Jump to content

joostsidy

Member
  • Content Count

    533
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Everything posted by joostsidy

  1. joostsidy

    Is Arms 3 the new game for me?

    > agree! Not only do I hardly play multiplayer, I'm currently working on a mission that doesn't require ANY player! It runs by itself, winning with the BLUFOR side. You can just hop in any unit from the editor and fight along or do nothing :-) It's a great way to play the 'average grunt' sometimes, like the BLUFOR autorifle man. Sadly, in general, the direction of the series has moved to MP infantry and away from large scale combined arms, but it's still possible to make impressive dynamic fights.
  2. I'm not sure if it's just about furnishing and open buildings. Maybe we end up with closed buildings AND missing furniture, for instance, as a sacrifice to larger buildings, more vegetation etc. For the record, I'm in favor of every building having some interactivity.
  3. Well just to empasize: to me the problem is not furniture or missing visual cues of unenterable buildings, its the unenterable buildings themselves. It feels like a step back while on the other hand each building could be created to be a mini-game-level in itself with either a lot of rooms to explore, partial entrance for large buildings with roof top access or maybe even some 'rare' features like a hard to reach attic or an interesting animation on some part (door/window/hatch) of the building. I would have liked for instance that the ice-cream freezer belonging to one of the snack shops had a movable lid just like the rare animation of the playground merry-go-round. A couple of rare details like these keep you looking for hidden interesting things and can even be functional in some scenario's.
  4. Am disappointed by this news. I'm a OFP-directly-to-Arma III player. Never played the games in between. The other day I loaded up the terrains from the previous games in Arma III. As soon as I noticed the closed buildings (especially Chernabus?) I thought 'jaiks!', it felt very fake and old-fashioned (tech-wise) to me because you could not enter them, reminding me of OFP which is a long time ago. So... never played these maps, remained with Altis and Stratis. So this is the reason why I am dissapointed, going back to 'movie-prop' buildings feels like a regression. Besides playing missions I love just flying helo's across Altis. Realizing that you can land at any tiny building in the distance and walk inside gives a certain reality to the game, even though it's surrealistic with you being the only one on Altis (in simple editor preview), and the missing furniture. It feels like you're part of a true sandbox, the (sometimes quirky) Arma universe :-) I get the feeling that this is going to be eye-candy ruling over substance. I can imagine already beautiful trailers showing beautiful buildings, including the inside. But when you actually play the map you discover that inside of buildings is actually only a feature of SOME of the buildings, breaking down the true sandbox. In a compromise I prefer fewer building types and no furniture. I hope there can be a solution where all the buildings remain at least partially enterable.
  5. With the new pistol showing in holster feature I was very much hoping the automatic drawing of pistol was removed. Unfortunately you still draw your pistol automatically if you remove your rifle.. :-( I think the new feature will be more prominent if there's the option to walk around with a holstered side-arm.
  6. joostsidy

    AI Workarounds

    As you can see from the above posts: no easy solution. And I feel that some people misunderstood the OP a little bit. He's not expecting advanced tactical behaviour from the unit, It's just that you have a destination to reach, maybe under light fire and your task is to move at speed. That AI should follow you (squadleader) at speed if the need arises. Currently, even one enemy soldier can delay several squads by taking pot-shots from hundreds of meters, because the squads turn to combat mode and slow down. Not only leads this to very boring long mission progression, but in RL you could be fucked up by incoming mortars or reinforcements on your location because the squads are not moving. This is basic infantry movement 101. Please, please please fix this BIS.
  7. joostsidy

