semiconductor

Just like it sounded for the last fifteen years I guess. Surprisingly enough, I've never had a tank sneak behind me in, like, 5 years of my Arma experience despite significantly less loud engine sounds. Either I have an extremely powerful vocal cords or you have no idea what are you talking about. Besides, as you have noted, one actually can talk in UAZ. That's not the case in Arma with both TFAR/ACRE even on "yelling" setting* - you can't hear anything but an unintelligible mumbling. The annoyance of engine's sound volume is only half of the problem - the other half is that you can't actually have a meaningful conversation even inside / near UAZ, which is a goddamn civilian car. And again, there is numerous videos on youtube that clearly show people talking to each other inside UAZs, BTRs, HMMWVs, T-series tanks and other vehicles. That's not an option because lowered sound effects will mean that while engines will start to have a normal volume, all other sounds, including steps, shots and sonic cracks will become too quiet. As I said, the extremely lound eninges only disrupt the gameplay while bringing nothing in return, even if their sounds are realistic. * I believe it affects the range of transmission but not the actual volume of sound so you can't outvoice loud noises.

I'm assuming you are talking about firing effects of a tank's main / coax. gun, not engine sound, otherwise you've met with one hell of a tank. :D I've found a couple of videos where you can see tank crew talking to eachother with almost clam intonation despite all the noise generated by engine and autoloader system (and mind you, Russian tanks weren't exactly build with crew's comfort in mind) and also asked a couple of guys who had a first-hand experience with MTLBs, BTRs and BMPs - they all confirmed that you can talk and hear people talking inside/near those vehicles without any problems whatsoever even when their engines are on (with notable exception of 1st and 2nd BMP series). But that's not the point - in my opinion, even if these vehicles were as loud IRL as they are in Arma, lowering their engine sounds would still be an idea worth trying because its not just really annoying, it's also quite often disrupts the gameplay since you either have to shut up and hope that you'll hear the disembark order or use your radio and clutter the squad/platoon net with your personal questions.

Guys, please, for Heaven's sake, consider lowering down the engine sound volumes, especially those of Russian vehicles. Current volume levels (my Arma 3 sound volumes are at approx. 1/2 of the slider) are almost unbearable since you have to lower them each time you hop into even UAZ/HMMWV in order to hear somebody's voice even on "Yelling" setting (I've tried with both TFAR/ACRE). I get the idea of realism (though I'm one hundred percent sure that one can hear people talking with their normal voices at least in/near UAZ and Ural) but it's extremely annoying while bringing nothing to the table in terms of gameplay. I doubt that it's even realistic because no matter how loud the nearby BMP is, you can always just scream right into your companion's ear so he will be able to hear you but in Arma you either have to use your sw radio with maxed volume to tell something to a guy sitting literally next to you or you both have to lower down the audio levels.

Probably you wanted to have a theoretical monologue becasue as far as I'm aware a discussion does not consists from evading counter arguments, not bothering with substantive responses and claiming that you don't care, especially since your opponent is allegedly Reddit-using social justice warrior-bashing communist American (I'll consider that a compliment since my English level is painfully far from that of average American :D). There simply could be no discussion when one side sincerely doesn't want to participate in it. Well, apparently I've made a mistake thinking that you've come here to discuss something, not just express your opinion. That's totally fine though, in that case I won't bother you again. :)

At which point I'm hyperbolising? From what I'm gathered from your post, you actually consider feelings of people who aren't included in game as a problem worth addressing and I just can't really understand how come that their feelings should be a problem of Bohemia Interactive or Arma community. Games are about having fun, not about being "%noun% including", "welcoming" or "politically correct". It's a piece of entertainment made by private company which does not owe you anything, take it or leave it. It is not a public service provided by public organization funded from your taxes that must follow whatever ideology your government currently adores. Besides, this problem is not just inconsequential, it's also fundamentally unsolvable. I mean, okay, BI have included women but the game is still not homosexual and bisexual people/tall people/short people/fat people/skinny people/people with poor eyesight/colorblind people/married people/rich people/middle class/young people/old people/people with teeth problems/people with acne/crippled people/180-193 entries long list of states that are not represented in-game goes here/aliens from outer space/any other characteristic of a person/object - inclusive. No matter what BI does, there will always be somebody "excluded" and "offended". So what, it absolutely does not affect the purpose of a game - entertainment. Being "inclusive" is not necessary for that. I was talking about people and states (yes, Iran, I'm looking at you) who go apeshit, start making mountain of a molehill and slap a "victim" label upon themselves each time somebody does not want to cater to their deisres, thus allegedly "huting their feelings". They don't seem to remember, however, that the state of their feelings is completely up to them and their are not a valid reason for anybody to give in to their demands. Like, at all. Their own feelings are their own problem and nobody cares about them, except for their close friends and family maybe. That is why I think that your point about Arma being inclusive and "How would you feel?" question are irrelevant to the discussion.

