters are taught left handed in the military - good advantage when covering a left corner of the building.

You don't even need dx9 to simulate it. Normal of surface + distance from cam + normal of camera is all you need.

Radial menus are amazing. 1: It splits information up. Ordering AI is a painful task at times, especially in the beginning. By splitting information up you can also give more utility commands. 2: Harder to misclick. The current list of information is easy to have mistakes with. I'm always afraid of interacting with teammates, else I may shoot them instead of healing them. Also, radial menus are open to muscle memory. 3: Open to expansion. Adding new options (sub options and so fourth) would take little extra work. Is there a single thing that the standard arma list model does better than a radial menu?

Those are shaders, which can do some really neat things (hell, they pretty much *do* the neat things on your screen). UDK I think has a built in node-shader editor, which makes making shaders so much easier for the common man. I have a node-shader from Unity somewhere that I stopped halfway for one reason or another - was a diffuse/normal shader that had a running water that slowed based on angle of slope, and transitioned into splashes. They aren't cheap, but shaders that add rain, snow, and so fourth are pretty independent of the mesh or textures of the mesh. So they're pretty damn powerful.

#1 reason why most games don't show body/feet : Performance. Why show something 99% of players won't notice unless told?

I've already posted before. But I'll add my cents again. Any type of kill should be excluded - stats should be local (no one else sees them, they're just for you. Yes you can exploit, but who are you fooling?). Stats would be number of times firing X weapon. Average distance weapon is fired at. Longest hit with X weapon. Average life span. Distance walked. Wheels destroyed. Rounds passed over your head. Ectect. I wouldn't want it to be a tab-screen of KDR of everyone on the server, but something to look at as the game loads or something mundane.

Played red river. The 3 main complaints : AI wouldn't shut the hell up. The enemy shot laser beams (maybe they were tracers, pretty sure they were lasers..), and regen health. It didn't do anything unique, just a regular cod clone with slightly more open levels. Stopped playing after 20 minutes.

This is an odd compliment, but those bushes/shrubs are damn sexy (so dense..!) in purepassion's video. If only it didn't cut so early.

There's nothing wrong with it, because bf3's thermal is made for gameplay. Not realism. Bf3 and arma3 are totally different games with even further gameplay goals, comparing them is pretty stupid.

New editor seems to be 3d, though that may be a standalone program. So 3d waypoints (especially for air) may be possible now. Looking fantastic regardless. Those shrubs looked really cool, so dense.

Render to texture isn't cheap guys, it's practically rendering part of the scene over. For something as big as a scope (and rendering more, as it goes further) it'll take about the same if not longer to render out. Unless lods are batched, they won't help much. Rendering the outside at a much lower res (free blur!) and reducing the distance of objects will help alot, you'll still have a higher performance impact than simply zooming in from arma2.

Way, way too early. Regardless, knowing how the engine will use the model is a lot more important than polycount/textures. General rule of thumb - Most weapons in games range from 2k-5k. Texturing - the bigger the better. It's easy lower the res of a texture, but much harder to increase it. Make em for arma2, I doubt the process will be much different for arma3.

That is why BI is amazing. This is looking up to be extremely well polished, especially as we have potentially a year to go.

wut??

Many new pictures added. Warpo found em first! http://www.zing.cz/screenshoty/index/2625/arma-3

Oh no. Please no, do not have live action videos.. here is the link for the picture. http://www.arma3.com/images/bg_story.png edit: link to even more pictures. hoozah. http://www.zing.cz/screenshoty/index/2625/arma-3

I think some things could be cool to track - rounds fired, average distance of (hit) shot, distance traveled, rounds that have landed near you, ectect. For both mission & grand total.