joostsidy

I understand this. I tried the ported old Islands mod just for fun once, but even those didn't feel the same because they used Arma 2 assets. It's tricky to get the nostalgic feels just right. :-)

Nice demonstration Ghoust. It also shows that besides only rendered for hatch positions, the crew are just stuffed in there and not in a RL crew sitting position.

Is the sandbag fort one of the prebuild BI ones? There are some faults in the game in that some buildings are indestructable protecting its occupants too much. Maybe try this

Well if you set up your battlefield like a WW1 battle you get WW1 casualty numbers. I'm guessing you are sending these 500 units right at the enemy? :-) Arma AI is not sophisticated enough to coordinate well between units and make optimal use of their weapons, so you have to help them a bit. The experiment of just plunking down some units is fun, but for a more conventional attack the attacking force would use a combination of HE shells, mortars and suppressing fire to annihilate the small force in a vulnerable static defense situation on a desert terrain like N'Djenahoud (super cool map by the way). Defenders would have a little more chance using their own mortars, AT weapons and maybe large mine fields! Even though the AI can use improvement, one has to realize it is VERY difficult to program AI for so many degrees of freedom that Arma has. So it can be done but it would need some scripting. One simple tactic is diversion. In some of my specOPS missions I launch a low flying drone over the enemy compound. The OPFOR look and shoot at the drone while I let the SpecOPS attack. With the drone diversion they can take on a defended position that would be impossible to destroy otherwise.

Are you one of those m*f*ing campers? You're lucky Arma doesn't have knives.. ;-) I think you probably are a more arcady player (nothing wrong with that). Probably better of with Battlefield or World of ... games.

You GUNNER, will receive HUNDRED % damage of this SABOT in your LEFT TESTICLE.

I'm not 100% sure, but aren't those videos made with the old system, with continuous ranging? I don't think that exists anymore, and you have manually lase a target for zeroing (which is more realistic than continuous lasing).

I'm conservative with mod use in the way that I only use mods that blend in seamlessly with BI's own well designed content. This mod has what it takes!

In my opinion 3rd person is not a bad trend. I use a mix of 1st person and 3rd person views. Sometimes I use 1st person for immersion, sometimes I use 3rd person to have a wider FOV. Very important reason: I sometimes use 3rd person just to admire the kit I'm wearing or the aircraft I'm flying. Especially on long missions when you're a little bit bored. I've been happy with option of 3rd person since Novalogics Delta Force! :-) I don't play competitive multiplayer so incentive to cheat is not a factor for me. Talking about comp. multiplayer, the other day I saw a KOTH session on youtube. I have to admit I was surprised and face-palming quite a bit by by the COD gameplay :-). I saw an alien spacecraft that looked like a little bird but performed many physics defying manoeuvres and crashed into things without taking damage. Even though it's cool that people can play the game the way they like, I still get the feeling that it's a bad trend. Ideally, Arma should be about tactical, (sort-of-) realistic gameplay. For me the true spirit of Arma is feeling anxious about driving a vehicle on a dirt road. It's not difficult normally, but you're two hours in a mission, and if for some reason you bust a tire, you have to jog five kilometers and probably miss achieving the final objective.

Even though the amount of work might be comparable, interiors don't have the hype of the carrier. At the introduction of Arma3, I was surprised how little people cared on the forums and tracker about interiors or even being against it. The main arguments were: doesn't have functional value, performance cost and BI resources could be better spent elsewhere (even on more tanks, but without interiors). Since then I believe that only a small minority cares about interiors. Wouldn't it be strange to only have the new tanks have interiors? BI usually tries to keep some consistency to the game, making the vanilla assets a little more 'conservative' but more consistent in quality compared to mods. For instance they cancelled working vehicle doors because they couldn't get it working on all vehicles. Of course I dream about interiors. One nice immersive step forward was adding FFV to tanks, that you can pop out the hatch and use your binoculars for instance. That's a step that makes you feel like a real crew member in a tank. Adding interiors would complete this feeling!

I tried it, indeed an annoying bug. Setting the wp height has no effect.

Thanks for the explanation, I have read about it, but forgot the details. Do you know how OFP did it? Like I said you could look into a tank through an open hatch. The interior had its own lighting and looked ok even if looking at it from outside.

BI decided a long time ago that a completely finished tank in the game does not have an interior. Even though it made me cry :-) The new tanks will most probably not have interiors. Judging on the other dlc's, it's out of scope for the resouces they made available for this (smaller team, like others have said). All DLCs add a few vehicles similar to what's already in the game plus some smaller objects and free functionality upgrades. BI full tank interiors would be a revolutionary development not seen since OFP times. That's just wishful thinking for a DLC. Isn't there even a technical objection nowadays, in that interiors can't have their own lighting? If you sit in the back of an IFV, you're sitting in the dark, if it's dark outside. The OFP tanks had their own ambient light level for the interiors, I think they scrapped it in the newer engine for performance. One of the 'newer' things that will probably be in this DLC is a big UGV tank. So just like the helo and the jets DLC I predict: - about 4 vehicles that are variations on what we already have - some smaller ambient objects - some new functionality I love full tank interiors, I loved playing with them in OFP, really feeling like you are in the tank. You could even look inside from outside through the open hatches! They felt so real. But I have accepted that they are not part of the official Arma3 experience. I would love to be proven wrong :-)

I play regularly since 2001. I'm the type of player that likes all possible arma roles, be it aircraft, vehicles, uav or infantry. That also mean I literally use my hands and my feet and all my fingers to control the game, using keyboard, mouse, throttle, stick and rudders. I use as much Hands On Throttle And Stick (HOTAS) as I can and I usually play one role at a time, but you can get shot down as a pilot and have to continue as a crew leader on foot. But there are too many buttons and controls to be all under hand/finger reach. Even the HOTAS throttle has additional buttons that you need to take your hand of to use. I wouldn't be surprised if all the buttons and controls I use regularly add up to about 30 or more. My HOTAS Saitek X55 Given time VR will definitely solve this problem, it's not a deal breaker, but I'm curious to see how they will do it!

