timmo1982

A lot of the work in making maps isn't sourcing the terrain or aerial imagery, that's moderately easy, it's creating or sourcing all the regional specific trees models and textures, building models and textures and other object models and textures.

Are you new to the game CommanderX? ARMA does require a very different play style to what you may be used to in other games (i.e. a lot more scanning your surroundings, no running and gunning etc)

There is a difference between object distance view settings and terrain distance view settings. Did you increase both?

It isn't. Laser Guided <> Thermal <> Optical.

Hmm good tip for assigning a double tapped key...I didn't realise you could do that! Trying to roll the mouse to the correct menu item when you have a split second to do it is never easy.

...and the engine is only capable of doing things that the hardware can physically do (i.e. number crunching). I think people need to be reminded of this (not you Tonci87 but some people on game forums don't seem to understand this). It'd be great to just keep throwing features into a software engine with no thought of the spending of your hardware 'budget', but that's not how things work in reality (until quantum computing becomes reality of course!) zGuba, the reduction in flying 'efficiency'* of helos seems like an easy thing to implement? Is it? * By flying efficiency, I'm meaning the behaviour of a helo when the collective is dumped. Choppers in A3 seem to keep flying without dropping a lot when the collective is dropped.

I would imagine it's an issue with precision of floating point numbers in 32 bits?

Darth Vader or Storm Trooper mask?

Thanks B00ce- I've amended my post. I also mistakenly put cyclic instead of collective in the second para.

I agree, especially in regards to lowering the collective to go down which is pretty screwy in A3. A novice helo flyer in A3 currently would lower collective, find they weren't really descending and go 'oh I guess I need to nose down with cyclic'....which would have the effect of increasing airspeed and make hitting the landing spot very difficult. Increasing the effect of dropping collective is the one thing they could easily (?) change to really improve the helos in A3....currently helos feel like they 'want to fly' as opposed to reality where the blades are doing a heap of work to prevent it from falling out of the sky!

Well if you know that you bought it legitimately, then we can't argue with that. Have you let Steam update it (presumably you haven't played it for a long time?) and does the problem still persist?

In previous versions of Arma, you could see what options were available from the context/squad menu so you didn't have to memorise them (i.e. F1 select a unit, then 4 for vehicle and then 1 to disembark or 1-1 to return to formation etc) Those shortcuts still work but the items don't come up on the context menu so you must, for example, know that 4 brings up the vehicle menu instead of seeing it on the menu? Am I missing something here?

It would be OK if the quick menu gave you the same options (i.e added functionality) but it seems to just present you with a list of options that you don't even need....?

lol varity.

Do you have permission from IRIS to use their geometry/model?

I've wondered about that....is the game actually rendering/running everything it just was before you opened the menu? If not, then it's a bit misleading- You want to know what the FPS is when running the game etc.

Finally some female models for virtual eye candy?

Can you 'splain that one? You don't like that you have to touch off both at the same time or that its too easy to touch them off when you meant to do something else?

Interestingly, the 'fact' that eating lots of carrots helps you see in the dark is a myth, introduced by the British in WWII to encourage people to eat more veges I believe....

So that would make it even more useful to be able set buildings to non-destructable: Less information about building damage needs to be synced to new players joining.

Adding features to a large mod like this is as easy as snapping your fingers....a complete set of period correct vehicles? Snap, done. Period correct clothes? Done, what's next? </Sarcasm> :rolleyes:

or is the problem that PLAYERS are still expecting to turn up all settings to the Maximum and get 60 FPS? Arma, like FSX (Flightsim 10) was, have ambitions beyond the 'here and now' of computer hardware. They have rendering capability that extends beyond current hardware and instead of players just pulling their sliders back to accommodate their particular set up, people expect to be able to go all out. Now, BIS could probably just pull back their ambition, artificially restrict view distance to a max of xxxxx for now and release a patch later that just extended that.....but that doesn't get to the root of the issue in my mind. You may still have people complaining about performance on their 3 year old machine not being able to max out the settings even then. Now, granted, ArmA can be optimised further, but I think a lot of the problems of 'poor performance' are simply related to the HUGE amount of rendering that the engine is capable of and players automatically expecting that their current hardware can crunch it. No amount of optimisation will get around the fact that if you have more data to load, more objects to display, more objects to move and track in XYZ space etc etc then you will simply need more computing power to do that.

Yes, agree totally. It is fine to have complex key bindings and actions to achieve complex things, but it makes it difficult when there are no pointers on how to achieve that the first time. It's fine to have a realistic map, compass, GPS and radio but perhaps it would help new players get 'into' ARMA if there were 'tool tips' when opening it the first time etc. In other words, don't dumb Arma down, increase the intelligence of the player through a better interface that teaches the player how to use it.

You've simultaneously agreed and disagreed with me. A slight error in my post before which referred to 'airspeed'- IAS isn't affected by air density (or at least, it effects the aircraft and instruments equally- the aircraft is affected by the same dynamic pressure). The speed of the aircraft across the ground (which is what I suspect ARMA shows as its 'airspeed' hence my use of the term) does increase as altitude increases (and density decreases) assuming IAS is constant. ...so conversely, a jet is slower at lower altitudes because the engine is performing worse.

hehe, it needs a donut shop model ;)