instagoat

South America next time. 60s - 70s.

Question to devs, will we see an overhaul of the gun firing effects for tanks? Right now they are lacking compared to Arma 2 and its oft mentioned and very dead competitor. I have a ticket here, along with videos of actual shooting of tanks. http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=14023 The effects of rounds hitting are also weird, and may need a bit of work. Is there any possibility for removing the extremely performance intensive box-shaped texture particle effects for large, high-framecount, assymetric particles like they have been used in battlefield? The particle effects are massive performance drains, and with large amounts of them you can even observe particles disappearing when their count gets too high as shown here: Go to Timestamp 07:56 and observe particles disappearing on shells striking the ground. This is horrible! For performances sake you could even use a high res bitmap of the detonation at the point of impact and mirror and scale that to increase variations and have three of those, and then just use a couple of the normal dust particles at the base. Good looking effects are not about the amount of individual particles you can cram into a single cell (which is a rectangular cell, as can be observed in the video above: if you look closely, the footprint of the detonations is square and not round: this has been such with OFP ever since the first game, and by now I find it rather noticeable and annoying. It becomes obvious when more particles occupy a cell.). The lack of animated impact clouds also makes the mortar and artillery impacts look bad: note in the same video at 7:53 how the impact cloud just magically pops up as a stack of round cloudlets instead of an expanding, vertical column of dirt and debris. An example of such can be seen here: http://youtu.be/GUmK7baFCCA?t=13m (These are probably training rounds: the effect is basically what you get from the round striking. Modern HE rounds do not explode in the ground as much as on the ground, because of this there are no large columns of debris thrown up. Instead, the debris is thrown every which way. This video shows good footage of impact effects from the NLAW (Also the fact that it is a top-down attack weapon.)Is there any chance that the effect system will be improved, or are we stuck with this because of another engine limitation?

I've tickets regarding the APFSDS problem here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=14019 And a ticket with a suggestion for fixing the bad interiors problem here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=12555 At least, such a solution would be better than what we have. As far as the LCD's are concerned, I couldn't care less, since it is just a matter of overlays. The problem is that the optics are too sharp, but that has always been the case (Arma does not have any simulation of optics anyway, as far as the graphics engine.). Ammunition in Tanks is borked, I agree. Technically both T-100 and Merkava should be able to fire ATGMs from their main guns, too. I think they should add second versions of both, with all additional weapons/features enabled, ie, mortar for the merkava, pintle mounted MG's for commander, coax for the T-100, HEAT, HE-Frag Apers, possibly even Canister rounds. I do not want to rely on mods to fix up the game, the whole Idea of Arma 3 to begin was that mods should expand instead of fix the game this time. Unfortunately, it seems the game isn't quite there yet... again.

