joostsidy

I'm having a lot of fun with the new terrain. I was worried about the visibility of the procedural land-edge (I only ever played on Islands) and also the oversized scale of buildings, but I have to conclude, they do not bother me. It is a very cool terrain overall. Some of the buildings are a bit immersion breaking because of the low quality though. Sometimes I feel like I am getting glimpses of OFP 😄 It is not always the case, some of the ruined villages look nice. Are they newer models? From observation, I have the feeling I get this most with some of the building doors, you are walking right up to them, so sometimes their ugly textures are right in your face. How much of the unpolished look is due to these door texures? Are they missing normal maps? Are some door textures better than others? (I have a feeling they are). Could BI create a relatively easy quality win by replacing some of the door textures? So many questions.. 🙂

The LDF/NATO sidearm choices seem unpolished. IMO a strange choice to give the LDF the high powered pistols (I understand the choice to introduce some variation, but not a good choice IMO). NATO woodland have jungle P07's. Perhaps a black textured P07 as a sidearm for both NATO woodland and LDF?

The campaign will be free, but the naval assets and old women will be premium. 😉

I'm glad you managed to solve it, I think it is an interesting topic. IMO what plays an important role in game / campaign design is that consistency is more important than realism. In game design it is a mistake to think that more realism or more options is always better (I think StarCitizen might be making this mistake). It's more about the consistency and integration. In the world you play it is normal that rebels hide in a castle only a few hundred meters away from the enemy. It would only be a problem if most bases would have realistic setups (size and distance), but the rebels in the castle are the only camp that is too close. Because OFP's campaign was so good, you subconsciously don't ask questions about the camp placement. I think BI does a good job of maintaining this consistency with constraints: bases and distances small, everything taking place on islands or remote locations, etc. Yes, sometimes it is a bit forced, but that's also the charm of the Arma series. In real life, an infantry division, a couple of nuclear submarines or realistic radar and missile ranges can easily upset the whole game world. So that's why they are not in the game. The curse of the designer is that you will always see a hundred flaws, but, fortunately, if you create something with good internal consistency, your audience will hardly notice!

There is a non-zero chance that they will pick it up again and continue to work on it, and then get excited with many ideas and features and it becomes a new expansion.

Have you tried shooting him? Oh, I misunderstood your problem 😉 There might be some other misunderstandings. Am I correct in that you believe/hoped that setCaptive would make the captive receive handcuffs? Because setCaptive true will NOT do that, it will only prevent soldiers from another faction shooting him. Since he is in the CIV faction, the setCaptive might not even be necessary (depending on the faction settings). Default Arma does not have any handcuffing functionality. Some things you see online might come from specialized mods that are not easy to implement in regular Arma. There are probably/maybe? some animations that simulate cuffing. The link you provided hints at that. _hostage = _hostage_1 select 0; _hostage setBehaviour "CARELESS"; _hostage switchMove "ActsPercMstpSnonWnonDnon_ArrestingMan"; Something like this might work, I did not test it. Setting a unit "CARELESS" makes him very passive, preventing him to flee/ do weird stuff, change behaviour etc, works as an extra or alternative to allowfleeing Additionally you can force his stance by: _hostage setUnitPos 'UP'; This will force him to stand. Use MIDDLE for crouch. It helps if you don't want to have the unit lie down on the ground, which looks weird indoors. The most tricky part with the whole scenario is the cuffing, you need to know the right animations for it (use animation viewer in editor) and then fiddle with switchMove and playMove. _hostage switchMove ""; You can use this to cancel an animation, for instance after BLUFOR triggers the area. Or use an addAction on the scientist. My feeling tells me you hoped it would be easier than this 😉

At that time I was fantasizing about how exponentially larger maps would be in the future! Unfortunately it hasn't come to be. You do see nowadays that map-size, map detail and GPU/CPU load are less correlated with all the newest technologies, so maybe an era of increasing map size is coming up.

Come on Siil, if you're going to lie down in the middle of a crop circle, you surely are going to be noticed. 😉 Also Arma 3 end of life etc, improvement to methods of distant object rendering probably not going to happen.

Yeah, that's not an official counter. I have the feeling that historically with Arma updates, only the date is promised, but not the time. I will just be released at sometime during the day, when BI has everything dialed in correctly.

