Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

DeclaredEvol

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    359

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by DeclaredEvol

  1. Posted · Edited by DeclaredEvol

    Actually, I like the Beta Scopes quite a bit. I hope that the option is both, so people don't cause arguments over this. Just looking to see some flexibility, but as a whole... the 2d Optics slows the performance down some due to the constant post rendering it takes to go in and out from the scope. 3d Optics vital difference specifically in performance would be just the fact it doesn't have to refresh any rendering when you aim... secondly. But on a different perspective, it looks and feels like the way it really is. It's not a goggle, but more of a magnifying glass.

  3. Posted · Edited by Max Power

    No, no you're not making sense.

    When you're talking about "future equipment", you're in fact talking about the AH-6, the Oshkosh M-ATV, the GM6 Lynx, the KAC LMG, the Cheytac M200, the "Ansyr" M-RAP, the TAR-21, the MK14 EBR, the SMAW, the RPG 32 and a rifle series designed by an professional working in the arms industry...

    Additionally, you should let it free to those "Milsim" clans what they like or don't like. Only speak for yourself.

    Arma was never strictly based on real life, nor strictly based on mimicking the real world today. It has always been the Armaverse. The only difference is the shift in the timespan. However it's still the same. The equipment and weapons exist today and are being used today. It is real.

    If you prefer to use Cold War era equipment, that's unfortunately your problem. BIS won't do the same stuff yet again ;)

    But hey, at the same time there are people complaining the equipment is too less futuristic :rolleyes:

    Shakes head, I guess I should go ahead leave it alone. :eek:

    I simply don't understand the point of making a Game that Pretends to be a Simulator of what may be Real Life, Eighteen Years or more into the Future.

    Boooooo!!!! come on man, what the heck?!?!

    I think I'm packing up my bags, ACE3 please do something about this nonsense!

    Moderators are smoking some Marijuana, what else could you be paying them to support this product!

    I'd be a monkey's uncle if you could see this lol

  4. Posted · Edited by DeclaredEvol

    Never seen someone quote himself in his own same message before...

    Yes I can see why you think it is odd, but I can quote anything that I may had said and use it as a quick pointer. But I think it is a common goal for people like you to try and humiliate a person with great intellect, a primitive and less intelligent goal I must mention is to do so. The point of quoting myself, is so I can explain myself even further. And if you examine closely, it was posted separately and combined unwillingly by the forum programming. Don't blame me :)

    Don't mind me for asking, but I thought the point of my topic was for a purpose... and you're dismissing that for what? Is it because I am a critic, and probably the best on the forum? :confused:

    ---------- Post added at 03:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:35 AM ----------

    Frankly, The idea of NATO V Iran is more likely then South V North Sahrani.

    Yeah, that I do agree :)

    But the argument was over the content inside the game, not the story. You can quote what I said about the ArmA 3 plot being Green Army men (Plastic, Fake)... but I was just joking around. I think ArmA 3 is an interesting concept, but I don't want to see it overtake the original premise of ArmA. Remember, the competitiveness between something like this and a arena military shooter is that this is more like real life. The formula is being tampered with, almost greatly with this new release. I think, I should just leave it at that... but time will tell.

  5. Posted · Edited by DeclaredEvol

    MILSIM players don't typically simulate future technology, that I am sure of. This is the whole problem here, it either takes a complete Overhaul of content in a single package. And something such as All in Arma would have to completely utilize all of ArmA 3's differences, might happen but time will tell. If neither happens, then MILSIM players will be optioned out from the game. ArmA 3 is realistic, it feels real... but I don't comfortably compare it to how the original ArmA was. The original seemed strictly based on real life, strictly based on mimicking the real world today. ArmA 3 is based on what 'could' be real life, get where this is going? I still enjoy playing ArmA 3, but its a complete change from the original. The content in many ways contradicts what MILSIM players are truly interested in... reality.

    ---------- Post added at 07:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 PM ----------

    Look, this is what I am saying...

    MILSIM players don't typically simulate future technology, that I am sure of. This is the whole problem here, it either takes a complete Overhaul of content in a single package. And something such as All in Arma would have to completely utilize all of ArmA 3's differences, might happen but time will tell. If neither happens, then MILSIM players will be optioned out from the game. ArmA 3 is realistic, it feels real... but I don't comfortably compare it to how the original ArmA was. The original seemed strictly based on real life, strictly based on mimicking the real world today. ArmA 3 is based on what 'could' be real life, get where this is going? I still enjoy playing ArmA 3, but its a complete change from the original. The content in many ways contradicts what MILSIM players are truly interested in... reality.

    and don't get me wrong, the changes are not terrible... but it means developers will typically have to remodel a lot of content. Things will look out of place, such as many of the ISLAND's objects... the tents and aircraft shelters look advanced. The camouflage on vehicles looks like Heat deflecting technology... it is rare to see on modern battlefields. But this is speculation, there are very many things that would look out of place for MILSIM players. The campaign, war against Iran isn't something that is fake. But pretending that we may use all of this material, draws ArmA into more of a science fiction war theater. I honestly in all opinion think that the Future War Theater should had been a DLC, it is a great idea... but waiting is what most of us will have to do for seeing the next ArmA I or ArmA II.

