lev

Haha thanks Zapat. It was just too fun messing around with the getTactical mode so I've probably played that mission like 20-30 times this past weekend. I'm looking forward to all the new changes! Oh also thanks for letting me know about the mod sttosin, this totally changes A3 SP for me.

Hey Zapat, Awesome job with this mod/missions. I'm loving the interface so much that I wish you could just port the getTactical mode so that it can be used in any mission. It's almost getting hard for me to play other missions because I feel like I'm not in control of my team anymore. I'm listing some feedback below: Bugs: -Throwing grenades in getTactical messes up first person grenade throws: if you throw a grenade in getTactical successfully, for some reason even when you leave getTactical your unit throws the grenade that way. To reproduce this do like a weird high toss via getTactical in a slightly different direction than your facing and then try to toss a grenade in first person and you'll notice it takes the previous path. -Sometimes getting killed/KO-ed in first person will lock up the interface completely: I've experienced this several times but can't reliably reproduce it where playing in first person and then getting killed results me being thrown back into the getTactical interface but all the controls are locked. I can't get out of the interface and switch units and nothing on the interface works. I can only alt+f4 to shut down Arma and start it again. Doesn't happen too often but enough that its quite annoying. Improvements: -Inventory capacity improvement: right now its kind of hard to tell how much capacity an article of clothing has, maybe if it read like [10/50]. This makes it a bit easier to determine which article of clothing you might want to loot off of enemies. -Switching units via inventory: right now I can only switch to a different unit if I go open the inventory and click the unit I want to control in first person. That was not too intuitive and adds a few extra clicks here and there. I think it would be better if you could switch units via the getTactical interface by which ever unit you have selected when you switch out of the getTactical interface. Or even possibly bring back that "T" interface Bohemia has for switching units. -Grenade throws in getTactical locked to unit facing: this is more of a usability issue than a real bug because you can kind of correct this but it takes a lot of manual positioning. Basically the grenade throw in getTactical can only operate in a field of view in which the unit is facing. I think a better behavior would be if the unit just automatically faced the direction you order the throw in so you can just give a general position and then throw a grenade instead of requiring very precise positioning which can be a pain to do sometimes. -Color coding groups: would be easier to identify units if when you group them (click them to follow another team member i.e. OZ [LARKIN]) and they were automatically placed in a color coded team (i.e. OZ and LARKIN are team blue now). -Formations menu in getTactical: I think for a starter it might be cool to allow the user to select a formation for a group in the getTactical view. It would be super awesome if you also had a formation editor that allows the user to either modify or create a new formation for the group to walk around in. -Time freeze in quick command mode: maybe this is just me but I can't quite use quick command mode because in the heat of battle it is a bit too slow to do everything real time when locked in the above unit head view. I do like the concept but maybe if we executed it in more of a Mass Effect like manner where the time is frozen as well then it would be really powerful so that I can respond easily to the situation while maintaining first person play. Another piece of feedback for quick command is maybe change the control slightly so that holding caps lock opens it up but you don't have to keep it held to stay in the mode, pressing caps lock a second time then quits quick command mode. -Controls improvement in getTactical: I would really love it if it was possible to use keyboard commands to control things in getTactical. The mouse stuff is great but I think the keyboard is a bit underused right now. It would be cool if you could select units and set stances via the keyboard (i.e. F1-F10 selects units, Z,X,C set stance for the movement, new on the fly speed control for movement via Q,W,E, using A to pause or continue movement, allowing I to open the getTactical inventory instead of popping out of getTactical, F for switching between real time and frozen time, DEL to delete a waypoint, etc)

