Effing awesome yeah! Dwarden you rock! Don't be shy with options now=P

Saw the change log after posting, so far no visible extras, only minor change in video settings... But hey if they working on it, as described here, then great, but strange the ticket is only reviewed and not assigned, so are they working on the video options requested here, or something else?

Good point, will do that after the xbox one reveal, I'm in the mood for a laugh, after that i will check the Config files for anything, and nit pick on that. Hope the variety of configuration is detailed, and not just broken down combinations

Is it possible for a modder to hack in and make this as a mod? Because honestly with alpha coming to an end, i was sure this would be one of the things to matter seeing as it was based on performance and stability... I get an itchy feeling this may get overlooked =( i really hope it's not the case.

Btw wouldn't hurt to categorize settings based on cpu and gpu, so if we know the problem is cpu related, we would know where to tweak. Also basic description of what each setting affects would be great.

Oh how I wish BIS would just do this. I mean really how hard can it be to create more options to adjust instead of them making preset adjustments all crammed into a few options.

I know what things are stuffing up my performance, but I have no way of controlling them individually. This should be like an Advanced Video Option section. So they can keep the video settings layout as is, but add an additional advanced section where we can fine tune these things.

I agree with Tholozor, going to be absolutely unnecessary as nobody is going to look down to look at that. The time it will take to fix this can be used to fix other things.

I will vote for JUST placing the feet correctly will be enough, doesn't have to animate the feet with an animation.

No AD2001, not that level of customization. Just basics, no need to customize every detail, just the basic features.

Wulc, problem with that is, it wouldnt be very uhm "normal" without affecting a persons fitness, stamina and other physical traits. Imagine laracraft in all her flexibilty if she was fat? Get my point?

So they would have to change physical traits to accomodate the physique, If thats the case, everyone will be shorter and skinnier to be a harder target to shoot, and fitter to be faster and longer sprint time. With that in mind, everyone will then have the same physique again, which basically brings us to where we are right now, everyone is equal.

Just some facial changes would be nice to accomodate a more personlized look to feel more like ourselves is enough.

lol no, i dont mean something as in depth as skyrim to change details like nose, jaw, eyes hight, width etc. That would most likely be too much effort and never see the light of day for A3.

Just your basic asian, caucasian, black, etc profile, and layer on the details from there add a beard, a mullet, mole (beauty spot) on your left cheeck, some face paint. Just add these details much like you can add glasses or shades already.

Also change hair colour, maybe change skin tone and complexion and voila.

Note this is nothing what I look like, was just a random example, but you get my point, if I do have a beard and a mullet and a beauty spot, then this would very closely resemble me, as opposed to a generic face.

meh this kinda is already done in a way, when vehicles take up some damage, the model texture changes to a bullet riddled texture, see screenshot i attached with comparison where I did it with AH9.

Now I tried the same with the Hunter and noticed no damage texture before it explodes, i ended up dying finding this out. But I am sure that the damage texture will still be implimented in the near future for all vehicles, as it was in A2.

The only thing I can say that needs working on is for example, I shoot only a few rounds in the AH9 and already the entire chopper was riddled. I would suggest having different layers, the more damage the vehicle picks up, the texture changes to reflect that, going from light damage, to moderate damage to heavy damage to scrap metal. this it would also be somewhat easy to tell the damage by looking at it. and then also even after repairing the vehicle, the texture should not reset to brand new to retain the battle tested look. I actually logged a seperate ticket for similar to this, but just being able to give a worn look over time.

Lastly, it would also be nice to have to have this not only on vehicles, but buildings and characters as well. Buildings will have textures change per face of the wall to accomodate this, and also characters, already they do show blood decals when injured, well it doesnt look like decals, just texture shifting as i do notice the popping of textures, but I would like the blood stains to remain instead of disapear, maybe just turn dark maroon red after healing to indicated dried blood, likewise dirt and mud from rolling around in the grass and dirt, this will gradually build up adding to the immersion of the character.

Now this isn't perfect like decals would be, but it is a work around is not performance intensive as decals would be that fade later anyway... and honestly, it works for me.

this ticket can be closed, i have noticed recently that this no longer is an issue, all looks good again =)

I agree, I thought driving would be disabled? No point being able to drive while ducking. Besides that would make for an awkward position, and yes people will exploit it as you mentioned.

I say just completely disable steering, or driver can maybe still accelerate and brake, but no steering left or right. Thats enough of a negative effect.

bump

Yeah probably will need some additional animation for ducking down, but I dont think a simple animation to lean down would be a major pain in the arse. But hey, great feature, especially in conjunction with getting out the vehicle safely on the opposite side.

Well if the vehicles life reaches zero which causes explosion, which kinda makes sense in a way, then perhaps, make it not possible to reach zero with small arms??? Let there be something in the vehicle that cant be damaged by small arms to keep the vehicles life above zero. Even if it is just a little black box??? I guess you could say it is a short cut.

