Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

vegeta897

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    696

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by vegeta897

  1. Posted

    I haven't used them much, but the few times in which my team was coordinated enough to do so, it was quite fun. One of our team members was flying it around in an urban environment, staying low to avoid drawing fire, warning us of nearby enemies and plotting our path through the town. It was highly team-work oriented and definitely an interesting experience.

    I'd love to have a portable para-scope type device that can easily be taken out and put away to check corners.

  2. Posted

    But the game already has drones like that, and those guys are using periscopes in a situation where they're not holding their weapons, ready to fire at the dude they see coming around the corner. Those periscopes would be a cool in-game item to use to see around corners and over walls. Why would you want stuff like that to be emulated with a magical floating camera? This is a simulator after all. If we're supposed to be using that equipment, let us actually use it, not use it as an excuse for an unrealistic mechanic.

  3. Posted

    So people are not really "telling you how to play", just frustrated that most servers have 3rd enabled as they cater to the masses, so 1rst person players feel they have to play in 3rd person to keep they playing field even. Please feel free to enjoy that magic periscope crutch. But give us a way to find 1pp servers :)

    Also I think some of the fanatical bias towards 1PP comes from the visceral and intense experiences that people get from playing 1PP on Arma 3. Once you get a taste for it , playing 3PP seems to dull the senses and go into "relax easy mode". So some people (myself included) feel compelled to get others to play in 1PP.

    Both points I strongly agree with.

    I've done enough preaching and debating on the dayz subreddit though, so I'm not going to bother anymore outside of new players in my group.

  4. Posted

    I think you're on to something.

    Keep the "features are free" concept, but avoid any DLC. Put all DLC content into the expansion content. That way, you may not need the expansion to get the new features, but it will have so much content that many people will purchase it, probably far more than anyone would buy any one DLC. A new map, tons of new vehicles and weapons... I think many would have purchased OA even without its new features.

    But I'm afraid it's too late for that...

  5. Posted · Edited by vegeta897

    Also, while I won't dispute that the Arma 2 method didn't perform to Bohemia's satisfaction, I don't understand the argument that keeps popping up that they would have to maintain two different sets of data. That doesn't make any sense. First of all, the difference is in the art, and how often does BIS update art assets? Secondly, I don't understand why they would need to data sets, anyway. The models weren't of lower quality and the textures were just forced to the lowest quality mipmaps. You don't have to create or maintain a separate set of data at all.

    According to BIS, it is more work for them to have Lite versions in the game data as well as the high quality versions. And yes, there would have to be both in the game for everyone, in order to maintain the seamless purchases, which is objectively an improvement over Arma 2's way, and also to avoid countless "versions" of the game with different combinations of DLC.

    I don't think the textures were just forced to lowest quality mipmaps. BIS said they created these textures (and sounds) with compression techniques. It wasn't happening on the fly with the high quality versions.

  6. Posted

    Please explain why the lite model isn´t an option? Or a hybrid of both methods?

    The entire reason this new model exists is that the Lite model did not work for BIS. I have first hand experience of this as well, and there's plenty of evidence to be found of players being totally ignorant of the existence of DLC and why the models were so low quality. A hybrid would have many of the same problems. A whole extra set of data to maintain (the low quality models, textures, sounds), players still would have a warped perception of quality (they are not necessarily going to try getting in every low quality vehicle they see, thus being unaware that it's low quality because of non-ownership) and their game is made ugly/inconsistent despite the fact that they aren't using the content they don't own.

  7. Posted

    Yea karts are quite fun but sigh still at the physx and collisions :P

    As for functional weapon resting, that will hopefully come with the Marksmen DLC which I plan on buying only after its release and some users feedback of it

    If it comes with the Marksmen DLC, you won't have to buy it to use it.

  8. Posted

    I started to notice when I type I start walking and opening my compass and watch... This needs a fix. Almost got my head blown off because I almost typed myself out of a bush. O.O

    Well, if texting and driving is dangerous...

    Kidding aside, hasn't this been a problem in the series for like, ever? Does anyone know if there was ever an official response from the devs? Surely it's on the feedback tracker already, at least.