Hey guys, I was wondering what the community thinks about the current inventory system. Personally I think its a great step up from Arma 2 but everytime I use it, I feel like there is still much more to improve upon. I was thinking of a model that would more realistically reflect how a soldier carries his gear and the weight/space limitations involved as well as allowing more customization options for the player. These changes may require some UI redesigns of the current inventory system and possibly even control changes to allow the player to interact with the model. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Firstly, I propose the clothing/gear system to be changed to the following slots: Type 1: These slots are for placing stuff that goes onto your character and should be shown on the player model Shoes - yes shoes, because heck if you're gonna go detailed you might as well go all the way and allow the modders to figure out what if anything they want to do with this - I imagine city life mods might make more use of this option Pants - like the slot describes, basically any pant type clothing would be placed here Belt - anything from regular leather belts for civies to tactical belts that can hold gear Inner Torso - includes regular shirts to army fatigues/camo etc Outer Torso - vests/armor/rebreather whatever other equipment that is worn over uniforms/clothing Harness - for gear that is strapped outside of the standard vest/armor Backpack - same purpose as current backpack slot Wrist - for the watch, watch-compass combo, etc. I'm sure people will think of other things that can be placed in this slot Neck - for gear that can be slung around the neck such as binocs, compasses, etc Face - for masks Glasses - same as current glasses slot Head - Hats, helmets, etc Head Mounted - NVGs, head mounted lights/cameras, etc Holster Slots (for equipping holsters if the article of clothing does not have one itself) - allows the player to equip holsters that can hold weapons such as a pistol or whatever else that comes to mind. There should be a few of these slots available so that if the player so chooses they can have multiple holsters Front sling - for a easily available rifle that hangs in front of the soldier L/R shoulder sling - for an extra rifle or a launcher type weapon In hands - this is for the weapon/item that is currently active and being used by player Type 2: This type of slot is for stuff that goes into the things that go into type 1 slots. Type 2 items that are visible on the exterior of type 1 objects should be displayed on character models and object models. E.g. a magazine stored in a bandolier should be visible on the soldier and if the bandolier is dropped. Your clothing/armor/backpacks would have type 2 slots. Any type of gear that would be placed inside clothing/armor/backpacks such as first aid kits, grenades, magazines, etc goes into a type 2 slot. Type 2 slots should be customized for specific items or for large storage. Type 3: This for attachments onto items Rifles, pistols, etc are items that would have type 3 slots. Upper barrel (e.g. optics), Under barrel (e.g. launchers, shotguns), Side rail (e.g. lasers, flashlights), Barrel (e.g. suppressors, machine gun replaceable barrels), Magazine, maybe even things for the stock or chamber of the gun, etc are the type of items that would be attached in type 3 slots. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Slot mechanics: Type 1 items can occupy multiple spaces. This way certain kits/uniforms can be pre-defined so the player would not have to individually select what type of pants/inner torso/etc combo to wear. For instance, a wetsuit would take up the Shoes, Pants, Inner Torso and Head slots which would simulate what occurs now when a player puts on a diving suit. Type 2 items should have slots as well similar to Arma 2 backpacks and a large storage space similar to how Arma 3 backpacks/vests work. For instance, a bandolier could have 4 grenade type slots, 5 magazine type slots, and an additional pouch that has large storage capacity while a backpack could have a bigger large storage space and only a few or no specified slots. By large storage, I mean similar to how current backpacks and vests work where you can just drop items into the article of clothing without really caring where or how it is placed. While this is a bit more complex, items can more realistically simulate what can be carried in them. I.E. certain vests have certain pouches for holding magazines and grenades and it wouldn't make sense trying to stuff a first aid kit into them. Type 3 items are working pretty well as they are now but I would like it if BIS expanded this type of item more to include items such as under barrel grenade launchers and bipods. I would really prefer if in the final version of A3, there is only one instance of a type of rifle and then they can be customized with attachments instead of how it currently is with an instance of a rifle and then another instance of it with a grenade launcher. Another thing that BIS might be able to work in would be having magazines being a special instance of a type 3 item that has its own carrying capacity for bullets with weapons containing the same special type 3 slot a magazine does but with a capacity of only 1 to simulate the chamber of the weapon. I realize there may be concerns with how many items players can carry because of these changes. This should not be a problem as long as items are properly defined by their weight and volume (for large storage purposes). Sure a player may be able to carry up to three rifles and a launcher (sling, 2 shoulder slots and 1 in hand) now but they should also be punished by being over weighted and fatigued. I would not mind if player movement were slowed to a crawl if they decided to pack too much and overweight themselves. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Control mechanics: This would primarily be updated to support the "In hands" functionality I mentioned above. Basically this simulates the difference between having an item in inventory and actually being used by the player. The controls would be changed so that certain keys map to certain slots. Arma already sort of does this with "b" taking out binocs and replacing the weapon in hand with the binocs. I envision the system act as such: If the player has no items in hand, pressing a slot assigned to object X would take the object X out of the inventory slot and place it in hand. If the player has an item, object Y in hand, pressing a slot assigned to object X would place the object X into its original inventory slot (if taken out from there) or place it into an appropriate available inventory slot or drop the item if no slot is available and place the object Y in hand. If the player has an item, object X in hand and presses the slot that object X originally occupied, object X will be placed in the slot and the "In hand" slot will be empty. If this was a weapon for instance the weapon would be holstered or dropped into a sling. If a player has no item in hand, and picks up an item, it will be placed in the player's hand. If the player has an item in hand, and picks up an item, the item will be placed in the appropriate available inventory slot. All items in hand should have a lowered and readied mode. Lowered will not show up prominently or at all when in default forward facing first person view and readied will have it visible. Thats the technical description, a real use case would be like the following: If the player is holding Rifle X in hand (originally in the front sling), and has Rifle Y in a shoulder sling, by pressing Rifle Y's slot, the soldier would place Rifle X in the front sling and pull out Rifle Y. The animation would be designed such that the character smoothly releases Rifle X into the front sling and then swings out Rifle Y from his shoulder into his hands. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What do you guys think? Is the current system sufficient or would you prefer something a bit more complex that allows for more in depth customization like this? Any other thoughts/suggestions/criticisms?

