devilslayersbane

To get this effect, your computer will need to support a larger shadow render distance. It looks fantastic, but can kill your frames. I'll post screens later to show you what it looks like.

Isn't RCON a 3rd party tool? Have you tried contacting the RCON devs?

Do not do that. If someone has an answer, they will reply. Don't bump your thread.

Regarding this. 2 5-bladed OH-6's were made and used during the Vietnam war, for special forces operations. One was shot down. It could be something we keep under sf.

The AI skill slider in the options, from what I can understand, is a coefficient type variable that you set for the AI that takes the values in the skillarray that's available for you in the editor. Basically, all those values go into a big math problem that defines how good the AI is at certain stuff and the higher you have the AI skill/precision set in the options menu, the better the AI will be.

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/CfgAISkill This is essentially all it is.

I actually feel like many of the new sounds are almost perfect. Especially the ones for the 5.56 rifles. I really liked the new Mk200 sound, as it's no longer so "ping-y". Overall the sounds themselves are more rugged and raw, and I really like that. I'm really excited for the vehicle weapons and the new guns.

Yay! My debate class paid of on the internet (maybe). In regards to this particular topic, this really has boiled down to 2 things: people who offer criticism on things that have already been mentioned, and people being disrespectful. That being said, there's no "freedom of speech" in the rules, you must understand that what you say can and most likely will have consequences especially if you begin posting things that are either on, or across the lines that the rules set.

Look, mate, I get your point. There were a couple of things that were a bit far in my opinion (CSAT's helmets, although the one with the single thing are ok IMO). However, in terms of visual quality, I hated the Arma 2 models. I thought then and still think now that they weren't to the same quality as the terrains built for Arma 2 and it showed. Severely. Granted, they could have gone and updated the models for Arma 3 which they did do for the models that were carried over. I'm not a person who enjoys stagnation. I don't like to see re-used assets in a vanilla game. The problem with the entirety of this thread is that it's all extremely subjective. If you play ArmA as it's meant to be played, which is in depth combined arms combat that requires coordination and teamwork (which I'll admit, the campaign does nothing to promote this really) then you can get immersed whether or not you're fighting using an M16 or an MX. I get that people like Modern and Cold War era gear, and that's fine. I like it too. But to be honest I hate to see the same models used over and over with no real improvements. As far as performance goes, yes I have my fair share of issues, however, I have more frames on an empty Chernarus in A3 than I do in an empty Chernarus in A2. That's not the only benchmark I use for framerate, but it's normally the one I start with. The funny thing about Arma 3 is that it's more visually pleasing to the (my) eye than Arma 2 is. Arma 2 looks dated, and it feels dated to me. Everything is very sluggish, and feels constricted. The animations are kinda robotic and sometimes even painful to look at. That's not to say that Arma 2 wasn't a step foward in the series, because it was. It was capable of more than Arma 1, but now compared to Arma 3, it doesn't feel as good. That might just be because I'm used to Arma 3, but I played Arma 2 for quite a while. Also Arma 2 had the AK-47/74, M16/M4, M14 DMR, etc. My point is, Arma 3 brings new assets to the table. That being said many of these pieces of equipment are prototypes (RAH-66, T-95), but a lot of them are being used (E.G., the M-ATV, Merkava, Patria AMV, FV510, etc.). Names can be changed at will, that doesn't mean that the vehicle doesn't exist. Had they kept the Modern-era/Cold war them going, I'd still be a happy customer, but ArmA 3's facelift was needed. This is all very subjective, however, and I realize that. That being said, it stands to reason that while it may have been "easier" to re-use Arma 2's content library, it still exists for us to use in our mods and such. The difference being that we have access to upgrade the models as we see fit. Frankly, I'm ok with that. And I hope they do the same thing if/when Arma 4 becomes a thing for Arma 3's content library. All in all, I'm not unhappy with Arma 3, or it's content. It does what it's supposed to do, and provides content unique to the series to do it. I feel like all threads like this tend to end up as pointless arguing, but I feel like the content from Arma 2 has merit. Just not as Arma 3 content.

