SFJackBauer

Uh? I wonder what does the consoles architecture have to do with Arma 3 at all. The requirements are completely distinct from a PC game like Arma 3. Console games need more rendering power than CPU power, are constrained on heat generation and power consumption... like the nVidia vice-president himself said, there is no way a 200-watt xbox is going to beat a 1000-watt pc. All the engines and titles mentioned in this thread would struggle in a next-gen console hardware. And all those same engines and titles still do not extract 100% cpu and gpu power theoretically available from parallel processing in the PC. Actually, not even the PCI express buses are bottleneck to any commercial title - it is easy to saturate the buses in a one-off demonstration or an academic exercise, but not when you put everything together in a real-world application. I think the BI customers should focus on discussing improvements of the features they want instead of the technicalities of the RV engine, because they will always get it wrong when discussing something they have no domain knowledge. You end up with people demanding engine XYZ, multi-core processing, deferred rendering, or any <insert your regurgitated technical blurp here>, without pondering which practical consequences it will have to the gameplay itself. Leave it to the developers instead, the only people capable of determining whether something needs to be rewritten or not are the people who have the source code.

My oh my, I return to Arma after a year or so and the first thing I read in the forums is this thread... never seen so much crap in one place. I cannot spend any time quoting every piece of crap I found written here, so I will just answer a generic answer - if you think you can do a better job than Arma 3, well... go ahead, grab this book, and after some dozens (hundreds?) of thousands of man-hours, and many many head-bashing nights and weekends looking for that race condition in your inevitably buggy multi-threaded code, come back here and post your amazing product so we can all enjoy it.

You are probably right, since when you are in armor or aircraft you have that overhead cheating minimap that shows everything that has LOS from you, 360 degrees. AI is probably just using our minimap in the case of BMP vs Abrams.

You CAN do it in most of the games, but you have to do it through your video driver, and it doesn't offer fine control as Arma does. Its called Super Sampling Anti-aliasing, the image is rendered n times bigger than the monitor resolution and then scaled down.

I can understand the pathfinding issue. But for the AI to be able to view through the fallen trees... This really needs a fix. We should be able to use them as hard cover also.

Humm.. instance up and down already exists, so your point here is null... Solution - activate the action only after holding the button for a second - meanwhile give visual feedback about the action to be executed, so you release the button, nothing happens. Solved. You have other options. You can contribute to the topic in a constructive way.

Would the devs have the guts to break compatibility with the long-lived key and animation system of ARMA? :D I think what you said make good sense. I would add: - Keep the gun steadier while in the slow walking mode. Whoever walks with the muzzle drawing an 8 in the space ahead needs to take some lessons. - Make the map integrated into the 3D world. The switching back and fort between the map, the "Receiving" screen and the 3D world is annoying. - Get rid of the mouse scroll commands menu. Anything is better. Right now, the act of enter a vehicle could become the "Activate satchels" if you slip the finger... - Give at least an option to turn off the crosshair and the FOV reduction you have when aiming down the sights. An option that would work even on multiplayer, regardless of server settings (if anything, you are taking a penalty for it). Ermmm, better stop here or I would turn the thread into my pet peeve list :D

Yeah, but note that I propose a middle ground. As SUBS17, I have played an indecent amount of hours in all kinds of flight simulators available to the consumer market, from FSX and its add-ons to DCS and all in-between. (just a "little" bragging, but I know from memory the startup procedures for a 747-400, F-16, A-10C, F/A-18C and a Kamov KA-50 :D). But ARMA is a different kind of thing. For instance the map size. You take off in Krasnostav in a jet aircraft, and 1 minute later reach the enemy base in Balota - not time to even warmup the systems on some aircraft. Even in the claustrophobic Georgia theater of DCS, you can have flights of 1 hour legs. So I think some concessions should be made from the simulation side so that those features are accomodated in the space ARMA offer. As long as those concessions don't violate the platform-sensor-target relationships. For example, you would not need to remember to turn the RWR on. But the RWR should work for its purpose: if a guy paints you, he appears on RWR, if not, he don't, but then he can't fire at you.

