Jump to content

progamer

Member
  • Content Count

    2034
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by progamer


  1. Realistic Seat Belt Script

    Edit: The name may be a bit misleading, sorry about that. I has no idea what it call it.

    Special Thanks to Zooloo75/Stealthstick for allowing me to create this standalone version of a fly through the window script from his discontinued Stratis-RP mission!

    Features:

    - Because Arma soldiers do not use seat belts, you can get thrown through the windshield in serious crashes.

    - This can cause death very easily. But lower speeds offer a greater chance to survive being thrown through the wind shield.

    Installation

    Included in the download is a mission with the script setup to work in.

    Add this to your init.sqf. Or create a text file called init.sqf

     execvm "windShield.sqf"; 

    Copy the windShield.sqf to your mission folder.

    How to use:

    Start driving and crash into something.

    Version:

    0.1

    - release

    Known Issues:

    - Not sure what vehicles it works on except that it works on the offroad and not armored vehicles.

    Credits:

    - Zooloo75/Stealthstick for the original mission containing parts of the script.

    Download:

    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/tm84t8q6veoxb8p/NsptZflN2h

    If you have any suggestions for this script please post them in the comments below or message me.

    Video(s):


  2. Vehicle Handbrake Script

    Special Thanks to Zooloo75/Stealthstick for allowing me to create this standalone version of a vehicle handbrake script from his discontinued Stratis-RP mission!

    Features:

    - Wheels are not as sticky as the normal handbrake.

    Installation

    Included in the download is a mission with the script setup to work in.

    Add this to your init.sqf. Or create a text file called init.sqf

     execvm "HandBrake.sqf"; 

    Copy the HandBrake.sqf to your mission folder.

    How to use:

    Start driving and use the left control key.

    Version:

    0.1

    - release

    Known Issues:

    - Works for all vehicles?

    Credits:

    - Zooloo75/Stealthstick for the original mission containing parts of the script.

    Download:

    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wy9ecdg3dphl5ql/SpuVAErfFF

    If you have any suggestions for this script please post them in the comments below or message me.

    Video(s):


  3. Vehicle Turbo Script

    Special Thanks to Zooloo75/Stealthstick for allowing me to create this standalone version of a vehicle turbo script from his discontinued Stratis-RP mission!

    Features:

    - Increased acceleration.

    - Increased top speed.

    - Realistic loss of control due to higher speeds.

    - You can actually flip at high speeds. Depends on the vehicles centre of mass.

    Installation

    Included in the download is a mission with the script setup to work in.

    Add this to your init.sqf. Or create a text file called init.sqf

     execvm "Turbo.sqf"; 

    Copy the Turbo.sqf to your mission folder.

    How to use:

    Start driving and use the left shift key.

    Version:

    0.1

    - release

    Known Issues:

    - Works for all vehicles?

    Credits:

    - Zooloo75/Stealthstick for the original mission containing parts of the script.

    Download:

    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1chndjdc0jhdpzn/nO8oZbGZT1

    If you have any suggestions for this script please post them in the comments below or message me.

    Video(s):

    • Like 1

  4. It is already done, but I need an addon to do this (I changed the sea parameters in the Altis config). I hope it will be possible via scripts later on, but the meteors are addon based, so I need an addon anyway.

    I tried to do something similar a while back with the ocean height. Even made a ticket for scripting commands for they kind if control: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=16156

    My intend was to create some kind of water apocalypse mission a while back but then I realized I need scripting commands for water opacity, water color, if the object is touching water, ect...

    Those tickets are set as related to the water level ticket.


  5. Hi, this reminds me to the JAM, back on the OFP's times, with the High Dispersion magazines etc, was a great project and really improved the game and it's gameplay; if this initiative gonna include models... i would recommend to make 'em stand alone but that go into the same Mod folder, so you (as user or server admin) can choose which to use and which models don't. IMO isn't good to install 1.4Gb of Mod to use just 80Mb of it, is a waste of resources in my eyes. Let's C ya

    Then were stuck with downloading many smaller mods that end up to the same amount. With a one time install, I can choose what ever I want and not have to restart the game to switch things and can use the vast content library without having users having to setup multiple mods.