Picking apart all this conspiracy "The world is too complicated for me so I make it simple by pretending there is an overarching agenda and supporting that by quotemining people and interpreting socialist paintings" humbug is difficult to do on a one by one basis. Coffeeshock is demonstrating one thing conspiracy theorists always do, throwing out a -ton- of "facts", largely unsupported by any evidence bar said quotes and the occasional book written by an "insider", and leaving the counter argumenter gasping for breath as he is suffocated in a flood of information that ultimately turns out to be hollow and unimpressive. The free market is not your friend, neither is total government and regulation. Going to extremes on either side will lead to bloodshed. Legalizing (or de-regulating, as the PC term happens to be) corporate total liberty results in inhumane treatment of people too. Especially given the nature of a market as thoroughly saturated as ours. A company is, ultimately, like a tiny state in itself when totally freed of its legal boundaries within a nations system of law. It has a government, it has a working class and it has trade relationships (This obviously is oversimplifying things, but you get the Idea.). Contrary to the state, which is NOT to be confused with a government but the social contract between the citizens of a nation in essence, which exists to support, protect and better the lives of its citizens, a company is NOT bound by any ethical standards by default, but only its goal of producing profits for its shareholders. Company ethics are in fact not standards native to the concept of economics in a company, but rather are a fixed part (at least in our system.) of Corporate Identity and Public Relations. The reason why chemical companies do not dump their waste into Rivers anymore is NOT because the bosses were cuddly wuddly treehuggers who just happened to like the river to be blue, rather than rust red, but pressure by the public and its elected politicians to stop fucking with the environment. This in turn produced a PR factor (green-ness) which got turned around by PR specialists and now is on the front of such half-baked do-goody programs such as the green food industry. And one shouldn't forget that the concept of propaganda and public relations as coined by Bernays in his book "Propaganda" was first formulated with the eye on business, rather than political interests (in fact, Bernays was quoted as being "shocked" at the fact that after the war it turned out that Goebbels had been a fan of his work, and had used the concepts outlined in the book as his playbook for organizing the german propaganda machine. This was what turned the term negative, and resulted in the post war switch to "public relations" over the previously used term.). There is a difference between a corporation and a genuinely pro-society business, and it is a matter of scale and involvement of the people profiting from it. In a business, the people who invest in it are directly tied to their investment and often directly participate in it. In large corporations, liquidity is provided by a massive pool of anonymous shareholders (anonymous to the public, at least.) whose only involvement with the company is their held piece of paper and nothing else. There are also much larger sums of money involved, making the individual shareholder unless they themselves are a massive entity by scale of investment rather insignificant. Because of this, their lack of attachment to the workforce and the company as a whole, as well as the anonymity among each other produces the effect that they are much more focused on the balance sheet rather than what is actually good for the physical location that the company is placed at. Case in point, Nokias move from Finland to Germany to Romania for tax cut reasons, on the pressure of their board (which is elected by the investors, not the people producing value for the company, namely the employees.). Another problem is the nature of the money market, which by its natural dynamics is prone to produce bubbles and busts as well as massive surges especially in developing fields, which usually do not subside until a market is thoroughly saturated. But even then, PR problems can spell doom for a company. Because of this, people can actually work and produce nothing of effective value. Billions of dollars were invested in the US into the housing market, people worked, and you might as well have given the workers the money and forced them to smoke it in their pipes: money has -zero- inherent and stable value. The worth of what you earn is not defined by you, it is not defined by the government, it is not defined by the banks but it is defined by the market. The arbitrary number on your bank account does not represent the value of your work or the absence of value in your work, it represents a fixed fraction of a constantly changing pool of value that spells doom to any oversimplificating Idea of "People should just be paid for their honest work." Because by that Idea you should pay people not for what they produce, but rather for how expensive their work is for their mental and physical health, as well as their lifetime. That in turn would mean that a person with a mental-physical disability would need to be paid as much as a healthy worker doing a similar job, but with the disabled person working half the time of the healthy person because simply by nature of their disability, the job is more exerting on them. This is economic bullshit, but as far as humanity and kindness are concerned, more humane than any "elbows out and let the market rule" world views. Those by nature subject the individual to the total pressure of the market, and because of the huge imbalances on the global market would produce extraordinary stresses that would bowl many people right out of the pool and into the ditch. Welfare is NOT put in place by parasites to feed other parasites, it is put in place by the capable to help the incapable. The inherent doublethink in conspiracist world views, especially with regards to economics where they declare the german welfare state "Communist" and "Evil" is at times insufferable, but thankfully not a major opinion, because otherwise we would be in a hellish world reminiscent of the era of manchester capitalism. Also, if you want to suggest that communism or any form of dictatorship of any class over another class is a solution, you haven't learned any lessons, as a preemptive word here. My two extremely muddled cents.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=13155 The related feedback tracker issue. Also, this mod conflicts with other scope mods, such as the optics provided with massi's pack and especially Alwarren's pack (it renders Alwarrens optics completely nonfunctional as far as I tested.) The related feedback tracker issue is here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=2766

Is it just me or do the optics in helicopters not work anymore? When hitting the optics button the normal view just zooms in. Also, what is the left shift doing now, switching you out of your optics view?

Wat. It has a braking distance of one car length at 60 kph. If anything, the brakes are too effective

It is necessary to add functionality to select which vehicle to get into. Also, Waypoints should only get assigned after the player has set all variables. Right now setting a get in waypoint right next to a unit is impossible because the unit will have reacahed the waypoint before you have changed it to whatever you want it to be. The nato symbols are fine and can be learned, the problem is that they are incomplete and sometimes display the wrong symbol. (AMV-7s are counted as infantry instead of wheeled reconaissance, for example.) The type of symbol assigned to a Unit should be set by the player, not the other way around, at least for own Units. Further, we need a high command opposing AI in the style of Rydigiers Hetman, native to the game.

