Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Community Reputation

10 Good


About rscarrab

  • Rank
  1. rscarrab

    Does anyone else want an easier editor?

    +1 @ OP. Ive been hoping for a 3D editor since A2. I adapted to RTE and build some lovely set pieces (fortified airfield & intricate starting FOB with a lot of attention to aesthetic detail). Unfortunately in RTE, once i placed an over-adunbance of units; some objects would not transfer out. So... I had to do each thing seperately. Fortifications and added building or scenery came first, then export save. Then specific placement of gear (crates) and vehicles, export, save, merge. Then place NPC's, on rooftops/second floor windows... or in specific areas of interest. Export, save, merge. This isnt without its own problems and niggles and who knows whether RTE will work with A3. Imho it just barely worked with Arma 2, as it was quite possible to screw up all the work you had done (eg. make a fob(place objects), then occupy with NPC's, give them a custom gear loadout). Object placement in the 2D editor is atrocious. Theres no two ways about it.
  2. rscarrab


    Im just curious; Would the new level of physics expected in Arma3 benefit an NPC's pathfinding ability in any way (in regards to driving vehicles)?
  3. Let me break it down for you: There's your context. The rest is up to you. Good luck, im sure you'll be fine. :)
  4. :j: Noones asking you to stop complaining. Unless of course its tone matches the same sarcastic drivel that you wrote above. In which case; yes, shutup and stop complaining.
  5. I agree completely, a small one should do fine. I have a 60GB Vertex 2 SSD myself. I also agree that its important for those looking for more performance to explore the possibility of getting more RAM/SSD, if all other options have been exhausted. Before i played Arma2 i wasnt too bothered about what type of HDD i threw into my PC, as long it was at least 7,200rpm. After all the rigmarole, which i didnt fucking sign up for btw :p, the last place i found myself looking was at the HDD. I had covered everywhere else. Dont know much about harddrives, but i do know how to lurk the shit of the BI forums... so i knew what i needed. No, not more RAM. :D IO activity is pretty fucking gnarly, as pointed out earlier. I also heard this while shopping around for a server. Asked the admin quite a few questions cause i was pushing for something with a high clock speed, as opposed to what as offered. Ended up learning that the HDD is under constant stress too. SSD will definitely give a smoother experience. As per one of the side discussions, cross platform games from the same genre are a terrible benchmark for performance. A rig with an unstable overclock and a failing GPU can run and sustain one of those worthless multi-platform 'blockbuster' titles. The same way a bottlenecked low performance CPU in an SLi rig wouldnt cough up 'microstutter'. Unfortunately, in my case, those are both true stories. I guess thats why some of us go through that love/hate relationship phase with Arma (and possibly BI). Especially as the initial optimisations for Arma2 were being released. I found it hard to differentiate between it being the developers fault or my own lack of understanding, or both. When the game was regarded as playable, or optimised to an acceptable degree i guess it would have been then that i tried to fully understand what was causing the problems. Took me a while, mind you. Its taken me the best part of 3 years and 2 rigs. One thing i will say is that --now-- i dont have a problem optimising a new machine for Arma. If anything its a good litmus test for the machine itself. ;) About OPs 2nd concern. 'Fluency' in this context.... Sounds to me more like Animation Transitions, which im guessing shouldnt be a problem. Alternatively, if OP is reaching further; it is perfectly acceptable and logical to expect there to be an area inbetween the current state of Arma's fluidity in the movements department -and its real-life counterpart. An easily dilutable argument given the fact that someone can just say, "this isnt BF3/COD". A lot less so when shown clips of some of the funnier aspects of Arma. Im glad to see from another community member that this is regarded as flogging a dead horse. I believe there is a middleground, still with room for improvement and immersive features. Im heavily banking on the fact that this will come to fruition. Fingers and toes crossed.:)
  6. rscarrab

    Controls improvment

    One way to improve the controls --and ive heard this mentioned elsewhere in this forum before-- is to break them down into different categories. Infantry, Heli, Fixed Wing etc. Hop out of a heli/vehicle and your control scheme changes, nothing new -loads of games do it. This gives the opportunity to map controls based on the role rather than having an all round control scheme like there is now. Waaaay more space on the keyboard then. ;) This, to me, is the most realistic option.
  7. Tbh, i quite like the sepia effect and the colour filter (desert filter?)... or whatever it is that makes me feel like grabbing some ice. ;) I asked another one of the lads i play with to post his screenies here too so hopefully if he does you can get more of an idea. He used Cherno for his test. Btw, the powerlines are still pretty much the same from distance. Closer up they do look nice, yes. :)
  8. Yeah sure no problem, its the least i can do. :) Im uploading them to photobucket atm, i do hope they appear as thumbnails when i post them. ---------- Post added at 09:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 PM ---------- Nvidia GTX 570, driver version 280.26 Screenshots:
  9. Hehe, no problem. Glad i could be of inadvertent assistance. ;) ---------- Post added at 08:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:53 PM ---------- Wow, im really impressed. Thanks for this. :)
  10. Thankyou very much for the hasty reply EOOQE. No im not using the beta, though for piece of mind i did infact place the .dll file in there. I checked my .rpt straight away but had a feeling that it wouldnt help me much in this case. :rolleyes: So yeah, heres the contents of the log file! EDIT: and yes, the .dll file is present in both directories. Root and expansion/beta.
  11. Doesnt seem to work for me and im having trouble finding any solutions atm as no error messages pop-up. Before posting here i went ahead and updated my GFX drivers to the latest (using an Nvidia GTX570) as well as Directx (stated that i need not update/install due to current or newer version). As soon as i start up Arma, the boxes with the ticks appears; finishes and the screen flickers black for a moment... then back to desktop with no error (nor is arma2oa.exe still a running proccess in task manager). Any ideas? EDIT: Using the newest version 0.22b - havent used any previous versions
  12. rscarrab