Take a look at this video, this is the marauder M-ATV, south African built (my home country) and it is put to the test, top gear style. And this is only the civilian version. Now this being an M-ATV, it is comparable to the oshkos M-ATV also known as the hunter in ARMA 3, and i soups assume the same goes for the ifrit. Basically this is how unstoppable an M-ATV is, and i would hope that in ARMA, the hunter and ifrit would be made in the same perspective in game. It should easily withstand high explosives, shrug off an rpg our two, even with direct shots to the tyres.

All this without going up in flames. So basically light weapons should practically have no effect in them, unless south Africa just develops better vehicles? Lol

Civilian vehicles,.and light military vehicles on the other hand, they may be prone to damage with light weapons, but as stated, they should not go up in flames. Think myth busters had also tested that even shooting the petrol tank with a tracer round won't ignite it, and most military vehicles run on diesel making it even harder.

But watch the vid... I do totally want this vehicle! And I'm ARMA these vehiclesmust be equally capable of doing everything this marauder can!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDoRmT0iRic&feature=youtube_gdata_player

actually much less chance, tracer rounds are likely to ignite a fuel tank, but you need to consider variables.

like for it to actually ignite the fuel tank there needs to be pressure, so your best bet is to hit the fuel tank with one tracer round, but the chances of that are very very slim, because fuel tank doesn't exactly sit very exposed, there's plenty of obstruction between the outside surface of a car and the fuel tank, also when you do manage to get through, it is more likely that the fuel tank will be riddled with so many holes there wont be any pressure at all.

And lastly, tracer rounds are generally weak because i think like half the mass is the substance that burns and lights up, so when that burns away the bullet becomes weaker over distance as it looses its mass, so penetrating the metal of a vehicle deep enough to even reach the fuel tank isn't most likely possible. as I said, the possibility is there, but instead of trying to simulate all of the above, just make vehicles NOT explode by small arms as it is highly unlikely, and that saves a lot of trouble of the devs side, and for us it makes vehicles a better form of cover... unless the opposing force has an RPG, then I dont mind the car being a secondary explosion as the chances are greater with explosives.

Agreed, believe any surface will get weaker and destroyed after some point, however I also feel that should directly apply to the calliber of the rounds respectively.

but the subject really is just about the explosion of the car, but while on the subject, depending on the vehicle, a player should easily be shot in a non armored vehicle, even though the vehicle does not explode, so as to prevent people from just remaining in the car for safety. Bullets can easily penetrate standard non armoured vehicles in reality, so do the same in ArmA, especially when the car's health is reduced to zero.

Maybe just replace the hold function with double tap R, initial press will initiate the reload, and second press will do the speed reload (dropping the mag). Double tap is already in the binding of controls, and it will eliminate the cost if adding time to hold?

Look I'm easy going, i can like anything that's implemented, ass long as it works. Only reason i find the GoW reload system appealing is because it does what it needs to pretty well. Balancing the reload between a calm reload, a speedy reload, as well as the opportunity to screw it up if you aren't paying attention, which I'm reality, if you don't focus on what you are doing, I'm sure you would screw up possibly.

But anyhow, whatever works right, it's got my vote non the less.

great idea, I have always wanted to see a more speedy reload animation in FPS games. Sometimes you are knee deep in sh*t and need to reload as quick as possible, instead of the long, calm like dont give a F**K reload animation which just doesn't feel too immersive.

Your idea sounds brilliant, I would say double tap R to speed reload, and just press R once to do a normal reload when you have the time.

Alternatively, Gears of War also had a nice way of doing the reload by gauging it and timing it correct. To be honest I think a similar setup would be better, because press reload once and you have a basic normal reload, want to speed reload you have to time it right, if not, you might drop the magazine, and have to start over. As for the gauge, I know people want less UI, but to be honest, when reloading you focus on what you are doing, so having to peek down at the gauge will kinda simulate that.

But otherwise I am all for this! =)

Guys seriously, the subject is not about your knowledge. This is a game anyway, this isn't VBS that you are arguing about. This is getting personal now.

Ithink maybe BIS should consider allowing players to pack their own magazines, along with predefined mags. So a player can optionally choose how to pack a magazine based on requirements? This could work hand in hand with allowing to repack magazines after a battle to ensure you don't have any half empty mags, and always go into combat with a full mag.

I bet you surprised your target too... SUPRISE MOTHERF#©%€R, red tracers of death in your face XD

Yeah, i get that too... I will say though, given the games utter shit sound for the time being, the tracers are useful for determining where shooter is. Who knows, maybe they did it on purpose to compensate for the crap sound?

