Engioc

Hi SparkZ, yeah for me its crashing during the day, as well as at night. Time of day seems to make no difference. Before Adapt was released it was very stable for me, its only started doing this since Adapt. I note if I now try to go back and redo missions from Survive I'm also getting random crashes, when I originally played through Survive it never crashed even once.

I'm actually getting the same sort of issue but it doesn't seem to always happen at exactly the same point, or even the same mission. I've had crash to desktop occurring randomly while playing through Signal Lost, and Common Enemy. I've tried verifying integrity of the game via steam, and lowering the graphics settings all the way down to the lowest setting but it doesn't seem to make any difference. I don't have any mods of any kind installed, just vanilla ArmA 3. Motherboard: Asus Sabertooth Z77 Processor: Intel Core i7-3770K Graphics cards: nVidia GTX580 - GeForce 332.21 driver version Ram: 8 GB Sound: Sound Blaster Recon3D - Driver version 1.1.49 OS: Windows 7 Home Premium x64 DirectX version: DirectX 11 HDD: WD black 2TB with 925 free

I'll add my welcome back too even if a little late. Welcome back Ivan and Martin. Good to see common sense prevailed in the end.

Does BattleEye have a record of my CD key even if I've never used that service? I wasn't aware there had been a hack on that system and relating to ArmA 2 until right now. I have no real reason to believe my CD key would of been stolen for two important reasons, I've never actually used BattleEye (if I did I don't remember using it), and I've never added anything to ArmA 1 or 2 apart from officially released content. I still ask the question because I do take the protection of my CD keys quite seriously and I have no idea how these services like BattleEye work. I take it these CDs are being stolen by people downloading dodgy add-ons which contain a type of virus that then steals it from the users own machine? Any clarification appreciated, hopefully I've posted in the right location and used a good enough title.

Hi All, I've spent several days now trying to figure out how to do one simple, I have plane1 and plane2, they take off perfectly but I want plane2 to land at a specific airport (landat 0) and get out of the plane if plane1 gets shot down. I've set the condition: !alive plane1; and the On Act: plane2 landat 0;getout I've tried this so many different ways its making my head spin and none of the searches I do explain it enough for me to understand it. The getout seems to be ignored totally, the plane lands but then takes off again. I've tried working out how to change the current waypoint for plane2 to the last waypoint which is set to getout, but that never works either as the setcurrentwaypoint is too confusing I can't even work out how to write the line out or how to tell it which waypoint it should be. Why cant I put in a simple thing like plane2 landat 0 and getout?

I only read the first few pages on this but as far as I'm concerned ArmA 3 is going to be an awesome game. Also I would of thought anyone playing games for any length of time would realise features that are talked about as confirmed during development often never make it to release because of problems getting them to work properly. Been playing games since the early 80s and certainly not come across many PC games that shipped with all the ideas that were thrown around during the development. As far as I understand it ArmA 3 still has a long way to go before release and I think they're doing exactly the right thing by making sure they only leave things in that work, more than anything else it was the bugs that prevented ArmA 2 from being a bigger success than it was. A good rock solid stable release is what's needed for ArmA 3, other features you talk about can be added later through DLC's and full blown expansions. I totally agree, I was actually surprised when ArmA 3 was announced, I felt they could of done a few more expansions to ArmA 2. When I first joined these forums I did some complaining about the amount of bugs in ArmA 2 but to me with the fixes we already have its good enough, it can still be painful at times but not so bad I couldn't of enjoyed playing for another year or two. I would argue that list does include the player, I'm a player and also one of those film makers :). I think BIS are one of the best devs around, they listen and care about their community way more than most other devs in my experience. When I look around at most other companies like Ubisoft, EA, Codemasters, Atari and the other big companies its clear they have absolutely no care at all for the fans. They release games likes Assassin's Creed loaded with bugs and rarely bother to fix anything but the absolute game breaking bugs because in 6 months to a year they're pumping out the next one to cheat you in to buying. Look around at what most of these other companies are selling you and the prices they charge, crappy DRM always online protection systems, shitty console ports, over hyped games where you pay a shit load more because you bought the black edition that included no actual gameplay bonuses but a nice (worthless/pointless) figurine. Look at the DLCs most companies release and the prices they want in comparison with what the DLC actually gives you. Clearly I'm now getting carried away on my rant about the shitty gaming industry. I don't know how many others on these forums play other games but honestly its hard to find another developer that treats its fans as well as BIS do. Assassin's Creed Revelations release this year was a very bad console port and has received virtually no support from Ubi, compare that to ArmA 2 released in 2009 receiving its latest update just a few short weeks ago whilst also developing ArmA 3. Yet there are so many people on here bitching about what ArmA 3 MIGHT not have included and how bad BIS are. You people dont seem to realise how good you got it. Developers I feel you get a good deal with (in not particular order): Rockstar (GTA) BIS Egosoft (X Universe) Creative Assembly (Total War) Nitro Games (EIC and CoTA) Auran (Trainz, hoping their new simulator store will include BIS games) Gaming Mind Studios (Patrician, Port Royale) ISI (rFactor) Simbin (Race 07, GTR Evo) OK I'll end the list there but my reason for listing them is most companies who offer their fans a good deal with pricing and continued support are the smaller guys just like BIS. Big companies just want your money and their solution to any of your bugs is to forget the one you just paid $100+ for and buy the next one. Apart from Rockstar most of these companies aren't that well known and their games not at the top of most peoples list but just like BIS you get support for years in to the future. The companies flogging you COD, AC and the like will never be as good imo because they lack any real creativity to begin with (all they understand is marketing reports) but mostly because all they care about is the money. Don't get me wrong all developers are in it for money but I still see a clear difference in how BIS treat its customers compared to an EA or Ubi. I'd also argue with a company like BIS its clear there is more to it than JUST money, they seem to have an interest in the product, game, genre their creating for us. In the past I was a big fan of old Might and Magic games, before the days of 3DO, and I remember a statement by Jon Van Caneghem during the demise of 3DO about how many people create games but it takes something more to create really great games. Big companies cant take the gamble and just listen to marketing to make games, but the biggest sellers in gaming history are made by people who had the balls to step away from the crowd and create something entirely new and different. SimCity, The Sims, like em or not they won because they were nothing like any other game. BIS wins because they have the balls to be different. Last thing is I'm actually glad they don't overdo the marketing, they give us updates on their progress when its worthwhile doing so, as opposed to EA or Ubi who feed you so much info you know every aspect of the game before you even get it and are ultimately let down because it can never live up to the hype they generated.