I'd like you to do a couple of things: Take out Reskin's from Arma 2 (including guns, vehicles, etc) Look at the Focus of ArmA 3's development (has been stated numerous times that stability/features have been at the heart of A3) Take another look at the "futuristic" content of A3 (because most of it isn't. There are companies even developing power armor on the HALO-esque level) Also take out models from OA that were made from their "Game 2" project. Here's my point: almost every bit of content in Arma 2 (and even OA) was recycled from previous projects. That's not to say that A3 doesn't do so at certain points (I'm looking at you L-159. You can't hide just because you have A-143 in your name now.) but most of the A3 models are fresh and new and actually look good compared to other games. That being said, Arma 3's gameplay is not solely about how the content looks, but I'm willing to bet that people didn't buy Arma 2 CO because the models look great. Arma 3 does exactly what it's supposed to. It provides a good, (mostly) stable base for the community to build on. Not only that but it also does what a game is supposed to do and provide vanilla content that (with proper attention to detail) provides for gameplay of multiple styles. I'm aware that Arma 2 and OA had a lot of content; however, when looking at it from a development standpoint, it stands to reason that the library of content in Arma 2 was enormous compared to many development cycles. Plus, had many of these assets been used in Arma 3, it would have (and don't tell me it wouldn't, because you're lying) brought down the visual immersion of the game which is the most direct form immersion the game has to offer.

There might be other guns that go bang, too.

Nor does anyone really take the time to see the depth of the content that's there. Please see my post on page 3 or 4.

Why should I have to? From a gameplay standpoint it really comes down to what am I going to use? Yes, they differ visually but also in terms of performance, loadout, and expansion of situational awareness. From a gameplay standpoint, choosing one out of the 3 is actually quite difficult. I have the marshall which has the sleekest profile of the 3, meaning that the silhouette will be harder to spot from a distance. Not only that but all three crew positions can turn out, allowing for exceptional situational awareness at the cost of some safety. However, it also has a medium-level armament meaning that if I run into anything bigger than myself, I'm in trouble. Then You have the Gorgon. It has the most armor, and best armament but sacrifices situational awareness by not allowing the gunner to turn out, limiting his view. It also has the most noticable turret meaning that you're relying on the camouflage of the vehicle to break up your silhouette. Finally you have the Marid. It has the lightest armament, just a .50cal and a GMG, but it makes up for it in it's maneuverability and medium armor. It also has no positions that can turn out meaning that your view is fairly limited, which is multiplied by the lack of a dedicated commander. However, should you run into enemy armor in the Marid, it's best that you unload your squad and let them take care of it, as you won't do much to anything larger than an MRAP. All of these subtleties really bring out the depth of ArmA 3's content as you have to change your playstyle to fit the vehicle you're driving/flying. ArmA 3's often been criticized as dumbed down, but on many aspects I beg to differ. The only thing that could be more advanced is the medical system. Although, I'm really glad I don't have to rely on the AI to get me up during the campaign, I still remember the horrors from arma 2.

http://armedassault.wikia.com/wiki/AMV-7_Marshall http://armedassault.wikia.com/wiki/MSE-3_Marid http://armedassault.wikia.com/wiki/AFV-4_Gorgon Please tell me which of these is copy-pasta. I see 3 unique APC's. Each one has it's own pro's and cons. The only thing that isn't extensively unique is the turret on the Marid and the turret on the Gorgon (the Gorgon is somewhat acceptable for lore reasons, as the AAF was receiving equipment from both NATO and CSAT). I mentioned the single Underwater rifle, didn't I? The Merkava received a gun turret on the Urban Purpose variant (which can actually survive a t-100). I enjoyed the campaign, although it did feel a bit linear. I enjoyed the presentation of the story. Even though the plot itself could've been better, I was more immersed into it because the characters were actually believable. It wasn't some Arma 2 halfway done voice acting. Also let me know of any game that doesn't pretty much negate differences between assault weapons. You mean You can't make your own mission in real time in Zeus? Wow was I misinformed or what (granted it's not's the 3d editor that people were expecting, but we'll be getting that too). And yeah, because Firing from vehicles, weapon resting, bipod deploying, sling loading, and advanced flight models really suck nor are they important additions to the game. And bohemia wasn't/isn't generous at all by giving those features to you for free, leaving the premium content (a few go-karts, couple of helos, and soon to be 7 weapons priced at $25 for the bundle is way too much) completely optional for you to buy. Heck, they even let you try it out before hand. I'm sorry for the sarcasm (well, really only sorry for the fact that it may offend you) but you've got some really high expectations. Plus, I the thing I remember everyone on every server I went to the day of release was how stable Arma 3 was. It was most likely the most stable release the series has seen thus far. I'm not trying to lie and say that Arma 3 has had the most diverse content ever, but you're being super cynical and refusing to see where the game actually did really well for no real reason. Actually no, you're reason is that your entire state of happiness apparently relies on how diverse and cheap the content is in a video game that you had no say in in terms of design yet you bought anyway. This is how you sound. Sorry if that comes off as rude or bullying, but seriously it's not the end of the world.

