comc

What I mean is, the rovers will not charge if you are disconnected from them. They should be able to charge without direct control from Mission Control, right? Even after using the time dilation for 12 hours, the percentage charged stays still. Makes it a little crazy to travel 1km to the next mission when you've barely got any juice at the moment.

Due to this thread, I tried to fly without TrackIR. It was torture. I love my joystick and can accept if it's not for you but for the love of God, if you want to get in the cockpit of anything that leaves the ground, please get TrackIR. It's ridiculous how much it helps.

I am sorely disappointed with the sheer volume of derisive and insulting comments made towards this idea. I'm not a fan of E-sports, but that doesn't mean I'm going to try to make sure no one else can enjoy it in Arma. I love the series for its limitless gameplay and crushing realism, but others playing a more arcade style gameplay is not going to ruin my experience in the slightest. BIS already have a ridiculous amount of work ahead of them, and Arma is much more than halfway done. They aren't going to change the core of the game to appease a possible small section of fans. Just look at DayZ, a mod notably more popular than the game itself; did they change Arma 3 to better accommodate the mod? No, they are releasing a completely separate standalone game for DayZ players, because the core of Arma is to be a basic, realistic and sandbox-style platform for anyone to edit and play. Arma 3 won't be made any more arcade-y than it is now. Even as it is now, ACE is sure to add the realism many of us want back in. Arma is often touted as a game full of possibility - something you can make however you want. But many fans tend to be elitist, claiming their way is the only "true" way of playing the game. You need to get off your high horse and let others have fun, too.

To me, it seems like the MH-9 and AH-9 versions of the Little Bird roll so slowly that I frequently crash when attempting to turn. Is this something changed in the Beta or could it be my joystick?

This seems like a good idea. I never really realized that rockets don't leave decal damage but now that's all I'll notice.

Good job! I was about to do so but wanted to gauge others' reactions to this change.

If you're talking about heavy armor, you're going to have to wait until release (or a little before it for the dev build). The Beta is already out, and seeing that the only armor additions are wheeled APC's, I'm assuming no tracked vehicles will be added.

That would be okay but the roll speed is very low even when the A/MH-9 is stationary.

Please don't fall for that alarmist nonsense. If you have a 128 GB drive, and write about 20GB/day, your SSD should last 5 years. The lifespan of an SSD based on data transfer is NOT a consumer-level concern.

To avoid the whole bad modcheck that would probably result in crashes, you could be able to only view the last mission you played while the game is still running.

I'd definitely buy this kind of thing. Also, a small 3-D relief map of Cherno, complete with little houses and such, would be wonderful, though it'd have to take up a whole room if you wanted the houses to be macroscopic.

How recently have you seen this? I've tried about 3 days ago and they seem to use rockets rarely, but really, who would against one soldier? Maybe they would tend to use rockets more often against vehicles.

Even from what was said, if I was in Byku's position, I'd still like a developer's statement on the matter, just in case.

A lot of people, especially new players, found that they'd like a sort of tactical guide to help them transition from BF3 and COD. I found this guide to be of great help, and I'm pretty sure 90% of players have read it at some point, so it's useful even if it's written for A2.

http://i744.photobucket.com/albums/xx88/markmosso/Elliott%20Reserve/Arma/2013-05-24_00003.jpg (102 kB) <-- This one doesn't want to be shown for some reason but the link works.

Perhaps it could also be that the mechanical sounds of the weapons seem to have been magnified recently, especially for MX series rifles, which explains why it only sounds like that in close range.

You guys think 900 km^2 is big? The map for 2009 racing game Fuel is 5,560 square miles, which is about the size of Connecticut. It takes over 2 hours to drive across.

I'm reasonably certain that active countermeasures would be included, so it will probably work.

It doesn't work quite like that. If you had the object distance more than the view distance (which you cannot do) then you'd have objects load into view before the terrain they're resting on. It would lead to floating objects in the distance especially at shorter view distances. You also don't want objects to load before terrain even if they are hidden from view somehow because it's an unnecessary strain on the system. That's why you'd have objects either load right when the terrain loads, or someplace closer, as it is now. I'm not on my gaming PC but I'm pretty sure you can set the object view distance up to the value of the view distance but not over.

Good point. Anti-Tank weapons do not destroy every tank in the world when deployed! ;)

Well, holding "Q" makes you drive at a slower speed for urban environments and paths with many turns, "W" for normal driving, and "E" for emergency speed. It's not as indepth as your solution but it is there.

I am getting sick and tired of this mindset. "It's an Alpha, you can't judge it now! It's too early to complain about this!" Then what in the world is the point of the entire thing? Just to keep us occupied until they release it? The whole purpose of this alpha is so that people can find something that needs fixed and BI can fix it. While I'm ranting, if I see another single statement trying to differentiate this game and COD and BF3, I think I'm going to explode. I, for one, think this game is going to be leaps and bounds less frustrating than Arma 2. No more extremely blurry view, no more negative mouse acceleration problems, and far, far fewer bugs even in this early stage. From the screenshots, Altis seems like an excellent area for combined operations; much moreso than a seemingly overlooked Stratis - which is just an island for training, anyway. Just think of how much better developed Chernarus was than Utes, for example. The only thing I'm not completely confident in is further performance increases. They don't even need to optimize the code too much; just shift a whole lot more to graphics cards. My GeForce 680 is starving. :(

I was thinking about how Stratis and, considering Lemnos, Altis is/are going to be relatively barren, and I was wondering about what you think would be an ideal location for a game like Arma. I was thinking of Northern England ( http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/17580228.jpg ). I really do like the style of fighting that would come out of small fields bordered by forests with small towns dotting the map.

Sahrani would be great if it wasn't for the fact that there's an unrealistically random splotch of arid land. It is a well developed map otherwise.