I'll probably receive an infraction for this too but I'm attempting to ask my question anyway. How do I close my account for these forums?

Ah hi, I'd like to ask a question about this if I can. I do post youtube videos of ArmA and if its now possible for me to use the monetizing feature of youtube I'd like to. Maybe this question is better directed at youtube but it is possible for me to use monetizing on BIS videos while at the same time not using it for others. I post videos of many different games and obviously unless they follow what BIS is doing then I cant use monetizing on those videos. Actually don't answer that, I figured it out myself, I'll be sending you my PDF shortly :). One more question though, any problem with me somehow sharing this info on my facebook page? I'm always happy to help promote BIS.

I personally agree with this, I enjoy this mode because of the feeling that there is a larger battle going on around me, makes me feel more apart of a larger team trying to push the enemy back. but... I don't totally disagree with this either. I'd like to see warfare mode develop and have more of a structure to it, at the moment its fun but we're kind of just throwing units out there. establish a FOB, gradually taking territory with a variety of tasks such as clearly out forests, hills, valleys etc as you said, and seeing some life in the towns as we take them rather than empty streets. Perhaps in a way what it needs is the dynamic missions similar to the Armory mode, so the AI could still be given a series of tasks it needs to complete (done in random order so its not too predictable) with the ultimate goal being to take the entire map but the missions aren't simply about taking towns. I guess the strongholds in towns are a kind of markers for objectives the AI needs to aim for but perhaps if these could sometimes be invisible, and located in all different locations across the map. Example you have a marker in a forest that marks an objective for all players to try and take, if the AI takes it they establish a camp and attempt to control the area and stop enemy troops moving through. The AI would have this list of places it should attempt to take and in a random order but obviously it would also need the ability to determine what is currently an appropriate objective, so not attempting to take a camp that is already way behind the enemies lines (unless there is a valid tactical reason). So I think Warfare mode is good, but it could do with some improvements.

I think thats a good thing, I agree with the previous post, and that's from someone who is a gamer. I play all kinds of games from the well known GTA, Assassins Greed etc, but I hate to see something like ArmA changed to cater for everyone. All too often with games these days we see them continually dumbed down to cater for larger and larger audiences, and I find it very frustrating. Example....I actually really like the Assassin's Creed game when it first came out, it was different to anything else (on PC) and as a player felt it had a lot of potential for the future. Unfortunately, imo, over the few years its been around instead of making combat, etc harder as I would prefer, its become easier and easier, more and more hack'n slash. More silly combo attacks that look all really cool but require no real effort or thought from the player. They pump these games out 1 every year now and mark my words the AC series, COD, and any other mass produced games like that will be dead and forgotten in a few short years from now. I much prefer Bohemia stick to what they did with previous titles. You don't need to copy what everyone else is doing to be successful and make money, you can do it just by offering something different and unique, and that's what ArmA does. Don't EVER dumb it down for all the casual gamers or you will destroy everything that makes it special/worth playing atm. There is room for games and sims out there. I love both.

Well I like jungles too but obviously it cant be too diverse or it wouldn't seem real. I like both options so having a island that is already diverse in the climate depending on which part of the map your in. Totally different game but I'm thinking along the lines of GTA3 SA where it went from normal grass land, to a snow topped mountain, and the desert. I also like the idea of a map changing but rather than global warming I was thinking more of just normal seasons so you can have cold snowy winters, warm summers, and everywhere in between. To me this would also help give the game more of a sense of time, a long conflict that may run over many months or years.