True, but there were a lot of side assets, like the mobile helipad that are free too.

I would except it's a civillian helo. That's worth noting in an ArmA game. Especially since I can't seem to get the doors on the military variants. ---------- Post added at 11:04 ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 ---------- Semi true. The M-900 and new Orca variant came out with the Helo DLC, but are/were not considered premium.

So let's see: 4 Service Rifles with variants (Katiba, Mx, Mk20, TRG-20/1) 1 Underwater Rifle (SDAR) 2 Marksman Rifles (Mk18 ABR, Rahim) 2 LMG's (Zafir, Mk200) 3 SMG's (Sting, Vermin, PDW) 5 Pistols (ACP-C2, 4-five, Zubr, P07, Rook-40) 2 Sniper Rifles (GM6 Lynx, M320) 4 Launchers (Titan AA, Titan AT, RPG-42, PCML) 3 MRAPS (Hunter, Ifrit, Strider) 3 Trucks (HEMTT, Zamak, Tempest) 5 Transport helos 2 Gunships 3 CAS Jets 4 Static weapons 1 Technical 3 Unique Wheeled APC's 3 Unique MBT's 2 Unique Tracked APC's 2 (albeit identical) Artillery Pieces 2 (albeit identical) AA Guns 3 Unique Autonomous vehicles 2 Unique Underbarrel GL's 3 Unique Boats 4 Unique Civilian Vehicles 1 Civilian Helo 270km sq Island 20km sq Island An Arma Campaign with decent voice acting 12-13 showcase missions A Real-time 3d editor A Virtual Arsenal to see what you kit your character with multiple suppressors, rail attachments, and optics Interchangeable uniforms, vests, and backpacks Extra content coming out with DLC content for free I'm having trouble finding where I'm supposed to feel shortchanged. Almost all of this content was handcrafted for ArmA 3, not just put together as remnants of a cancelled project (*cough* *game2* *cough*). But seriously, that's why Arma 2 had such an overwhelming library of content, because the models were leftovers. Yeah, they had screenshots of F35's and Opfor Camo'd Hunters, but those things didn't make the cut for one reason or another. If you'd gone through the Sitreps and devblogs you'd know this already. Arma 3's release was by far the most stable, even if it didn't have loads of content. And just for the record, there are significant differences between the Namer APC and the Merkava. Not to mention, if you're looking for variation in weapon stats, armor stats, etc, you need to visit the arsenal. It'll tell you most of this stuff. In terms of rifles, there are plenty of differences even between the MXM and the MXC. Recoil may be the same, but the dispersion on the MXM makes it much more effective upwards of 250 meters. The 4-five puts the ACP-C2 to shame. Etc. Jona33, btw this isn't directed at you, it's directed towards Frank. You know what, yeah, I would've liked to have seen more variation in terms of weapon design between CSAT and NATO. CSAT, should've been using the 12.7x105mm Russian MG round, like they use in the GM6, not the 12.7x99mm NATO MG. It would've also been nice to have had separate static weapons like a modern variant of the Dshk. Alas, we didn't get it. Hopefully, they'll throw in more content with the expansion. Either way, with the list above I'm pretty happy with what I got out of my $30.

Please show us what proof you have of this, because I'm willing to take you up on that bet. Obviously you don't realize how much most AI mods rely on the vanilla system, nor do you check the AI changlog (albeit, that only gets updated once in a blue moon). The fact that people can use the current AI system, and mod it using scripts is testament enough that BI is doing something right for the AI.

Wow, way to boost spirits. Especially to someone who's new to to the modding scene.

Ok, fine. Let's entertain this idea for ArmA. Basically, I want to run a mission and my terrain is 4 gridsquares scripted together as it would be in cryengine. I want AI from grid 3 to move to grid one to counter-attack the base I took from grid 4. Except for they can't. They wouldn't spawn in until grid 3 was activated. Not to mention, you'd make the editor and almost every core system that ArmA runs on a complete mess. I want you to try. Develop a game on the same scale as ArmA on the cryengine. Show us it can be done. I'll even make it easy on you (because apparently you think it's super easy) you won't have to include FFV, bullet physics, AFM, or tools to mod you game with. However, you'll need to include a 2d editor, JIP, a terrain of at least 200km sq, and a campaign that has AI moving from one location to another (i.e. Map2 to map 1). And you need to make sure that it runs smoother than ArmA, while keeping lower-end computers in mind. Please, show us how easy it is, because I would like to know.