I agree with the others by not overthinking it and also look at it from a gameplay perspective. You have to realize that all the terrains are large in computer game terms, but small (and even shrunken) RL terrains. Even with WW2 technology, Arma camps on Altis for instance would not remain hidden because the enemy would just send out numerous patrols (a couple of platoons) that can easily cover the entire island in one or two days. But Arma terrain is also small for gameplay reasons. In RL WW2, the SAS had hidden camps in the desert from which it organized raids. These camps could remain hidden, because the area of operations was incredibly large. To get to their target they drove for many hours, I think even days. In modern warfare, transport helicopters still take hours to reach the objective and even then drop the infantry miles away from the target, so there's also hours of just walking. Recon in RL might also mean multiple days of just walking around, looking at traffic, goats etc. No one but the most dedicated milsim group would like to do that, so therefore the scale of the whole game is limited. Terrain is smaller, travel times shorter, fuel tanks smaller, air defenses limited, etc. So it's perfectly ok to just put your base in a patch of jungle on tanoa and pretend it is impenetrable Colombian jungle where militant groups can hide for years. Nevertheless I also feel sometimes uncomfortable with the scale and realism. What helps me is to include objectives that in RL are not enough, but in game symbolize a greater effort. I destroy a communication post and that prevents the enemy from sending in reinforcements (whereas in RL this would not be enough on Altis). I observe a road for about 10 minutes to destroy a patrol vehicle (which is already boring as hell in computer game!) symbolizing a stake out of multiple hours. I destroy two roadblocks and that symbolizes that the enemy has lost control of the roads in the area and I can now drive freely on them, etc.

No definitely not, nothing planned, but maybe yes, but no promises. You will only find out at the last minute. 😉

It is a feature, with this function you are able to download your consciousness into a drone (remember, it is the future). Your body stays behind as an empty corpse, so be careful as to what drone you want to be 😉

flyInHeight might work and/or resetting the altitude to 0 right after spawning: _markerstr = createMarker ["MI8_C1", [9908.08,19424.5]]; _markerstr setMarkerShape "ICON"; _markerstr setMarkerType "hd_dot"; _height = 0; _pos = getMarkerPos "MI8_C1"; _MI8_C1 = [ [_pos select 0, _pos select 1, _height], EAST, ["CUP_O_Mi8_RU"],[],[],[],[],[],270] call BIS_fnc_spawnGroup; _MI8_C1 setPos [_pos select 0, _pos select 1, _height]; _MI8_C1 flyInHeight _height;

It would be disturbing if the alien ship is a completely functional out-of-this-world aircraft.... but with Farsi instrument language... CSAT even more advanced then we thought.. Also cool would be a cloning room onboard with a kind of morphed suffering CSAT soldier, because CSAT is trying to turn themselves into aliens. The disfigured soldier would continuously whisper 'kill me'.. Could you please add this in BI?, we still have a couple of days, I don't think it is much work, the community needs this. Please also with sand/jungle/urban texture for the disfigured CSAT clone soldier.

And maybe better read/post here, before redoing the whole conversation: 🙂

If the far units are not required to move, you can command stop them (~1-6), this will shut down the position requests. I use this for instance if I have a vehicle with crew that I leave behind to continue on foot, the crew gets very worried and continuously asks where I am. The stop command is not always needed to prevent them moving, but will definitely stop them asking for position.

Yeah well, Arma 3 was not so futuristic to begin with, with some exceptions. Nevertheless with this on the horizon, Arma is definitely not futuristic enough anymore, I expect BI to ASAP change the MX caliber to 8.6mm (Plasma), just to stay ahead. 😉 Interesting advanced ammo thought, not caseless, but does use straight mags because of its design.

If communication between units is required, they will use Spanish as a lingua franca.

Thanks for the clarification. That does sound like something that needs to be looked at. I'm curious if you close the v.garage and look at your vehicle if these glitches persist then as well. The overload of check boxes is definitely a result of this system never been intended for so many choices. For a long time choices in general were just a couple of colors and equipment variations. Now late in the games lifetime BI starts to stretch the possibilities to squeeze as much out of the game as possible. I think the ludicrous (but welcome) amount of configuration options started with the van.. 😀

Isn't this the player's responsibility, or are the glitches subtle? Either you only have a few configuration options that are safe in all circumstances, a limiting solution, or we get more, but we have to apply them with care. I can understand that there will be glitching if I have roof mounted floodlights + antennas + police lights all at the same time.

No offence guys, we're supposed to report things like floating rocks (not Alien induced), missing textures, misplaced road sections, etc. I know feedback/wishes can be a grey area, but I see a lot of - IMO- wishlisting .There's just one month left before the whole thing is released! You will just be disappointed with this line of thinking. There will be no Osprey, because it is too similiar to the existing Blackfish and does not make sense Faction-wise (also what Icarus said), there won't be things outside of the map, because it is outside of the map, the terrain mesh won't be changed, because map builders want to have that fixed as early in development as possible. There is so much cool stuff already, why can't you just be happy with that?

I hope people realize that there probably is a lot of tinkering still going on with the map with all kinds of details, but not with the outline. There won't suddenly be new buildings or bridges or airports or mountains or whatever.

I haven't heard of any promise on this by BI. Did they say something about this? Unless otherwise stated, they are probably reluctant to change the sizes because of the work on an almost complete map. Resizing It is more difficult than running a little script on each building on the map. To be honest this is my biggest worry for the DLC; that not getting used to the oversized buildings will kinda lead me to sticking to the other maps.. which would be unfortunate for all the effort that went into the new map.

Plot-twist: LDF will have interstellar spacecraft (that are in the game..)

I understand that not all objects cause 'launching', but because of the engine limitations, some models need extra work to function acceptably.