Thanks for 2, didn't know that. For 1: what if I wanted to do a dual DM experience. One DM is charge of trying to sabotage the players and the other DM is in charge of trying to help them succeed. It wouldn't be fun for the opposing DM if anything he placed down could be seen by the friendly Zeus regardless of player LOS. This is just one example of a potentially cool/fun gameplay mode that wouldn't be possible without this feature. I'd also like to clarify I am not asking for this to be default. I want it to be feature that can be editable by the mission maker. Just like how Zeus abilities can be limited by the mission maker, I want this to be a feature be determined by the mission maker. This falls in line with the Arma is a sandbox philosophy. Let the devs make the engine work for us and we can determine what and how we want to play.

And why would this feature not be required? I can imagine tons of things that can be done with this even in the context of a D&D gameplay mode. Not to mention it would be awesome for those modders who want to make an RTS mode for A3. Have you watched the video you linked to? That is the High Command Module and it doesn't represent any aspect of what the OP is asking for. Limiting the requested functionality only cripples the Zeus game mode before it even has a chance to take off. Don't limit your imagination because the devs mentioned it was made to be a D&D gameplay mode. Great things came to Arma because modders pushed the boundaries of what was possible and created great new things for us to enjoy. If you don't want to use the type of functionality requested, that is fine but don't try to keep it out just because you can't think of ways to use it. We have tons of talented and imaginative contributors in the Arma community that could take that feature and bring us innovative gameplay and would love to use that. In fact I've personally been struggling with this feature even within the context of the High Command Module and would be great if the devs could just natively implement a function to take care of that.

Nice try, but if you put a little thought into it you would see that it serves an entirely different purpose. Aiming deadzone is designed to change the player's body facing (where you point your gun) not the player's head rotation or direction of sight. It turns the player's torso first until you hit the deadzone limit and then it turns the facing. This is completely unrelated to the problem we are trying to solve which is preventing objects you wear on your back to completely block your sight. This "slight torso animation" would have to be where the torso does not move until the rotation of the head exceeds a natural limit and then the torso begins moving with the head as it turns further. This is a visual effect that you would see in 3rd person but not in first, the point is the player doesn't feel the torso move whereas aiming deadzone creates that sensation that your torso is turning or aiming your weapon. Interestingly though, if we wanted to modify Arma's control scheme to more realistically capture the body's motion we would have to drastically change the controls around to the point where even experienced players probably would not be comfortable with them. Otherwise, we need the devs to continue to simulate real life motions as well as they can by implementing small tweaks like this.

I don't think people understand exactly why this is needed. In real life you tend to turn your torso towards where you are trying to look. Rarely do you ever stand perfectly still and just turn your head to look behind you. In Arma, the purpose of freelook is to do a situational awareness check around you without losing your primary facing (which should be towards the direction you are trying to cover). However, with this current implementation of head turning, it isn't possible to see behind you when you have a backpack or larger item strapped to your back. This is understandable because solely turning your head would produce this effect of having your view blocked by gear. However, in real life, you would actually slightly turn your torso to allow you to see behind you even while you maintain a constant facing thus removing the gear from your direct rear view. You can even do this while running or moving in the direction of your facing. In Arma, this effect can only be produced by actually turning your facing in order to allow your head to pivot which is what this ticket is trying to address. The devs could even implement a slight torso turn animation as the view begins to exceed the range of when someone would normally keep their body still. Obviously a true simulation would allow the player to control their torso turn separately from their head turning but due to the limitation in control surfaces as well as the unnaturalness of this control scheme, it wouldn't really make much sense. So the best solution is probably to either implement an uncontrollable torso turn as described before or to just simply reduce the blockage of vision due to the gear you are wearing behind you.

