zilfondel

Anyways, there are a few key features that need to work to make VR viable in Arma: Controller tracking Interactive gun models Gun sights and optics that work from different viewpoints - that aren’t “painted on” like is currently done. Parallaxing must be supported for them to work. This is a major limitation that makes the VorpX 3d not work so well Inverse kinematics for player model/arm/hand interpolation - will allow players to do gestures with their controllers. This would up the immersion from flatscreen gaming by a thousand percent. Ability to interact with environmental objects without using a clunky inventory system - enabling hand tracking to pick up an object from the ground and placing it into a visual inventory that is projected on your player model’s chest Updated view perspective with locked (but moddable) FOV. No more FOV shifting at high speed. No more random head movements when running or standing still. This induces massive nausea for VR players Ultra low latency controller input - otherwise insta vomit fest for most players Allow unlocked 3d person view upon death - overriding any game settings. To avoid nausea/vomiting. Cut scenes and any player movement not controlled by the player should be done in 3rd person or an unlocked camera view Ability for modders to write directly to the VR rendering API to do the necessary rendering The big one - the bull in the china shop - is an actual object based physics engine. The ability to drop items and have them react realistically. Vehicular crashes to not cause them to takeoff into space. Climbing and walking up steep inclines likewise need realistic speed adjustments as VR is in some ways a walking simulator. If everyone runs around at 25 mph it can also induce nausea. Anyways, it does sort of seem like I am describing features for a totally different game. And yes, thats the point. Am I missing anything?

I’m just going to reply generally to this thread as there is a lot of uninformed opinions and misinformation being promulgated in the comment replies. This topic has come up several times over the past few years on the Arma forums as well as Arma subreddit, with a vocal minority of supports/enthusiasts being downvoted and attacked by flat screen gamers. First of all, VR-ifying existing games is a solved issue. There are dozens of mods for existing games, from Doom to Star Wars and many other titles that have fully functional VR mods for them. These games work and offer solid VR gameplay in legacy titles on modern gaming hardware from several years ago - we’re talking 1060 and RX580 GPUs deliver 90 fps in these games. Secondly, myself and several other community members HAVE been actively playing Arma 3 in VR via VorpX. This is a fully 3D rendered environment in contemporary hardware. Yes, it has issues - some performance related, obviously viously the software costs money, as well as complete lack of tracked controllers in some title like Arma. Personally, I have put several dozen hours gameplay on my old oculus Rift CV1, but other people have played in the Reverb G2 - which is a GREATER than 4K display - its 2161 x 2161 per eye. Yet you can see flawless rendered gameplay on this headset right here: (Sorry no sound here - recording issues) Best video showing Reverb G2 - 4K display in Arma: And if you for some reason don’t believe me, there is even an Arma VR only unit which is on discord. They do a lot of Apache flying. Shit, we’ve got youtube videos showing people playing Arma in full 3D VR SEVEN YEARS AGO: In sum, it is high time that Bohemia Interactive support its hardcore enthusiast members by providing tools for enabling VR in its games. At the very least, they should stop banning players for using VorpX. However, there are no critical hardware performance roadblocks to allowing fully 3D playable VR in the Arma engine as shown above. The game engine is 2 decades old, probably as old as the average Arma player and with DLSS and other rendering technologies modern hardware can easily render 4K at 60 fps. So stop with the negativity, the Arma gaming engine is possible of quite a lot and the future is VR. Modern gaming hardware can easily handle it.

Little F-18 interception mission I ran last year. Oculus Rift, VorpX, opentrack full head tracking. Mods: Blastcore FX, some AI mods, Head Range Plus, F-18 I'm using the Thrustmaster T.16000M flight control stick, HOTAS and rudder pedals.

All I gotta say regarding VR in Arma... In comparison, the DCS guys pretty much all swear by it now: Aside from flying, first person in VR in Arma is quite immersive, but without hand tracking and a better UI interface it leaves a lot to be desired: Vs Onward in VR: Drewski said it best: "...I still feel like its hard to get immersed in them even though I can you know get very very immersed in squad very very immersed in tarkov or Arma, those games are not immersive all the time and having yourself limited to a mouse and keyboard is sometimes good because you can sit back in a chair and you know chillax but its not perfect for that immersion factor. But if you put a VR headset on you hop into a game like onward... being able to actually see your rifle in your hands, being able to manipulate it with your physical hands is something thats very very special..." ---------- Just like we have seen Valve embrace and be a major force in pushing the bleeding edge of virtual reality technology illustrated by SteamVR and Half Life: Alyx, you just cannot beat the immersion and unparalleled experience of virtual reality. In fact, I predict that VR adoption will parallel electric vehicle development: the flood gates are opening and if you don't get on the wagon now, your company will get left behind, particularly if you are in the simulator business. This is why Arma 4 absolutely NEEDS to support VR! And if you want a good model for implementation, games like War Thunder and DCS offer the option for players to play in either flat screen OR VR. Furthermore, it would be really great if future titles offered a seated VR AND room-scale VR, luckily SteamVR and Oculus both offer developer libraries on how these can be incorporated into game engines.