    ---------- Post added at 06:48 ---------- Previous post was at 06:47 ----------

    I think if people want to see units in A3, they'll want to do a more complex port job, to the point it almost wouldn't be a port job. Hopefully we can get some modular Taliban units, etc.

    As for higher quality works, I'm sure we'll see plenty of A3 level of detail content in the coming months. I think porting is mostly to satisfy the impatient and content hungry among us. I'd rather have a good ArmA 2 M16/AR15 than nothing. Then the updated shiny packs will slowly filter in and we won't need the ports as much :)

    For what it's worth, BI hired a weapon company to design the MX series. So it could actually be built in real life.


  6. I also love that WIP picture. Would be pretty cool if they haven't dump that down and give us a green one later (in use) or something. Looks pretty accurate about how green the island can get.

    The Nord's mid range can be too dark green but it's perfect for PVP because it got so many contrasts that people camouflage in it better. So not 100% accurate but still looks like it the island could look like that but it functions dam well.

    The colours are from the time of year. BI base their maps off how they look for 1-3 days in the year.

    For example Arma 2 is October 4th.


  7. You simply misinterpret.

    Sometimes people like myself don't want to deal with the retards. It doesn't matter or have anything to do with 'hardcore simulations' or 'realism', as you seem to think. It's more the fact that you can get friendly-fired or completely set back by how bad some players are. I couldn't care less if you are new, but the players who claim to be so called veterans or think they are some kind of hardcore 1Lt. guy in some random group are just hypocritical when they can't tell the difference between friend and foe. I feel like if you're going to pretend to be a unit, you shouldn't shame them if they actually exist by being shitty in the game. The same goes with imaginary units which claim to be so open, and then if you call them bad players they will get mad and yet refuse any sort of PvP. Yet, most guys like this seem to pretend they're so big and important as they blab on their mic about some retarded thing, possibly just being led on by a troll who couldn't care less about anything but enraging the stupid oaf so to speak. It's really just bad players so to speak en-masse.. I separate bad players from those who simply go for the mods and casual feel because they're highly distinguishable, and they cause problems. Haven't you ever joined an online coop server where some old, high-ranked clan guy started cussing you or someone else out because they went in a chopper? Ironically their entire unit are utter trash at the game anyway so it doesn't seem to matter. It's just that they lack any sort of foresight to see how bad they really are at the game and how it affects others and MP in general. My friends and I get annoyed, to say the least, when people are really 'that bad' and it ends up setting us back, or when someone is 'that stupid' so to speak.

    I'd imagine if you've played Arma you've at one point run into one of those old guy types who do pretty much nothing but wait until someone breaks some 'no profanity' rule and then says "HEY!! HEY!! YOUBROKE A RULE. YOU'RE GOING TO GET BANNED! HURRDERR". Like, as if I haven't been trolling since I was like 12 years old on just about every videogame imaginable. I've heard it all. Hell, I've hosted successful game servers when I was around that age. It's just like "herrdurr guyss we runa christian community heree" and they think that their actions are somehow keeping the server afloat by enforcing some stupid rules. The fact that kind of attitude can be found on just about any Arma domination server (which are all trash anyways) just reflects the stubborn and unintelligent mindset of those MP players involved and ruins MP in general for new players.

    Generalizing things after a few bad servers you joined? I've actually only had that problem once. I solved it by parking a car on the roof and then driving off and crushing them. They rage quit. They didn't own the server. But you are generalizing players who like to play realistically, not players who like the game to be realistic. I also have never just hopped in someone helicopter like it was battlefield...

    Unless you like to start fights with people or are rude, this behaviour you speak of is pretty rare. You joined a bad server, no need to rant on like everyone is like that.

    ---------- Post added at 06:37 ---------- Previous post was at 06:31 ----------

    Let's keep discussion of weapon and vehicle authenticity in the thread for that subject please.