    Walking around with holstered weapons

    Great tip reforger, there is one very small problem though: if you only have a pistol, and it's holstered, you can't draw it any more with the addAction although you still can with the switch weapon keybind. I remembered that I had a similar addAction in one of my missions and I looked it up: player addAction ["Weapon on back", {if (currentWeapon player == "") then {player action ['SwitchWeapon', player, player, 0]; } else { player action ['SwitchWeapon', player, player, 100];};},[], 1.5, false]; With this variation you can draw weapon as well with the addAction, it's more like a toggle for people who prefer that. ---------- Post added at 11:06 ---------- Previous post was at 11:03 ---------- I did a little experimenting as well with your addAction, because I like the simplicity. It seems to work with 'handgunoffstand' removed as well: this addAction ["Holster weapons", {_unit=_this select 1; _unit action ['SwitchWeapon', _unit, _unit, 100];}]; Does it work just as well or am I missing something? ---------- Post added at 11:07 ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 ---------- A final thing: is it possible to make a custom keybind for this action, or is this something that BIS has to implement? ---------- Post added at 11:13 ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 ---------- I added the ', [], 1.5, false' bit again to the shortened addAction: this prevents the 'Holster weapons' text from floating in front of your face. this addAction ["Holster weapons", {_unit=_this select 1; _unit action ['SwitchWeapon', _unit, _unit, 100];}, [], 1.5, false];
  8. Like I suspected! Thanks Prof. Unfortunately I don't know anything about modding, is this changable in any way?
  9. I'm wondering if there is a possiblity of showing the infantry's personal weapons while they are in cargo. I'm also wondering what the reason is that they don't show. Is it performance issue or the fact that long weapons (sniper rifles) might clip with vehicle? At least in OFP weapons were shown. The offroad passenger seat still has weapon shown at it looks great. The FFV obviously have weapons shown and it looks very good as well. My guess is that the animation states of the cargo have a boolean like showWeapon turned off. I hope there is a mod that can turn this on or someone would like to make this or maybe I'll make a feedback tracker ticket request.
  10. The passenger position in the offroad (next to driver) has a proper sitting position with weapon. Sitting in chair animations also have toggle on/off weapons showing properly. Are these sitting animations not (almost) the same as the sitting in cargo animations? I suspect the weapon animations already exist for the cargo sitting positions. If they don't, that could be a reason why it's not implemented.
  11. joostsidy

    Audio Tweaking (dev branch)

    Yeah, even with dynamic effects, some of the old sounds are still superior. WIP I guess. I'm currently making a mission with mortars, they used to sound awesome, very powerful. Now not so much.
  12. Ah ok, I've seen pictures from compounds in Afghanistan featuring containers and concrete barriers that are also in Arma3, but it's hard to judge the characteristics and use of these things from pictures alone.
  13. Thanks for that info AJsarge, I didn't know that regular containers are recycled. Do these modified structures have any kind of armor or do people just pile sandbags on top/against or something like that? I try to make my Arma missions kind of realistic so I'm wondering if the metal bunkers are worth defending from a small attack or that they are not defensible and the occupants should exit the buildings and seek better protection.
  14. But Altis and Stratis both have many bases already with suitable landing spaces (marked or unmarked). I personally don't have the need for a extra helipad, although the idea is nice. I do think this is the kind of thing that would be fun if the community built it. Relatively simple and might come in handy.
  15. I think the watchtower purpose makes sense especially in combination that these base areas are small.
  16. I was working with the NATO cargo net crate, considering to clear its contents and fill it with a custom loadout because it contains so many missiles. The unit receiving it can take out a bunch of tank platoons with these and the ones they already have. There are probably two type of constraint to the number of missiles a squad or platoon has in reality: - Cost: I read a Javelin costs about $75.000: it seems a bit much to give squads/platoons millions worth of missiles - Weight and size: I would think they are too heavy and too big to carry a whole bunch of them I did some research, but was unable to find many details on how many missiles is 'normal' for let's say a platoon or company. I found out that Javelins are carried by a team of two and they seem to carry a missile each besides the launcher and guidance unit. I'm looking for some rules of thumb on which to base loadouts, a meaningful balance between gameplay and realism.
  17. @lvlagic: I agree, however, I'm looking at reality to improve the internal game balance: vehicle assets are weaker now because of all the infantry carrying launchers and spare missiles. @eggbeast: I like your suggestion of vehicle backups for infantry with missiles. It frees the infantry of load, it gives (enemy) vehicles more strength because not everyone has a missile and gives friendly vehicles more meaning because they're needed to transport essential weapons. I already script the vehicle's cargo so indeed there's no mod requirement. The ammo carriers look very cool, the 'penalty' of dragging these things around is very visible here. Nobody's jumping over fences with these :-)
  18. Well that BF4 video is actually a nice example of how Arma3 is NOT far behind other games. Besides that pivot example, all the other 20 examples are motions that Arma does just as well or better. And the vid even had one jumping animation which looks cool but is terribly unrealistic with all that gear. Conclusion, yeah, the current pivoting is a remnant of an older generation of games and it would be nice see improved, but on the whole Arma3 has many cool and realistic motion captured animations.
  19. Your observations are not because of 'autopilot', mostly limited physics simulation which leads to incorrect aircraft behaviour. Basically, airflow over wing surfaces is not simulated: your aircraft is just a sky-car with a speed and direction. This results in the behaviour that if you bank a plane you don't get any horizontal 'lift' and reduction of vertical lift. The (advanced flight model) helicopters are better, I have much fun flying them in game.
  20. 'In Iraq we would carry that dumb ass CLU around cause of its optics'. Haha, I did this in Arma3 as well in missions, keeping the Titan launcher without missile for use of its optics. However, I didn't mind dragging that thing around from the comfort of my desk chair with a cup of coffee. It is nice that an RL detail such as this carries over to Arma. Even though the simple answer is mission requirement, the thing is that Arma goes a bit overboard easily with the missiles. In one of my missions I have a (custom) squad with a AT launcher (Titan) with 3 missiles. An ammo carrier carries another two. So that's a total of 5 MBT defeating missiles. On the one hand its fun to be able to engage lots of vehicles in a mission but on the other hand armor looses its significance on the battle field too much. I also have a feeling that its not realistic to carry so many missiles around considering size and weight of the things. I just read up on the Rafael Spike, the supposed inspiration for the Titan. Even though its not clearly stated, it seems that only one tube is used (launcher with missile) and no spare missiles. To simulate this in Arma is a bit weird because the game backpacks allow much room for extra missiles that you then don't use on purpose. I do like to give my missions a certain consistency, I'm not giving the infantry a ton of missiles if I'm playing infantry and then nerfing them if I play as armor in another mission, so I'm looking for a 'realistic' balance.
  21. Thanks for the info, for gameplay reasons I don't mind representing LAWS etc. as Javelins. I've been cutting AT guys from squads in missions already. I think I'll remove even more :-) I would be interested in hearing from people who are members of serious MP groups if and how they restrict launchers and/or missiles.
  22. Manoeuvring is an essential part of infantry combat, making steep slopes easy to climb decreases the functionality of the terrain. Combat would become more like the simple FPS shooters that we all know. That the slow walk sometimes doesn´t look right is another matter.
  23. I'm using the BIS functions in SP. During the mission they work for all playable units, however they are not visible (none are) in the debriefing screen: ["task_outpost", "SUCCEEDED", true] call BIS_fnc_taskSetState; "end1" call BIS_fnc_endMission; Help?
  24. joostsidy

