instagoat

The rifle is still in, but the specific layout is not (MXM with Eotech sight, apparently.). So this is rather an error of "Has not been introduced yet" rather than "Removed accidentially"?

My config is skill 0.85 for both, and accuracy of 0.25, and at those settings fights are getting way too easy, oftentimes. Only when the enemy has a massive advantage in numbers and position (such as the infantry showcase) does it get challenging and/or unfair.

Something changed with today's beta update.

You got me there. I was not specifically talking about saying that the RPG and NLAW aren´t done okay now. I was rather pointing towards the abundance of pessimism. I´ve got to admit that I am not happy about many of these things myself, and possibly I am trying to just hang on to the "good side" for the sake of it. Also, I am saying that they are irrelevant because missiles and armour penetration in general are not modelled correctly anyways. So I do think the argument stands: without proper simulation of the true differences between these systems (Handling, true Armor penetration, single-use launchers with detachable optics, etc.) it doesn´t matter that the NLAW and the RPG-42 are the same by stats. Putting in a difference for mere feel is maybe a good approximation, but I like to think that BI can reach higher standards than approximations by now. That does not mean that I do not care about the NLAW and RPG being modelled realistically from a personal and realism point of view, because I do. I just think it´s not worth the effort of putting in the mentioned approximations using an inherently unrealistic and overly simplified system. And overall, what I find most frustrating about this is that BI again tried to do too much, and now they´re really starting to cut corners. We have gotten a ton of improvements so far, though, and I do hope that the problems will not take the edge off of that. We have been promised hard-kill defensive system (Trophy, for example) at the last two games convention rounds. This time, no word. And considering how the (rather simple) armor system has not been changed, or the tab-lock system, or in fact the overly simple target aquisition for shoulder launched missiles, I am somewhat dreading to see what this kinda system would look like when done similarily simplicistic. Again, it comes down to how quickly and easily you can make changes to the engine. What a quick pipeline can do for you is shown by looking at OF:Red River. They whipped out a complete game in less than a year. Obviously they didn´t try to do half as much as BI, but I have the faint suspicion that a lot of the cutbacks come from the fact that we´re basically looking at a complete game, that has been adapted and added up upon over the course of more than ten years and no less than five iterations (not counting A3 and the DLCs). This is a behemoth, where there has partially been no oversight prior to the start of the development of the game (re the AI). "Balancing" really just means in this context to make the assets work to where the game is fun. The sheer amount of new detail features, inventory, movement, PP, weather, Islands and Missions has taken up so much time and space that I´m thinking that if we´ll ever see the hard and heavy features the community desires ingame, it will be with an OA style addon.