Oh such a large thread... Probably my point will be drowned on it but anyways. First, the Tablock problem is pervasive across all weapon systems - be it choppers, tanks, or hand-held ATGMs. It is awful because it implies that the weapon system knows instantaneously where every enemy are, leaving you the job of just pulling the trigger. Compare to the small arms system for the infantry, where you have to take into account the ballistics and recoil of the weapon you firing, and then see the massive difference in complexity between the two. Second, the system could be improved by applying simple mechanisms. Its not the intention of ARMA to be a full-fledged SAM simulation. But it is also the intention of ARMA to be the "console-kind-of-push-button-and-things-go-boom-game"? So a middle ground must be found. We don't need all the cockpit buttons and dials and radar modes you have in the aircrafts. We just need to model the interactions between: - The firing platform acquisition and fire control systems; - The weapon; - The target. For example, an AH-1Z pops up behind a hill to survey the area. What the pilot could use to find its targets? - From onboard equipment: CCD/IR cameras only. The human pilot (or the human gunner) would have to acquire the target visually in an MFD. - From outside: static target position relayed by laser designators (a simplified JTAC), a moving target could be provided by continuous laser designation. The AH-1Z then fires its own laser to paint the target (which should have a maximum ON timer and a cooldown timer). The target in this case is a T-90, which has laser detectors. The tank commander fires a smoke screen to interrupt the designation, while trying to also maneuver to cover. The chopper is now unable to engage, but it has coordinates close to the tank position. It, however, cannot move closer to fire its rockets since the pilot sees in its RWR the presence of a Tunguska system painting it with its search radar. The RWR only displays an imprecise bearing of where the threat is, and knowing how the Tunguska outranges its own missiles, the pilot asks the special forces on the ground to find and destroy it so it could prosecute the armored targets. Isn't this description much more fun, with more teamwork involved, than the simply absolute superiority choppers have currently? And you don't need to delve deep into the small details of the equipment involved - just keep it abstracted, but do not abstract the necessary interactions between the platform the weapon and the target. Doing so dumbs down too much to be acceptable.

Quote me where did I said that. Under fire the AI should seek cover - unless there is no cover nearby, then it should return fire as accurately as possible. But I was talking when you issue the "Danger" mode. I issue it when I expect enemy contact soon. Is it the same mode when the AI gets under fire? In danger mode I want them moving along, but under fire I expect them to do the behavior you described. For example, I have half of my squad engaging a group of enemies. Other half is on other side of road, behind a hill, where I'm inside a Humvee. This second element is not under fire, neither has line of sight to any of the enemies. However, the simple task of ordering them to embark the Humvee takes ages, because after the order is issued, they look around, run, look, run, look, and then enter the vehicle. In the end they comply, but the lack of urgency in executing certain arguably simple actions is what bothers me most.

Danger mode =/= Seek cover command. Modes are like "state of mind" from my understanding, in danger mode the squad still must not break formation, but should move more cautiously. Once a command is issued, unless its a "group move to" command which still should maintain formation, then the priority should become executing the command, be it seek cover, engage etc.

Sound of AK-47 supersonic crack Another video

In ACE: As OPFOR - CZ550 and Skorpion as a sidearm. I absolutely love the CZ550. Antitank - Metis or good'ol RPG-7. As BLUFOR - M4A1 203 RCO. Since they have put back the iron sights, no need for sidearms, which means more space for grenades :) Antitank - SMAW. Love the spotting round feature.

Razer Mamba. Very good wireless, when the battery dies you can recharge and use at the same time with the usb cable. Has dedicated buttons for sensitivity change - useful for a large monitor where Windows speed settings aren't enough. Also it is big - my hands are 20x20cm and I don't like using small rodents.

Agree with limiting the towns. Anyone who plays the AAS missions know that. The entire Chernarus seems good to divisional battles. A smaller map could be an alternative. This would help people stay focused and battles would be more intense. Air strikes can be abstracted. An air strike could be available like once every 10 minutes. I dont think we need players flying - aircrafts are way too omniscient of the battlefield in Arma. Maybe helos can be allowed, but somehow they must be limited - but I'll gravitate towards the "abstraction" side to give more emphasis to the ground war. Spawn - you spawn in the rear. Period. Otherwise (which, unfortunately, happens in AAS missions...), you can't really control a zone, since you kill a guy and have to keep scanning to see where he will magically appears. And then not dying suddenly has a new meaning. Instead of money or supplies - reinforcement points. Say like each side starts with a thousand points. Every time one of the team dies - 1 point less. One of the victory conditions can be to zero out enemy reinforcement points. This simulates attrition, otherwise battles would last forever. But the main objective can be to kill the enemy commander, or capture him. I dont know, maybe those ideas are crap, but I agree that something can be done to make warfare more hardcore. Maybe we aren't even talking about warfare anymore, but something else.

Not posting to report any issues (yet :)), but just to congratulate the entire ACE team for the great job they should have be proud of. Outstanding! And special kudos for the six-updater ;) And Merry Christmas to all!

Alex, you explained what I have read myself. That doesn't explain its behaviour, though. One thing is, based on his experience, stating that it would be difficult to implement. He made this point once. But other thing is repeating it several times, along the way offending members opinions. That I see as unnecessary. And to top it, that is even after someone pointed out that the suggestion requested actually EXISTS in VBS 2: So this is what was impossible/difficult to implement? Now you tell me on whom I have to believe.

