5LEvEN

Just as the title says statistic tracking for arma 3. Could potentially include the following: Distance traveled by foot or by a certain vehicle Time spent playing Most used weapon Most played game mode Kills by weapon and vehicle Deaths Time spent in a certain vehicle Accuracy Times healed someone or your self Most played on server Hit percentages for certain body parts or vehicle areas (similar to AA3) Smoke, frag, ect, grenades thrown And so on....

Could someone elaborate on why someone would vote no for this feature? I can't even count the number of times in which I would of had great use out of this feature.

Or it's that making infantry realistic is the easiest aspect to simulate. Think about the things needed to be done to make infantry realistic in something like COD. Not much really... Now think about the things needed to be done to make arma have realistic vehicles... A developer has not to my knowledge confirmed infantry is the main focus. And besides what else can you add to infantry to make it more realistic for a video game with today's technology. So even if it is the main focus, it shouldn't be anymore. As improvements to infantry are very minor and shouldn't take long at all. While vehicles are in need of huge improvements. And with arma 3 the larger improvements that we know about being made are really not infantry focused. ---------- Post added at 01:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:38 AM ---------- Which updates to infantry are you talking about? Give some examples that improved the infantry simulation please. When a developer advertises a game in the mil-sim genre, there really is no excuse not to be trying to simulate more and more of the battlefield. It shouldn't be necessary to have to mod a mil-sim game to make it actually simulate what it was supposed to in the first place. IMHO if you're going to have vehicles in this game that is supposed to be realistic, don't make them arcade shit, or just don't add them.

Uh, sources for this statement please. As I have said to everyone I have seen say this, I have yet to see any actual sources to back this up, and I believe it to be a assumption from people. As infantry may be the best simulated, it would make sense people would assume what you just said.

Just as helicopters if you're going to add planes to the game you need to do it right. I personally find realistic flight models for fixed wing aircraft so much easier to use and line up strafing runs, compared to arma's flight model....

I know for a fact that on hardcore flight simulators you can fly with M+K, but it will not be as easy as flying with a joystick.... ---------- Post added at 06:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:09 PM ---------- Why should pilots be forced with an arcade level simulation because people are unwilling to buy a joystick, or are unwilling to adjust their M+K setup to fly? You do know all vehicles are at arcade level simulation right now right? So people who fly good with M+K are only flying an arcade simulation, not the realistic simulations. This has nothing to do with the skill of the pilot. This has to do with making the aircraft more Realistic.

I would love to be able to drive a tank over some enemy vehicles, and have the enemy vehicles crush and deform like that....

Do you have any sources to back this up? I have used a Mac that is better then my PC in the hardware sector. What is funny is how my PC performs edits faster in photoshop then it....

If I remember this correctly, the opfor units get cheaper armor faster. So if played correctly, they could spam t-72's and cut off blufor armor and air support. After which opfor would get air support, meaning opfor is a mid game force, while blufor is an end game force. Both are about even in the beginning if you play correctly. You're thinking about warfare as a FPS only mode, it's also a lot of strategy and tactics, and you cannot play opfor like blufor and vice versa.

Have you seen the prices for graphic card upgrades for the mac? You're talking about extremely over priced cards with average performance. I stick to my original comment on this thread... This http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127490 verse this http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Apple/6615718/ I chose the most expensive 5770 that newegg had btw...

You do know the developers set parameters for the game right? For example the depth of craters. Also it sounds to me you are making a blind statement (you have no evidence to back it up). From my knowledge having a large landmass under the frostbite engine would only decrease performance because of the large amounts of objects it would have to load (just like arma). So I don't think size matters when it comes to distortion.

Please do not take away from the realism. I would like MOAR realism. :)

Unless you are a very very rich person who can afford to pay thousands of dollars for over priced hardware, and buy another one every couple of years, Apple is the absolute worst way to go for gaming.

The frostbite engine has modifiable ground. So does the engine that runs COH (can't remember the name of it). So I don't think that is true...

I voted as not necessary. But I wouldn't mind the dev's adding it if they have time. I could definitely see some fun with having a wing suit ;)

I personally prefer the clean look. Although I do like the cover for my arma 2 CO. I personally thought they did a good job with making it. It felt like a high quality game in my hands :) (which it is).

I personally think what we have right now is enough. We can move our heads independent of our bodies, and when aiming down the sights you can move your weapon without moving your whole body. I really don't see a need to move my weapon around a corner without being zoomed in. To me it sounds like you're just going to blind fire (try to fire without using optics). Which I prefer to be as accurate as possible. Especially since I manage to go through a lot of rounds when watching them, and using single shots.

I actually like this idea. But the radio would need the option to mute it, just in case someone doesn't like the music.

Because most people do not want to pay more then the average game, why not just make a special edition version. The special edition version would cost extra, but have a little extra something... EDIT Lol missed it was already suggested. Sorry...

Would love to see something like Xaitment in arma 3 :D

When zoomed in with an optic it should just load the area you are looking at like you where close to it. So in other words grass and shadows appear when zoomed in. But when not zoomed in you would use the standard tricks arma 2 is already using.

*cough* Are you serious? Planes in arma ARE already in baby mode... And the simulation for ALL aircraft is pure garbage... So what are you smoking? :j:

Hmm... Guess you didn't know there are PVP modes. So it wouldn't be team killing (most of the time), it would just be killing reports from battles.

I agree with most if not all the things said. But don't complain about the lack of team work from players. It's not the games fault, it's the players fault (just as others have said). 90% of the time in the F2F server we work as a TEAM. And that's on domination, insurgency, and yes CTI. Trust me when you get a good group of players, even a mode like CTI is VERY fun.

Wow, that's pretty impressive. I am going to take a guess here that it is also less cost on the GPU to do this? ---------- Post added at 23:28 ---------- Previous post was at 23:26 ---------- Tessellation is similar to LOD switching. Not similar in the way it does things, but it has a similar, but smoother effect. Really the best way to understand what it does is to watch videos of it in action. The tech demos by Nvidia are usually pretty good for this.