So many strawmen and red herrings in this thread. For example, re the AI. BI never promised any major improvements. From the start they said that the AI would only be tweaked and adjusted to make basic features work. I had devs telling me this in person at GC, even. As for the missiles, the fact that the RPG and NLAW are the same is irrelevant to me, because they are not properly simulated anyways. The lock on system for the Titan is also mega simplicistic. The Armor system is still the same as in OFP. Bodyarmour is just a mathematical modifier to the damage dealt, rather than properly simulated. The health kits are still insta-healing. Okay, so much for the bad, now what´s actually good. Because judging by this thread, we are headed for an OF:DR style ship-to-iceberg event. Improved AI values: On my rig, they use Handgrenades now, and do so competently. They are more reliable in finding cover (Far from perfect still, but a visible improvement.). They are not uber-precise anymore, but are still threatening enough to make you consider taking cover. Vehicles with TI will now spot you and kill you. They suppress more liberally, and maneuver aggressively. Granted, they still charge into enemy fire without consideration, do not cover each other or gather AT launchers from bodies when tanks show up, but by now I´ve given up on them ever gaining those skills natively. Gear system and Weapon attachments. Building PMCs or Guerillias is not a matter of making completely new Units anymore. Need some kind of rebel fighter? Custom build em! The clothes in fact are best sorted right now, because any new Uniform can be thrown onto any Unit in the Editor, ditto for vests and headgear and the like. The problem is weapons attachments, which still have not been sorted out, so weapons will probably fall way short in moddabillity terms at release day. The weight system is still in, albeit it seems a bit castrated, but weighing yourself down with tons of kit will exhaust you quickly. Once protection is in, these things will become even more important. New movement system. If you look at the sheer amount of animations and animation states in the config editor or the animation viewer, you can understand what a humongous task it was and is to get this working. And the AI can use the basic functionalities of the movement system as well as they could before, and if it´s not a step back we can at least say it´s not gotten worse. The movement system is fantastic: you can move in combat fluidly, exploit cover, and be more effective in general. Plus, it does not feel like you´re a sedated sloth with its pants full of bricks on a skateboard anymore when moving. New lighting and atmospherics. Big improvement, and about as good as it gets. No other game simulates dynamic worlds on this scale, with such dynamic light situations as this. No pre-baked shadow maps here, sir. The clouds are a massive improvement too, whoever suggested that they were a simple copypaste needs to go ingame and look up. In Arma 2, the clouds are the same 2D maps pasted in three layers onto the sky. Which always move east, and only east, at the same speed, no matter the weather conditions. Everyone who has flown one of the Arma 2 jets in TKOH, on the east asia map knows what a huge effect these clouds can have towards improving the visuals. Now we also have properly done fog. And, troubling as it may be for some, but games sell on their visuals, not the correct amount of buttonpresses to lock a missile. Sound system: Actually, right now, I do not like this very much. While the actual sounds for the guns are good, the explosions are lackluster or downright boring, and the distance filtering makes everything sound as if it is blaring out of a set of cheap loudspeakers. A lot of tweaking will be necessary to get this right, but I think the Idea has a lot of potential. It just needs to be tweaked right: again, manpower and time. Bullet penetration has also been improved (idk if you noticed). Normal bullets get stopped by the doors of the pickup, for example, while 7.62 and the sniper rifle rounds will go straight through. Even soldiers do not offer hard cover anymore as they did before. I have once had a single .50 bullet from the GM6 kill three soldiers standing behind each other in a row in a test I did. I think one reason for the lack of brand new features or work intensive features at this point is that they need to make sure all their assets are functional in this regard, especially since the penetration modelling was touted as a feature at the first and second rounds of E3 conferences (not this time, though, afaik). Now, the setting itself remains problematic, because there still is a lot of unhappiness in the community because the core content of the game doesn´t appeal to the fans of the 20th century type of cold war setting. The only thing really that could draw these people, if the core game does not, is the promise of large scale and comparatively easy modding. And for people like me, who do not like content altering mods, a functional native game is massively important. I am starting to get worried that BI is trying to take too big of a bite again, but only time will tell. In the meantime, people should advertise this problem so it gets fixed, otherwise weapon mods will have a bad time: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=2766

WW1 razzle dazzle :O I´ve made the pompous wish on the feedback tracker to replace this with some kind of grey ghost/splinter camouflage. As nice as this looks, it´s not up to date with current camouflage practice and knowledge.

I´ve got to say that I can understand modders becoming frustrated with the game and the tools provided. Agreed, I am particularily bad with this, but it took me about a year now to get something ingame (and that was a mere reskin), and only a week to break the config again to where I don´t understand what I broke and how I broke it. There is no pipeline in the tools that allows for easy implementation of content. And now that the addons have become so complex, it really slows you down. I´ve the faint suspicion that this lack of ease of integrating new 3D content is also a problem for BI themselves, taking time away from other places. And the longer it takes to get something ingame, and have it work satisfactorily, the harder it is to stay "on the ball", so to speak. So, I don´t blame anybody who doesn´t want to mod for A3. In fact, I´ve expected that the modding community will change dramatically when A3's features were first being announced. I am not as pessimistic anymore now as I was then (as in, expecting the modding community to dry up completely), but I still see that things are drying up and that the talented people that modded on the games before are often deciding not to participate anymore. I know it is on the face of it a cheap proposition, but what is necessary is maybe an easier way to get content working ingame. Some sort of GUI based config editor with plug-n-play functionality, an ingame debugger and config editor possibly, and a 3D editor that makes bringing content over from common formats easier. An example would be the weighting difficulty, which seems to be one of the major problems with every Unit model ever. I have seen modders complain about this for a long time, and I don´t exactly understand how difficult this is, and how it could be made easier, but maybe this is worth looking into to? In the end, the difficulties the modders have are the same the BI devs have, since the tools are the same (unless BI has switched to a different system by now?). And if modders who have all the time in the world and no deadlines are getting frustrated, then how does it have to be for somebody who is working under time pressure and AAA title quality demands? tldr; blaming modders for leaving is wrong. Cheerio InstaGoat