    In reply to the guy who mentioned complaints about AI accuracy -- I have never said the AI are too accurate. My problem is that they are still 100% combat effective after taking hits while I'm struggling to aim after just one light injury. They also need to react to the impact of rounds instead of the insignificant flinch.

    Wouldn't an AI discussion be best suited for the AI dev branch discussion? The issues you have speak of have been covered so many times.

    http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?159710-AI-Discussion-(dev-branch)/page155


  8. Sorry for the profanity.

    I do like the realism, somewhat. But there's arguably nothing realistic about the game, with the exclusion of map size and bullet trajectories, unless you play with mods like ACE2 which really help the realism a lot.

    The thing is there is a 'fun factor' which comes into play. If it's realistic, great, but when people get bored of pretending to roleplay as a soldier then there will be nothing to keep them in. When Arma2 first came out, the people I met and played with eventually formed a group that I joined. It was vanilla (no mods required), but yet the content they created in terms of missions and the stuff we organized was fairly interesting. I've never had the same amount of fun on Arma2. Have you ever had an organized PvP with about 70 people in it, and yet still be divided up into taskforces/teams that have specific roles to carry out? If you've seen ShackTac, that is a group which might not be as versatile but they at least know how to make fun scenarios, so you can get an idea from that. It wasn't necessarily the mission forcing them to do it, it was more like a mission layout and the people organized it themselves to make it fun. Arma3 needs more of that new elitism and veteran play-style instead of the migration of the junk from Arma2 in the form of Domination co-op servers, self-proclaimed realism units and other hard to manage but inefficient/boring styles of play.

    Long explanation about the problems with Arma2 -> Arma3 with proven examples and such:

    In comparison, realism units tend to completely rely on their mods for arguably "a big portion" of the realism experience, and then they spend hours and might kill only say '3 easy-mode AI' in a city after a 2 hour long experience. Yet, it's so thrilling, right? You need only to refer to some youtube video and actually watch it to see this.

    I see these units as being integrated into Arma now, but they aren't as capable as players who are used to for example deathmatch against other players. They never will be as formidable because they set such low standards for themselves and complain otherwise. The realism people are worried about "ohh does my mic work?" "do my mods work?" *sits 30 minutes organizing into a group*. Like come on people, move it a little.

    The last time I joined a coop server considered quality, I sat around making people laugh and attracting new players into the group I was in, for about an hour, while some clan kids and some guy went off in their choppers/armor to kill about 20 AI infantry spawned in some city. Not only did the group take laughably long, but then a few with 1 kill after an hour come back to base and they talk trash randomly about how we are sitting around not being called in. Way to try and be depressing dudes, while we're joking around and laughing and attracting players into our group without even actually playing. Do they think they're simulating being hardcore soldiers? To people with much better statistics (lets just call it that) what do you think that looks like? It's almost like a mental illness. And they wonder why 1 guy sometimes joins and friendly fire kills their entire squad. It's not even considered bad that 1 person managed to do it alone, but mainly bad because some old guy gleefully realizes someone broke the rules and decides to say "HEY! HEY!! YOU!! YOU BROKE THE RULES!!" before banning them about 5 minutes later.

    Another irony is, the easy-going (not to be profane) realism loving players complain all the time when the AI is set on Veteran or some skill level higher than that. Why? Because all of a sudden, the AI has a 38% chance to defend its zone, or 38% to wipe you out, instead of something like 5%. Why play coop if the AI is helpless? It'd be funner to have a challenge even if you do get wiped out.. So, AI that is essentially a pile of stones, vs AI with some light AA, light armor, and formidable numbers/tactics defending a town with some capabilities. I guess realism lovers are proven to choose the former. Basically there is a line between being good at the game and pretending to be good at it by being in a so called realism unit or group, no matter what mods you use. Coordinating is obviously something important to be efficient in Arma because of the open nature of the game, but DM players or veteran players are so much more efficient that if you simply unleashed them against a group of such players, it's likely the realism players would all get shot up or all killed by a single grenade as they attempt to form some stupid box formation in a street. It's depressing to see adult players stoop to such low intelligence levels as well. Thus, realism groups should stay in Arma2 and not infect Arma3, because they are pretty much an inferior breed in all aspects, so to speak. Not only that, but you can easily prove how they are detrimental to attracting new players. I've had countless successes introducing new players to DM or vanilla gamemodes compared with getting new players to download mods and join some slow paced self-proclaimed elite realism units, end of story.