Strongly agree with this one. It should not be too hard to do either.

I'm suffering the same problem on a single GTX 690. A lot of guys on this forum will say you are bullshitting, because SLI is "working" for some people (except for PiP flickering and some other issues). Do you happen to run multiple monitors btw?

The aeronautical modeling of the plane is one thing, I'm talking about simple changes like increasing the top speed and acceleration. As is, jet planes take about 5 minutes to fly across the map right now. If we increased the top speed to their real life values, planes would cross the island in about 1.5 minutes. Planes would be able to zip over km sized AO's in a few seconds. This will either result in planes that are incredibly difficult to handle or incredibly overpowered in the hands of a skilled pilot. Most players probably don't even have their view distance past 1.6km and with a realistically modelled plane, most people wouldn't even be able to see the plane before they get blown up. Realistic values for things like top speed would just lead to bad gameplay experiences. Till BIS implements maps that are at least 3 times bigger than what we currently have, I don't think any realism improvements on the plane makes sense.

The reason why jets aren't modeled realistically is because the island is too small to support realistic jet operations.

Thanks for chiming in. I knew that Arma simulates real life loadouts but was not sure why soldiers weren't being issued magnified optics since they seem superior to unmagnified ones. Thanks!

Well you may find yourself upvoting everything but not everyone does. For instance, I might find myself upvoting something to turn off 3rd person view in everything except recruit difficulty but that doesn't mean everyone will. Or using your example, more people might want body wounds over pistol holsters and thus that will get more of the votes. My point is not for the community to go through the feedback tracker and look at every ticket and vote on it. Rather instead of downvoting or disagreeing with something because it is difficult, they should choose more worthy topics to argue over. If we kept up with our normal behavior but applied a different thought model to problems, we'd get a lot more useful discourse. The feedback tracker as a whole is for people to express what they want and the devs will get the aggregate. The priority is still up to the devs depending on available resources and feasibility as well as their perceived benefit to the game. Like I said, the devs job is not to accomplish every item on the tracker, merely to use it as a tool to understand the community wants better.

Two points: 1. Community's role in the feedback tracker should be to push tickets they want to see happen. The debate for the community should be whether or not a feature should be included in Arma or should it not be (i.e. is the feature valid in Arma?). The dev's role is to judge whether or not it is worth it to implement that feature and how much they think it would benefit the game. With that in mind, I dislike the general tone of the community where we express ideas like this: "xyz feature is difficult to implement so we should not do it". This argument is neither useful to the devs nor does it contribute to the discussion. A discussion with some actual benefits worth discussing would be something like: "should aircraft and jet simulation be made more realistic?" This kind of topic can actually be debated in terms of realism vs gameplay effects and maybe a compromise can be made to improve both. A topic like this one would have been more productive if the community simply said, yes pistols should be displayed in holsters and left it up to the devs to figure out how, when and if it should happen. With that said, I do appreciate DM's explanation and I do not believe he tried to explain why it would be hard to do, not why it should not be done. 2. Regarding leg holsters in general, I think the idea itself is completely valid. However, if the devs truly could/would not do it, then they should remove the leg holsters from the models. This is a pretty good example of "simulation fever" that jay crowe talked about in one of his videos. Why create a feature that purposely breaks the immersion of the game? When crafting this feature, the devs should have thought of the uses cases. If a player A sees another player B with an empty leg holster, player A is going to assume that player B does not have a pistol. When suddenly player B performs some strange animation and a pistol appears in his hands, this is immersion breaking. The simple development solution would have been to not implement leg holster models in the first place and avoid the situation entirely until the solution to displaying pistols in the holster was available.

Really? Of all things you pick out a serious graphical issue that should be addressed as your example? Here is why they need to fix it. As it currently stands it is harder to detect someone within ~30m (depends on your settings) of yourself because the grass and foliage provide so much concealment. However, someone a mile away camouflaged among shrubs and trees sticks out like a sore thumb because at your distance they don't appear concealed at all. This is why a medium - long visible grass is needed. Its not for eye candy. It's so that when the player is prone in a field, and can't see more than a foot in front of them because of all the grass, doesn't get picked off from a mile away because they look like they are lying on flat green terrain.