    Module graphics settings for Arma 3 Vote please

    Bloom did tend to go a bit "full on" in regards to looking up a bit. One could almost find the exact point at which bloom would go full on, aim down a bit and it would dissipate very quickly. If it was a lot more gradual id welcome that, for sure. It would be nice to break up the PP features if that wasn't addressed. :)
  13. rscarrab

    Module graphics settings for Arma 3 Vote please

    Well it is a camera effect after all, which does its best to simulate head-strain coupled with fast movement. Slightly blurry vision (with good fps) is there to remove the constant "perfect focus" that is otherwise present. It is unacceptable for those that enjoy using this feature to turn it off in order to have a fair fight. I find that its far more acceptable to create the option for those of us that use it; to play amongst ourselves from time to time (and through an ingame setting; ensure that it is enforced). :)
  14. rscarrab

    Module graphics settings for Arma 3 Vote please

    In regards to you feeling aggravated and robotic, i told you already; you can agree to disagree if you so feel like it. You choose not to. :) I state that its biased because in your view you would not like to use a feature which is highly detrimental to your performance. You say it runs fine until you reach a battle yet it runs way below what i would expect even on a strained GPU with Fraps enabled @ 500 Visibility (not to mention all the other features turned either down/off). Of course i acknowledge the fact that a camera and a pair of eyes are both vastly different in regards to how they deal with processing of images, yes, though at the end of the day this is a feature employed by the developers to simulate the effect and because of this feature; game-wise, i ask that it become an optional parameter/requirement. Were a long way from a one-to-one copy of real-life, i think we can all agree on that. ;) BI arent creating 2 images and super-imposing them on top of each other in order to simulate two eyes; its done with one camera. Giving some weight to the head is the best that anyone can hope for, given the current state of GFX. That is what they are trying to portray since they cant actually walk into your humble abode, strap some heavy gear onto your back and push you down the stairs. The bottom line being that helmet cams are the only example in which to go by. Not only that, but i adamantly stand by the assumption that carrying such weight and being pushed to the peak of ones endurance can cause strain on ones neck, not necessarily the eyes themselves. What BI are obviously trying to do is give more immersion to the player; that can hinder them in a challenging way. The fatigue (screen warping), motion-blur, head-bob, bloom/blinding sun are all effects that are within the realm of visuals. These are a disadvantage to those that use them, but its something that is immersive and enjoyable. If your in a competitive PvP environment it is perfectly acceptable to suggest that there be some kind of standard here, at least an optional one. Arma being a sandbox may differ in what one man expects compared to the next man. To suggest such a feature is hardly blasphemy given that statement. You argue that this is a waste of time for the developers, when there is quite a significant number of people that like this effect --both soldiers and non-soldiers. The developers were the ones that took the time in the first place to develop this game and i believe they are more qualified than you or i to make the decision on whether it is appropriate to include this feature or not. The fact that they have included it already says something about what they are trying to do. Considering the fact that it is there, one can only assume that since they said they wont remove any features; it will either be improved upon or remain as-is. If it remains as-is and proves to be unacceptable to people with low-end GPU's then i would hope there is some option for a mission maker to enable it. I appreciate the linkage, as i havent seen that and will give it a watch later. In terms of watching an hour long video right now; i find it best to refer to shorter clips which show-off the feature that BI are trying to perfect. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZHrubLXGR8 --- As is said, BI included this feature -its there. They are the ones that decided during the development process to add this feature, i doubt it took them five minutes. To negate the developers decision as non-realistic or less immersive is your opinion, which i believe to be biased due to your performance constraints. As much as ive re-iterated my case i find that the disadvantage plus added immersion is a non-issue, the crux of my argument is that it be a parameter so that those of us who play with it have piece of mind knowing that everyone is on an even keel.
  15. rscarrab

    Module graphics settings for Arma 3 Vote please

    Well, like it or not people do refer to CAPS as shouting; when typing on the internet. That was my interpretation of aggravated in this case. There's no need to get into something as mundane as this lol. It is biased because you cant experience said feature the way it was intended to be experienced. Your low frame-rate turns it into a hindrance. Head-bob effects motion-blur as in both effects compliment each other -"part-and-parcel". This can affect ones opinion of motion-blur if head-bob is non-existent. Like in your case. You state there is no motion-blur when your running forward, yet you have head-bob turned completely off so that your head is in essence almost floating. How realistic is that? Look at a few helmet-cam clips; you'll notice that whenever running/jogging the soldier in question is a lot closer to what i describe than to what you show (in your youtube video); if your looking for realism then you have it backwards. Your completely disregarding the fact that a soldier at any one time can be carrying 80lb's of equipment and when under duress --trying to avoid bullets, lugging heavy gear, chin-strapped helmet etc-- it can "feel like trying to move your head forward in a rocket" -as my esteemed colleague points out. I dont care if your Linford Christie; its still a far cry from your average 8 mile run up a dirt road. From what i gather you prefer performance and cant afford the added realism. It is because of people in your situation that i suggest this as being an optional feature available to mission makers. Not an across the board -forced feature. And lol... This whole defeat thing, to quote yourself, is "really funny" considering you were the one that started yelling troll. :rolleyes: