fragmachine

Here you go: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?121844-Advanced-Combat-Sound-Environment-WiP-Thread BTW it goes much further than indoor sounds. Sound PP will allow to experience better soundscape, the "bang" sound as well as reverb, echoing is caused by environment - in different environments it will sound different.

Well thanks but that vid is preety old, like two months :D Indeed it sounds much better than vanilla though :) BTW. Check Advanced Combat Sound Environment. It is not just a sound mod. It is an extension to the sound engine that some of the ACE devs are working on with zGuba probably. It will be released for A3.

+ before the storm first GR is a great game - same to OPF. And same - 2001 year - of release :) Such a good year for milsim fans :)

Just did some funny thing. My UAV run over it's operator (which was me) killing it (which is me) and then take off and ordered itself to self destruct. But it didn't though :) Edit: Just checked. UAV been shot down taking off few APCs and i'm still alive :)

Right plus to be honest i prefer original OFP theme over ArmA 1 theme. Sound much more "deeper" and darker - fits the evil atmosfere of the OFP. Such a great game BTW. Can't wait to check out the new remix though :cool:

Nope. Developer made it clear - from what game this theme comes from. I can hear it and it is obvious for me and anyone else. BTW. Good job on UAVs BIS! Will stress them out today.

Did anybody noticed how well does the mid-distance textures looks right now? http://www.arma3.com/images/post_images/arma3_gamescom_screenshot_05.jpg (344 kB) Cheers :icon_twisted: <pettka voice> BTW I might be wrong and it may not be a mid-distance but anyway it is worth of try ;)

unfortunatelly, this is the zone that hurts the game most. It seems that BIS priorities on sound engine changed. Sound revamp has been advertised long time ago but devs "changed the direction the game was heading". We learned that from now it is sandbox and devs want just to deliver to us core base engine. The ambitious scale of A3 has been cut due to greek accident and various other problems. These circumstances hurt the game, and the sound in-game at large part as (probably?) pettka said that it isnt their aim to deliver something that the community can made. That is BIS not my opinion.

To add an optimistic note: Devs answer to this (like with many other features) is: Maybe in ArmA 4.

What I would like to see implemented is ability for mission designers to put clouds at starting points of the mission anywhere on the map. Clouds shouldn't hover all the time above our heads. I would like to see incoming storm cell about 20 kilometers off the Altis coast and just clear sky above my head. That would be awesome.

Great! You could made ultimate mod with all of your enhancements as one addon one day :) Thanks

Obviously, Merkava is unique tank because it is Israeli ;) On a more serious note, I think that the current policy line (ME conflicts and so) forced them to do it. Setting was obvious, just like the sides of the conflict. And it sells - so there is nothing wrong with that though.

@dale0404 I think he meant it should be more penalting. Overall I agree with Alwarren statement - whatever it could sound dramatic in some areas - because it plays that way in these. Hell, even in A2 you could walk on top of some high mountain in less than five minutes while in reality most of us it would take at least 30 minutes or so. Anyway it is interesting topic to talk about, because we as human beings have our physical limits - why not extent it to the gameplay?

Again, A2 seems to be superior in this case. Hope it's get changed. It is unacceptable to axe the features of the previous builds. http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/135-finally-water IMO water looked much more authentic in A2 than in A3. Maybe it is lighting, shader problem? Somewhat it feels like taken out of comics (no pun intended - just my opinion). In A2 when there is not enought of the light source it does look flatter like in A3 but anyway it looks much better in A2 when lighting is in there.

@Marcai - so, the double standard you say? You owned the right to call peoples by names - same goes to the right to decide for someone else which game he should play. I've already said. It is all tastes. It is all about game play, not graphics. I prefer Chernarus, would like to see more cenral europe maps and units to start playing with A3. As for A2 modded it really feels like a real war. No biggie but in A3 atm it feels like hollywood movie with cheap effects. It will change when ultra-mods like ACE will be published, so hopefully then I could hapilly move back to A3.