What exactly is the problem? https://www.google.com/search?q=60+usd+to+brl&oq=60+usd+to+brl&aqs=chrome..69i57.2488j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#es_sm=93&espv=210&q=59.99+usd+to+brl Seems like you already got a discount since $59.99 usd is equal to $138.68 brl. You are asking BIS to sell their $60 product at $42. This is like saying, yeah you know Arma 3 sold well at $60 but if they discounted it, it would sell even better! So by pricing at $60 they are just hurting themselves. You can apply this argument to just about any product at any price. You are getting a fair deal so it is not overpriced at all and the only thing discouraging players are their lack of willingness to pay.

I'm not 100% sure what the issue is either so if anyone can help me fix it, I'd greatly appreciate it. I'd much prefer running it in SLI(multi-gpu) mode than on single gpu mode. I am running a single GTX 690 in multi-GPU mode. Here are some screen shots to demonstrate: I have it currently set to Option C, to disable the multi GPU. http://i.imgur.com/FAnRzfz.png The following are screenshots to show you A3 performance settings and from the helicopter and combined arms showcase start. The FPS counter is on the top left provided by EVGA precision software. http://i.imgur.com/vMZbkqy.jpg (225 kB) http://i.imgur.com/2bwk4Xq.jpg (209 kB) http://i.imgur.com/3v3DDl6.jpg (233 kB) http://i.imgur.com/9iIm2Z6.jpg (166 kB) http://i.imgur.com/jPZuLEI.jpg (275 kB) Now if I turn the Nvidia control panel to A: maximize 3d performance (multi-gpu mode). The performance drops even in the menus. You notice that both GPUs are running from the EVGA counter showing GPU usage and memory http://i.imgur.com/dx3Xsdo.jpg (225 kB) http://i.imgur.com/aXzvFGE.jpg (209 kB) http://i.imgur.com/9fIHxpS.jpg (224 kB) http://i.imgur.com/MRLxAo0.jpg (159 kB) http://i.imgur.com/UAV79wf.jpg (276 kB)

Not trolling here. I don't consider Arma 3 supporting SLI because when running SLI causes flickering in PiP and a huge performance loss for me. If a major gameplay feature doesn't work, I wouldn't really consider it "supporting" it. With SLI on, I average 28 fps at best. With it off I can easily get ~50fps average. This is on single player btw. Yeah I didn't really believe it either but the reason I had to turn off SLI was because missions featuring UAVs or vehicles were simply unplayable with all the flickering and was pleasantly surprised to find a fps gain as well.

Sorry when I typed Arma, I meant specifically this game, Arma 3, not all the Armas. My solution still works though. I have a GTX 690 and the only way to prevent PIP flickering is to make sure that all multi gpu functionality is turned off when playing A3. You will also get a performance boost.

Can anyone confirm this for me? Haven't had a chance to experiment with it yet. Basically in A2, 3D voice had an issue where it never accounted for differences in height or separation between buildings. Does this still exist in A3? I.E. If you and a buddy are in the same building but on separate floors, does it still sound like he is talking to you from the same floor? I.E. If you are in a house and your buddy is outside, does it still sound like there is no difference between both of you being outside?

Uh doesn't your image from tom's hardware immediately disprove what you just said? Seems like the top card to beat is the GTX 690 right now?

Dynamic weather such as snow would be really cool for maps. No longer would map makers have to create standard maps, then winter editions or in BIS's case flooded editions. Also it would be very interesting to see gameplay during the early periods of snowfall and see it accumulate as a battle progresses over several hours. If the engine would be able to support leaving footprints and tracks that would be even more amazing. I know in A2 it was "sort of" done but the effect was very hard to notice even when a footprint should be very distinct.

This is a problem with Arma not supporting SLI. Make sure you completely disable your SLI. For Nvidia users, this means also not playing on "maximize 3d performance mode" because that will still run both cards. Use the Nvidia control panel and set the performance setting to disable-multi-GPU mode.

I would like to know if there are any differences before making a purchasing decision. Any current users care to explain? Thanks!

Yes that is true. However what is not realistic is having a paper map that displays all of that. I'm all for BIS developing items that simulate having technology but they should also not have those magical benefits on items that cannot convey those benefits. Vehicles should not have a map marker unless it makes sense for them to have it (i.e. GPS device). Just as how players should not have an extended HUD unless they are wearing those special goggles. I would be in favor of having paper maps that do not have the ability to magically zoom in for more detail as well if not for the fact that BIS is already swamped with things to do.