fabio_chavez

maybe a really really poignantly written guideline that every uploader is forced to read before any submission will help A little?

maybe googlava will share some insights at some point in the future, if mappers can expect some new tech features that might come along with tanoa? "nice to have" eyecandy stuff aside, there has been a popular and persistent dissatisfaction with terrain shadowing of objects but for me the only really unlovely shortcomming in arma3 world simulation was the experience while flying (e.g. flying in a void of distorted clouds with no horizont is more surrealistic than realistic ;) ), i wonder what we can still look forward to within the lifecycle of arma 3?

Yes joejoe, its YOUR fault!!

For ~1,5 years now, the Arma 3 community is struggeling with an extensive pool of quality maps, that can not be used properly because of a few but fundamental issues with forward compability. Some can be fixed by community modders other are persitent due to apparent engine limitation. Most notably there is the bug that breaks all maps that contain ponds, the result is that we are incapacitated to use almost any of the a2co maps properly. I think i speak in the name of the majority of users, when i hereby invite you to comment on the issue, we have been waiting a long time and there is no progress apparent on the issue. http://www.armedassault.info/ftp/pics/news/pics1/arma2_water_2.jpg (2698 kB) thank you for your time. p.s. to emphasize the appeal please everybody vote for these related tickets: 1. Pond Bug http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15579 2. Infinite Terrain Crash http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9437 3. screwed sattelite texture http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15629 4. i didnt find a related ticket but the lack of physx for map objects (fences, trees, walls, etc etc etc etc) is a major issue and should receive an engine side fix

i placed chickenbones on my hat and drew a chalk circle around my rig and i had pretty good results with that. :)

right, if you ship a game without official MP mission, why bother to implement basic UI and gamepaly mechanics, totally reasonable priority stuff...

blitzkrieg would have been a great framework for this, right there at hand for them to build upon, though theyd rather give nothing than something :( sure, performance wise the groundwork of arma3 was not optimal for like 50vs50 pvp or something but if they would have had the will they could at least have delivered some nice and lean official mission framework along the lines of traditional MP. i may seem to have a fundamental position to this and the notion of a official conventional pvp mission seems to be not so relevant these days but only because, after 2 years of arma3, all the people who share similar sentiments dont touch arma anymore (or frequent the forums for that matter)... though without reasonable doubt, global server population today would be threefold, with mentioned features.

as we speak of them: BI should simply bring a PVP AAS (or even simple conquest) mission framework with 2 bases, for squad based, combined arms warfare in the form of official missions. combined arms means in effect: 2 bases with vehicle spawns. by default the vehicles would have moderate respawn times according to the general mission layout. squad based means: requirement of basic squad UI with mission markers as basic squad leader abbility and role assignment/kit restrictions of some sort. These Official Missions would also serve as template layouts for the community to do the magic... its so very simple that there is no logical explaination that it doesnt exist since game release to begin with. p.s. for dummys: AAS means: take control of flag posts in a certain order. conquest means: take control of flagposts in any order. pvp means: no AI (aka Bots).

fog also induced the black flickering, hopefully it the problem had the same reason as the black flicker from afar.

from which i assume it takes rocket science to be achieved :)

and SHARKS! :D but no seriously, swimming stance transition tricks my brain into thinking im playing LEGO, but thats negligible in compairsion to functional amphibious tracked vehicles!!!!!

after 2 years, arma finally got a basic squad management system... it should just be accessible via guy by default!

when the day comes it shall be replaced with some gratefull credentials for BI :P though Arma Development is never over and im allready thinking about how a "we want better swimming stance transition animations" banner could look like

they on occasions explained that the game is (effectively) single threadded, that the guy who made the engine left BI which left them in a position where they werent able to easily change core functions, that they didnt focus on MP (and MP gamemmodes) because it would require to fix the persitent core issues with the engine first. (e.g. a dev half-jokingly explained to me once that they wont focus on pvp until the game performs well with 100 players, it was a bit of a flimsy pretext to cover up the lack of progress imho but the statement has a certain explanatory value nonetheless) p.s. also there are rumours that they simply are not good at making proper MP gamemodes (lol @ the bot-taxi mission that came with heli DLC :P ) and left it to the community to come up with it, which wasnt completely unreasonable but unfortunately didnt turn out very well in the end (or did it?) ---------- Post added at 08:39 ---------- Previous post was at 08:34 ---------- p.s. 2 "we simply didnt like warfare", would you buy a car from somebody who makes such phony excuses? :)

its happening :bounce3:

[edited] would be interessting to see if one can tell by simply looking at the result! p.s. i forgot about this old demo video, watch it through and you can see exactly in the end what i mean about the cloud detection...

i really really really hope tanoa comes with a pair of pants. the arma 3 pants have been reskinned like a trillion times...

you should be able to set wind and rain seperately via console/missionfile, though the behaviour is not allways very consistent which has to du with simulweather keyframes i assume. https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setRain https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setWind

it would allready be a huge improvement if the cloud detection would really work so that you had really two different sunlight intensitys according to wether sun i hidden behind a cloud or not, the lighing config is implicating such a function but ingame its not really working that way... i was hoping for that for so long and i have serval WIP configs that would bring a lot more variation, dramatic lighting and awesome dynamic atmospheric effects with just this little improvement! could release this tomorrow but it isnt really working because the dropshadows etc remain the same wether sun is hidden or not, which defeats the purpose kind of... :/

what map is that? terrains can come with their own overcast/weather settings and by the way "the cloud coverage is often so sharp, full of contrast, - but not hazy" overcast and fog are two different variables in the weather setting.

if your intention is to ridicule the appeal, maybe read it first :P

the devs even pretty much confirmed your descriptions 1:1

i consulted a carribean witchdoctor, he explained to me that the problem are the chicken, they are evil and cause bad fps in multiplayer.

BI can bring chernarus plus to arm3: where there is a will there is a way.

the point is, obviously, to mock BI about the fact that arma 3 lacks arma 2 features. ;)