Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

progamer

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    2034

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by progamer

  2. Posted

    If you have been following the VBS thread on the forums here, you would gain some valuable insight from the CEO's posts. Like how they are thinking of alternative pricing along with more accessibility for the VBS3 Personal Edition, if they call it that. I assume alternative pricing means less than $500 dollars.

    In the thread, the CEO also goes onto explain various features and the relationship between BIS and BIsim. He seems like a really great guy. No one should go and start asking him to give stuff to Arma.

    Source: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?109702-VBS2-Discussion-thread-the-one-and-only&p=2575812&viewfull=1#post2575812

  4. Posted

    You guys keep saying it's 2030 so they should work better. But they are modelled off of current body armor. Unless someone made some brand new body armor and then decided to make it exactly like current armor, them it's not some futuristic armor. It's current armor likely used because it's cheap and affordable. So stop with the "it should be better because 2030." stuff please.

  7. Posted

    it might be a small helper but top in game speed of buzzard is 710km/h in reallife its 936km/h so id choose a margin in between there

    I'm sure he can research the Su-22M4's top speed instead of guessing from another aircraft. And the top speed of the buzzard is at perfect conditions. Like unarmed, fuel weight low, and at a high altitude with less friction. The 710 speed is more low altitude, fully armed and fully fueled so its heavy and not as maneuverable.

  9. Posted

    It plays great but I think the main thing holding it back is a unifying way of joining a moded server especially when it comes to utilizing Arma2 assets.

    Play with Six is pretty good but I am having alot complications because of the arma2 hybrid aspect.

    ACE3 is really what is going to make this game fly so hopefully that happens and asap...

    Or just a universal standard set of mods that servers would use.

  10. Posted

    Doesn't seem fair to most, perhaps two different versions or it is a more feasible option.. Catering to one specific player preference base when the larger majority is casual isn't that fair, ARMA is about options :)

    I doubt the larger majority is causal in a game like Arma, it's not even a casual game in the first place. The time and resources should be spent on the one version, not two. :)

  12. Posted · Edited by ProGamer

    Seriously unless you are developing for it, have money to blow, or are using it as a training tool VBS is not worth it for the average person, even with all this stuff. There is a very small, hardly active MP community around it, so unless you just like to fuck around in the editor on your own then it is pretty boring since there really isn't any single player game.

    A community could grow. They did also say they were thinking about alternative pricing. Pretty much all the simulation features can be disabled.

    All I really do in Arma is mess around in the editor...

  13. Posted

    VBS is always ahead than arma - maybe we get those things in arma 5 :D

    Maybe not. They seem to be farther apart then before. And then there's a possibility they may want to compete with each other.

    The military would buy Arma if it had VBS's features. Features may be under contract or other thing that do not allow Arma to use them. Best you can hope for is a more accessible PE edition.

  16. Posted

    The team working on DayZ has been at it almost a year and half (standalone) and they barely have that off the ground. What would make BI think they should start something new? They already have 50% of a game in Arma 3 that they should finish first.

    Anyone who develops a mod, a mission or gametype for this contest better read the fine print on the entry form before you sign away your rights to BI. They might just opt to take your ideas and turn into something for their own profit...at your expense.

    BI wouldn't just take the ideas, they would need you as a developer to work on them. And yes the contest appears to be to find the next Dayz along with promoting a bunch of extra content.

  17. Posted · Edited by ProGamer

    Maybe you like realism but I'm pretty sure the millions of DayZ players weren't big on it otherwise they never would have gotten past the whole Zombie thing to begin with.

    Second, I'm pretty sure the whole realism concept is out the window with Arma 3. Most of the weapons don't exist, nor the vehicles and if your telling me this represents whats going on be on the battlefield in 2035 (when Arma 3 is supposed to be set) then I gotta ask what your smoking. Realism might exist some of the in game physics but its MIA in a lot of the other technologies represented in A3.

    The high horse of realism is over hyped here. It might be what you want but its pretty loosely sprinkled into A3 and thats because its a game that was born from a military simulator.

    Dayz went crazy hardcore realistic. Things like advanced armor simulation and an advanced medical system.

    ---------- Post added at 04:36 ---------- Previous post was at 04:35 ----------

    @ OP: Don't bother responding to ProGamer, that's just arguing down to his level.

    Seriously? Down to what level? Kinda rude to say that...

    ---------- Post added at 04:41 ---------- Previous post was at 04:36 ----------

    Regarding realism.

    After work I might enjoy an hour or 2 with the game. If the game were realistic, I might spend that hour with my character's face in the dirt waiting for the good guys to win the firefight.

    So, no to realism. However it needs to feel authentic. It needs to feel that it could have gone down that way. My character needs to withdraw and join the firefight and continue.

    Zombies and Klingon Panzers can never be authentic so they don't interest me.