That is not the business model, and in fact, they have contracted out to modders extensively before. They seem to intend a system similar to that which exists for FSX, where outside companies produce content for the game platform for their own profit.

Is it just me or are the sound filters very rough? The gun blast from the tanks sounds gets really crackly and electronically distorted by static at distance, and pretty much all distant sounds do not sound like distance muddles them, but radio static. The guns and explosions are weird. I am trying to make a sound recording, anybody got an idea what kind of program I can use to make an example?

Marian Quandt was -creepy- as hell. Even without the scissor hands. The first time I played Arma and saw her it was a kind of... uncanny surprise

Wat. They allow the stuff. Have you seen the tons of open complaint threads? Stop hogging for attention with this stupid "hurr ur gon ban me aniwai so Imma show you wat I gotta say, yeeeeeaaa, stickin it to the man" Grow up. The campaign is coming. Hopefully more finished than the game. I'd rather wait a little longer than get something broken again. Also, SP missions and Editor. Be proactive, build something of your own!

That tank is so unfinished animation wise. It's as if they made it for the screenshots and then just let it sit on the shelf after they removed the coil gun. I'd rather see it replaced by the new model design that they are presenting to the public the first time this winter. Last I heard they wanted to show it to the world this month.

I think the milsim community isn't a majority, but it is not a minority either. By degrees, Arma 3 has not changed any of the core aspects of the concept behind the game, so the upset over these details is excessive at any rate. But dismissing the milsimming community in its entirety, wether it is the hard fraction that yells rank at each other and demands salute, or the more relaxed kind that is about tactical cooperative gameplay is wrong I think. Pd3 is right in the sense that many of those players sustained BI over the past two releases. Problem is, wether they supported it or not, the games still weren't up to standards. You cannot, however, take the milsimmers as the be all and end all of the community. I count myself to the soft part of that spectrum: I am interested in seeing a reflection of the real world in the game, and I won't deny that I have problems with some parts of Arma 3. However, dismissing the game on the count of changes that are somehow perceived as "Casualization", despite at the core being actual improvements to the realism of the game as far as fluidity and body control are concerned is irrational. If the milsimming community withers because of this overly harsh black and white perception of Arma 3 that some people seem to display it would indeed be a loss, but I doubt that most people are having such hard feelings over the game. Especially since many in the milsim community are veterans and are familiar with BI's track record, and they will know that usually you need to wait quite some time before the game takes off completely. Again, Arma 2 and Armed Assault were nearly unplayable at release, and Arma 2 didn't loose its bitter aftertaste for me until the release of Operation Arrowhead. Arma 3 tastes kinda sweet to me, and I am confident that it will only get better. In that, I also hope that team morale internal to the company won't be affected by this whinging, because to be honest I'd be a little disheartened at such a response after this long and difficult development. This degree of anger is misplaced and a waste of energy, and I feel sad at having to expend energy myself to counterbalance this. But it is important to me, because the perception of the game by some vocal members of the hard core milsim community on here feel distinctly skewed and overly emotional.

Quite possibly because these 80% are only about a third of the entirety of people who bought the game, and the rest stopped playing it because it was buggy as hell and generally not a well designed game, and rather just a massive soldier toybox with hurdles and hoops to make trying to enjoy it more difficult? Also, just because you do not enjoy doing arithmetic in your head to sight in a mortar or stare at a black screen for ten minutes because you've been knocked unconscious does not mean you are "less sophisticated". COD and Baddulfield and Medal of Goner are not the only games played out there. The standards of useability are pretty much universal, and Arma was up until now one of the few titles not up to these standards. This has nothing to do with realism, this is simply bad design. Arma used to be perceived first and foremost as a massive sandbox open to all kinds of gameplay. At some point everyone but the hardcore realism people left (likely because of the low quality of the post-resistance releases), and those often only stayed for lack of an alternative (hence the massive interest in OF:DR up until its release, and subsequent disappointment.). Arma 3 is sufficiently well put together to hold non military enthusiasts again, much like OFP did, I do hope, and make the community more diverse and expansive again. So, in a sense, by choosing not to participate in your chosen avenue of Arma gameplay in this iteration, you are sabotaging the kind of gameplay you desire, because without the attention of their fans, people like those working on ACE and its predecessors will likely not have gotten where they are now either. While modders work chiefly for their own enjoyment, part of that enjoyment is the appreciation and feedback of the people who care about whatever they do. The core gameplay concept of Arma is unchanged, which again is why I do not entirely understand the excessive whining. But, to each his own, I guess.