    AI Discussion (dev branch)

    Would like to add my strong support to the request for fast moving infantry under fire. Missions where you cooperate with AI infantry result often in failure when for instance flanking AI infantry starts to move very slow when receiving only light fire. If it doesn't lead to failure of the objective, the waiting is often boring and immersion breaking, because the AI should know beforehand that their part relies on speed and now the incompetents are pinnned down by very light resistance. Aspects related to this behaviour, maybe: - infantry should follow the behaviour of the leader more, this helps at least if the leader is a human. - infantry should follow formation less strict in certain situations, it slows down squads moving on difficult terrain (where it's hard to keep formation -> fences etc), even when not under fire. - the distance of a waypoint could influence the moving behaviour, a long distance would result in less danger dance - setting the speedMode could infuence the moving behaviour, speedMode fast would lead to 'no prone' and less stops in engagements - the skill setting could influence the moving behaviour by paying more attention to commands and less to knows about In the previous comments I sometimes got the feeling that a 'fast move under fire' rules would be hacking the ai and/or ignoring the psychological aspects of being under fire. I disagree with this. Running under fire can both reflect highly trained soldiers and undisciplined soldiers on the attack or retreat. Making this behaviour part of the game would make for a much more diverse and realistic game play. I would like to set the developers on 'COMBAT', set their courage on max and set a waypoint on the deep OFP-code if necessary.
  25. joostsidy

    Audio Tweaking (dev branch)

    @goth: The shorter explosion sounds sound very good. you really know your sounds and explain it well. You demonstrate convincingly that improvements to the sound can reflect the physical processes behind the sound better. Your suggested improvements sound both more authentic and more awesome to me. In my opinion, ignoring these 'rules' can lead to a feeling 'over-processed' sounds. The lesson from this: Less is more? :-)
×