Thanks for the reply! I've been using your mod and it seems to add a better feel for the planes. ACE3 actually has a feature for aircraft handling as well: https://ace3mod.com/wiki/feature/aircraft.html 1.1 Adjusted flight behaviour Changes the flight behaviour of various aircraft. ...its not too clear what that change is exactly.

GOing to try this out! Question - how does this interact with ACE3 updates to aircraft flight characteristics? How about the Firewill planes, such as the Harrier, F18, F14, F15 etc?

I'm a mission maker for a major unit, would like to use these amazingly detailed assets but would like to hand them over to AI as well, since we primarily run coop missions. But I've ran into some major, major AI related issues with the tank assets. Here's what happened: In a single player mission, I had an entire platoon of M1A1 drive up to a truck full of OPFOR infantry, and shoot a few rounds from the coaxial to disable the front wheels. Then they stopped. And waited... for the infantry to dismount. The infantry then throw grenades, exploding next to the M1. The crew to the M1 bailed out, and were immediately killed by the dismounted infantry. So I've done some basic testing tonight of the RHS vehicles' AI. Was not very impressed with the AI behind the MBTs. Setup included pitting a single tank vs a bunch of light trucks, BTR-60s, and a T72. The vehicles were unarmed/no gunner. Distance was about 200 meters. Results: BLUFOR - USMC and US Army tanks would wait ~15 seconds, then start and continue sporadic machinegun fire on the tank and BTRs. They would normally allow the trucks to drive off unharmed, although occassionally they would kill the occupants. The BLUFOR tanks (M1 variants) seem to flat-out refuse to engage enemy ABCs and IFVs with their main guns, period. That is... until I removed the lighter unarmored vehicles. Then the tanks would reliably engage the armored targets with their main guns. But as soon as there were enemy infantry or unarmored vehicles that they were aware of, they would switch to exclusively using the machinegun. The main gun would only be sporadically used in a mixed environment, often leaving heavier IFVs untouched and able to counter. I also tested the BLUFOR IFVs, which would immediately open up with their autocannon and ATGMs on enemy armor, often knocking them out. They would also fir on the APCs and IFVs with their autocannon, and use the machinegun to engage the trucks. However, other times it would allow the BTRs to drive right up to the IFV and they would site there for minutes and not do anything. I'm assuming that kind of behavior may be more due to poor Arma AI. OPFOR - the Russian tanks would typically fire the main gun a bit more often, normally targeting the highest level threat it sited, and then prioritize the lesser vehicles with the main gun, while intermittently switching to the machinegun to engage the smallest trucks. What I've also noticed is that vehicles tend to aim for the turret on enemy vehicles - which unfortunately has the highest amount of armor, making for very long engagements that typically fail to actually destroy the other vehicle (!). So at this point it seems that the MBTs in RHS do not have functional AI. Has the RHS team not spent any time on the tank AI or do we know when they will get it working? It seems like the AI should #1 prioritize using the main gun to go for main hull/rear shots on the biggest targets, continue using the machinegun as it is, or less. But to not be afraid of engaging at long distances with its main gun! Thats what the damn thing is for! Mods: RHSUSAF RHSAFRF RHSSAF RHSGREF CBA_A3 Project OPFOR CUP maps Ares Mod taskforce radio

Hi, I have never seen anyone discussing this bug before, but here goes: I have noticed a bug where I cannot open a mission on a particular map. If I try to open a specific mission, it opens a different mission instead. Steps to reproduce: edit a mission on Altis that has been previously saved make changes to mission, but do not save open a different mission on a different map - discard changes made to mission try to open the mission from step 1 Eden will not open the mission, but will open a separate mission from Altis instead. The only way I can then open that mission is to exit Arma 3 entirely and relaunch. Sorry, the issue persists even if I exit the game. You have to save a new mission on the same island, and only then can you load your old mission. I have been experiencing this issue for at least a year. Occurs with no mods installed.

Oh wow, I didn't realize that analog controls enabled actual analog control. Interesting!

Ground vehicles really need analog throttle controls. Why can we use joysticks and steam/Xbox controllers to fly jets and helicopters, but not ground vehicles? This technology is about 25 years old by now.