Pretty much what I suspected. Any Idea why it isn't done using simulated plates in the fire geometry of the vests, using the new penetration code and rvmats? This mathematical solution generalizing damage over the whole body is a step forward, but a small one compared to actual bodyarmor protection using "physical" plates. Edit: Also, do I get this right: Wether you use a tactical bandoleer, a crye cage or a greenfor chicom plate carrier doesn't matter, the unit itself determines damage modificator? That's... not very impressive.

I am defending them because A: This release is way better, smoother and more playable and polished than any of the other releases. OFP was more buggy on release day, and that says something! B: I trust them to make the right decisions toward fixing the standing issues, even though some things are clearly and blatantly disappointing. They never made any explicit promises, they admitted that development was difficult and that a ton was scrapped, and they admitted that their new Q+A process will result in content being stripped for not living up to standards. They were not using deceptive advertising, fake target screenshots, overly indulgent and/or misleading trailers or devlog videos, they didn't even cut out the bugs out of their streams and demo videos. I have talked to BI devs at gamescom, and when you ask them about problematic things in the game, you will in the large majority of cases receive a straight answer unless it is something indeed extremely critical. For example, the things I learned about the AI when I visited BI two years ago at said convention. I too am annoyed that there is still unfinished content in the release. But again, it is nowhere as bad as Arma 2 or Armed Assault, in indeed better than the original OFP (though compared to AA and A2 that release was super smooth too.). What annoys me more is the extreme black/white language directed at the game, as if we were looking at a DR style trainwreck (Where the above mentioned deception in advertising as well as -many- bugs and persisting engine problems took place, and remained unfixed to the end. Re 64 entity limit, memory leaks causing the game to crash after a certain time in big missions even after the final patch, lazy mission design and no modding support whatsoever, to mention a few things.), which I think is -very- harsh to do. And I find it hard to justify in my mind how this can be so persistently done, by so many people.

I would love to know how these abstract rights can be something such as "natural law". At the bottom of nature are no "laws", or fancy happy-do-good regulations the evil bankers are trying to subvert with evil schemes for the sake of extending their own abstract power. Further, money is an illusion itself, it is merely the promise that a piece of enumerated paper will buy you goods and services, and that those who sell you these services receive a representation of the value of the service they provided, which they can in turn continue to exchange. In effect, you own nothing of your "wealth", it has merely been shifted around from the source (government printing presses) through the money and goods market (which in turn gives the money a perceived value, by which in turn the goods and services are priced.) until it ended up with you for whatever reason. There is virtually no limit to how much money you can arbitrarily put into the system, because the value of money is entirely artificial to begin with, the only thing that matters is how the market responds. Now, who issues that money you want to exchange for goods and services? Do you draw things on pieces of paper and pretend its worth something? Nobody will trust your papers unless you got something backing it up: in the case of government, you back it with bonds, which will be paid out after a certain time and either financed by issueing new bonds, or by excess tax income. The "natural" problem is that a proactive state striving to keep its society intact and its populace healthy is inefficient because it is so open to exploitation. But, if you remove the welfare and healthcare, you will find the people open to exploitation by companies. In a laissez-faire market without checks and balances, where the only thing controlling what an insurance (in this case) will do if one of their customers needs a hospital bill paid you will find that it comes down to simple math for the company. And if they as a company want to survive, in broad terms, they need to make that calculation to keep afloat. If they calculate very conservatively and keep lots of dead cash on their banks to retain liquidity, so they can pay out to customers with high healthcare costs, who do not bring in as much money as they cost (and who need to be balanced by others who do not get sick but pay insurance anyway, and if you are young and healthy, why pay for a super expensive healthcare coverage?)... the result is loss in dividend for the people who finance the company. Those people will then enforce their interest (returns on their investment, and expansion of their assets) in the company or ditch it. So either you start stripping out those people who do not put black numbers on your balance sheet, or you find other sources of income. Natural result is that expensive people do not get health insurance. Further, since there are no checks and balances (we have no state enforced laws, in this extreme case) the company cannot be held to the contract by an individual, because nobody is there to provide an arbiter. Unless that is done by another company? This is beginning to look a bit like the society of blade runner, where -everything- is run by corporations. Again, this is not about people being good or being bad, this is about simple maths. Governments will always have the problem that they are in effect doing something that is completely contrary to darwinian pressures, they are in essence for the benefit of the entirety of individuals that align themselves with them opening themselves to predation and parasitism, with the promise to the people who are honest and decent that when they -do- fall on hard times, they can ask for help from their fellow citizens through the agency of the elected government. I think a basic income to reduce life stresses can only benefit society, since we are already at a stage where the abandonment of the welfare policies will very likely lead to a reduction in standard of living for a broad majority in those parts of the population that either by choice or circumstance cannot afford the present standard of living. Such is not healthy, and if I need to pay taxes that will go to helping my fellow human beings, I will gladly do so. Wether or not the government is in one way or other corrupted by psychopaths or sociopaths is a different question and should not be used as an argument to deprive large parts of the population of an already precarious standard of living (in germany, this especially concerns the ailing education system and class and profession based discrimination inherent in the system, not as bad as elsewhere, but not acceptable either in my opinion.). I also do not think that a small elite can alter the opinion of an entire society. I have some experience in advertising design, and the question that is asked in media is not "how can we shape public opinion" but "What does the customer want?". It is a self-reinforcing spiral where consumer and provider are reinforcing each other, and putting the blame on a single party or faction, such as "psychopaths in politics" or the "NWO" is entirely too simplistic.

