vegeta897

For the same reason any tiny simple feature you can think of for any game or software doesn't exist. Nobody can do everything, and every single thing they choose to do means not choosing something else. The best they can do is assign priorities and act on them. This will always be the case. You may as well be picking things from the change logs and asking why BI have included them. It's the other side of the same coin. That said, there are of course many things BI may have never thought of or have been suggested, so you should make a ticket for this.

Came here to post exactly this. Games render a series of still images, film captures movement. I made this gif real quick to demonstrate the concept: http://i.imgur.com/jy0NflW.gif Both boxes are moving at 24fps but the bottom one appears to move smoother with some slight motion blurring. When you focus on the edges of the top box, you can see each individual jump in position between each frame. Not so with the motion blur. Instead of pixels going instantly from grey to blue, there is a fading. But more than that, the slight elongating and blurring of the shape in the direction of movement simply conveys motion better. Our eyes have an easier time interpreting it as motion and our brains fill in the gaps. Another excellent point. FPS as a simple number is definitely not a consistent indication of fluidity across all games. Hell, even introducing a 0.2 second input lag can make a 60fps game feel considerably worse than a 20fps game.

Don't use up all your hype DarkSide, I need a steady stream of your posts for the next several months.

Unless you want better controls and performance to be in a DLC, BI needs to fund the game's continued development. Performance has been part of their focus since the game has released, and it is now more than ever. Controls/interface are also confirmed to receive some overhauling. The developers creating content are not the same people. Project management isn't as simple as you seem to imagine. They don't just have the entire team chase down one task. Also, a lot of people care about the terrain and expansion.

I don't think anyone can say there won't be bridges. We've been told the artists rushed to make parts of the island presentable. Bridges could easily be on their roadmap (heh pun) but they were not essential for the preview video and so are not included (they may not have a finished model for one yet). Concluding there are no bridges based on a short preview video of an unfinished island is quite hasty. Of course as I said before I hope more attention is given to amphibious and water craft/logistics regardless of bridges.

Bratwurste said regardless of having retail Windows 7/8, you'll have to buy Windows 10 again after 1 year for new machines. But the FAQ I just quoted says he's wrong.

According to this FAQ from yesterday, that isn't true if you have a retail license.

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-10-faq "You’ll also be able to create your own installation media like a USB drive or DVD, and use that to upgrade your device or reinstall after you’ve upgraded."

I own a retail license for Windows 7, so I won't have to pay for Windows 10 at any point. So, you're wrong. OEM licences not being allowed to transfer to new computers is exactly the point. If you update your OEM license to 10, it's still OEM and the same restrictions apply. It's no more a "ruse" than the original OEM license was. The point at which you'd "have to" buy Windows 10 would be the same point at which you'd have to buy another license for 7 or 8.

I remember there being a patch in Arma 2 that greatly increased the draw distance of aircraft in flight. As in, if you were looking at a plane that was 5km away, you could see it even if your view distance was only 4k. Is not in Arma 3? If not it really should be. There's almost no downside since you're only drawing a few dozen more polygons and since it's in the sky there's no need to draw an environment around it.

He said DX12 would help kick up performance. He said performance was something they wanted to nail down. That does not mean DX12 is the only thing they're doing to improve performance. Like I said, they've already been doing things for performance since the game launched. They're not going to stop now just because DX12 is coming. How am I ignoring that? I didn't say DX12 wouldn't have an impact. I said it's not the only thing BI have going for improving performance. Never said anything close to that, nor did I say DX12 was not being integrated for anything but performance reasons. The posts just before mine were railing on the topic of whether DX12 was the only thing needed to improve the game's performance. Maybe I just imagined the misinterpretation, but I can't see why that is even a point of a discussion. I figured since DX12 is the only thing BI mentioned, people think that's the only thing being done. It's the only reason I can imagine for people bringing unrelated performance issues into this thread that DX12 is not going to address. I can neither confirm nor deny this!

That's exactly what I'm pointing out. The devs didn't say "we're going to nail down performance by putting in DX12." They said they were putting in DX12, and nailing down performance. DX12 is only one part of the task. People are acting like BI is going to do nothing else but implement DX12, and if that doesn't increase performance they're going to give up, or something. They've been working on performance since the alpha released, they're not going to stop until it's good. DX12 or not.

What was said: "We're putting DX12 in and we're going to nail down performance" What everyone heard: "DX12 is going to fix all the problems in Arma" Sigh... You people. You zero in on a single point and forget the big picture. Tunnel vision.

I didn't mention CoD at all. Or any game, for that matter. That was my entire point, that there are no games to compare Arma to unless you want to compare apples and oranges. I hope you realize all of those things are secondary to the game itself. You know, the reason people actually play it. Nobody starts playing or keeps playing Arma for its graphics. Least of all not specific technologies. What the hell do I care what year their shaders are from? Did I say Arma was perfect? I said there are no games that do what Arma does but better. Other games may have specific elements that are better when compared to Arma, but that isn't the same thing. I could make a browser game in a few days that has impeccable AI road navigation. I could make a unity game that has proper shadows. What does that prove? Arma's achievement in development is the culmination of all that it offers, and on a massive scale. Cherry picking comparisons doesn't prove anything. How can you realistically expect a developer to create a game that is as good or better in every aspect than any other game? One where you can't point to a single part of it and say "this part is not done as well as other games do it." Such a feat is nearly impossible. It's what BI can strive for, but complaining that they can't achieve it is asinine. Especially when you aren't even being constructive with your criticism. Why is it vanishing? Arma has become more popular than it used to be, and Arma 3 has seen more feature growth and improvement than any previous Arma. My post made 2 points: that there is nothing else that offers the Arma experience out there, and that my dated system can run the game well. Can you refute either? You just did nothing but put words in my mouth and point out more things that totally ignore my first point. I would say that you don't know what I'm talking about. --- It's easy to look at an ambitious project and point out the flaws. They are always going to exist. If you were to try designing a game that had everything you wanted, it would be stuck in development hell eternally. There is never a point where you can consider a game like Arma to be complete. There is always something that can either be added or improved. BI has to make choices and set priorities. No matter what choices they make some people are going to disagree. The way you speak about the game's problems, if you were in charge of development the game would never make it out the door. By the time you implemented all the features you wanted, your tech would be years old. Oh no, we can't have that! Better redevelop it all. By the time you do that, something else is years old. It's an impossible task. What you aim for is a project with a reasonable scope that enough people find acceptable. You get that out the door, then you work on a list of prioritized improvements. They cannot work on everything at once. Why do you think the role of project manager is a thing? If game development was just "add in anything you can think of, make it the best possible" you wouldn't need a project manager. There needs to be someone to decide on the scope and make decisions. Coming up with what a game should have is a lot easier than coming up with what the game shouldn't.

Those two things directly contradict eachother. More range means quiet things are quieter and loud things are louder. Sounds like you want less range if gun shots are too loud compared to other things. The game definitely had this, was it removed? I know for a fact that I would hear the ambient sounds almost disappear after shooting a few rounds, and then slowly come back in.