What I'd really love to see is a map that offers a range of different climates within the one map. I don't think its really possible or believable either but it would still be cool to have a map where the landscape changes dramatically at times, eg going from snowy mountain peaks down to green flat land, forests, sandy beaches, and maybe even some desert. Probably way beyond whats possible but I'd like to see it one day.

I think the game will only ship with the one island and I think it should be great with only the one considering the size, but its highly likely that more will be added via expansions just as they did with ArmA2. Also the community will probably make plenty more for us to enjoy. Personally I'd love to see a snow/ice map....just thinking how cool it would be to be in a mission that allows for me to do some tracking, or being tracked by the enemy, being forced to cover my trail as I move around. I'm only a player though so no idea if this is really possible.

I'd certainly agree with that. I love ArmA and I'd hate to see it turned in to a BF3 or COD type game but its hard to deny that moving around indoors feels clumsy. I cant remember which of the Takistan campaigns it was (BAF I think) where you have to go in to a mosque to free some prisoners, I tried climbing some of the towers around the outside edge to get a better shot at the AI soldiers on higher levels of the mosque but its incredibly hard to get in to a decent position to fire on anyone, crouched down he either ends up falling off, or is so low can no longer see. Weapon getting stuck as you try to move around an find a better position, it just didn't work well at all.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what your getting at here but to me its the Toybox/sandbox element that wins in gaming these days. Sure there are plenty of games pushing you along a linear story where you hand held all the way. Sure Arma is totally different because it gives you total freedom, but there are plenty of other games doing that too and quite successfully. Grand Theft Auto, Test Drive Unlimited, Assassin's Creed, Mafia, Saints Row, The Elder Scrolls series are all examples of games that offer a sandbox free roam style of gameplay. I know some of these games open that world up to you slowly by locking off parts of the map until you achieve certain goals like a GTA but even then if you talk to most people who play it the first thing they do is try to open up that world asap, deliberately targeting the missions that unlock the whole map. So for me ArmA is a winner because of the gameplay it offers. I see many reasons why it fails to capture the attention of main stream gamers but I dont think its the sandbox element thats to blame. For those who dont know me, which is probably most of you, I don't often come on forums posting, these forums or any others. I don't consider myself to be a hardcore milsim player and my knowledge of anything military is VERY limited. I play ArmA because I love all kinds of games, I'm a hardcore gamer but not in any one genre. If ArmA became too much like all the FPS out there I'd probably stop buying it. When I look for games I love games that offer something really different and ArmA certainly does that. I know they want to grow the audience and I hate seeing posts by people who are so against that, sometimes you posts on here and feel a real sense of elitism by some people who play ArmA and infact many other more realistic hardcore games suffer from this same problem. All the military buffs and realism freaks think its better to leave everything the same as it is now and "stuff attracting new players because they'll only muck it up anyway" is often the sort of attitude you get. So I'm not against attracting more people to play including the most casual of gamers but I think they need to be careful about how they do that. ArmA needs to stick to what its good at and that is realism. Don't make a game that just copies what everyone else is doing, win because you offer something truly different and so far that is exactly what they are doing. Sameness is exactly what's killing PC gaming, someone has a great idea to make a RTS and suddenly everyone jumps in an makes one (most of them not worth your money), make a FPS and suddenly everyone just copies that same old formula and again most of them simply aren't worth the money unless your a total FPS freak. I only play 3 FPS style games being ArmA, Call of Juarez, and Outlaws, because they each offered me something a little different to the usual Doom running around in endless tunnels that look like the last tunnel I just ran down. I know FPS games have changed a lot since then but most of them still are stuck on copying one formula. COD, BF, MW, heck I dont even remember the names of them but they all look the same to me. God forbid that ArmA ever became like those games, because for all its faults it really shits on the rest of the FPS pack even if most gamers are too dumb to know it. One other comment I read on here was that most gamers do want to be hand held the whole way and that is one of the big problems with ArmA because you have to do some thinking, but if you do the hand holding for a while they eventually discover what is so great about it. Back in the early 00s I used to run a small games club where I worked, just using the network after hours to do some multiplayer. I remember many times with some old RPG games I was in to (Might and Magic, Ultima) trying to get other people to play them was hard because of the same problem. They'd love it when they see me playing but when they sit down to play it they wanted me to say go here do this, go there pick up that, etc etc. The game didn't force them down any one route and people do find that hard because so many other games lack that freedom. My solution to the problem is rather than changing ArmA in to something simpler I'd rather see BI make another spin off game. Just something that helps get the name out there, people will play it, get used to some of the simple parts of the game and when they reach the end will be encouraged to try the bigger full blown ArmA experience. I know they have a limited amount of resources but BI look like a company that is definitely moving up the ladder slowly, just look at the number of games recently or soon to be released and its obvious to me ArmA2 has brought in reasonable profit. Not so long ago people were saying IF there would ever be an ArmA3 2012 and we'll have it. Once thats released focus on a smaller version of it, maybe even one that can be sold on consoles (I know that comment will upset a few people lol, its a dirty word around here).