Sigh, when will all those well-meaning people who apparently have nothing better to do than protect somebody they consider "insulted" in the Internet finally realize that computer games are not about not-insulting-anyone's-feels? Answering your question: I wouldn't be bothered by it. Probably it's because I'm not an 10 year old kid who thinks that world revolves around him, that his fe-e-e-e-e-ls matters to anybody except himself and gets insulted over every inconsequential thing that somehow stings one of his countless insecurities. Not to mention that getting gravely insulted and starting running around in tears just because someone doesn't want to appease you isn't even a 10 y.o. level, it's literally something that 1.5 year olds do. Makes you wonder whether some people have never left this stage of mental development despite being physically grown up.

Thanks! This approach seems to work perfectly, there isn't even a delay between event firing and consequent channel switching. Here's my code in case somebody else needs it: ["SomeID", "OnSWchannelSet", { if((_this select 2) != 4) then { [(call TFAR_fnc_activeSwRadio), 4] call TFAR_fnc_setSwChannel; }; }, player] call TFAR_fnc_addEventHandler; Where "4" is the number of channel (4th channel is going to be channel 5 in in-game radio) you want to restrict player to.

Hey guys, I was wondering it there any way to prevent certain player from switching radio channels? I'm trying to simulate a "emergency" radio that has only one channel available. I've come up with the idea of adding onSWChange event handler to that player that will restore the original channel each time he tries to change but I'm not sure if this is a right way to do it.

Being a rich customer will get you way further than being a good boy. ;) I'm totally not working at Bohemia's marketing department.

Hi guys, I have a somewhat non trivial question: how do I check whether player's car has speed limiter turned on? I've tried to figure it out by myself but got completely stuck on GVAR() part because I failed to find any meaningful definition of it that wasn't referencing some other macros. A wild guess "(vehicles select 0)/(vehicle player) getVariable "isSpeedLimiter" produced no results, sadly. Thanks in advance. :)

Amazing mod, thank you! :) Makes you wonder where automobile industry took a wrong turn. :D BTW I have stumbled upon couple of errors - 1969 Plymouth Road Runner looks strange (wrong lighting/shadows) and generates following errors: 1977 Plymouth Fury apparently has low-poly dashboard (without gauges at all) and also generates some errors: Tested without any other mods with both Armaholic and Workshop versions. Hope that helps. :)

I think that it should be other way around: player should get sway penalty for carrying too much instead of receiving a reward for carrying little. In the first case player can enjoy normal sway unless he did something very wrong, in the second the sway is terrible unless player does everything right. The problem with sway is that player feels himself completely powerless in regard of sway control. Here's what I'm talking about: I'm crouched, my stamina just had fully recovered from the long run, I'm pushing the RMB button with all the force my middle finger can exert... and yet my weapon still dangles around. WTF, what else the game needs from me? I'm at kneeling position, my stamina bar is full, I'm holding my breath. There's nothing more I can do so why the heck this goddamn weapon keeps wondering around the screen? The game says I'm already recovered, why on Earth my weapon behaves like I don't? This is very frustrating. Obligatory comparison with A2 mod: ACE had it so much better. It was actually punishing player for carrying too much (by means that include, but not limited to, sway penalty) without being extremely annoying or counterintuitive.