@Marcai Well, obviously I've played all ArmA games including OFP both campaigns and I can tell what is more engaging for me and what not. I've tried all along with A3 Beta and all I can say that overall I prefer A2 setting (Chernarus) with OA mechanics modded with ACE. Sometimes I play OFP and Resistance just for the campaign. And when I want to admire the views I play ArmA 3 - but until there will be a proper ACE mod. Something that off-set me from this game is the setting (really nice place doesn't fit really well a war horror) and the futuristic timeline. Somewhat it is mainstreamed but it isn't the fluid animations or improved graphics what it makes the game "mainstream" but the gameplay that is strictly different. And gameplay isn't something as basic that it get changed just because of the stance adjust :biggrin: AI in A3 tend to risk their lives much more than in A2 for instance. Anyway funny quote about "hipster-gamers" - I don't consider myself an hipster-gamer just because I like to play epic classic games. And who always starts to throw this "hipster" non-argument to talk? It is always some pissed banana kid-mainstream gamer. Very unmature, because if someone speaks his thought on what he likes and what not he automaticly gets pinned with "hipster" - wow how smart of them. And I agree that it have alot of improvements in graphics, animations, engine, AI (but sometimes it goes too far). But it feels much less authentic and plays the same. The opposite was why the titles were so epic. Well put, exactly my thought.

So the next ArmA should be more realism-oriented product just to compensate the fact that A3 is more mainstream-oriented product? Anyway I can't find other excuse to call realism-oriented game not mainstream just because it is more realism-oriented - other than harsher gameplay. I'll wait for Ultimate ArmA mod or next ArmA iteration anyway. Im still stick with A2 with ACE and such. It is not a bad game, it is still playable :)

It would be more practical if it wouldn't broke the missions and campaign(s). Anyway BIS as developers have to make money of game developing so I don't think they will throw out the idea of developing ArmA 4. It just sells. Question is it will be more of the marketing stunt to appeal more to the mainstream gamers or ArmA game that wants to be 'Ultimate ArmA Game Ever' that could probably appeal to all ArmA fans and most of the mainstream gamers that play/would like to play realistic gameplay like RO, PR but without drawbacks in the area of physics, graphics, animations, sound and environmental destruction. Depends on BIS.

Take your time BIS, ArmA 3 will have long-life. Expect long list of the wishlist features that HAD to be in-game - in the world where "axed" word is taboo!! Another argument to stay alive. Curiosity if there will be ALL features in the next ArmA iteration? :p

It was build on the very first incarnation of the RV1 engine, basic mechanics are the same. The only difference is in some improvements, graphics and the campaign that at OFP was better structured, organized and had better gameplay than A1/A2 campaigns. IMO it was much more engaging and it really make sense, like a very good-written movie scenario with different characters stories behind it, but without hollywood bullsh*t.

wow and I didn't noticed it? That is a good start though. I would be focused on improving things that are in-game right now - adding anvil on top of the stormy cumulonimbus would be nonsense if we couldn't set the place and distance of the storm cell incoming - so the player could admire the views - not just always see clouds over his head. Also the sky is not deep blue before and while thunder. Even few hours before guessed storm sky should became milky-like more sluggish, fuzzy white coloured rather than blue coloured. Wind should increase slightly. Next thing i don't like in-game is water. Maybe it is shader or lighting problem - im not specialist but it is too blue imo. I've seen AiA Chernarus water looks lovely compared to A3 water. But that is just my opinion.

ACE did it fine and in fact it did amazed me when I first saw armor penetration, fire going off the turret after hit, or cook offs (it might be SLX mod - im not so sure about this though). But surely - less script = less lagging gameplay experience. Of course there are a lot of really well optimised scripts that do lots of work with minimal to none framerate loss. But in most cases running something at the engine level is uncomparable less stresful to the hardware. Anyway I think that BIS would know best what to improve in that area but IMO unfortunatelly they don't have enought time for it - priority changed.

Oh yes, I agree with You. But just not with the argument that community have to do all the things for the developers. Developers prepare the code and throws up their hands when asked about the improvements, engine possibilities. In this case better damage modelling - is something devs called - very hard task to do.

If the new clouds were removed then I hope that it happened temporarily. Would be nice to see also different clouds - not just Cumulus but also Cumulonimbus convecting and piling up before storm and typical anvil if cloud turned to be active (stormy). :)

I tend to agree with maturin. But that is how the engine is written. It is really showing it's age and drawback possibilities and features. Without complete rewrite of this engine (which is impossible at the current state and very hard and money/time consuming task to do after release of ArmA 3) most of the flaws still will be present in the game. And game probably had to be almost twice the price (which I don't personally care but overall sellings could hurt - fanbase would buy the game anyway). I can't seem BiS developers to be happy with the whole idea of rewriting the engine completely - from scratch to develop ArmA 4 in next 12-15 years. Maybe I overused the numbers but I can see devs jumping off the window if working for a such long time on the engine. But if decided to do then better to aim high or better completely not touching the code.