Hell you are good, those all look great. I've tried blender and couldn't make heads nor tails of it. I guess I am way too analogue :( Keep it up, delicious stuff you got there

The DayZ AI improvement is that they threw out Arma's AI and replaced it with one that can only do two things essentially: Detect and follow a player, and avoid obstacles. I don't know how that's an improvement with regards to the abilities an opposing and friendly soldier AI for Arma needs.

The same argument could have been brought up when A2 introduced reloading on the move. "Oh now you don't have to think about reloading anymore and its much less strategic and plays like counterstrike, durr, gonna quit the series forever..." You still have the choice between pinpoint accuracy and reacting quickly, but the game points much more naturally now. It is fun to do CQB now, and not a hack-eyed, pants-filled-with-bricks getting stuck in doorways mess. Fair enough if you like a game for its actual shortcomings and flaws, but don't upset when those flaws get alleviated and leave you without that artificial barrier to fluid gameplay. Also this aloof treatment of new people "coming in from other games" as you so politically phrased it is beginning to get on my nerves. This arrogant elitism and rivetcounting is what made the IL-2 community nosedive, and IL2 CLOD with it, since their devs listened to their community. BI has made the right choices insofar that they are now finally trying to make the GAME enjoyable, rather than just slapping the same old mediocre game over the same brilliant concept over and over and hoping that people will forgive the flaws. This isn't 2001 anymore, you can't get anywhere with just a brilliant gameplay concept, you also need to deliver a brilliant game along with it! Imagine Portal with shitty, convoluted controls, unresponsive and artificially nerfed movement system, bad performance and obtuse and half-finished level design. But I guess those titles are too "gamey" and "Cod" like for the simuladurr master race (And no offense to the people working hard on making the hard side of the game harder and more realistic, my beef is with this blatant and time-wasting vitriol that is constantly thrown about for no other reason than to justify flawed and obsolete Ideas and concepts.) to consider as having things relevant to Arma 3, since it isn't a game, but a hard-core military simulator... right? If you don't like it, alright. Nobody cares but the balance sheets of BI. What you all who are posting these things are trying to achieve is beyond me. Shame BI into acknowledging that everything they did in the past three years was wrong and you are right, and that they're sorry and they will fix everything and add blood groups and eye-wiping simulation and wet socks simulation and individual inertia simulation for every thread of fabric and screw on your vest? I dunno, really. Why? Edit: As far as OP's question is concerned: Yes, I do really hope so!

New lighting effects are better, I think, they reflect what internal refractions and haloing in the human eye look like better. The ones there are more reminiscent of a cheap camera lens.

"Lentonized" lol I agree, it finally has started to come together. The missing parts are by a good margin not as bitter as the broken parts the game had before.