X makes a good point admittedly. I never thought of it that way... But that said, magazines should still be labelled correctly. And i believe that is the point of this complaint initially if i am correct?

I'm inclined to agree with hammer, it is rather misleading. To myself, i never thought of tracers as a means to inform you that you are low in ammo, I'm under the impression magazines have a more clunky sound as you near empty, but none the less, non tracer mags should have no tracers. Perhaps there are different standards, i don't know, i never served, but he has a point. Those last rounds will potentially give away your position, and at the worst time as well, when you have to reload, which would also give away your weakness to any other player.

I have actually never paid attention to that detail, but as Traxus points out, i would think that is almost a standard to have 1 tracer in between non tracer rounds, to aid with visually seeing where your rounds are going. It isn't always easy to judge where your rounds are landing, especially at long ranges when you have no scoped sight.

However, if it really is glitched like you say, with every round, then I would agree it needs looking into. I will try and verify it myself tomorrow perhaps.

"The last few rounds are intended to be tracers to show you are low on ammo."

I always thought there was a sound que that you could hear when your magazine starts running low. I never fired a real weapon, so can't say if it is true to realism, but I suppose visual aid would be usefull as well to inform you that you are low on rounds as well.

triada,

I really think you should shut the hell up, you are not helping at all. I would suggest you remove all your negative comments. If I was a moderator I would clean up this thread by just removing all your comments and giving you a warning.

seriously dude, just shut up, and edit your post to change the priority please. That will also help a great deal towards other peoples negativity.

Thank you

thank you for being man enough to admit you were wrong, and fixing it!

Now be good to the people, and take constructive criticism positively, even when they are douches. We are suppose to ALL work together for a better product =)

I agree, but that means absolutely nothing, because devs will not focus on minor features like this at this stage,.regardless of the priority or the votes. I bet right now they filter out anything that is a feature request and will look at it later in beta. Are you going to come back to this ticket during beta to change your vote? And likewise are you going to go back to all your other requests to vote up that you voted down because of this?

Just think about it.

Prasek, downvoting because of someone's attitude or priority of a ticket is not a valid reason. You are being no different from him then. You vote for the idea, either you agree with it or you dont.

I agree he is a douche, but you will find alot of people here are douches, and there are a good few I dont like either, but i dont downvote their ideas because of it. Dont take it personal, if everyone downvotes a potentially good idea because they dont like that person, then they are potentially ruining the future of the game because they didnt like the person that posted the idea? wheres the logic in that?

As for priority, the moderators will fix the priority, you can just disagree with the priority, and a mod will fix it when they too agree.

Seriously, dont be a douche because you dont like someone's attitude, I am not saying it is a great idea this one, but for the sake of other feature requests etc, dont be a troll and downvote because you dont like someone.

Ever seen some really good requests with a small amount of downvotes which makes no sense at all? most probably because of the same thing, someone like you being a douche because they dont like someone so they downvote to be spitefull. All I'm saying is, dont be that person.

I am in favour of this. It is a good and creative thing, and I am sure this may come in handy at some point, especially more in MP games. If the devs can, go for it =) However there are mines for traps, so I wont mind if it gets passed either.

Once again I feel the priority high is unnecessary for an alpha. Features should normal at highest.

no, beta is about polishing things up and improvement, alpha is about stability... Thats my understanding of it.

This issue for is not a stability issue, it is improvement of something already implimented, it will be attendid to later I am sure, dont stress too much.

never said ARMA3 will have a perfect release, but it will be stable and functional. They may even push back release date to attend to all new features and polishing up the final product, i wouldnt be surprised if they did.

You also have to bear in mind BIS is not a big multi billion dollar dev and publisher such as EA etc, so it is likely they will be fixing other issues after release as well.

yeah most people probably dont grasp what is urgent, I agree this is something that needs work, but at alpha stage, it isnt urgent, late into beta will render this urgent.

BIS should have an easily accessable panel that should explain how to rate priority issues for average persons, but I guess even then you will still stumble upon some rediculous issues and priority.

given that there is wind present, even without a storm, i hardly ever see grass or trees get affected at all, in normal conditions everything is dead still, like wise hovering a chopper a foot of the ground, I hardly see shrubs, grass and trees get affected, and smoke from fires or grenades don't seem to get affected as strongly by wind or down force of a choppers blades either as it should. They should work on it.

priority shouldnt be urgent though, this can be done during the polishing stages of the final game before release i believe.

john, that is what constant exposure to sun does to any caucasian's skin. take into consideration the location of where the game takes place. Perhaps if you get out in the sun more, you would notice you dont stay pale white all the time. Quite an unnecessary post this really. So dont take it wrong when people downvote.

Wow... Do that speech was so motivational, they assigned it almost immediately... I need to do similar speeches to get some things done....