How funny. Let me see: "I think that this suggestion is very unlikely to amount to anything." "This is because you lack any understanding of what you are talking about. To appeal to some unknown technology 'out there' that would help BIS do this thing is at best premature." "How much would this technology cost BIS? How much would training their staff on it cost?" Does this phrases sound familiar? I see someone putting down ideas from others and talking seemingly "in behalf" of BIS. Look, I respect the fact you are a modder. But the guy wasn't asking for a mod - he is asking for a feature that should be introduced into the engine, so even though it can be costly up-front, this should mean that man-hours are saved down the road because models would be already created over this paradigm. But why we are arguing about cost if this is up to BIS managers to calculate and decide? List which ideas different from the one the OP posted you added to the thread, besides non-constructive criticism. I'll skip the personal attack introduction and go directly to the argument. My point is about using high-cost technology for fullfilling a seemingly unimportant thing. Motion-capturing enables life-like movement right? This brings immersion to the game. Each one perceives this as a different value, so what is superfluous for one, would be very important for other. Now, humans are pretty good in detecting repeating patterns, and the fact all soldiers are the same height is easily detectable and slightly breaks the immersion (exacerbated when they are neatly lined together). Again, low priority in the grand-scheme of things, but I'm not rejecting entirely the idea as you did. And again, my dear friend, one does not need to be condescending or presuming what others think. Who in this thread did say it was EASY or CHEAP to do? We are obliged to only propose and suggest "simple" things? And again, who would be in proper capacity of decisively weighing difficulty if not BIS devs, who made and work in the engine? I will ignore the personal attacks and go purely to the issue in hand. I'm not saying IK solves the problem of soldiers height - I'm saying it proposes a solution to the "binding hands to weapons" problem - problem which you brought into the discussion. It means we dont need hundreds of different couples of models/animations to solve that problem. Its not a silver bullet - probably a blend of artist-created animations and IK would be needed - anyway, this is BIS job and BIS business, after all - they decide what would be better for them. One last thing - you seem to be an intelligent and well-informed person. Then I'm sure you know one of Abraham Lincoln's quote - “Tact is the ability to describe others as they see themselves.â€.

And what gives you power to be a spokersperson of BIS or put down ideas of forum members? The old tale says, if you dont have anything to add to the thread, then dont post. I could use your argument and say "why they motion-captured human movement just for the sake of appearing real, all we need is a gun and bullets". Or "why they motion-captured some guy dancing and put into the game as a hidden animation"? Motion-capture equipment (which BIS own), and actors to perform cost money and time, doesn't? Its because its technology, and sometimes breakthrough in technology are made because investments in things seemingly futile and unnecessary. What the OP is proposing may be low priority in the grand-scheme of things, but who decides is BI, not you or me. Inverse-kinematics has been out there for long time, if they want to incorporate into their engine is their decision. Quote from wikipedia:

I dont know how ARMA2 is programmed, but I have a general knowledge of game engines, and - given that the grass patches already have to be dynamically adjusted as it is now - since they are a radius of 40m around you, everytime you move grass patches are being added and removed - then I don't see how impossibly difficult is to add vegetation when zoomed in a scope.

Then draw only inside a certain combination of magnification / distance. It doesn't need to be 0 or 1. It only needs the sufficient to retain the sense of reality. As I've read somewhere... "There are infinite numbers between 0 and 1".

Well, the naked human eye can't see grass at 500 meters, but what about a human eye dressed with a sniper scope? I see the distant grass layer is a decent compromise, but what I would like to see is - when you draw up a scope or bino, the grass is rendered only in the magnified portion of terrain where you are looking at.

Its not just a dream Fix. Its a must-have fix. BI, just like you did an option to control mouse smoothing, please give a checkbox to disable auto-rudder. Thank you.

For Arma2, that oversimplification may be still suficient. But its still an oversimplification. Rotors do not act like a large wing... They act like a large rotating wing. As a result they have narrow windows with respect to rotor speed and engine throttling. However I feel that the inertia is a bit much in Arma2. Also I dont think it models weight, so an empty and lightly fueled chopper would be much more nimble than a fully-loaded one.

As MaxPower explained, the aerodynamic forces over the airframe will eventually force it to align with the movement vector. So Arma2 is correct in this respect. A chopper pilot must manage his rate of descent to carefully not enter in a VRS - vortex ring state. It occurs in near-zero forward speed - once past a certain descent rate (numbers vary slightly from chopper to chopper), it sinks into its downwash. In Arma2 you can't put your chopper in this dangerous situation because the sim limits your descent rate to a safe zone. If it is accurate down to m/s is questionable, but far more accurate than other "sims" like BF2, which are not sims at all. So yes, to drop down quickly a chopper in real-life you would nose-dive. You must be careful however to not overload the engines in the recovery maneuver. That can happen in Arma2 - where you built so much speed that can't recover from the diving in time. Another thing, even if it wasn't questioned - you simply can't evade a guided missile with a chopper by maneuvering. There is simply no way to accelerate quickly enough to evade it. You have to either stay out of range, or put the terrain between you and the missile. However countermeasures like chaff and flare are sometimes effective, and I see them working in some servers out there for great measure.