By percentages I would assume the percentage of sociopaths or psychopaths in government and in business is about the same, so the mass of these people will be in larger society, not politics simply because the political class is relatively small. And the question of invention of "socialism" isn't one I am in a place to answer, but in general it would be natural for entities of power (which banks are, in fact they sit at the source of power distribution.) to try and reinforce their positions of power. I am not arguing in favor of communism and socialism, or any of their offspring, and I am also opposed to any idea related to anarchism. These experiments have been done and they have failed in terrifying fashion, with an unbelievable toll in life and livelihood to the point where you can hardly find a family anywhere on the planet left unaffected by these calamities in one way or the other. I believe if you completely unleash the market, and remove government control, the market will be taken over by the people who can play the system (I am not using the word psycho- or sociopath because that's a completely arbitrary term in this regard. On the count that matters, survival and economical and memetic success, they will be on top.). Everybody who is not able to conform to the evolutionary pressures and perform in the marketplace with those people, whatever form it may take, will loose unless the broad majority of non predators is provided with a lever to control these elements that are undesireable from their perspective. That is why government needs accountability and why the marketplace needs accountability. Also, big evil companies lobby with the government because A: lobbying with each other is illegal since it creates monopolies (this only delays their development, especially in markets that are high in demand with few avenues of penetration.) and B: The government is the one who can by pressing magic buttons give your company tremendous advantages. The trouble starts when government has to go to companies to do things. One such example where a thing akin to this took place is Guatemala in the 50s, one of the most shameful chapters in the history of the free world. I do not like systems that measure the wealth of a society in anything but human happiness, progress and curiosity. I believe there is something such as Utopia, at least as an abstract (much like the concepts of infinity and pi), and while it is by definition an unreachable state of perfection, striving to accept mediocrity clearly resulting in human suffering is not cutting it for me. I also realize that these problems are more complex than people can put into words easily. In fact, even experts do not have the full picture, because many features of the world are so disconnected from each other that despite their interrelationships we cannot enumerate these things sufficiently to paint a whole picture. Only afterwards do we know that whatever we did was good or bad because of X, Y or Z (if we have records unblemished by propaganda, which we as citizens cannot ever have unless we are first hand witnesses, and then without training in recording you will likely reflect the event in a fashion that colors it in some way for everyone who listens.), and that's not really good enough. Strictly speaking I oppose free capitalism and enforced socialistic or even communistic Ideas as inhumane. It's been 100 years, I think we need to come up with something new that takes humans out of the equation, and replaces suffering with simulation, and artificial wealth in the shape of numbers on paper or data memory with real wealth in knowledge, material achievement and prospects of a better future for all mankind whatever form it may take. Even if that means wiping out the physical, biological machine that currently produce our minds and replacing them with something else more readily capable of coping with a Universe that is trying to kill us at every turn.

You mean the previous arma games which, aside from OFP were overambitious train wrecks done with too few people and too little time with unreachable goals and little to no quality control up to the release of Arrowhead? Games terribly buggy and underperforming at release, with broken missions, half-implemented or downright broken content, or content that even the dev team themselves had little understanding of (re AI)? Games that even today have parts that are nonfunctional due to cross-contamination with bugs as patches were made, or that even after those patches have content holes that never were addressed (such as the loose ends in manhattan or the final Harvest Red mission, or the wrong voiceovers in Queens Gambit?)? The previous arma games that have, up until now, seen virtually -zero- changes in UI and controls? Nevermind that they used completely outdated animation systems, a systems in fact that were on the verge of obsoletion in 2001 when the first part was released! The previous Arma games were saved by mods, in and of themselves they were hardly enjoyable. I as a veteran had trouble enjoying them until mods came out. This one can stand on its own. Your near religious rethoric (calling new users "blind" because they can't enjoy a rubbish game that almost ruined a brilliant concept twice after proving it worked with the first game, and that they are being "tricked" by Bohemia because BI is finally learning to cut the fat and not release things that are clearly broken.) is frankly annoying and insulting. Just because you, over years of habituation have learned to look past all the flaws of the game and enjoy the concept doesn't mean that everybody else has the will or even need anymore to put up with the shitty game to get at the brillian concept, and just get with it from the start, because the basics are largely working now! Like I said before, what many oldtimers seem to argue for is more old plastic rather than a few new pieces of metal cutlery, and I am glad to cast away the plastic and go with the metal, even though it is still a little wonky and unfinished, it is still much better than what I perceive we had before.