I´ve searched and couldn´t find a similar situation anywhere on here. I have three squads trying to load into a column of Marids. In total, these are four squads (3x Infantry Squads and 1x Column of 4x Marids.). However, when at the "Load" waypoint, the Infantry only loads up into one of the vehicles. All remaining infantry then run off on their own, while the tanks drive off. Question is how do I get all three squads to load up into the Vehicles. (All squads are supposed to load off at the same spot on the other side of the Island). Picture of the setup below.

I would contest that claim. Philosophy cannot be independent of science anymore, while Science will technically be able to sooner or later describe a "perfect" state of society. Evolution by natural selection shows that Life strives towards optimal solutions to filling any given niche. Science is really just a very refined extension of philosophy. Science is a method, not a "Philosophy" or Ethical/Moral system of thought. But, like Philosophy, it can make statements on wether or not something is beneficial. What is defined as "good" or "beneficial" is probably then the last matter of discussion, but ultimately, you cannot detach Science from its roots in Philosophy, and the fact that it can and needs to be used to extend it. A lot of philosophy is dumb or meaningless statements (For example the questions of wether or not life in a deterministic Universe is worth living, or the Idea of Solipsism.) which can be often discarded at the gate. A lot of these things are untestable. This is also one thing that is relevant here, because much of what string theory proposes is a multiplicity of theoretically existing but by definition inaccessible dimensions. If you cannot test something your theory depends on, by definition, I don´t see how it is relevant EVEN if it would turn out to be correct. Philosophy also harkens back to the evolved misconception that the Universe somehow has purpose, which is the root of religious superstition. And the realization that the Universe has no purpose, and only naturally, thoughtlessly and aimlessly evolving systems following the given laws of physics is an intimidating thought. Which is one reason why I believe that the search for "the meaning of life" is still existent at all. Having to deal with the complete freedom and responsibility of a life that has to be given its own purpose by the power of our Ideas, with "nothing" (another ultimately meaningless word, I think.) before and after, with no reward and no direction is difficult. So, psychologically, you can also understand the impulse in this theory of Weinstein and string theory in general, that the hidden dimensions may also hold a hidden greater good or purpose of some sort. I am making way large presuppositions here, but I think it may have something to it. my two cents.