    Again meh, not to seem like I'm making a well organized or thoguht out essay, but I have a clear perspective about the game and its community and have been around since playing OFP when I was 13 years old so I can kinda tell. Not trying to be 'trolling' or 'profane' but there's really no love lost between me and any realism players even considering I once played in some without issue until getting bored of the repetitiveness.

    How the heck do they infect the game and ruin it? BI should be making the game more friendly for players who like realism and players who don't without preferential treatment. Not treating one side like a virus that needs to be killed as you say.

    If anything the players like you who don't want there to be equal options for both sides and equal support a should not infect Arma 3. Arma 3 currently seems to have more support for non realism players and needs more support for realism players in terms of content and features.

    I was playing Assetto Corsa earlier and I could set the cars to handle all gamey and arcade like or have them handle like a hardcore simulation. That is a lot better than your idea of purging and "infection".

    ---------- Post added at 00:49 ---------- Previous post was at 00:41 ----------

    I disagree completely about an Arma vs BF comparison being more like comparing boats to cars. Take your average lay person, sit them down in front of Arma 3 and BF4 and ask them to explain the difference. After about 30 mins with both, he/she will tell you that both are military shooters, both allow you to operate vehicles, both operate on large maps (Arma 3's is large and "connected", whereas as BF's are smaller and not connected), both offer single player, PvE and PvP etc., though BF is easier to get into, and Arma takes a bit longer. The differences are much more nuanced than they are fundamental (to the lay person). But I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, even though I gave you 1 very clear example of someone who considered both and made the switch to Arma (i.e. me). To me, Arma represented a much better alternative to BF (which in turn is a better alternative to CoD): all 3 were in my considered set, so all 3 are competitors from my commercial vantage point.

    That aside, you actually missed my broader point - which contradicts Arsenal's somewhat: I believe BIS is the one looking over THEIR shoulder at games like CoD and BF and asking themselves how they can attract higher numbers of players. And THAT is why, to a large extent (I believe), they've prioritized easier gameplay and graphics over simulation-oriented enhancements (they WANT the game to be a bit more casual; a bit less hardcore simulation). Now, bear in mind that to believe this you would have to believe that BIS believes it can entice folks to cross-over to Arma from CoD or BF (you know, like I did), which I think they've achieved to an extent already: public Arma 3 servers are full of people who have played, or currently do play to some extent, those other games. Are they the same product? No, of course not. Would BIS like to appeal to the same demographic that allows CoD to achieve $1B in a couple of weeks on shelves. I'll let you be the judge - I know what I believe.

    To be successful (at making money, not the most realistic FPS/military sim) they need to appeal to a broader demographic, which is why it makes total sense to take inspiration from other successful shooters. If the hardcore community doesn't like it, the modders will fix those issues over time. But BIS needs/wants more players, and will probably make more money in the near-term by focusing on how to drive more noobs into the franchise than appealing to simulation-oriented needs of older/more seasoned Arma players - who, let's face it, have bought/paid for the product already.

    In my eyes their business model makes total sense - and proves (to me at least) that they're looking pretty closely at other shooters for inspiration (and players).

    What's interesting about this is that Dayz is being made as more of an "anti game" in the sense it does the complete opposite of trying to entice Battlefield players into the game. Dayz is incredibly successful because of this.