AI doesn't need to be completely rewritten, i would think adding more variables could make them act and react better in circumstances, though that would probably up the over head on the resources.

So they can simplify and dumb down AI perhaps like the LOD in graphics atty a distance where you don't engage them. For example they would not react individually, but as a group, very static and basic. So a group AI can be computed as a single unit, at distant, and when closer, like based on your clutter distance, and closer enemies within the clutter distance could then start operating as single units.

I'm not a programmer or anything, but I assume that can be done, if not all ready to esse out the stress on overhead for AI?

think everyone will agree the AI needs alot of work, though it is somewhat better than Arma2.

for the most part, first reaction is to go prone and make yourself a smaller, harder to hit target when you take fire. That is almost a rule i think, but it works regardless. The AI is programmed for that.

I would say ducking for cover would only be priority if it is less than 5 meters away, more than that and you are just too exposed for anyone who is a good shot. I go by a 3 step rule, duck for cover every 3 steps, and repeat till you get to decent cover.

other issue I have found with AI are their priorities, for one when doing the infantry showcase, if the AI goes over the north hill to the otherside, an AI team mate will persue him none the less, leaving the rest of the team one man short, and also he is most likely to die making he's way up the hill. When an enemy is out of sight for a period of time, the AI should change priority on target to one that actually is a threat.

secondly also found when i engage with an enemy fire, at times when i duck behind cover, the AI knows I am there, but once he takes fire from my team mates 100 meters back down the valley, they change their priority, which is retarded because I am less than 10meters away, I should be a bigger threat. The AI should instead be falling back and looking for cover when he is being engaged from multiple angles and distances, putting priority one targets depending on value, the more dangerous first to the closest.

Well I have not seen anything worn, a little on the MX rifle and thats about it, I dont see anything on the characters or the vehicles to justify being in use or seen action. If I had, then I wouldn't be posting this suggestion now would I? If it actually is in there, then perhaps they should make it a little more apparant.

Now incase you dis my rig for not outputting clearly, here are official pics from the net instead.

http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2011/05/Arma3_screenshot_01.jpg
http://www.bluesnews.com/screenshots/games/arma3/20110607/arma3_screenshot_08.jpg
http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/vg/image/1359/77/1359776783331.jpg
http://bulk2.destructoid.com/ul/201538-/Arma3_screenshot_04-noscale.jpg
https://www.offdutygamers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/arma3_screenshot_1105_12.jpg

I dont see any dirty elbow or knee gueards, I dont see any worn out clothing, worn out paint jobs etc. Though it may be aparrant on a few objects perhaps, it is too unnoticable.

And if you agree with the dynamic decals, why would you vote this down?

I said start working on it, as in actually talk about it and plan for it, never implied dropping support for A3 at all... Just clearing that up =)

Kinda off topic here, but i think we should start a campaign as a community, to convince BIS to start working on a new engine after the release of ARMA 3. Everywhere it's mentioned how limited the current tech is, so i think we should be able to make a noise, and I'm not being negative now, but i think BIS just needs to be motivated. If anyone starts this movement or petition, I'd back it up.

Well if that's the case... f#ck the AI... ARMA is strongly based on co op and mp, so they can just as well implement it as a multi player feature, and the AI won't need to get involved.

MadDog already pointed out a big deal regarding the mp aspect, so I'm thinking this request won't see the light of day until the next iteration of the engine.

Given all awesome features failing due to limitations of the engine, perhaps BIS should really consider making the next virtual reality engine from scratch, and try focus on making it with all these awesome ideas in mind for a decent experience. I know it sounds like a major task and would probably set the next ARMA title back by another 5 years or so, but so what? Till today ARMA 2 holds pretty high standards, and with ARMA 3 enhancements,.I'd imagine it take a good few years before it really becomes one those horrible looking games, not to mention an active modding community to keep it alive that long.

Licensed? By whom?

Well then make their own versions of it, then they probably wouldn't need to pay royalty fees for licensing.

Still, it be nice if they just could do that, save themselves alot of effort.

This could be a neat feature to have, and i think it could go very far in the modding community. However as MadDog stated, the devs have tried it and were not satisfied with results. In this case I can only imagine users not being satisfied with it.

So i would think that perhaps including this feature that the devs worked on as "hidden" content that isn't used within stock ARMA, but allow modders to play with it and see what they can do with it?

Other than that, everytime I read VBS is able to do it, I keep wondering why BIS just dont merge VBS and ARMA projects together sharing the same core content as foundation, however they could obviously differ in terms of ARMA just having addtional themed content for their campaigns etc.

That way we get VBS kind of simulation, and dev team only really need to work on the themed content, where as now the community keep begging for more realism and practically begging BIS for features from VBS.

Not downvoting this, but neither upvoting.

