Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Community Reputation

750 Excellent

About dragon01

  • Rank
    Sergeant Major
  1. Next Arma confirmed!

    I don't think there's anything more coming to ArmA3, devs have been shunted away from the game already, and devbranch updates are slow-ish, especially for the code (there's been a big burst recently, but that's explicitly Tanks-related). I suspect that the art team will get a new assignment after the DLC. I'm actually really excited for the prospect of ArmA finally growing beyond the limitations of the RV engine. Also, I hope that the plot will be written by the same team that did Laws of War. On the other hand, I hope they won't try some kind of drastic "reimagining" of the series. The new engine could allow for Take On-level interactivity, better graphics, performance and so on, but IMO, basic gameplay should be retained, especially the parts that were developed in ArmA3 DLCs.
  2. AI Driving - Feedback topic

    Here I can agree. This ancient thing should've been ditched much sooner. As capable as RV is, aside from bugs, it has a number of fundamental limitations. Inability to have anything underground, "real" water above sea level or simulating Earth's curvature (with 20x20km maps you really do need that) come to mind. Ability to grow past those is at least as exciting as the possibility of old issues being gone. However, the decision to switch engines is not one to take lightly. Enfusion has actually been in dev for quite some time, and presumably is the reason for A3's longevity. They know next ArmA isn't gonna be on RV, but the replacement is nowhere near ready.
  3. AI Driving - Feedback topic

    You still fail to understand. When a new AI system is developed for Enfusion, this will most likely be accounted for. In RV, it may or may not be. It might have worked in OFP and broke at some point, or maybe it was never implemented because OFP AI wasn't advanced enough and nobody found a good way of implementing this afterward. Stop assuming that anything about the current AI will carry over, because the simple fact that they're changing engines means that it will all probably have to be written from scratch. This is not because the devs are incompetent.
  4. I think an extra "w" slipped in. Anyway, I like the recent changes to Revive, but kind of wish it worked with AI like the ArmA2 predecessor did.
  5. Tanks - Damage improvements

    Actually, driving a tank off a cliff may kill the crew, but it should cause the tank to explode unless the ammo is not secured properly. I'd suggest that for ammo racks, they should use the RHS solution - "hull" hitpoint would represent ammunition. That way, tanks won't explode from shots to the tracks or to the engine (which is silly).
  6. AI Driving - Feedback topic

    Well, you acted like BI devs were at fault for the bugs. Truth is, as @oukej mentioned, on a monolithic engine like RV, breaking the AI can be caused by changes in a seemingly completely unrelated area. Debugging this sort of thing is a serious problem, you have to understand just how maddeningly complex that sort of thing is. Be glad that it's not an open-source project dating back 1994 or so, I've modded a game that ran on that, so I know how it's like. You don't just "go and fix a bug" and any attempt to do that in a haphazard manner will inevitably break something else, if you can get the code to compile at all after your "innocent change". That's just how things are, and why I'm excited for Enfusion - it'll be somewhat less affected by that sort of crap. The modular design, if implemented and used right, should be much easier on both devs and modders alike (not to mention opening up a lot of functionality to the latter).
  7. AI Driving - Feedback topic

    Well, I do remember it being talked about. In particular, the ability to detect when another vehicle/designator guy ranges or paints you. Pity that it isn't planned after all, it could add some tactical depth.
  8. Tanks - Damage improvements

    Varsuk is a "future" Russian tank, which means it likely has protection levels similar to modern Western tanks. So it'll be rather thicker than that. I don't know what the intended values for Varsuk are, but it seems it'd be closer to the Abrams than to T-90 in terms of protection. Actual Russian tanks would have something to fear from 30mm APFSDS (even Armata, which mostly armors the crew capsule and would risk turret damage from it), but it doesn't seem that BI was really concerned about differences in design philosophy.
  9. SLAT armor tends to get deformed more than destroyed outright (although 2-3 warheads to a single piece could make it fall off, I suppose):
  10. Tanks - Damage improvements

    This sounds about right for guns. Note that a 30 or 40mm will barely scratch a tank's armor, no matter which part it hits (threads, sights and so on are another matter). For missiles, try using the top attack mode (yes, APCs support it now). Direct attack shouldn't be your first choice against tanks, and should have reduced efficiency. If the missiles didn't hit exactly the same point, surviving two hits to the side armor is not out of the question. You've got a point about ERA, though. 30mm AP rounds should probably detonate it away, although I'm not sure about that, either. The front plate on those is fairly thick, dunno how exactly it compares.
  11. AI Driving - Feedback topic

    You still don't get the point. If the AI is good at the start, it will stay that way. Enfusion is modular, which is the main point here. Do you think they deliberately broke the AI (it's ridiculous if you do, BTW)? ArmA3 has expanded greatly upon OFP, but other than large naval vessels, there really aren't any major things that could be added at this point. Enfusion AI simply has to be designed to correctly handle everything that is in ArmA3, and it'll be mostly good for the rest of the game's lifetime unless they come up with something bizarre. Current ArmA AI, on the other hand, was iterated on with every single RV version since OFP, not to mention as a hardcoded part of the game, there's a chance that even changes in code not directly related to AI can break it. Enfusion mostly avoids that by being modular. That's not to say AI subroutines won't require fiddling with at some point, but it should be a lot more robust system than RV. ArmA3 is nearing its end of life, like it or not. Post Tanks DLC, the only things added will be fixes and maybe the odd community DLC (an idea which doesn't seem to have taken off). Hopefully they'll get to fix AI after finishing the new armor system, LWRs (promised back when they did sensors) and other tank-related functionality.
  12. AI Driving - Feedback topic

    Make sure to read the response, too. The problems with AI (and many other things in ArmA) lies in those hardcoded parts. BIS can, in theory, change them, but it's a risky business. Enfusion lacks those restrictions. It's a long road from Enfusion to ArmA4, but it gives a chance (actually, kind of forces them) to rebuild problematic components from scratch, which is what I'm hoping for. It also gives modders a lot more freedom with regards to customizing various aspects of the game, which means they could attempt to fix issues like that on their own.
  13. AI Driving - Feedback topic

    It is related to the current AI system. Again, AI on Enfusion (I hope) will be a completely different system. There's literally no reason why an exact same issue would pop up in two game engines that only share a few similarities. Unless your problem is with something that was done on purpose, that is, but even that can change if the new engine offers a better way of modeling the offending situation.
  14. Vehicle Interiors - Feedback

    New interiors look wonderful. The only thing missing is a gun elevation indicator in the artillery vehicles. Also, it's not, strictly speaking, about interiors, but would that be possible to add the type of selected weapon/round to the "zoomed-in" gunner displays? It would be very useful when playing with "game HUD" turned completely off (now that we have all the indicators in the interiors, it's finally feasible). I did find some small issues, will do a more through test run and list them all at a later date.
  15. Tanks - Damage improvements

    Any chance we'll get the ability to specify in EDEN how many of which shell a tank is to carry? It looks like a great system (didn't have the time for in-depth testing yet), the ability to customize the loadout to suit a mission's needs would be of great help to mission makers.