  11. Posted

    My first thought was also to make an exclude list instead of a list of vehicles to actually spawn. Must be easier to maintain than an allowed spawn list.

    Good idea, an exclude list would in theory require less frequent updates than an include list. Unless BIS goes nuts and adds all manner of silly vehicles in several separate DLC :P

  12. Posted

    As far as I remember, this was a common misunderstanding. "Free" DLCs will be available for everybody. "Paid" DLCs (like ACR for Arma 2) you will have to pay for as anybody else. The benfits of the "Supporter Edition" was, well... supporting BI with money. And hey, you got a digital map, didn't you?

    No, the Supporter Edition includes getting DLC and the expansion for free, that others will pay for. As a supporter, I did not have to pay for the Karts DLC.

    Those who supported our development by purchasing the limited Arma 3 Supporter Edition will be getting everything above without surcharge, including the Expansion

    Source: http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/465-roadmap-14-15-dlc-strategy-blog

    Edit: Shoot, beaten to the punch again.

  16. Posted

    I just don't see them as compelling enough points to even pass for the "realism" argument. If my sister wanted to enlist, do you think if I told her any one of those reasons, she'd reconsider?

    "Melanie, you're too stupid for combat. Melanie, if you die, America will cry a little more!"

  17. Posted

    It comes with the territory, as far as I'm concerned. Why the assumption that every addon you download is going to have the classification you desire in order to be used by the scripts you want?

    I agree with your point about addons being based on choice while DLC or other official patches are not. That's a good point, but like I said before, it still doesn't mean we should program recklessly. Your motivation here is convenience, whereas I see it as due diligence: If you acquire an addon and want your scripts to use it, it's not insanity that you should have to modify your scripts to do so. Maybe some of the scripts that would have included the vehicle automatically, you do not want to.

    Hey now, the only sure way to limit yourself as a scripter or programmer is to ignore good practices. You can't grow that way :)

  18. Posted

    If you differ with that then I want to officially accept being forced to play only Battleroyal from tomorrow on for the rest of your life just because some people requested it.

    Apples to oranges. BIS adding content to my game does not force me to use that content. The only reason the karts were "forced" on you is because your script was essentially saying "give me everything, I'll take it all."

  19. Posted

    IMHO, I say yes for girls in the armed forces but no in effective combat units.

    Why?

    3 things:

    -women naturally lose blood which is absolutely a bad thing for units who do recon or deep penetration missions - as they can be spotted by hounds if the enemy has some.

    -it has been proven that guys in a squad/platoon/unit will do more stupid things/put themselves at jeopardy much often if the wounded soldier is a girl. The negative impact upon the unit will be higher for a girl rather than for a guy.

    -the negative impact upon public opinion when a soldier is KIA is much higher if it's a girl

    And those 3 things have what impact, exactly, on a video game?

  20. Posted

    unpredictable content that you can only get from a list

    Get from a list once, not dynamically in the script. If you get it dynamically, you can get unwanted things. It's more work, sure, but it's 100% guaranteed to work (save for BIS changing class names, which I do not consider a common occurence) if you explicitly type out the string class names you want in your script.

    I'm not an SQF programmer so I couldn't begin to tell you how this is done. You probably would know more than me. I'm speaking about common programming concepts that apply here.

  21. Posted

    You'll have to take that up with BIS, then. I tried to explain the concept of safely dealing with unpredictable data to you, but if you don't want to listen and insist BIS is to blame, I can't help you.

    Your point about content being "forced" on people is simply ludicrous. When BIS added helicopters to the alpha, did people complain that it was forced on them? If BIS adds more vehicles for free, non-DLC, is that "forced" on people? You're only using this word "forced" because you don't happen to want it in your game, despite other people wanting it. You call it forced because you don't want it, while many others would call it supplementing an under-stocked vehicle count.

    You said it yourself, arma is played by many different people. Let's try to view this from a collective perspective and not color the situation with our own opinions. There is room for your scripts to go on functioning as normal no matter what BIS adds, if you use explicit lists.

  22. Posted · Edited by vegeta897

    No such vehicle addon on my dedi. If I launch that on my Dedi, that I have to take care of that. If not, then not.