  7. Posted

    This is what ArmA 3's 'PLOT' looks like in my eyes... Toy-Soldier-Posters.jpg

    This is the Argument of this entire debate:

    Look guys, do you want a simulator for the future? Or what was a simulator for something that exists. It's becoming 'surreal', rather than realistic.

    Who here bought or is buying ArmA for it's FUTURE simulation, or is it just for the ENGINE DEVELOPMENT. If the Alpha didn't meet your expectations, then I assure the rest will do the same.

    You can't get what you want from Bohemia Interactive, that's a published statement. I think if this comment means nothing to others, then ArmA means nothing to others. What about all of those Squads and MILSIM Fanbase players, where are they going... rocketing into the future on a leash?

    YEAH... and I'm the developer for ArmA 3 lolz. :j:

    ---------- Post added at 07:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:23 AM ----------

    I cannot see myself back in 2009 posting this, but it's happening now.

  9. Posted

    I am going to make a video to clarify myself, I believe that the hanging arm animation is more of a Idle Animation than a Walking Animation. The fluidity is the problem, it simply doesn't make sense to throw your hand off of the gun while you're simply walking or running into combat. It doesn't fit almost all circumstances, it looks lazy and unprofessional.

  10. Posted · Edited by DeclaredEvol

    Well, this is all opinion based... but I used to lower my weapon in ArmA 2... which would drop the gun down to where it isn't shouldered. Well, with ArmA 3... the character sort of throws his arm out which in all shapes and form isn't flexible. And what I mean by flexible is, it doesn't seem like it looks right during combat. It looks too calm, and relaxed... whereas the old animation of the character lowering his weapon worked better. It was nice to lower the weapon after running because it helped recover the player's aim. So now when you lower the weapon, and you may be in combat. It looks very unnatural, I know this is speculation and a lot of people don't know what I am talking about. But I used to play in a Realism Unit on ArmA 2, and everyone lowered their weapons to walk in formation without the weapon ready. Sometimes during combat, a friend would lower his weapon because it helps rest the player and it also gives the player a better field of view. It isn't a matter of realism, it is a matter of flexibility for combat and elsewhere.

    Please!! Don't release ArmA 3 with the way it is now, it shows out too much.

    More Flexible - ArmA 2

    FHQ_Remington_03.jpg

    arma2ao10.jpg

    And this is what it was supposed to look like in ArmA 3 before the ARM was hanging out lol

    ARMA3_7-590x284.jpg

    It transitions smoother, from walking with weapon lowered... to running with weapon lowered 'As seen in the photo above'. I really cannot see the point of the arm hanging out, it just makes things less smoother. Showing off the new animation system is nice, I like all of them... but this one here can be irritating.

    I address this issue because it feels uncomfortable, and I like to lower my weapon sometimes to rest during combat. But when I begin to walk, my arm hangs out and I look -way- too at ease. The older animation was much more durable for the series of environments.

    Please VOTE because this means a lot for the way the game looks... I don't know if anyone has noticed that you cannot walk normally anymore. It definitely looks like a Pimp Walk more than a Professionally trained fighter.

    Other Topic from Psychomorph --->>> Link

  11. Posted

    The AI needs more logic inside of Buildings or they will just be facing the wall or something. I noticed this happening in almost every video I've seen, that is why I was complaining even before the Alpha. The also need to position themselves in corners and watch the doors... it helps :)

  18. Posted

    Dude, if you have the money, just upgrade to an HD7970 Ghz ed.

    I imagine it would be worth upgrading to, but I seriously wonder whether or not ArmA II was just extremely poor in performance for everyone. And the fact that DX11 has more capability and probably optimizes Polygons better, you'll be looking at a better game to run even for the bad PC's. I don't think it will matter, a lot of people here are over-estimating this game... if you're right... and I am completely out of my mind. The best thing is to lower the View Distance and disable the Post Processing effects. Ambient Occlusion can be hard on AMD Machines...

  19. Posted

    med/ high, yes but don't expect ultra high. you have a great rig don't get me wrong, but arma has always released with its "ultra-high" intended to be ran on the next gen top tier PC, and you very much have a current PC, I would expect us to preform very similarly and get medium during alpha but hopefully high once released and optimized

    I'm thinking if my GFX Card isn't up high enough, a crossfire will spank it. I looked at the exact processing differences, it doesn't 'really' seem to matter if I have a 7950. But we'll see tomorrow wont we!

×