dogbadger

Most people are of the understanding that by contributing here they are not actually directly lobbying the developer, and have practically zero influence over them. The release date may well be set in stone, however regardless ppl still have the right to express thier opinion on when they consider the best time for full release, based on their understanding of the game's situation thusfar. What you in danger of making clear enough is the fact that you dislike people doing just that.

From the looks of things so far it's tempting to say you may well have hit the nail on the head with the Ferraris there. The genre (base millsim game that is) has a loyal but limited player base. There's a top limit on how many copies of arma you can shift, however polished and content-rich it is. If you can bank on selling a large amount of copies -and lets face it just about all of the traditional arma community, predictably, has already invested - then why take a smaller slice of the pie by increasing your staff? Again, BI wont necessarily operate in the same way large, multi-platform/IP shareholder based houses like EA would. It would have been nice for instance to have brought some of the community in to help flesh out the content of the game; they would have jumped at the chance and would hardly have been expensive - a minute fraction of post dayz revenue for example, but i presume that wasn't an option (after all, hopefully they will do it for free later) But never mind, that's BI's business, it's their call.

Your kidding- BI are minted, the money they pull in. I don't get these arguments where companies like BI and similarly Tripwire for example are compared to Activsion/Ea and made out to be some skint bedroom enthusiasts on a shoestring scrimping away. These are completely different company setups with totally different levels of access to sales revenue, control on budget, and overhead costs. Putting engine arguments aside and getting back to the original discussions of game content - or lack therof - if BI were unable to release more assets it wouldn't be for the lack of modeling/texturing/coding talent in the milsim community, or the inability to pay for thier services. But that might be where a comparison with activsion could give an answer - as doing so would directly impact on the decision maker's income.

as suggested in another thread in this section, you need dx11 to run the game but can use a dx10 card, albeit with certain dx11 features switched off. no good for me ofc until i install a new os as my current vista install is an absolute wreck, and wont accept the updates required to support dx11

lol yeah the same. i manually placed the d3d.dll file in the game directory but i received this error - 'the procedure entry point CreateDXGIFactory1 could not be located in the dynamic link library dxgi.dll' i cant really keep re-writing dx system files so obviously its a bigger issue. Interesting thing is that i noticed i had vista SP1 - even thou i was sure i installed sp2 previously. So i updated again and after an hour of being updated or so my windows shut down with the failed to install 'service pack - uninstalling updates' message - then back to sp1. So yeah, its hard to deal with arma problems when clearly you have larger DX/Vista issues. But id like to know if the game is trying to launch in DX11, and whether running in DX10 could at least get me in.

^indeed I get this error but i am surprised installing dx11 is the fix cos i thought dx10 was the minimum spec. I have a dx10 card (260 gtx) which i understand meets the requirements - can't you simply set launch options in steam to run arma3 as dx10? ('-dx10' in launch options dialogue box - or is this wrong?)