    I mean Arma 2 level of realistic, not content that's "balanced" and just feels like slugging it out. But I guess BI got bored realism and went "authentic" like medal of honor. They seem like they got bored of milsim and decided to go less realistic to make more money.

  18. Posted

    I don't think they want to go in a different direction from ArmA with this competition. They've already done different things than ArmA the past few years without help from the community. Take On Helicopters, Take On Mars, Carrier Command, and now DayZ.

    I think that they're maybe tired of seeing the community keep reusing old addons from the previous games. I don't know if you've played OFP, but there were so many unique addons available, but it's no longer like that. Everyone is so focused on "realism", all they do is recreate real-world items and then just reuse them for every new ArmA generation. This is primarily why I don't bother with mods anymore, I've seen them all and it's getting old. I'm glad BI decided to take a different route with ArmA 3 creating new vehicles.

    Maybe Arma player like realism? They can make whatever assets they want but they should be realistic. The whole hybrid vehicle and fictional vehicle thing then turns into stupid arguments about balance and other stuff. When a vehicle or weapon is realistic, no one argues or stupid things like balance.

  19. Posted · Edited by ProGamer

    One word, two questions, one request, MLNW.

    Word: wow!

    Question 1: Launch ramps/deck - would it be possible to be able to drive (for example) a CRRC up a ramped deck of another, larger, ship and use some sort of friction coef or anything like that to slow it to a stop? Same could be said about a LPD/LHD type of well deck; would vehicles be able to drive up and down a moving ships ramp deck?

    Question 2: Does this script restrict being able to access/get into vehicle turrets/positions (if the getinpos was on the deck rather than on the exterior of the ship)?

    Request: Would this be possible in an MP environment at all? It would be game changing if it was.

    1.) It's not using friction to have the unit stick to the ship or vehicle. Friction would be nice but sadly Physx does help with that part. As is said above, infantry already works but vehicles will take more time. For Physx to work for vehicles similar to how Physx works in VBS, we would need BI to take a interest in this.

    2.) It has not been tested yet but should work if it is set correctly.

    3.) As said above, multiplayer support is on the list of things to do. But has it's own issues.

  20. Posted

    Quick, someone tell Sakurachan so I can walk around in the C130 port.

    Edit :

    Also, couldn't you use this to make larger vehicles?

    For example, lets say there was a hypothetical Nimitz Class carrier mod. Hypothetically. But as it stands currently, the limitations of Arma do not allow for extremely large vehicles. Wouldn't this enable you to create a central Nimitz "block" and have the other pieces attached with appropriate lods and have a Nimitz that moves?

    I am not exactly sure I know what you mean but this is a script for walking on a moving vehicle. It doesn't make a model bigger.

  21. Posted

    walking in vehicles has been the "unicorn" feature since the ofp days. It isn't impossible, in fact I have a working example with some pretty serious limits. It does give you an animated soldier that can walk with collision detection (geometry and other soldiers) around a vehicle, including elevation changes like stairs or ladders. This version doesn't really need 3d modelling and doesn't require any modification to an existing model. The limit: no guns, aiming or freelook. Another version would require extensive modification to a model, not visually or geometrically though, more to do with proxies and animations. This version, using the new A3 IK stuff might produce an aimable, shootable weapon as well as freelook, with a much cleaner script flow. There are about 4-5 scenarios that I can think of to get some sort of walking in vehicle action. From what I've seen its MP use would be possible (maybe too early to say), but I would cringe at the thought of 40 people jumping off the back of a moving C-130 haha. For now though I'll just release these birds without any craziness.

    You may be happy to know that your "unicorn" feature has come to Arma 3! :)

    http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?170227-AttachToWithMovement-Walkable-Vehicle-Interriors-and-Exterirors

  25. Posted

    A tow truck would b more useful and if Bohemia had setup there maps a little more smartly that wouldn't be a issue. Honestly though you can fit a bunch of c-130s and c-17s in a little space by doing that, but the reality is we aren't moving XXXXXX tons of cargo a day or 1000+ PAX in and out of a location. Having worked flightlines all my life, a good strip will have a circuit parking where they pull in pull out, and not require backing up. Many operational C-130s I saw couldn't back up from time to time due to minor engine issues and not wanting to break in a certain area of the world. As for maintenance theres always a tug of some kind around at any semi improved base. Good idea but I wouldn't worry about it for now.

    The maps are setup from real world data of the locations. Not every runway is designed smartly in real life either...

    ---------- Post added at 08:05 ---------- Previous post was at 07:57 ----------

    I'm not sure that this is possible for ArmA aircrafts ... but I'll search about it (if anyone has any relative info - or some other addon which might do this, I'll be glad to hear about).

    Aircraft similar to the C-130 like the C-17 and the A-400m can reverse on the ground but you should double check if the C-130 can from some credible sources. Slowing down is one thing, but actually backing up is another. For aircraft that can, there is a position for a crew man that helps the pilot not hit anything because the pilot cannot see behind the aircraft.

×