Jump to content

vegeta897

Member
  • Content Count

    696
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by vegeta897


  1. 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.


  2. Each frame from a movie is intertwine with the previous and next one, which gives it a "natural" motion blur and in most cases works well - some fast panning scenes might not be that great, but fine overall. That's why when you pause a movie, you can get a blurry image instead of a sharp, clear one. In a game all the frames come one after another, every pause shows a clear and sharp image because of it. Due to this differences, games cannot be as cursive as a movie at lower FPS.

    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.

    Then you have the biggest difference. You watch a movie while you play a game. The "low fps syndrome" comes into play and it's annoying because of the lag and the quick lost of fluidity of the motion (especially at 24fps). 30fps might be ok (acceptable) in different games/genre (like the TW 3 where you just spam the click in some direction), while in A3 you need a steady and precise aim and higher FPS is paramount.

    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.


  3. Who cares about a new terrain

    Who cares about an expansion

    Who cares about new game modes

    When the core mechanics, controls , and performance are clunky and unoptimized .

    The developers of Arma 3 really should check their priorities years ago !!!j

    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.


  4. 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.


  5. As far as I know, nowhere outside the EU has ruled it unlawful to tie software to hardware, so customers outside the EU will have to purchase a new licence if they wish to install Windows 10 on different hardware.

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

    BCoXfcg.png


  6. OEM always has been tied to machine (after 8 is through bios), that's not the point.

    The point is, sooner or later you will have to buy DirectX 12 (i mean windows 10).

    So, this free update thing is more like a ruse.

    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.


  7. 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.


  8. erm nope.

    there's no and. there's direct causal connection.

    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.

    and even if your interpretation of what they said was true. you are ignoring also Mareks tweet about DX12 having significance for arma 3 and overall the things that DX12 has in store.

    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.

    if you think they are adding DX12 for water reflections or something then you're just badly informed.

    Never said anything close to that, nor did I say DX12 was not being integrated for anything but performance reasons.

    as for continuous effort to fix/improve performance. yea sure. i agree. the question is, what are the gains we have seen so far?

    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.

    so i think you just like to tell people to calm down for no reason or something :p

    I can neither confirm nor deny this!


  9. no idea what you're talking about but all i see here is people arguing if one can "nail down performance" by "putting in DX12" or not.

    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.


  10. 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.


  11. Just look outside of BI and see where games are heading. Check their graphic and their incrasing level design size. If your only comparison is CoD you are a double ignorant then.

    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 this game doesn't cast shadows from light sources. Not even one. I hope you realize this game uses 2006 shaders and the lighting is broken (it goes trhough objects). What about the tools? Why do you think the large majority of skilled artists doesn't even bother with this engine? Because it's not worth it. I know people that wouldn't work for this game even for money.

    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?

    And what about AI that can't even uses roads? What about the half arsed phyisic implementation and the ridicolously bad ragdoll? What about their animation system?

    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.

    THis game always had an huge potential that now it's vanishing with the hopes of having a decent game.

    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.

    And I hope you realize you don't know what are you talking about.

    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.


  12. More range without ridiculous volume.

    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.

    It would be good to have a feature that dials general volume level up or down depending on situation. In reality, you are wandering around at night in the environment - you hear every little thing. Suddenly there is alot of noise for a while. Before you can hear the little details it takes a while. Just like your eyesight has to adjust to changes of brightness, it could be done the same with sound. -> Less loud sounds are dialed back immediately as soon as there are loud sounds. After a while, the silent ambient sounds are slowly dialed back up.

    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.


  13. This is fuckin annoying. Every time a new thing of Arma comes out I have to wait at least 2-3 years to play it decent, but by then, it's outdated.

    Outdated by what? Is there a newer game that does what Arma does? Or do you just mean outdated by your arbitrary standards? Okay then, by my arbitrary standards Arma has been fantastic since release, and has only gotten better. I've never had issues running the game well on my i5 2500 and 7870 except in very AI-heavy missions that don't have any optimization by the mission maker.

    I'd consider Arma to be the opposite of outdated, since it lets you set your graphics to things that current computers can't handle, but future ones will (oversampling, extreme view distance).


  14. Well you must be in another world, because Camo does work, in correct situations. One of he reasons I use the Greenback uniform the most, I can go prone in green patches of grass, and I've had people literally walk on-top of me over my body, as if I didn't even exist.

    He's talking about what the AI see, not other players.


  15. I'm confused. Wasn't everyone in this thread a few pages ago saying that many sounds in the game were far too similar in volume to gunshots? Now people are saying other sounds are too quiet compared to gunshots? Which do people want? Less range or more?

    Edit: Megagoth, you're the one that made that video rallying for other sounds in the game to be reduced compared to gunshots. Now people are saying other sounds should be brought back up, and that gunshots are too loud?


  16. and what is this way they did?

    BI have repeatedly said that they no longer want to mention any features or enhancements that they are not sure of, due to past disappointments, such as Java as you've pointed out. Java falling through was part of the reason why they are more careful with what they announce now. So using it as an example of how things they announce are not confirmations is kind of flawed logic. It's an outdated precedent that completely ignores the new information we've had since then. Anything they announce at E3 is going to be put under a microscope and they know that. They were reckless in the past and have learned from that mistake, and have repeatedly told us they do not want to repeat that mistake. This is as confirmed as confirmed can be without actually having it running in our clients.

    Is there any other way to integrate something like DX12? What is the alternative of not "seemlessly"? DX 11.72?

    How about bugs? A seamless integration would be one with no bugs or issues. Are you aware that it is possible to have a buggy or problematic implementation of DX12 (or any technology/API, for that matter)?


  17. Since Tanoa is apparently an archipelago, closer comparison might be to put five Stratis (~20km2) islands in an archipelago and you'd also get the same landmass.

    God damn, when you put it that way, that sounds huge, even if it's less than Altis. I think the fact that it's arranged in islands makes it seem bigger than the one huge landmass of Altis.


  18. Yes the DLC bundle is more expensive than the game.....

    The logic you use to reach this conclusion is very flawed.

    If you can't actually buy the game, on its own, for a cheaper price than you can buy the DLC bundle, on its own, that statement is just false. It's based on the comparison of imaginary prices.

    You can't just divide a package's price into its components and then compare that imaginary price with an actual price. Yes, it's imaginary because you cannot buy that item for that price. There's a price for the extended bundle, there's a price for the DLC bundle, and there's a price for the game. You cannot buy the game component of the extended bundle separately, so there is no comparison. There is only comparing actual prices of what you can buy.

    To demonstrate why making such comparisons is meaningless, let's make another one that results in your statement being completely false:

    Extended Edition is $29.99, base game is $23.99. By that logic, the DLC bundle is $6.00. That's certainly not more expensive than the game. But if you subtract the DLC bundle's price from the extended price, the game is cheaper. See how it doesn't make sense to mix together prices of completely different packages? You can end up with different results depending on which you are comparing. It means nothing. All that matters is the prices for what you can actually buy. No more, no less. If X package is not worth Y price to you, don't buy it. End of story.


  19. [/color]Aaaanyway... what's a 'Facebook Event' and do you get to witness it if you don't have a Facebook account?

    It's just a special page with a time and date attached created by BI that people can create discussions in. There's nothing to witness that you won't see at the event itself and then posted about everywhere else.


  20. The only thing said was

    That sounds more like technical investments (AI routines etc). Arma will stay what it is.

    Further, doing a better job on the civilian aspects doesn't mean it's the focus. It just means it's getting more attention than it did previously.

×