I noticed the little bird is much harder to fly after the last update (1.70), it seems underpowered and very fragile. If you go in a steep climb the rotor RPM decreases rapidly. Helo damages easily or loses power with fast manoeuvres. Max speed seems decreased. Max speed seem to be decreased for VTOLS as well. I have a lot of experience flying helo's in Arma, I try to fly the helo's and VTOLS in a realistic manner. Advanced flight model and HOTAS. - Am I right that things have changed in this regard with the last update? - Are these features or bugs? - Does it have to do with my throttle setup? (engine power range seems normal, goes from 0-100, engine mapped to both throttle axes +/-) Thanks for any enlightenment.

Spawn it on OPFOR side with BIS function, like this: [_position, 0, _vehicle, _side] call bis_fnc_spawnvehicle; Where _vehicle is the classname of the turret and _side is EAST. BIS_fnc_spawnVehicle

Man, that's a lot of rocks and sand.. ;-) It's looks so peaceful, maybe we should not disturb this land.. ;-)

I have had several opportunities to try out the current VR glasses. The experience can be very immersive if it is tailored for VR. In other situations it can be 'interesting' and cool as a demo, but not something that many people would like to play regularly. There are just a number of small and big obstacles still that have been mentioned that prevents it being useful for Arma now in my opinion. One obstacle for why I probably would not use it right now is that I can't see my controllers: HOTAS with extra buttons and a number of keys on the keyboard. So at this point I would probably prefer TrackIr. I'm not a hater, VR is very cool will become a big thing, but I suspect that it needs a couple of years to mature, so it might be viable for (a possible) Arma 4.

I suspect that performance issues might play a role in the decision to not address this. To successfully evade nearby vehicles and infantry, units should scan (relatively far) in front of them and behind them. This might take a lot of processing power and become a problem with using a lot of units at the same time. Many units seem near sighted while moving. You can see the same thing with headlights (and flashlights etc.). They shine only a short distance and aimed at the ground. This is probably because the dynamic lights are expensive in processing power so BI configured them to only use a short distance.

Yeah I realize it's just a fun old thing. And it has some nice elements that could for instance be used for a logo for government or on a police car. Who knows what more OFP inspired things will pop up with the new Malden. I was a huge OFP fan, so I'm really happy with the coming of the new Malden.

There you have it, done! Thanks community :-) I'm not so happy about the flag, it breaks some serious flag rules: Keep it simple, so simple a child can draw it from memory. Use meaningful symbolism. Use two to three basic colors. No lettering or seals of any kind. Be distinctive or be related. The details are more 'heraldic' elements or whatever they're called. All the flag elements should be easily recognizable from a large distance. https://www.ted.com/talks/roman_mars_why_city_flags_may_be_the_worst_designed_thing_you_ve_never_noticed This talk should be mandatory viewing for any Arma faction designer :-)

If you are the CEO of BI you can make these kind of statements and maybe it works. As a random forum member it doesn't. ;-) Retexturing stuff isn't a super original idea that no one thought of and game design of this scale doesn't work with 'squeeze in .. before [release]. Fortunately vehicle retextures are relatively easy so the mod community can fill in here if you have some patience. :-)

One more post that is NOT a discussion about AI, and you will leave me no choice but to.... - threatening silence -....... unfollow this thread... :.-( ;-)

I have one major complaint about the game. My complaint is that there is too much choice starting up the game! Want to play as marksman, you can choose from no less than 7 marksman rifles! Want to play as UV operator? Four basic types of unmanned vehicle, maybe choose the chopper, OR I could play a mission as helo pilot. I was thinking about finally creating a jet mission for the first time, got overloaded with a bunch of new jets in the DLC. I haven't even used one, now we have 6 to choose from. There are some legitimate complaints that I can understand, like sharing some weapon systems between competing factions, but I think now that the Arma game is maturing with the DLC's there is really a lot, a lot of content. And yeah, 'a lot' is relative I know. I just feel a bit sorry for people who will always keep asking for more, speaking of 'bare bones' content etc. As soon as BI would release a hyper realistic map of Manhattan, including all buildings that are enterable, this type of player would complain that the map should be 'state-scale' from the start, and other cities are 'missing' etc. Maybe its an age thing: playing Wolfenstein with four weapons total and now choosing from no less than 7 versions of one particular type of rifle is awesome.. Or wishing your OFP playing self could see you now, using highly detailed terrain for cover and concealment or flying a VTOL delivering light strike vehicles. I'm not worshiping the game, I am one of those guys who really miss the internal lighting and interiors of all vehicles, including tanks that OFP had. I also predicted that for 'OFP2' around 2005 ALL doors on ALL vehicles would be animated. Still waiting BI bastards! :-) So @productions: your prediction about the tanks is probably not far from the mark, it won't change the game drastically, it's just an addition. Maybe you will be happier if you manage your expectations.

For me flying became a lot easier with manual vectoring. Stalling is much less of an issue. Even with manual vectoring (At least with the Xian) slowing down is sometimes tricky where you actually have to increase thrust to pull the nose up (flaring) to slow the aircraft down. I was constantly crashing with the Xian in the showcase until I found out the manual vectoring. You can also use manual vectoring for taxiing. I can now fly the VTOLS at full horizontal speed as well as precisely as a helicopter if needed. Manual vectoring is done by turning manual vectoring on and then use the controls you use for flaps to change the vectoring.