I bought a new computer for my Rift and am very interested in playing Arma 3 with it. I know of the resolution issue, but then Arma has this neat feature where you can zoom in using optics. I'd love to be able to pilot aircraft, helicopters and vehicles and be able to look around instead of using the clunky mouselook. Newer gaming PCs can run Arma 3 at ultra high settings at extremely high framerates. Even in our larger firefights I rarely drop below 60.

Yes, my version of buldozer.exe is 1.57.0.0000 Product name: Arma 2 OA -should be good, as I bought Arma2 CO off of steam

I hate to open a really old thread, but I cannot get buldozer to work. I have Arma2:CO that I bought off of Steam. Works fine, everything's great. I am trying to learn how to edit vehicle models. Not going to edit terrain. I just want to get the buldozer model previewer to work. If I try running Arma2OA.exe in "buldozer" mode this way, it also fails with an ugly error message: "C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\arma 2 operation arrowhead\arma2OA.exe" -window -buldozer -noland However, trying to run it the proper way: P:\buldozer.exe -window -buldozer -noland ...still fails with the error: Shaders not valid (mismatch of exe and data?) I have no idea how I'm supposed to get this to work at this stage. I've been following these horribly disjointed tutorials with no success. Steps taken: Found and followed these guides: -followed Gnat's youtube tutorial to install the BI Tools: linkie was directed to Bush's Geotypical Microterrains - Source Files & Beginners Guide: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?124623-Bush-s-Geotypical-Microterrains-Source-Files-amp-Beginners-Guide -installed BI Tools 2.5.1 -unpacked Mikero's Arma2P.2.5.1a.rar -ran the "Arma2P.2.5.1.cmd" app -> it unpacked ~12 GB worth of data to my P:\CA directory. No errors. So far, so good. -Bush's tutorial states not to update any settings for buldozer: Ignore the "Update Buldozer" section which follows immediately afterwards! Since the new tools version 2.5.1 was released, there's no need to mess about "using Arma2OA.exe as buldozer" or anything like that at all! -Tested buldozer - giving me the "Shaders not valid (mismatch of exe and data?)" error Help! What am I supposed to do? Besides wait for Arma3? I'm at a dead end. ---------- Post added at 11:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 PM ---------- FYI, here is my P: dos folder list: Directory of C:\Users\Gamer\Documents\ArmAWork 02/24/2013 11:39 PM <DIR> . 02/24/2013 11:39 PM <DIR> .. 02/24/2013 04:18 PM 521 ARMA2 P3D viewer.lnk 02/23/2013 02:56 PM 2,460 basic_defines.hpp 02/24/2013 11:32 PM <DIR> bin 02/23/2013 02:56 PM 11,111,560 buldozer.exe 02/24/2013 05:32 PM <DIR> ca 02/23/2013 02:57 PM 5,491 config.cpp 02/24/2013 05:20 PM <DIR> core 02/24/2013 11:39 PM 0 dir.txt 02/23/2013 02:57 PM <DIR> Doc 02/23/2013 02:57 PM <DIR> Dta 02/24/2013 05:20 PM <DIR> languagecore 02/23/2013 02:57 PM 8,704 makeShorCut.exe 02/23/2013 02:57 PM 48 mapdisk.bat 02/23/2013 02:57 PM <DIR> MatTemplates 02/23/2013 02:57 PM 351 model.cfg 02/24/2013 11:32 PM 2,907 net.log 02/23/2013 02:57 PM 135 stringtable.csv 02/23/2013 02:57 PM 329 UnInstall.csv 02/23/2013 02:57 PM 601,224 UnInstall.exe 02/23/2013 02:57 PM 1,308 UnInstall.log 02/24/2013 05:32 PM <DIR> WRP_PROJECTS

That worked, thanks - now I understand how eventhandlers work!

Thanks for the help guys, it works perfectly. I am now working on another script runs for a unit and checks to see if he has fired his weapon when he is near a marker. Very simple script, but I can't get it to work. Here it is: _unit = badger1; _AO1 = markerpos "AO1"; _AO2 = markerpos "AO2"; _AO3 = markerpos "AO3"; while {true} do { if (badger1 distance _AO1 < 10) then { _unit addeventhandler [“firedâ€, "badger1firedAO1 = true;"]; } else { }; sleep 1; }; Error message: error invalid number in expression --------------------- The previous script I tested successfully was this by itself: badger1 addeventHandler ["fired", "badger1firedAO1 = true;"]; These scripts are basically identical except for the if-then. How do I get this to work properly? Do I need to add the eventhandler and THEN check to see if he is near the marker's location?