I have found that Play with Six to be a good way to get around the above mentioned problem, it keeps your mods updated, you can specify a custom mod folder location (I prefer to keep it by the default my docs in user folder) and also, I can filter and launch a game from Play with SIX and it will automatically load up the correct mods, update if necessary and etc and launch with no hassle.

Bohemia should probably try promote Play With SIX to get more people to know about it and encourage them to try mods, though, the notion of having it all done through steam is equally as nice =) So I don't mind whichever way it goes.

I think the poster is trying to say the issue is that water seems to have no friction at all, which is unreal in a way, impact with water should be similar to impact with the ground.

Sure it isn't an immediate priority, and maddog will probably fix that when he/she gets around to it, but I dont see any reason to down vote to fixing this if it, i found it to be true as well.

"However, even my i7 4x3.5Ghz 32G RAM w/ NVidia 670, upon automatic video detection, sets settings to Low! I usually have to go into the Video settings and increase to the next level below Ultra."

Thats odd, I have an i5 3570K at 4.3Ghz and GTX660 (non-Ti) and my auto detect gives me Ultra settings, which my rig can handle around 30fps just fine. Thats Odd lol.

Anyhow, still feel they could cut down some stuff in order to have it run much like arm2, i have a mate who can run arma2 just about fine and looking great, only arma 3 he has to pretty much disable everything and run at low, not even normal. That doesnt seem to make much sense, arma 2 should be like what the game should look like on a mid range rig, which still looks pretty decent compared to todays standards.

in arma it is almost absolutely necessary to use very high setting for terrain, not to do with the grass, but how terrain objects are rendered in distance, this goes for objects quality too, if you have anything lower than very high, you are likely to have alot of popping effects (transition of LOD's) at mid range, which is where most of the battles happen, at mid range, and having popping objects just really distracts one. and this is why more optimization is required for terrain rendering.

I think if BIS could come up with a new hardly noticable transition effect for the transition between objects and terrain objects, instead of instant popping, it would make scaling down to high setting much more useable for performance, and still look fairly good.

I dont quite see the problem, it is most likely to do with the material of the sight, that it isn't a flat smoothed surface, which is why it is like that.

Also the shadows have been updated to have a grainy edge which helps make shadows look abit more softer, which I do prefer for higher objects though, like trees etc, and then objects near the ground like your characters shadow will appear harder.

If only they could apply the shadows, and hardness of the shadows based on distance properly, that would be nice.

Yes please, FIX THIS!

just create a new transition effect instead of popping, because of this I am forced to sacrafice valuble frames to push my terrain, objects and texture settings higher to very high at the least just to get rid of the annoying and distracting popping effect.

simply just create a new transition effect for switching LOD's to be much more unnoticable and it will be an improvement.

Yes thanks DimasL,

Turns out I filtered Al"F"a to coverage, and found nothing in results..

silly me -_-

All right so I read through 618, found out it is the super-sampling under AA transparancy. Changing back to mmulti-sample did work. Funny though as it worked fine with ArmA2, figured the ATOC in A3 was the same as A2, so it had to be the game, or an update.

Guess the game does not properly support SSAA, or Nvidia needs to correct it?

Well my case is resolved, this one may be closed =)

Sorry for the post.

By the way I am running settings on ULTRA, except AA tuned down to 2x, resolution is 1080p.

Use to work just fine before, so not sure if it is related to new update or because I switched from dev build to alpha.

i can never say no to more features =) reppeling from helicopters great and a MUST!

The others I dont mind too much, if the devs can work it in, why not.

I have to disagree,

like mentioned above, in most unpoluted islands accross the world, the water really is pretty clear. and this is also pretty unneccessary complaint, given you really need to be looking straight down into the water to see much, due to water refreaction at an agle will just give you a very opaque deep blue colour.

however waters clarity would change depending on amount of light and also most probably weather, and i havent seen much weather changes to see how it impacts clarity of the water. but this really is no big deal.

if anything,m they should be working on propper waves.

Ragdoll from greter than 1.5m? you must be joking right..

From that hight falling into a roll is a better idea. Personally I would prefer landing on your feet in a kneeling position then fall forward like prone, or backwards flat on your back given how hard it must be to keep balance with all that weight.

Ragdoll is suitable for death or unconciousness, neither of which is valid for a small drop unless it is more than 10m.

Think all falling animations should be linked, since they ate all related

Why not? When someone dies, they don't always instantly die, like instantly go ragdoll, most people won't even die instantly when shot, for example someone running when shot won't instant rag doll, unless shot in the head maybe, more likely to loose balance and energy to run, so they will crumble to the ground (animated), probably drop to their knees and fall forward then loose all conciseness and die, or suffer... Personally i find that realistically appealing than insta-ragdoll.

Thanks for that vid, excellent example! Also can't help but notice that ladder climbing animation... Wish devs can touch it up too.

