- User Since
- Apr 10 2013, 3:27 PM (398 w, 20 h)
May 10 2016
I think "some of the lighter cannons on tanks" is referring to the lighter cannons such as those found on the AMV-7 or IFV-6c.
Really annoying glitch.
It's very unlikely that it's the headphones, it's most likely related to software. Try increasing the number of samples in the audio options.
The developers have confirmed that there are problems with their 7.1 surround sound implementation. I tried using stereo headphones with my onboard sound settings set to 7.1 and have the same problem, so luckily this is not a problem directly attributed to your headphones.
Assuming that it's Russian-made, anyway.
Well, the openable doors that are coming soon will most likely not have animations either. Are you saying that you don't want that update until it has animations?
Not sure how realistic this would be, but maybe if it could be implemented as a revision to the the already existing aircraft. If it isn't, I suppose it should be left as it is currently.
In 2035, there will probably be a decent number of these aircraft in service.
- should also prevent players without the helmet from having the HUD (when it is only available on the helmet in real life).
There are also flies, etc. already in the game. I also saw a deer in one of the official photos.
Good find, a more appropriate title may be "Sound position is not updated when the map is opened", though.
Weapon jams aren't always fixed by replacing the magazine. Also, what about jamming that occurs midway through firing a magazine?
How much will 64 bit support actually help?
But how much of a performance improvement should there actually be? 5%? 20%?
Is it even legal to make an already purchased game unplayable afterward, without any sort of agreement to it? And if it prevents any users from playing, I highly doubt that BIS will do it since they'll lose revenue. I'd really like to hear if it's actually feasible though.
Not sure what you mean by "burn".
From my understanding, if it's changed to 64-bit, 32-bit users won't be able to access the game. It doesn't seem possible to have the option between the two (although I really hope it is), and if it isn't, it'll pose a very big problem due to the incompatibility.
Maybe BIS should create a poll to see how many of us would be affected by this.
If we could compile a vehicle list in which this is the case, that'd be great.
I would also like all rooms to be enterable, even if all of the middle floors have identical layouts. It would make for even greater modding possibilities.
I'm not saying it's not an issue, that's why I voted it up. I'm simply showing you how to avoid that issue, hence why I said "Just a quick tip" and not "I know how to solve this".
I use it all the time, I'll show you exactly what to bind.
Helicopter movement (in this order):
(the rest blank unless you want to bind, say, auto hover)
(the rest blank unless you want to bind gear/flaps retraction)
Just a quick tip in case you didn't know, you can turn by setting bank/cyclic left/right to mouse left/right, and leave the "turn" keybinds blank. Then tilt the helicopter forward or raise the plane upward while banking, which will result in a turn while giving you the added ability of moving left or right without going forward/backward.
I can confirm. This has also happened with the Ifrit, and it is probably present with other vehicles as well.
I agree, except that the wheels can be at least somewhat visibly damaged. You can notice them deflate at certain damage states. The problem with only showing these states via the vehicle's instruments is that not every vehicle has them, but personally I'd prefer this anyway since it's more realistic that way.
That's a good idea, wasn't 100% on the context menu.
Not sure if I like that since you're able to move in real life while reloading a launcher.
How would you cancel it? Via the context menu?
Would it make a noticeable difference from a mid-range SSD (Samsung 830 series for instance) versus system RAM?
I'm not sure if this would have any positive impact, but if it will, I fully support it.
That makes the roads disappear as well as other things such as images, etc.
+ARJay, I wasn't saying that this was the only issue, just that you should keep it in mind.
Keep in mind that some servers are significantly less optimized than others. Your framerate can literally be halved when switching from one server to another.
I lowered overall view distance to 3000m and object to 1500m, all other settings maxed out with a GTX 680, and I get 30-45FPS. Considerably lower than Stratis but not unplayable, though they really do need to optimize the game substantially.
Changing the view distances fixed this for me.
Have you checked if your left/right turn buttons are mapped to "mouse left/right"? They are by default, try using only a and d and see if this fixes the issue.
When sitting and transitioning to standing up, the player will go prone and then stand up.
papy, are you saying that JSRS changed the MX rifle's sound from the modified one to the default one in Arma 3? They didn't, but it may seem that way since you need to compile the versions (start with the oldest version and overwrite it in chronological order).
That's great. In the long term it would be nice to have different materials give a different sound (ie. while in a metal vs. concrete building). Also to add to point 1, a muffled sound would be nice to have while indoors (even Battlefield 3 has it).
That alone isn't quite enough, but it's a great start.
Did anyone try the new Opfor scout marksman rifle, the Rahim? The sound effect is MUCH better than the other stock sounds, so far it's my favorite.
Oh, I see. I completely agree.
Did you compile the versions by overwriting the old versions with the newer ones?
It's not up to par with JSRS 1.5 by any means, but it is still significantly better than the original.
Please implement JSRS in to Arma 3 officially. I can't play without it, but 80-90% of servers don't allow this mod.
These are great as well.
Battlefield 3's audio is fairly decent but could still use some work. The sounds are muddy and some samples' concepts could be improved (the snipers didn't seem as powerful as, say, JSRS 2.0). It's definitely not the pinnacle of sound reproduction but it is something to strive for for the time being.
We already have one, via the context menu or pressing L by default.
Extremely important for the release of the game, thanks for reporting.
All you really need to prove is that "When torque from the rotor is applied, the helicopter is rotated around the center of mass". Most of us would have no idea if this was true or not, and if it is, then it supports your cause.