you wot m8 did you really join to ask that question

I finished the commanding showcase. In fact, that was the only one I managed on the first try. I agree that from a military planning standpoint, both Infantry and Combined arms are completely stupid. One reason why I found Infantry no fun was that the only thing you´re doing is charging down a funnel into the machinegun fire of massively superior enemies, both in numbers and positions. It´s like the kobayashi maru test of infantry combat. The Combined arms adds to the same situation the inabillity of the AI to use vehicles in the same fashion a human would (fight from a distance, OODA cycles instead of randomly barging in, they do not -ever- use terrain to their advantage, ie use hull down positions, move where the water flows, etc.). It is simply not enjoyable. I set up something -much- more fun using the hillside below Camp Maxwell, without helicopters at all, because they are also useless because they do not know how to not get shot down. Attack helicopters do not do attack runs at 10 ft altitude directly across the target. We did that in WW1 until people started shooting back. Ever since then, we have been using techniques like slashing attacks, terrain masking (which is impossible to do with any AI, so I am not even asking for it.) and using distance seperation and speed. Vehicle AI needs a workover, much like all other parts of the AI. I´m currently trying to summarise my thing that I´ve tried to do two months ago. Life´s been keeping me from doing anything else but short tests and notes, but I think I can finish a page to put up here for community consideration. The freestyle evolution of the mission is also one of the big things for me, it´s the reason I play Arma. However, the problem with the Vehicles is that they do not act very cleverly with regards to the terrain. I have noticed that they are more careful in advancing now, sometimes even halting in cover until a specific threat is eliminated (I at least hope this is a feature, not a bug that´s occured during ongoing tweaks), but they still tend to be useless in a situation where they do not have prior knowledge of the "shape" of the battlefield. The reason why I found the AMV not being much help is that there is basically two alternatives, either it spots enough enemies to become an effective combatant, or it gets blown up before it notices anybody at all. The same goes for the helicopter, which charges in (which makes for nice cinema) and then just flops about trying to find targets. By the time it finds something, it´s flown directly across the hottest parts of the battlefield twice and is so damaged that on the third (actual) attack run it nosedives into the hillside. I do not think these vehicles need advanced anti missile systems or artificial bullet shields DR style, but they need a course in vehicle tactics. For example, staying behind the infantry or in front of them depending on their role (maybe as a waypoint setting), and a way to check wether or not they are hull down in relation to three randomly chosen known enemies within their frontal 90° arc. Their spotting is good, however, at least that of the Marid, with my settings (.80 skill, .26 precision). It is heading in the right direction. I am trying to put together something helpful, so we can get the rough edges on a single page, and get a word on from your side what can be fixed, and what requires too much assets/time to be done, so we know what exactly we can expect. Cheers InstaGoat

When the performance gets low, sometimes the game does not register key strokes. This is happening for me with the sight switching, stance adjust, and even firing. Sometimes it gets to the point where it does not recognize keystrokes at all anymore, requiring a restart. This is so random however that I´ve not made a ticket, assuming this was a singular issue of mine, possibly because of my computer. But, actually, do more people than me have this issue now? Basically this: If you have fps from 40 downwards, and especially from 20 downwards, sometimes the game will not register key commands (no matter what keybind) for switching optics, switching stances, stance adjustments, pulling the trigger, lowering or raising the weapon. Anybody else?

The flags and patches on this Unit are all 3D mesh, unfortunately. I´ve used the patch on the left side as a sort of ISAF style patch in my feeble attempts at reskinning these. Maybe turn it into some sort of EUFOR or Combat Team patch?

Really cool, I´m nowhere that fast. However, to really prove the speed people would need to post videos ;) Videos are ultimate proof.

Using Alex Vestins adapted US4CES transitional swatch, own template Using Revski's USAF digital Tigerstripe, own template

The shooting courses are really great. Will we also get high scores in the steam cloud and a dedicated platform for sharing user made competetive shooting ranges, as well as E-Sports implementation?

VBS style screen distortion with increasing, pulsing vignette would be better than the black screen flashing. In real life, your vision also gets slightly blurry as your fatigue increases, especially in hot weather, however this effect is something that is far from as pronounced as it is in the game. But it is a game. What needs to be increased massively is the effect of fatigue on your aiming, though, rather than heavier visual cues. And the fatigue effect does not need to be altered. Try running around with 100 lbs of gear on you in 35°C summer heat and then tell me you can run 5 kilometers without having a heart attack. You will walk most of that distance, and even then you´d be hard pressed to not be huffing and soaked in sweat.

Haha, nice... I just made the same thing, but I guess I´ll one up you by doing this in UCP later, too. Meanwhile, have some explosions: http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/1118298861021034223/72F18C6C657C571031A2DCE6E6CDE768721A5293/ Massif Combat shirt + ACP? idk, k, just acu'd it. I don´t recall where I got the swatch from, it´s been sitting on one of my HD's unused for ages. Possibly googlah?