Really? That's strange, I remember pretty clearly how I was getting stuck at every building with M240 until I took a rifleman slot with M4. :huh: Maybe the community I played with used some mod to alter collisions (@something-something_advanced_movement?) but I got a clear impression that collision boxes in Arma 2 were working as expected, more or less. Anyway, I would love to see weapon collisions and inertia properly implemented in Arma 3. My inner "Arma 2's grass was greener and also ACE-interactable" grouch starts to grumble each time I see someone rotating around his Z-axis with a speed of a turbofan engine's compressor with little to no penalty towards aim steadiness.

Yes, because development of high-quality assets is costly and time-consuming and that fact will inevitably mean that some other assets/features should be put aside. Arma, being a infantry shooter, has more pressing issues than implementation civilian life or representing a minor fraction of people serving in some militaries. As p3d have said, BI will probably implement both at some point in the future but they aren't a priority right now for several reasons summarized in previous posts. Besides I don't think that less than AAA-game quality of certain modification was ever considered as a valid reason to not to use it, in Arma community at least. Personally, I'm here for great gameplay, not for fancy textures.

The opinion of people who are already interested in the product does not necessarily coincide with that of people who aren't interested in it. Just because 67% of players would love to see female models does not necessarily mean that lack of these models is the reason why "50% of the market" isn't buyng the game. Only the features that had proved themselves useful and justified the cost of their development. I believe that's the reason why many Arma 2's features were scrapped. And while I agree that representation of civilian life in Arma 3 is almost non-existing compared to Arma 2, I don't have a real problem with that. BI had shelved this not really important feature in order to concentrate on something that really matters - infantry gameplay. Fine by me. If I had to choose between Arma with loads of civilian content but with poor military gameplay and current Arma I would without hesitation choose the latter.

@pwner A. Feedback Tracker does not provide any information about game's demographic. Your screenshot just indicates that there is severe controversy inside the current community concerning female soldier models, nothing more. B. Females in Arma 2 & OA are unable to hold weapons unless an appropriate mod is installed. Since you apparently don't have a problem with "modded" females, I don't really see why you still insist that BI should add them in vanilla.

How come? Is there any noticeable disparity between machine gun/rifle and carbine/submachine gun sway? Does sway makes any difference at <50m ranges? Your post reminded me about Arma 2's features I miss in Arma 3 - weapon collision with surrounding objects and weapon inertia. These were two main reasons why carbines and submachine guns were actually kinda useful - good luck squeezing through a narrow passage/making a fast 180 degree turn with that PKM of yours. In Arma 3 there is almost no point in less powerful but more compact weapons because you literally can navigate buildings with M107 or M240 just as well as with Glock 17.

Agreed, that's my problem with new sway too: I'm standing stll, my stamina is fully recovered, I'm holding my breath... and the weapon still dances around screen's center. It's really confusing, WTF else should I do to be able to shoot?! I really hope BI will make some changes in next patch.

Now, let's set the record straight: you said that you want "another game, no mods (allow some customization), no bots" - well, there is plenty of them. TF, BF, RO, PR, CS, you name it - these are your best bets to have the gameplay you want because I'm pretty sure that BI will not abandon their unique product that allows them to be a monopoly on the market for almost 15 years in favour of yet another generic PvP shooter just because you apparently had failed to understand that Arma is not a Battlefield-like game. There is many reasons why Arma has a relatively big, very loyal and extremely creative community and being a yet another BF* clone is not one of them. * not saying that there's something wrong with BF

After a couple of missions I can't really say that I don't like the new stamina system or that the old one is better. It's... fine, I guess? Maybe not great but now it's obvious how the weight you're carrying correlates with your ability to sprint and you still can jog after you become fatigued (yes, I understand that this is not realistic but forced walking pace was so goddamn annoying I can't express it). So while there is room for improvement, I think that BI made a step in right direction, more or less. Just my humble opinion. :)

Then go buy one, what's your problem? There is huge amount of such games on the market.

Great mod, we will certainly use it at our New Year's event. :D

Please read the post I was replying to. Thank you. The way you put it, it sounds like you're trying to judge me for a statement I haven't made. I'm sure that's not true though.

...but why bother writing this when you can make a mountain out of molehill and then uphold a feminist narrative so your "research" might pass as a paper that addresses some imaginary gender issues? <_<