semiconductor

I have a breaking news for you: actions in computer game aren't able to affect any objects in real world beyond components of one's computer. So please, get off your high horse and stop pretending that roleplaying Syria/Iraq/Afganistan/Gulf/WWII/WWI/%WARNAME% war is somehow "bad" or "immoral" and the guys who want to do it are Pol Pot-level tyrants. Consider playing Cities: Skylines if you hate the idea of armed conflict.

If you would have actually read my message before responding to it you would have known that back in september.

Great to see this, Arma could surely use full-scale SAM systems (old poor Shilka saw too many SEAD missions already :D). Good luck with porting! :)

The new Ural wheels are AMAZING. Sorry not sorry for bold text, razor-sharp edges of Ural's wheels was (slightly) bugging me for literally years, each time (last time - about an hour ago in Arma 2) I saw one I've noticed how unnatural its wheels are. Well, it seems that that old truck finally got a pack of new tyres. :D Also, outstanding job with PhysX, I can really feel the weight and inertia of vehicles, even tracked ones, and the gearbox works flawlessly! Thanks again for your outstanding work guys! :)

I doubt that this is a problem and not an intended behaviour. People can't use NVGs from their backpacks either. ;)

Because it is not a military-grade application dedicated towards tank environment simulation with price for personal edition starting from $115? Oh man, who would have thought?!

Great to see the update rolling out. Thank you guys for your outstanding work on that project. :)

Well, I happen to write sqf scripts too and in my opinion sqf is perfect for an infantry simulator game. It's easy to understand for newbies, it doesn't really require much learning and it can satisfy all reasonable needs of a mission maker interested in making infantry-oriented PvE and PvP missions. It's like the Minecraft: player can make an extremely big, slow and basically useless processors if he wishes to but the game itself is about collecting various blocks, making ugly late-soviet-style houses out of them and then proudly showing your magnificent creation to everyone on server. :) JVM would be cool thing to have, sure, but how often an average mission maker requires super fast string search functions? Objects? How many missions that can fit into game's focus will benefit from it (even though BI seems to deny that Arma has any focus at all, they can't really run away from limitations of 15 years old engine designed for infantry-centered shooter)? Enough to justify spending months to implement JVM? I'm not so sure.

This game is not about string search functions. Let's get real.

deleted

I remember there was a proposal for BI almost a year ago to implement an exclusive filter, i.e. it will hide servers with certain words in name so you don't have to hide some legitimate servers along with RPG junk. But it seems we're not getting it until full multiplayer list overhaul.

I believe once you set them to "Open fire, Engage at will" mode they will attack all targets automatically.

I was quite disappointed seeing that article in Steam too (even though I suspect that Steam aggregated it automatically) but frankly - sigh - if BI don't care about Arma being a military game then why should we? BI just want to make money and attract as many players as possible, there is nothing wrong with it as long as they make them selling their own content.

Not sure about fog but I think you can try to create a semi-transparent Smoke effect with very big particle size, low particle count and slow diffuzion time to simulate dust cloud to a certain degree.

It was. But I believe it was scrapped during project review in late 2012(?), just like railgun T-100.

It's great to see that next campaign will be Co-op and I hope BI will not repeat the mistake they made in Harvest Red. It was great campaign and we loved almost every second of it — until it turned into Warfare-like gamemode. I don't know why they decided to replace interesting coop missions with large amount generic randomly generated objectives (money/time was running out?) but they certainly buried a potential for a great campaign with that decision.

Ah, it seems that I misunderstood the "global leaderboard" part. I thought OP was talking about obligatory stat tracking across all gamemodes/missions in Arma.

True. Interestingly, most of the features you listed are implemented in King of The Hill, which is very popular among casual players and I have to admit that this mission was quite entertaining for that reason only. But I don't think that there is a place for such things in Arma. Why? Because there is a reason why current PvP is about points and scoring — the majority of PvP games (with the exception of PR/Squad probably) are designed for lone wolfs and small groups of friends (like 2-4 guys), not for meaningful full-scale teamplay. To keep player motivated and invested in game, game designers force him to compete not just against an opposing team, but also against his own team as a whole and each member of that team separately. There is no teamwork or actual help between "teammates" (unless help is somehow rewarded, i.e. beneficial to player personally) but there is constant "Moooom, he stole my frag!" whining. To be sure, that approach works in classic shooters but they are "glorified deathmatch" basically. If such ghillie-wearing "lone wolf" with M107 TWS comes against a squad or even a fireteam (or any other group that operates as a single unit) he will be send into oblivion long before he will be able to make a second shot. And that's great. That's what makes Arma special. How would scoreboards and other aspects of "modern PvP" damage it? Easy — by enforcing competition inside a squad, inside something that should be an one, single entity with a solid hierarchy and common goal in order to be efficient. Simply put, with competition against your squadmates it would be no longer "us" versus "them", it will be "me" versus "them" versus "those guys around me who aren't shooting at me for now". So, if BI wants to make Arma into yet another laggy, glitchy and overall lame copy of a Battlefield, then yes, they might consider creating global leaderboards. If, however, they want to keep Arma a unique game with literally unmatched possibility for teamwork and almost RL-level squad gameplay, then implementation of those things might not be a good idea at all.

1. Both of those missions aren't really suitable for small coop (2-10) communities; 2. No official servers to play with 2-6 friends;

Frankly, I already have some guesses concerning your obvious preference towards misplaced sarcasm and unfounded accusations over calm discussion. Just wanted to hear your side of a story and see whether some of your very emotional statements might be actually valid or at least based on something. Oh well, it seems that I "have to answer that to myself". Alright then.

Interesting. And why, in your opinion, somebody would object and rationalize the absence something from which he has nothing to lose and everything to gain? I'm not an undercover BI employee who was tasked with changing community's mind against requesting new features, if that's what you're thinking. :D But I'm certainly open for all job offers coming from Bohemia Interactive. (:

Yeah, there's no disagreeing with that. The thing is, pretty much every feature would be cool or would be greatly anticipated by some modder. And "cool" or "greatly anticipated" is not exactly a valid justification for spending time and money to a commercial company. People quite ofthen on those forums demand everything imaginable from professional flight model and realistic air combat to terrain deformation and fully functional aircraft carriers stating that "It would be so cool BI do it asap!". They don't seem to care about obvious engine limitations or about BI's ability to implement certain feature or even actual demand from community (here's another problem - AL/WL players are already happy an don't really need all this stuff; they will leave Arma once they get bored anyway), they just ask for something without thinking about whether their requests are reasonable for BI or not all things considered. Well, of course it's never hurts to ask but what's the point of constant asking for something that's impossible or unreasonable? It won't get us anywhere. I'm just using Arma's focus as a relatively solid point of reference in order to attempt to predict whether BI would be interested in some feature or not. Of course I could be wrong, I don't know about BI's inner workings more than average Arma player after all. Maybe they indeed don't care about Arma's setting as a military game and consistency of its features with that setting and instead aiming to implement as many different engine features as possible but I frankly find it somewhat doubtful.

So what's the problem? I don't think that something like this: _soldier = [WEST, "B_Rifleman_F", [384.12, 157.87, 0.07], 120, 0.8, "InCargo", 1, 1, 1, "MXC", 8, "NONE", 0, "M1911", 5, [], [], [], group sl] call ust_fnc_myCreateUnitFunc would be better. But if you prefer it that way, you can write your own function like the one above, it's quite simple.

Mystery solved at last, I've been puzzling over this problem for last three days. Thanks for the explanation. :)