Shadow_Vit

W4lkn, man, first of all - thanks a lot for this amazing machine. And on the second, - can we expect a creation of the Russian jet pilot ? As a part of this pack, or as a stand-alone ? Thanks in advance. :)

It doesn't worried me. As I already said above - it's a matter of taste, and not of a strategic evolution. If you want new system, well, go ahead - i'm not against. But I'm against the situation, when you trying to take away my 8-bit Dandy quality crashes. :) I'm not against implementation of anything new, i'm just interested in ability to have a choice. ;)

@Smurf, Well, as I already mentioned above - it's a matter of taste. Speaking honestly, I'm clearly understand, that damage model for planes, for example, from DCS, or Il-2 Shturmovik, is much more appropriate in sense of realism, and, as a consequence, for immersion in the convensional sense. Yes, it's true... But... Damn, it's looks like I'm failing to formulate it's right... To my mind it's ruins immersion from one end, at the same time, while build it up from another. Well, may be an example, that i want to give is not the best, but our discussed situation is like what we had with postprocessing back in time. When all of it was monolith and undivied, it was a lot of problems for considerable amount of people, that concludes in question - "to use, or not to use ?" (just like "to be or not to be ?") ©. :) Now, when we have all this postprocessing functions separately, it became much more friendly to the player. For example, I'm now use bloom, SSAO and caustics, but disable both blur options (radial and motion). So, for damage models and dismemberment, it's the same - I'm not against it, if majority of our community wants this. I just want to notice, that I like things close to it, but not the same, and from a little bit another point of view.

This is all a matter of taste, gentelmen. If damage model of the vehicles will be redone, please, for all holy, give to the players ability to disable these new more realistic features. I know, that after this post I will be torn to pieces, but I have to say what I want to for so long time, already. I like all this unrealistic things, such as - no dismemberment, 2D optical sights within black stuff around reticle, and unharmed 3D models of destroyed combat vehicles without any missing parts, but with only changed textures. Holy Mother of God ! If any one will ever know, how ferociously i hate those things, when armored vehicles in OFP became all warped after destruction ! Or when in ArmA II MBT \ IFVs lost their tracks in same situation ! And yes, you all know what about I will talk next... Jets... A-10 and Su-25, that lost their wings after crash... God... It just make me mad. Why, man ?! It's so realistic !, - you will say. Well, yes, of course, it's realistic, this one is what happen in real life in such situations. Yes, it is right. But... What I will say next, will be, a little, hm,... unexpected, may be, but, nevertheless... I just like all these contradictions to realism, because I really like, how it looks. Yes, I like whole, not dismemberment bodys of dead soldiers, not cause violence or gore frighten or worried me (I'm ok with this), but just because i really like to see them as a whole and not torn apart. The same for vehicles - not warp, broken apart, but an intact thing, exept for burned textures. Because in my opinion it brings more atmosphere to the game. When bodys of dead soldiers and destroyed vehicles plays the role of monuments to themselves, to their previous lifes. I'm against all these improvements not as a whole, but as an unalternative implementation. Please, leave us ability to chose. Via config, for example. P.S. Gentelmen, please understand me, - I'm not little kid, that likes CoD, or something like this. I was with OFP since it's release. And i'm not trying to ruin the realistic way of ArmA's evolution, - I just want to have a choice.

Man, this is brilliant idea. I'm totally agree with you.

Definitely, yes. It is the most necessary thing for ArmA III, to my mind. It will be nice to have an original BIS campaigns and missions for A1 \ A2 reintagrated to A3 engine, also. But it can be done by community, i think.

New one is better, because it's done in more traditional way, and it's more like of previous ArmA games boxart's. And yes, the old one is definitely very close for... well, you know for whom... : "- I'm a soldier... I served my country for twenty years... But if I'm being captured or killed, no one will come and rescue me. I will never get a funeral. Because the nation, that I protect, can never admit that I exist. So, my death will go unmarked. My bones will go uncleaned... And I know, that this day will come... but I do know, that this must not be today. I'm invisible. I'm relentless. I'm Sam Fisher. I'm a Splinter Cell." :)

I understand, Dwarden. And thanks for your reply.

Gentelmen, I don't know, is this a right place to talk about my issue, if not - please dont't bite me too much. :) Since last betas (including 102591), I have a strange problem, - if using a Franze's Su-17M4 addon. In this case game just crash. Unfortunately, I couldn't name number of beta, from which this began to happen exactly. An RPT file says : "Wrong vertex mapping for person collision geometry found in fza_su17\fza_su17weps.p3d. Selection 9a not found". Without beta everything is fine on standard 1.62 patch. :confused:

The things, of what I'm concern the most : 1) Are we will be able to manage the mods in a traditional way, like before ? Just to go to filehosting site (not to stram workshop), download it to harddrive, and than install it to the game, using modfolders ? 2) How single player will be done ? Are we will need to launch steam anyway for playing SP, or we will have an ability to run the game directly through the .exe file ? I think, everybody here knows, that steam failure quite frequently, after occasionally game crashes, saying, that it needs to check it's cache integrity. Or, that it's "autonomous" mod is not so autonomous in reality ? __________________________________ Speaking honestly, I'm pretty sad because of this... Of course, I have no choice, and will buy A3, but... is there any chance, that this implementation of new ArmA III ideology will be not so drammatically painful for traditional "medieval" users, like me, for example ? _______________________________________

Nice addon of an excellent machine, citizenship. Thank you very much for your work. :)

ChrisB, thanks for your reply. First of all, I want to bring up my apologize for misinforming everyone here. Yesterday, after long testing period, I discovered, that problem of wrong VRam detection on my system was caused by -winxp startup parameter, not ArmA Launcher itself. It looks like, that it is not compatible with new generation of ATI drivers \ videocards anymore. So, this problem was resolved. A new one, that now I will be enforced to use additionally program application, like Fraps, to make a screenshots, but this is another story. :)

Thanks for your reply, kklownboy. It looks like that I discovered the reason of an issue. The problem is not because of hardware itself, definitely not because of RAM, or new videocard. The key of the problem is in a software, and this is... ArmA Launcher. :omg: I'm in absolutely disarray... before upgrade it worked pretty fine, but now, when game is launch through this program, it has a bug with wrong VRAM detection... at the same time, when launching through standard shortcut, problem doesn't exist. :j: I've tried to startup ArmA Launcher within administrator rights and in compatibility mod, but it doesn't help. So,... any ideas ?

So, nobody can help me ? Is this a really unsolving problem, that can not be resolved by software measures, but only by hardware ones ? :(

Iceman77, you don't need to use any specialized software to make a screenshots in ArmA. All what you really need is to use -winxp startup parameter in command line of your game's exe. This advice will work for you, if you use Windows Vista or Windows 7. On Windows XP such problem does not exist at all, as far as I know.