Fons, the dying part looks a bit better than it was earlier in the alpha. Though I'd say they should animate the deaths and then from there it should go to trash doll, that would look much better than instant rag doll.

even just leaping of a rock looks rediculous, it is one of the littlest things that bug the crap out of me. I too really wish they do something about it.

Maybe as soon as feet leave any surface, after a second an animation should start, just simple leap from a chair kind of animation, then after 3 seconds it can change to something like leaping of the roof of a car, and after 5 seconds it can start resembling the HALO jump. the longer the it takes, the more the animation can change accordingly?

But seriously i would really apreciate it.

Rain sure needs more emphasis in ARMA, just the filter effect doesn't convey much really.

I dont know about the whole texture based on water level, honestly I would just be happy if the player could have a wet look overall, as well as every object and surface. For players, this can happen over a period of a minute or two after the rain starts, the wet look can fade in, but for swimming, really only has to be applied as soon as animations switches to swimming animation, then voila. It doesn't have to a very in depth, and resource hungry effect at all. skip the fancy gimmicks, we dont really need them as we wont be paying attention to level of detail, as long as the effect is there to satisfy logic, because currently, the current rain implimentation just feels very off.

This effect should easily be applied too. since vehicles and players have damage layers, create an additional layer for wet, and for muddy. Wet texture can be applied during rain, or when in water (swimming) and muddy can trigger during rain when kneeling (legs get muddy tex) or going prone (stomach, arms and face get muddy tex) or rolling (full body gets the muddy tex)... For vehicles, the same really, during rain the vehicle will get a wet with a specular glint, when vehicle drives in the rain for a min or so, it will turn into muddy texture where mud is likely to occur and gather on the vehicle. I am sure this should be totally do-able, but will just require some additional effort by artists.

Also to note, during rain, there shouldnt really be much dust kicked up from chopper downforce, or vehicles traveling on dirt, it should rather have minimal mud splatter kicking up. This could be majorly beneficial to those who can actually strategically use the rain to an advantage.

I know i agree, i would say that it would be fine for the LOD switching, meant to save in resources, but just don't want it as frequent as it is now, it had to occur at very long range where i don't generally focus my attention to.

I have an alternative solution to this that might even increase performance. Of course, I still would like to see a new less-noticable transition effect.

What I have noticed is that whether you set object quality low or ultra, it will always render full detail up close. So basically my object detail is set to ultra, and i stand right next to a vehicle in all it's ultra detail, and then i change from ultra to low, and then I notice that while the objects further away look degraded in detail, the vehicle is still in all its ultra detail.

So the problem seems to be on low settings, the LOD decreases over distance. On low settings I found the first LOD drop at 30m. Now the problem here is LOD drops every 30m (im assuming) to a lower model, So it would render detail as follows on low setting:

(Note* These are estimated distances and estimated level of quality and may not be 100% accurate, im just painting a picture here)

LOW object quality setting

<30m = Ultra
30m - 60m = Very high
60m - 90m = High
90m - 120m = Standard
120m - and up = Low

and lets say you run High setting now, it would probably be every 90m, so it would be as follows:

HIGH object quality setting

<90m = Ultra
90m - 180m = Very high
180m - 270m = High
270m - 360m = Standard
360m - and up = Low

that is why we keep seeing so many frequent popping effects, unless we run Ultra, which then popping occurs every 1.5km (once again assuming) so it is far less noticeable.

The same goes with texture quality it seems, the lower the quality, the more frequent you notice the transition popping in texture, and the higher your setting the less noticable.

So essentially, you will get to see the full detail and quality of an object/texture regardless of what sewtting you choose, only difference seems to be the distance at which the LOD switches. And I feel this is not necessary at all. For us the problem is that it just is way too distracting to have frequent popping effects.

An easier fix I would imagine being, (and I hope I explain this to make sense) that if I set my object/texture quality at high, i expect that the maximum LOD of object/texture would be High, and not Ultra equivilent. so it would be as follows:

High object quality setting

<1.5km = High
1.5km - 3km = Standard
3km - and above = Low

So instead of transitioning every 90m from Ultra till low, it would transition every 1.5km from high till low. Compare that to previous HIGH quality setting that A3 currently uses, and you would realize that there would be less popping, and most likely better performance too, and this will not likely impact the visual quality at all for those who already run A3 maxed out on ultra. but at the cost of lower quality objects up close. And honestly I am fine with lower quality objects up close, and I am fine with performance increase. I named 3 pro's and 1 con which I dont even feel is a major con at all.

Overall this will act/mimic the ultra setting in the sense that there will be much less popping transitions between LOD and more consistent stable LOD. And also since the "high" detail model is the maximum quality a model will be rendered, this will most likely render less polygon details, equalling to less strain, and better performances, while at the same time less distracting with all the popping effects.