    It was a hypothetical. It would be perfectly possible for BIS to add a large industrial civilian vehicle to the game, that in turn causes scripts to spawn them too close to buildings because the scripts assumed all vehicles it would ever spawn are below a certain size.

    Your idea only works in a closed environment

    No, see, that's the exact opposite. A closed environment is when there isn't a chance for unforeseen content to be added. I'm suggesting programming practices that allow for unforeseen content additions (and by "allow for", I mean do not break or cause undesired results, as you have brought to our attention). That's an open environment where anything may be added. Scripts are going to break in an open environment if they make assumptions about what content they are accessing. If you made this script that spawns civilian vehicles, you made the assumption that every vehicle that would ever be added to that classification was going to be acceptable. Turns out it wasn't, lesson learned.

    Ask any experienced programmer who has had to work with unpredictable data.

    You went with an inclusive rule instead of an exclusive list because it's more convenient. You can easily add vehicles you want and the script will use them. That's fair enough. But you have to accept the reality that it's not going to be 100% reliable if you go down that road. BIS is not going to cater to your preferences when it comes to these things. A gokart is a civilian vehicle.

  23. Posted

    That would be great. Can you pls do that for about a dozen addons that are out there right now? Alive, COS,... and btw: Please update it every time BIS gets a funny idea and forces more unwanted content on us. Can you pls do that? Thx.

    Drop the sarcasm if you want people to take you seriously. We're here for civil discussions.

    Karts may be "unwanted content" for you, but BIS did it in response to a community demand.

    Further, I've seen nothing but demand for more content, or rather, complaints about how little content there is in Arma 3. So when BIS gives us what we want, let's not complain that our scripts, which through dangerous programming practices grab any old asset that might exist in a classification, have problems when this occurs. Not everything that breaks those scripts is going to be useless or silly content.

    And to speak in logical terms, your script is still working as intended. It was designed to spawn civilian vehicles. You can't tell me a go-kart isn't a civilian vehicle. Who ever made the guarantee that the vehicle pool the script uses was only ever going to have content that you find acceptable? If you want to spawn vehicles that you find acceptable, you're going to have to tell the script which vehicles that includes.

  24. Posted · Edited by vegeta897

    You can't hardcode any classnames anywhere because

    1. BIS has a tendency to change them from time to time.

    2. That way you won't get any addons that the Admin !decided! to use.

    Fun content must not be in the same lists as usable content.

    I think you miss my point. It's about programming reliably.

    What if BIS added some other vehicle, not part of a DLC, that you wouldn't want the script to spawn, but that would also be classified as a civilian vehicle? Perhaps a very large industrial vehicle that clips into buildings when the script spawns it, and explodes. Still a valid civilian vehicle on its own, that fits in a military simulator, but since the script is not written in a safe future-proof manner, things like that can happen.

    A large industrial vehicle is not "fun content", but could easily cause problems with scripts that do not allow for vehicles outside of the parameters that may have held true at the time, but no longer do.

    You have a good point about BIS changing class names, but that doesn't exactly nullify the idea of safe programming. BIS tries to avoid that as often as possible, and it should be happening less and less.

    Your #2 point is exactly what I'm talking about. What if an admin decides to use something that unknowingly breaks some script that didn't plan for it?

    Any script that relies on a change-able source of data is asking for trouble.

    If you want a fix, get a list of the current class names that you want to spawn and use that list exclusively.

  25. Posted · Edited by vegeta897

    Since the karts are in civilian vehicles, whatever script you're using to spawn them is simply grabbing from that list. Either the karts would have to be moved to a different classification, or the script will have to be modified. From a programmer's perspective, having a script dig out whatever it can find in a location that may have undesired content (in the future, or via mod) is not a very good coding practice.

    What if BIS added some other vehicle, not part of a DLC, that you wouldn't want the script to spawn, but that would also be classified as a civilian vehicle? Perhaps a very large industrial vehicle that clips into buildings when the script spawns it, and explodes. Still a valid civilian vehicle on its own, that fits in a military simulator, but since the script is not written in a safe future-proof manner, things like that can happen.

    The best option is for the script to explicitly list which vehicles it wants to allow. This is a basic concept of safe programming.

×