  9. I wish there was competitive 5v5 in CQB, or platoon vs platoon (team vs team) type battles where there were things like a set number of lives or a number of points you need to achieve as a team by completing objectives. This coop shit just seems like something that should be left behind in Arma2 as we progress to Arma3.. I'm sick of the typical "Oh, sorry for the FF dude" "Oh shit theres 5 AI on easy mode, time to apply tactics" "How do I equipt my weaponnnhuehue". I really like the DM/PVP coming back in Arma3 but it still hasn't fully replaced the shitty domination and easy-ass system of coop missions. At least make some cool shit like back in OFP where there were unique and specialized missions where you had goals and pre-placed items. The whole dynamic sandbox shit was/is boring and should have been abandoned in Arma2 where it pretty much spawned from.. Coop is not inherently bad; but what happened to the fun shit like DEFEND CHRISTMAS HILL - just a spam of units assaulting a hill and it was hell, or those maps covered in tanks where you only have AT and you have to kill about 10 of them, or just the servers where AI settings are actually high and it's considered difficult to carry out a simple and non-laggy mission. Time to move on and create fun game-types guys. In Arma1 one of the funnest experiences I had (albeit somewhat laggy) was on a coop server with a mission called Take The City (1000 AI). The AI was pretty versatile, and there were actually tons of them in the city. This wasn't just fly in and take the city from 10 easy-mode AI like the usual so called 'elite' Arma2 unit does, that was some hardcore fun stuff that I can't bother typing out. This shit, in comparison, is boring; to someone who only has played Arma2/Arma3 they might get the whole stale atmosphere and dump the game as a pile of trash. That, or join a realism unit, and they never do anything fun like organize PvP scenarios or gameplay against players; they are also tending to be afraid to do PVP because it would break the morale of their bad players to lose against some other group. Imagine if you could choose your 5 best for a squad and pit them against 5 others, or just do a full on war/comparison of groups? That would be fun.. that's what popular FPS games have. I hate COD and consolegames, but I love PC games with the exception of easy and casual stuff. Arma has degraded alot into something boring; though Arma2 is realistic I don't want to see any of those easy-going faggots who joined Realism units to migrate over and infect the Arma3 scene. I'd rather see some fun and creative missions than some crap like that. Sorry for the long post, but I type really fast and I had a long opinion.

    1. The mods fix everything philosophy.

    2. No engine support.

    3. There's no game to go play instead of Arma, it's a niche game with no competition.

    4. Don't like things to be realistic? Why are you playing Arma in the first place?

    5. The people who like realism are more likely to play as a team. Ever played wasteland with ACE?

    6. You think realism groups hate PvP?


  10. That's the thing, though. There are very few differences between the gameplay of Arma 2 and Arma 3. It's one of the major problems I have with it. The only thing that could even kind of be construed as less realistic is the mouse control, and when we are talking about how I control my virtual body, I will take something that feels right over something that is right 100% of the time.

    Other than that, the bullet penetration system is better. The vehicle damage system is mostly the same. The vehicle controls are mostly the same. The aircraft are exactly the same. The medical system is mostly the same (FAKs aren't really worse, just more of a continuation of the basic premise of the medical system in Arma 2). The movement system is better/more realistic.

    So overall, it's not really more realistic, but it's not really less realistic either.

    There are many areas of improvement. But the movement system in Arma 3 lacks inertia, how is a twitch shooter better? The aircraft are more lightly armed because of a very small pool of weapon types. Statements like "we feel the factions should be distinguishable yet balanced" gives us sides that basically mirror each other (I doubt they will change the fact they use the same vehicle guns, uav and similar/shared vehicles.) Opfor have bullet resistant full body clothing instead of ballistic vests. FAKs are like a placeholder. The MRAPs act like unarmored vehicles and do not protect the occupants for very long, have easy to hit fuel tanks and can be destroyed in 2 6.5mm clips.

    We do see though a more realistic penetration system, a more realistic ballistics system but it breaks at longer distances, and Physx which is not fully implemented. The ammunition amounts on vehicles are actually pretty realistic on some.


  11. No, it was literally just you that wanted this. ACE is a great mod, but it's not for everyone and there is a large portion of the community that does not use it. You might also like to know that railguns are being worked on by the military right now. I'm not sure how you think anything about Arma 3 is like Halo. At all.