Does this make sense? Does anyone else agree?

Lol you mad bro XD but its good to know that someone on the team is as much a concerned fan as we all are. Raises some hope, besides you have 39 backers so far =) ARMA really doesn't need additional graphical features, just need to improve what already is in place, this issue and it will then already make a huge difference.

Just a simple transition effect will work wonders, but maybe how about lowering detail to a point that it won't go any higher? Like for example i noticed if you run low setting, then up close (like 10m) all objects are at their highest detail, so by lowering object detail only seems to affect the distance at which it transitions. Now Instead, how about making for example "high" object quality the highest, but keep the distance at which it transitions constant (which is far away, kinda like the "very high" seeing)

Dunno if its just me, but that souls probably also increase performance, as well as minimize the transition effects, making everything look smoother and less annoying than the popping effect.

Does that all make sense?

Confirmed meaning its getting the deserved attention and being fixed? =P

Yes please, FIX THIS!

just create a new transition effect instead of popping, because of this I am forced to sacrafice valuble frames to push my terrain, objects and texture settings higher to very high at the least just to get rid of the annoying and distracting popping effect.

simply just create a new transition effect for switching LOD's to be much more unnoticable and it will be an improvement.

"... I thinking not about only Arma, I try to exned engine features for all other mods and possible games, maked on this engine, downvoters not right here..."

The devs aren't building ArmA up for to suit others mods, it's really the other way around, modders are to make of ArmA as they want.

I am not against it at all, I welcome any new feature the devs provide, but I have to agree, I dont quite see this idea going anywhere. perhaps make a mod yourself to impliment it, and see how many people really use it.

Rain sure needs more emphasis in ARMA, just the filter effect doesn't convey much really.

I dont know about the PIP for reflections, sounds a bit over the top considering we struggle with performance issues as is, but the reflection implimentation currently implimented on the goggles, sights and windshield of littlebird should suffice for reflections on puddles as well, but I agree, during rain, certain elements like puddles on the roads should appear, and after rain stops it should fade away again. Absorbing surfaces such as concrete and dirt and clothing should become darker with a slight specular glint to it, like used on some of the plant life, and solid non pourus surfaces like metal etc should get a much more vibrant specular glint to it. While we on that subject of specular glint, maybe also apply that specular glint to the rain filter as well, this should at certain angles highlight the rain droplets.

The layers suggestion from fragmachine is a great idea as well, and should easily be applied too. since vehicles and players have damage layers, create an additional layer for wet, and for muddy. Wet texture can be applied during rain, or when in water (swimming) and muddy can trigger during rain, and when kneeling or going prone, or rolling. For vehicles, the same really, during rain the vehicle will get a wet specular glint, when vehicle drives in the rain, it will turn into a muddy texture. I am sure this should be totally do-able, but will just require some additional effort by artists.

Also to note, during rain, there shouldnt really be much dust kicked up from chopper downforce, or vehicles traveling on dirt, should rather have mud kicking up. This could be majorly beneficial to those who can actually strategically use the rain to an advantage.

i voted up for both this and the other ticket, this is just to say that this issue has much needed attention.

As far as the description goes, all is fantastic, and I am completely in favour of it, even thought of it almost exactly before. but I always came to one issue, which i did not notice you countered. What if at a distance where player is transparent, he is on top of a hill, and there is only a blue sky behind him? he cannot be transparent then.

So this should not just apply to what texture/terrain the player is on and based on the camo he is wearing, but also how 5 other players will percieve him at different angles.

I figure a much more efficient way to do this would simply be to simplify.

Character models seem to be too detailed in both complexity and texture at long range, and the terrain texture at long range really just are poor, see ticket http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=4635, hopefully they work on that too.

But anyway, the contrast between model detail and texture compared to the terrain makes the model stand out like a sore thumb, so what devs need to do is to simplify the player model with less LOD complexity, as well as drop the texture resolution of model to that of the terrain, an you will find that the player model will easily blend in with the terrain. so much simpler and not so resource hungry.

also as a side note, when scoping in on said character (sniping or binocs) grass should be able to be rendered perhaps, since the FOV decreases when zooming in, less grass should be visually generated, which too will not eat so much resources. I have seen this being used alot before, one example was ye ol farcry (the first original one) if you looked into the distance, you would have flat textures, but if you used binocs to zoom in, grass would be generated, this worked fairly nice without any overhead on performance and could work in ArmA3 just as nice.

exactly my point, besides one must own photoshop in order to edit and create custom faces, and I am sure some good knowledge of how to. I wouldn't mind learning, but then again so many things i want to learn, theres less time to play. Which is why i made that that suggestion =)

maade another ticket of custom faces, something that relates to this but request is geared towards players more than modders, http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=6739

I dont know, nobody has a visible map on them at all times, in reality, you would have to stop and open the map to look, and as it currently is, you do it alot faster than you in real life. Having a map open on a secondary screen does feel like a cheat in my opinion.

