Jump to content

Velvet_Llama

Member
  • Content Count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Velvet_Llama


  1. Wow, I can't believe I haven't stumbled across this mod yet. This is just fantastic work Taosenai! And you've been doing all of this alone? Very impressive. I know you're "only" scripting, but with all of the research, documentation, and tutorial missions- that's a lot of work for one person (especially work of such high quality!). All I can say is keep up the great work man. This is easily one of the few "must have" Arma 3 mods.


  2. What type of SAM is being launched. Most modern MANPADS have very good flare rejection. Flying the A-10 in DCS if the enemy launches a SA-18 unless you are spamming flares on your run it will usually hit. Even with a full load of 240 flares you have only enough for a few runs before you're empty. You have to spamexpecting your attack run if you want to live. Just don't expect to be able to do multiple runs.

    I learned very quickly playing the A-10 in DCS that my bad ass tank stomper was helpless against AA. Even after logging hundreds of hours in the virtual cockpit I still pretty much assume I'm about to get hit if I'm foolish enough to allow an AA unit to get a good lock and fire. Hell I usually set up a countermeasure program to pop small amounts of chaff and flares on attack runs if there is so much as the possibility of AA operating in the area. One of my proudest early moments in the game was sucessfully landing after a helicopter took out an engine, stabilizer, and half of a wing. Had to jettison all my stores and I lost the landing gear in the bargain, but I survived :)

    More to the point, AA and countermeasures in Arma are not particularly realistic (of course I've never flown a plane, much less a combat aircraft, in real life so I could be talking out of my rear), and it would be nice if they were more realistic- but I also recognize that development time and cpu cycles are both finite resources and flight is not part of the "core" Arma experience. So if those resources are devoted to other things that most people will spend more time experiencing, I understand. I'm not trying to be one of those "BI can do no wrong" fanboys- I'm just saying in this case it's understandable.


  3. We are at the point where the game is going to be released and they've even dumped all of the final content for release into the dev branch. The excuse that "This is a Beta" is getting old because in a week it will be released.

    If we were at this point back in say April when there was time to address things before launch, yeah I might agree with you. We're in September now and the game is a week away from release. I paid for feature's that I've now learned are cut, content that has been cut, the promise of a campaign at an unspecified future date and an overall generalization or sterilization of stock content for the purposes of quality that for all intents and purposes will not be there come launch. Trying to justify it just shows ignorance over principle at this point or the power of video game addiction.

    I agree that the development of this game has not been without disappointment- I think the devs would (and have) agree(d) with that. I also don't think there's anything wrong with holding BI to a high standard- that helps to ensure that they also hold themselves to a high standard in their work. Yet I really have to disagree with your statement that you are paying for cut content. As others have pointed out, it is clearly stated upfront that content is subject to change. I understand that it is frustrating paying for something, assuming it will be part of the final product, and then finding out it's been cut. But you have to look at it this way- you paid less than full price for the game. Part of the reason for that lower price is the fact that you are taking on somewhat of a risk by purchasing the product before its finalized and you know exactly what you'll be getting. I was willing to pay before knowing what the final product would be based on my enjoyment of BI's previous products, but I still knew that there was the chance that the game could turn out to be a mess and then I'd be SOL. To me the risk was offset by the lower purchase price and early access. Just my take.


  4. I'm not interested in having to join a group to have fun... I just want to be able to log in and play a structured mode that is obvious how to play.

    What is funny Ultra settings FPS = 13 (in the last game I played) low settings FPS = 29............

    Seriously this is the worst optimized game I have ever played!

    It is strange you're getting such sluggish performance. For instance, I'm playing this on a 3 year old laptop (grad student, no money :( ). i7 processor, ATI Mobility Radeon 5600, 1GB VRAM, 8GB RAM, and I usually get around 40-50 FPS using a mixture of low to standard settings. Hopefully whatever is causing your hardware to not get along with the engine is fixed by the time the full game is released.

    ---------- Post added at 18:32 ---------- Previous post was at 18:28 ----------

    I agree with the sentiments of the original poster. What ARMA3 doesn't give you off the bat is a proper 'this is what you do' MP mode when you first join, unlike BF3 for example where you have brightly coloured flags in red, and you see everyone rushing in the same direction (or spawning directly into the action). I've put forward the following idea that I'm hoping BIS would do something about ie.

    What would really be great is a proper 'Warfare' type MP scenario developed, preferably developed by BIS rather than left to the community. The scenario (which I've posted elsewhere on the forums) is really meant to simulate 'real' war between two roughly equivalent sides (BLUEFOR/OPFOR) and tries to mimick real life issues eg. logistics, tactics, etc. I've put down my thoughts below...

    That sounds like a pretty cool set of ideas to me. Great way to try and integrate many of the different systems in Arma into one cohesive game. Make it happen, get to work! ;)

×