    Just more of a rant but there was a big difference between the community and the dev team at the time. The community was expecting the game to be more realistic than it is now. I'm all for any tech futuristic, old, modern as long it's realistic. Rail guns are being used on ships, the more logical choice for ground vehicles is a coil-gun. In fact china has coil guns on tanks. Arma 3 was going to be a lot more futuristic at before.

    They tried to taker the OFP direction with Arma 3.

    But it does feel like Arma 3 is stuck between two groups with things being done for in between but few things being done for either side.


  12. This was in early development, Hence no ingame footage in that trailer. I think this was so early in development that at that point they only had to make some minor model changes to 'change the direction'. From other early vids it was clear that they were testing a lot of stuff* to see what could work and what wouldn't. Also, i don't know if it was a minority, but as the series is usually mentioned in the same sentence as 'realistic' i think they didn't want to push it too far. In any case it doesn't explain most of the 'dropped features'.

    *like the 'dress in enemy uniform to infiltrate their base', which sounds cool but at that point was so unfinished that it was even worse then simple scripting solutions i have seen or i could write in a couple of minutes.

    There does appear to be some disconnection between the community and the higher ups in BI. They did run into many complication along the way and just threw all the work away basically. And they seemed to have went crazy with quality after Dayz...

    ---------- Post added at 06:13 ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 ----------

    There was a very vocal group since the very first
    (at the end it looks railgunny like or something) that threw a hissy fit because it was too futuristic for their taste, so i guess BI toned it down a bit after that, while still keeping the 2035 era.

    That decision somewhat disappointed me, i would prefer to either get some real fancy toys to play with, or just full on realistic cold war era equipment. Now it feels like they couldn't decide between the 2 and it became really bland, which is a missed opportunity.

    About the missing stuff that was in older screenshots: I think that they didn't want another buggy release like ArmA2* and they decided to throw out everything that wasn't finished enough and focus on polishing the core content that we got now. Remember: Showing something in a screenshot doesn't tell you shit about its development state, except that the model is done. I still hope that we will get some of the things that were previously shown and that they are still working on finishing the content.

    *You can laugh and point at the ArmA3 bugtracker all you want, but compared to ArmA2 1.0 ArmA3 plays like a dream.

    People wanted it to be realistic, everyone was thinking of the game being more realistic and aiming for functionality not graphics. Then people saw they went for a halo like sci-fi approach. Then when people saw the alpha and beta they thought it would get better. But BI hired a game balancer and just continued on with the more arcade/gamey direction ignoring some of the most top voted on feedback tracker tickets. They ditched the realistic aspects of Arma 2 movement for making Arma 3 supposedly less clunky but at the same time into a twitch shooter. The it's the future argument then became the norm for everything and a lot of player went back to Arma 2 or played Arma 3 without vanilla content.

    ---------- Post added at 06:14 ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 ----------

    So a small group of people changed the whole path a game developer was taking? They didnt even bother what the community has to say in it, they just follow that minority of people apparently?

    It was a large majority of the community at the time... That goes to show a huge disconnect from the community.


  13. Firstly, ProGamer seems to be in the wrong thread. I said nothing about turning while prone.

    I replied by explaining why some things were as they were and then kind of ranted a bit. Should I have started my own thread with it?

    ---------- Post added at 02:15 ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 ----------

    A2 is better than any previous or present game in the series, for me, but only when its modded up. If serious ‘mil/sim like players’, that’s a player who likes realism without the boredom of vbs2 and without the crazy A3 game-play, if that player wants serious realistic war gaming but with the joy of it remaining a game and not becoming a true simulator (training tool), then A2 is the game for you.

    However, if graphics and a more gamey game-play style, is your thing, then A3 is the one you want, it certainly stops well short of bf madness.

    I play A2 with a group of friends, its great, better than any other game out there in this genre, there again there’s only BI making this genre really. But A2 modded with a good mix of ai mod/addons (if your not lucky enough to have KAI) and the experience will be completely different and far superior to A3.