However, that said, it would be nice to open the map in game and be able to lower the map to keep an eye on your surroundings like you can with the binocs. There is a mod that aids with this though, perhpas integrate something like that as a quick map and reserve the usual map for more in depth information.

But on an overall, I disagree with having the map on a secondary screen at all times. Even with helicopter, the co-pilot can open the map and navigate for the pilot.

sorry to burst you bubble, but parallax mapping is already done in game, even A2 had it. though I am not too much in favour how it is implimented, because it only appears to be active about 5m infront of the player, creating this awkward rolling dip in the ground.

they should either extend the active range, or and fall off, or replace it with something like tessalation.

I agree, I think it uses some pretty basic bump maps and paralax mapping, and very very high quality detail models.

Persoanlly I think Arma looks good the way it is, even Arma2 at it's max looked graphically amazing, and I really don't think fancy features are an absolute must since their high quality models make up for it. But yes, if they use more technological cheats such as normal maps to replace polygons, we would still have pretty decent looking characters, vehicles and objects but with less polygons that would free up a good few frames.

I think if any graphical feature is to be added it would have to be tesselation, but of course, for the very high end enthusiasts.

I agree with this, more work needs to go into the stamina to balance it correctly and reflect actual use of stamina accurately, for example the ticket relating to climbing hills exhausts the same amount of stamina as going down hill or running on flat terrain.

Although bear in mind, well trained and fit soldiers can operate better than average people, so don't try to compare the stamina of an ingame soldier to your own.

vote up, but more for the fact of fixing stamina issues, and also the point you make here does affect gameplay as it does invite the more rambo and less tactical CoD players.

Well firstly my solution isn't much different from yours, both offer high and low gear solution for alternate purposes. The difference being mine is a tad more complex because you have different adjustable gears, for better control.

A comparison, your version is equivalent to ARMA 2 stances, mine is ARMA 3 adjustable stances. More control is always preferred.

But hey, they can actually just simplify it, with auto keys, as well as adjustable keys like the stances. Z as prone can act like low gear for climbing terrain, X can act like normal speed to. manage tight streets and road ways in towns, and C can be your top gear for high speed travel. Something like that, it mimics the usual movement controls.

So that all said, there isn't a vast amount of control, since you climb hills at a specific preset speed, and you traverse towns at preset speed. And well that all is pretty much already there, and I'm not quite happy with that. Hence using Q and E our even the adjustment keyfor finer adjustment, like the stance animations... It can not be a bad thing what so ever.

bump

okay so I noticed ArmA3 actually has something like this, but not quite as useful.

Q allows you to drive slow, like 20km/h.... which is too slow to be honest. and E allows you to speed up, much like what shift does. and thats about it. I would still prefer above mentioned for better control.

Totally agree here. I think it realy should be tweaked. Whilst prone you may have greater accuracy, you should not easily be able to look up45 degrees and look like your back is broken.. and much less be able to move forward or sideways in this position. I think the adjusted postion to sitting would be ideal to allow for higher and lower aiming. but going prone, you should be limited to around 30 degree play?

^ what he said.

wow that is a very technical explanation lol, a bit tooo out of the box maybe? But I am sure it may be valid to some extent =) thanks for the pro-active response.

About arma2, you referring to vanilla Arma2 or a mod? I have never noticed anything like you described in vanilla Arma2.

Why are you guys not reading the description and further comments other than the first few? I know its a lot to read but really, read it before you vote and comment, stop assuming its like battlefield and stop assuming suppression will will be a blurry representation.

Thanks jester, appreciate your input as well =)

although recently i am aware of some people complaining about blur hurting their eyes, so perhaps skip the blur? But indeed an effect is needed, nothing overwhelming, just a slight hinderence, enough to inform one is being suppressed, and also hinder one slightly so that suppression actually has an effect.

Still findingsome inhuman like players out performing others, like a sniper at 360m that can keep a steady calm aim and take out two persons actively suppressing (or trying to) and a third flank. At most he gets away wounded with 3 kills. Just doesn't seem right? More like an action Hollywood movie.

Wow, just... Wow

Wasnt aware people go to such lengths just to have their way, even though they are the minority -sigh-

Either way, looks like almost a straight up 50/50 deal, so let's see what the devs do about it =)

Well dunadan, I will summarize it for you. 60% of the negativity is "copying" battlefield 3 and they dont like battlefield because it isnt arma, and it is an arcade game. And yeah some just dont like the way it was implimented in bf3.

And the other 40% is just that it isn't necessary because it isnt realistic, and some seem to believe supression seems to be a myth from the sound of it???

There, easy read =)