A small question regarding this: Where was it said that the weight/encumbrance system was scrapped? That is kinda scary, that was one of the big features for me...

So the developers, who went to greece multiple times, probably took thousands over thousands of photographs, and studied the weather, the colours and the general feel of the environment for multiple weeks in total, are wrong. Also note, none of your monitors are probably white-balanced, and everybody has set them to a different color temperature. Just because it looks wrong on your monitor does not mean it looks wrong on mine. Just as a thought.

I think in terms of accuracy and build quality, whatever you will produce will be more close to reality than many professionally made A+ title art assets, and I am already looking forward to seeing your stuff ingame. Especially because the vests and uniforms can be mixed and matched so dynamically with the new system. I just hope BI will adress the standing issues with the weapons attachments for example, so that if you´re doing new gear to go on the guns for these units, they can be used with other community made weapons such as the SCAR rifles that are in the works now, or the excellent Rifles RH and Sabre cooperated on. Really thrilled to see your stuff, I am absolutely looking forward to this! Cheers Insta

That is because the GP ammo is hypercavitating ammo intended to be used on the SDAR, under water. Use the conventional ammunition, and the problems will go away.

Only FHQ items that are incompatible for me are the FHQ laser pointers and flashlights, but this gun comes with its own laser anyway, so that is no problem.

Red Flag raised immediately when it is revealed that he went to the press instead of the journals first. If you do not have enough trust in your own theory to subject it to the scrutiny of your peers prior to releasing it, something is wrong. 10 trust points deducted, I do not expect this to go anywhere unless this individual is seriously outstanding and just misguided out of inexperience or whatever else condition in deciding to publish to the press first instead of the journals. Also, the decision of the oxford person is dubious, and I doubt this decision would´ve been felled by Dawkins, who held that place until recently. Not gaining twinky points for that either. We cannot explain everything, and the big question right now is something rather different, which is that of the higgs boson. Why this is important is an interesting question, and if you don´t know why, I encourage you to look into it. As for Weinsteins mysterious particles, the LHC project has put massive effort into finding new particles, and if his particles were existent at all, they are either so stupendously rare as to be indetectable, or they would have been detected already. The Higgs Boson aleady is difficult to detect, and we took a -long- time and billions of collisions inside the detectors to find a mere handful of particles that -may- be the higgs boson we are looking for. Contrary to what the press claimed, this particle is not yet proven to be the Higgs Boson (not conclusively). Wether or not the Higgs Field (which is the real reason for us to be looking for the particle indicating its existence) is present, as proposed in Higgs Paper from 1967 (I believe) is a better question to focus on right now, because we have actual indicators that point towards its existence. With its multiplicity of dimensions, I don´t see how Weinstein's proposal is different from your run of the mill String Theory Idea. Again, if the Idea has merit, we will find out. But it will not happen by blaring it out through the Guardian, or whatever other propaganda mouthpiece they chose to use.

I wouldn´t agree that they do it far better. Differently yes, but not better. But, the things they make the AI do differently are obviously things more in line with what the players desire, among those some features that I too would love to see with the native AI. FAK and Ammo collection by the AI, automatically, collecting AT weapons and other heavy weapons when the chance is there and/or enemy armor is around, and stopping the AI from sending teammates running alone across the map. But, as far as I know the AI was already decided upon to not be expanded because nobody knew how it worked to begin with. I am not sure that you can even access its files inside the game as it is, so the community can only do tack-on addons to begin with. I still believe that, maybe, the AI needs a complete re-write bottom to top, discarding everything and building something new with the lessons of 12 years learned, instead of trying to fix a 12 year old behemoths accumulated errors and shortcuts. The AI is good, it works, but it neither is good enough in the eyes of the players as it seems, and neither does it seem to work consistently enough. One example is the driving, which has been a problem ever since OFP, and which has never improved to the point where you can reliably expect a truck to drive from one side of the island to the other without wrecking itself, or running over somebody who is vital to the mission.