    Movement with SMK in A2 gives more or less all you’ll need, plus various other bits and pieces such as st-movement/collision some of the ‘proper’ bits, also effects etc, etc. Plus of course a really good ai mix that suits your game (as said) and whatever forces/equipment etc you want from the vast amount of content available.

    Spend time setting A2 up and you’ll never be able to put A3 above A2 in all honesty, A2 will win out hands down, if realistic war gaming is something you like. O.k. the graphics of A2 are not the best, but really, if your playing this series the likelihood is your after some realistic war gaming, when did graphics become important in that!

    Oh and a bacon sandwich to whoever said BI needs competition, that’s a very true statement, they do, but they’re unlikely to get any within the next few years, but maybe, just maybe, something will pop up 4/5 years ahead, who knows, we can hope though.

    All of the above is said based on a player using the editor, to make and play your own missions/campaigns or those of the group you play with. Can’t say regards the BI campaigns, never played any other campaigns/missions, other than mine or the groups, so not sure which is the best there, but going off game-play, surely A2 must win out there too.;)

    Just my view..

    Arma 3 took the OFP route. Gameplay over realism. They have said they wanted to make it more like OFP. But for players who liked Arma 2 and how it was more realistic, Arma 3 is not a replacement. Hopefully BI will go the Arma 2 direction for Arma 4 and then just alternate.


  14. You missed the fact that inertia got removed from player turning and wasn't even still around as an option. I can spin a pistol around at the same speed as a sniper rifle. I can spin around and stop on a dime without any inertia.

    The whole future excuse for things not being realistic is lame, almost everything exists today and I doubt they would remake old tech in the exact same image if it was better. Then there's the whole "we feel the factions should be distinguishable yet balanced" statement that explains why we basically have generic faction one, two and three. I mean before we knew much about Arma 3, people were excited for a Milsim that was like ACE and had multiple new large features, but instead Arma 3 turned out to be the opposite of that.

    Looking back at development it just seems like things just went wrong and we ended up with the current Arma 3. They had huge plans and intended the game to be realistic, but then just ditched that for the Arma we have today. You can see fans have wanted the game to be more realistic both here and on the feedback tracker but that appears to have fallen on deaf ears and many have given up and left. BI seems to be chasing a different fan base while leaving the previous one in the dark.

    Some positives to Arma 3 are the new penetration ballistics model but it begins to break down at larger distances. Physx is nice but not fully added and useable. The graphics seem to be an upgrade but only lighting takes advantage of DirectX10 which is saddening. At the moment the downsides tend to outweigh the positives in Arma 3.


  15. Everything about ARMA's animations seems clunky, and we cant control anything.

    We should be able to do some movements while doing things, when i think about it we are very often out of control and things "queues" so we can do anything for a while.

    They really need to clean up a lot with that.

    Also, parachutes could stay on the ground after a landing, and it can be hidden. :p

    Yes but I would rather not have things that are realistic changed because they were considered "clunky" by a few people. The whole lets make it less clunky philosophy made sniper rifles spin around like pistols in Arma 3 because inertia got removed, so I'd rather we try to stop things like that from happening.


  16. I wouldn't like to see that in game though, neither would I like to see dismemberment or amputations. And anything that messes with damage values has a ripple effect on the way the game is played, including medical aspects. Overall I don't think these arguments matter unless someone forms them around the God damn game!

    We need a proper complex and realistic medical system to design the body armor around in the first place. It's like building a skyscraper without the bottom floors or supports. And for those who want to play like a super soldier they could disable the advanced medical system and advanced body armor system.

    For modding we need proper support for dismemberment and amputations.


  17. I am not aware of any body armor able to protect from something even close to an antimaterial rifle , a center of mass hit by these rifles means instant death and decapitation for the target. I would also like to note that the pass through/clean of a bullet is a myth , even if the bullet doesn't hit any vitals the exit wound is much much bigger that the entry wound and results in much more damage and blood loss .

    I was under the impression that the myth was that anti materials rifles were always one kill in real life.

×