Actually it's a lot more than "the way the code is written" since the logic behind most languages is extremely similar. It's more of what is actually written. Also, for those of you claiming that CryEngine is this godsend that can create giant terrains like ArmA's engine, no. People have done it and you loose all detail to the terrain since it's so large. While yeah they can create terrains of up to 262kmx262km (actual maximum size from the editor) you won't have any detail. Now as someone who can't look at the source code, I can only report the symptoms, JUST LIKE YOU 343 (go imagine). That means that even if we're both the most prolific coders in history (which we aren't, neither of us have heard of each other) than we cannot assume to know the problem. The only thing I do know is that my Core 0 usage spikes whenever I have AI on a map. What this means is that AI probably is only loaded on a single core. What it doesn't mean is that AI is the only thing slowing the game down. There are many other possibilities out there such as a workaround to make sure that all of your precious modern-day content from arma 2 could be ported over with relative ease (which is fine as long as it's not holding the engine back). The game's setting is not the issue here. As for the concept that no one wants to talk about performance: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716 http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1264 http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=815 http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=3505 http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=4635 http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=12658 Nobody want's to talk about it? It would seem here that there are plenty of people talking about it; you just didn't want to do your research. Hell, there are even people willing to help the devs find the source. But here you are shouting "new engine, new engine, throw away the 10 years of work you've put in to make this engine what it is and make a new engine!" Do you not see how childish you sound/look? Take a look at my signature for a second and realize that most of the people on these forums are here for more than just complaining that an engine that is 10 years old is running poorly and that they should replace it. Some people are actually trying to help Bohemia fix the engine that goes into more than just ArmA (which it does) because they have a mutual trust that the community cares enough about the game to report issues and that bohemia cares enough about their community to fix the issues. That being said, the Arma 3 team is comprised of humans who can't get to everything that needs to be addressed right away. So, if you want to talk about fixing the engine, by all means, join the discussion. If all you want to do is spam the forums with another useless discussion, just sit here and complain about how arma needs a new engine. The choice is yours.

Here's another thing you paid for: A video game. It's a product to be sold by a company. I don't really know if you've truely considered every part of actually building a new engine from scratch. It's a process that can take years, especially when the team that works on the engine also works on the the franchise associated with it. On a purely financial level, it probably does BI a.s. no favors to actually build a new engine from the ground up when the one they have can be refined and built upon. That being said, there are many examples of really old engines being re-vamped and improved over the years, such as the ID-tech engine, the Source Engine, Crytek, and many others. While Arma 3's engine in general may not be performance friendly, there are very few open-world games that are. Examples include Skyrim, GTA IV&V, and even Minecraft all have performance issues related to CPU and memory usage. And these games are either a graphical downgrade (minecraft) or have much smaller worlds compared to ArmA 3. Let's look at it another way, from a coding point of view. The ArmA 3 team is used to coding for the RV engine. No, it's not all they know, but they are used to it. Making such a huge shift means writing an entire new library of commands. Not only that but they'll need to develop new tools and extensions. It's taken 10 years to get the RV engine to handle a lot of this crap, and I still get 5-10 more FPS in both SP and MP on my dinosaur computer than I do on Arma 2. You have to realize that this doesn't happen overnight and it's always better to try and build on what you have. Now, if BI doesn't want to build a new engine, frankly I'm ok with that. This engine feels right for this game. I'm not going to say that they need a new engine, but I will say that they do need work heavily on fixing performance issues once the expansion's been released.

Edit: Misread time/day. My bad.

They took a different strategy with Arma 3. If you've been following the sitreps, They've been planning a large expansion since at least their test DLC Karts. It's staged for late this year. Hopefully, they'll do another expansion after it, but one has been confirmed. However, aside from the environment designers' finishing up major models and early terrain progress, very little is known about the expansion.

Could be a good campaign point. UNSC Army and Marine base cut off from immediate reinforcements due to space elevator sabotage by the innies. Thus ODST are deployed to try and retain peace.