If you could prove that it is unrealistic, that'd be great. I'm not doubting you or anything, but surely the developers will need to be convinced before changing anything.
I changed my keybinds and it works fine.
Some multiplayer servers adjust the fatigue setting to their liking.
I'd prefer if it was applied to everyone. Maybe a volume control for it would be nice, but I'm not sure if it would work better than if it was adjusted for everyone.
Set it to whatever is most realistic (which is definitely not as loud as it is now).
Will all of the (default) aircraft in Arma 3 be able to do this? If so I fully support it, as long as it's realistic.
"But you can force it sometime and see slideshow in Borderlands2, for example."
What GPU and CPU would that be with?
So Apex can't be processed by the CPU? I thought it could just as Physx could.
"We talking only about GPU. CPU can't handle this sim."
No, you don't understand. You can have your GPU do most of the processing as usual but assign your CPU to perform its normal duties as well as Physx calculations. Having your CPU process Physx does not mean that you can't use a GPU or multiple GPUs as well.
"I mean, not only Apex can do that. And hard to believe that BIS will use this unique SDK. And realistic destruction in ArmA represented with particles. Its all you can see. Smoke mushrooms, dust, etc. GPU assist for particles - maybe.But OpenCL."
How is it hard to believe? They're already using Physx and can make this happen quite quickly, probably within a matter of days. If you think there is a better solution, let us know.
"Idea is not in the APEX. Idea in GPGPU. And again it's not are secret. I don't see any reallife reference for conrete, for windows destructions. Anything usefull.
ArmA not needed in simple fractals because its not are kid platformer. Arma need some realistic simulation."
Apex is getting us closer to realistic destruction. It isn't just about fractures, as you can see in this video.
"APEX IS NOT AMD COMPATIBLE.(Technical)": Depends on what you mean by that. It can run on CPUs even if your GPU doesn't support it. We already have Physx implemented to some degree, do you have a problem with that as well?
"Examples of low-quality UE3 demos do not represent required perfomance and quality.(Technical)": Are you saying that Apex won't make the game look/perform well enough? How would you know that? And even if that was the case, we should have the option to disable the effects.
"The assertion that the game needs apex.(Logical)": I personally never said that Apex was needed, I'm not sure who did. The fact is that it doesn't, but it would be really, really nice to have.
What technical and logical errors would those be?
"Apex cannot help with this fact."
How would you know? Can you even prove it?
Anachoretes, have you been reading the news at all? BIS is going to be adding opening vehicle doors in Arma 3, OF COURSE destruction is more important than that and will unquestionably make it in to Arma 3!
Anachoretes, you can say all you want that it's not worth it, but face it, you got outnumbered. Over 82% of people that voted are in favor of its implementation, so stop pretending like no one wants it.
Looking forward to seeing it, Raoul. It'd be great if you showed how easy it would be to implement in order to demonstrate its feasibility.
Raoul, a good idea would be to take an existing structure (preferably a tall one such as the watch tower in the air base, or the lighthouse) and implement APEX destruction. If you could somehow show how long it took as well, it could really motivate the developers.
Yeah, I'm sure it would take months to remove it, though I wouldn't want that to happen. All I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense when people complain about APEX but don't care that PhysX is implemented already.
But I think it should be dependent on, say, the weight/size of the block that hits you. Not sure how difficult it would be to implement this.
If it's toggleable, that takes away another big problem, but adds one as well. If we want debris to be dangerous, we either have people with the setting off be killed by seemingly invisible objects, or have them not be of any danger at all.
I think it should damage you, though it will take some tweaking before it becomes realistic.
If you could include a video demonstration or something, it'd be really helpful.
I haven't heard that they would all be placeholders, and it seems that they aren't considering how they haven't announced it yet and don't seem on planning to include these features. It'd be really nice if they were, though.
Completely agree, Fri.
+1, I'd like to see interiors for these vehicles though, much like the other vehicles such as the Hunter, Ifrit, etc.
+1 for the commo rose. Much easier to use than the numpad buttons.
Gmail compiles the emails for me, so I don't get spammed.
Eventually a moderator or developer should see it.
Yeah, I'd really be looking forward to that. If you can find a list of most or all of those signals it'd be really helpful.
How do you think it should be implemented?
What signals do you want to see? Linking them with commands would be great to aid in its development.
How about hand signals that can be enabled when commanding your team? For instance, if you tell teammates to advance, you'll make the appropriate signal.
It may be an issue though since first of all, hand signals will require you to let go of your weapon from one hand, and second, the radio protocol already has whispering so there isn't much of a need for hand signals. It would be more immersive but being less ready while performing a hand signal seems to be the biggest issue.
I like the concept but I can't help but feel that it can't be included without being inconvenient, at least until be have better virtual reality technology for our arms.
It'd be nice, but is it feasible? How would it be implemented?
I think this might be server-side, +1 anyway though.
+1. I noticed this too, you must be referring to the HEMTT. Please modify the title to make it more concise.
They look stiff in general.
I think it's just a glitch.
+1 to the smoother speed transition.
That really isn't a major issue, 007. I haven't seen it giving anyone enough of an advantage to, say, get a kill when they otherwise wouldn't have if it were fixed.
Did you create this prior to the Beta? If you did, then that's most likely why since there have been many changes to the weapons since then.
Edit: Nevermind, fixed. This can be deleted.