- User Since
- Mar 6 2013, 5:26 PM (445 w, 2 d)
May 10 2016
I fear that this is not the question. Apparently Mods WILL be linked to money in the near future. The question is, who pays the prize and who gets the money. Currently BI is trying to let players pay the prize and BI put most of it in their pocket.
Some mods need financial support. Read 1
??? Currently it is illegal to sell a mod for arma. That makes it very easy to reuse and modify other peoples work. Everything is shared and this helped to build a strong community. That is how we got to the state we are now. Read point 5
With "initial idea" I mean that some mods deserve/require some financial support. This was usually done by voluntary donations and has always been an option.
Maybe you didn't notice, but a lot of modders asked for money for years already. That is nothing new. Just the fact, that they could now start to force fellow players to pay in order for them to use the mod. The Paywall is the new Problem, not the money.
The even bigger problem is of course, that the money doesn't even reach the modder, but stays with steam and the gamedev
Do you also oppose the donation button?
@KDN I don't understand whether you agree with me or not.
I clearly said, that I would embrace "payment" in form of free update support and social buissiness models.
But with the new steam Mod business BI appears to basically sell Arma mods and will barely give anything to the actual modder, BIS has changed their way. It would be all about money and therefor they should feel what that means.
This ticket is actually just a STATEMENT, about the paid mods policy. Don't take it seriously, it is
- SARCASM! ****
The sentence "If you want professional feedback, which is what this is, then people cannot apply emotional arguments – they need to apply business arguments." is actually a slightly modified quote from Dean Hall in the linked interview.
yes, I'd love to see that, but at the end, it was not the initial idea, that is flawed, but the implementation.
I think it is a good idea to make players aware of the fact that some mods need financial support, but there are much better ways to do so.
Beside a simple donation button, there is also the option I presented here #0023916
However I got the strange feeling, that most people actually don't know, what we are talking about :(
@ Anyone who downvotes this ticket, because they think I'm literally asking for money
WTF? It's about showing BI what capitalism feels like, so that they don't fall in that trap and loose the supporter community.
Maybe you would be interested in my most recent Idea: #0023910
Your feedback in form of an opinion is valid, and there is no reason to limit the discussion to forums, when there is an "other" category provided here.
The work is done by the Modder and not the game developer. The modder is an unofficial employee without contract. He is improving the game in the same sense, as any member of the development team (creating new assets and scripts). BIS should provide support to the modders for improving the game. That support should be voluntarily, because BIS did not have comissioned the Mods.
Only BIS is profiting from the mods financially and it is a friendly/humane (uncapitalistic) gesture if BIS transmits the profits back to the modder in any form.
for DayZ they have employed Dean Hall and payed him monthly (I assume)
with MANW they tried to combine that support with a rise of quality standards for mods.
And now a 180° turnaround. Now modders are going to feed BIS the money, they get from their fans.
The Donate Button is transforming into a Paywall, the money goes to BIS, the fans become clients, the supportive comments get replaced by hatemails and bug complaints.
Way to destroy a community.
On a German Forum I called it "Make (flame)War Not Arma" and I think it fits the Situation perfectly. They don't appear to be too exited. Nobody is saying we shouldn't support modders in some way. Most people complain about the amount, that BIS would take from each transfer.
Would be nice, if BI could implement it as you described in Vanilla arma3.
I was close to it already and the task to secure the convoy was completed (see screenshot). I don't think the soldiers would go to the wounded, if I hadn't killed all enemies first. :(
What is supposed to happen after that? Healing the soldier myself doesn't help.
Nope, no mods.
sorry, for not responding sooner.
It was in the editor.
But appears to be fixed, now.
needs work, yes.
I suggest you keep the g key for jumping out of the vehicle.
However, for helicopters this should only apply to units with have a parachute and can physically dismount the vehicle from their seats.
for landing please give zeus the options to set the waypoint-type
I miss loiter, guard, talk etc. (i like the attempt to give us cycle, even though it's bugged)
In fact, please give zeus all combat mode options, too. How are you supposed to set up an ambush, when you can't tell your units to hold fire?
happened to me, too sometimes.
but in your case, the soldier probably just spawned near your position and therefor inside the enclosure. (Groupmembers always spawn next to the groupleader)
I've uploaded another example with zeus. This ALWAYS happens.
Some buildings are just ...
don't use them with zeus :(
actually it kinda works when I tried. The problem seems to be, that the spawn location is always considered the first waypoint.
And that is a problem.
so how do you enable the console for units?
I see an exec option in the 'set Attributes - Objects' module, but that is already enabled and doesn't seem to do anything.
I know, this is not a forum, but any help would be appreciated ^^
I have the debug console, when I am controlling a unit, but can't reach it while playing in zeus mode
can you explain, what you mean by exec field? I don't get any textfield when I doubleclick a unit.
Just stance, behavior, health, rank etc. (using dev branch, too)
you can use a hashtag '#' to link another issue
like _0017677 but replace the _ with #
results in: #0017677
I've uploaded the error message.
Looks like the 'allowdamage' command is completely messed up. What were you trying to do?
Seems to be fixed now.
sorry, but I just don't think, this is a good idea.
everytime, I hear a company claiming to have developed the magic-algorithm, I have my doubts. They claim to increase Performance, temperature and powerusage on all devices from ATI/AMD to nvidia, who have both put huge amounts of research into opengl, directx, cuda and opencl, and are working on it patch after patch?
They claim 300% ! performance improvement, WOW!
When reviews actually put it down to around 10% (if they get it running)
So in other words, the 30 fps get raised to 33. You say you jumped from 30 to 80? Maybe you had other factors influencing the result.
so when I try to look a bit deeper into the company, I can't help, but dislike it.
- their ways of telling how magic is being done felt not convincing (subjective).
- the supposed 300% fps boost turned out to be far less in reality.
- damn those privacy policies! I've seen some really bad ones, but at least they show them.
Here you get a reference to the U.S.-EU SAFE HARBOR privacy policies.
which are by no means perfect, but when I look up the actual registrations
lucidlogix.com or lucid are nowhere to be found, so they couldn't even register their company for Save Harbor?
- What's with those discounts? 70$ -> 26$ or 90$ -> 41$ and no discount deadline?
looks like some bs marketing strategy to me, where you just pretend your product is much more worth than the price today ... or tomorrow, or next week ... or whenever.
I still have some respect for BI and would not like to see them spend resources to optimize for third party driver software instead of optimizing the original game.
Would be nice, if BI could implement it as you described in Vanilla arma3.
no constructive posts? Maybe I didn't explain my couterproposal in enough detail.
I said "if it had something like a 20% chance of success maybe."
and "This feature is only useful when you have a tankbattle e.g 6v6 and don't want a tank to be destroyed after the first critical hit."
The first one was my Idea of how it would still be useful in a infantry vs armor combat scenario. That slight chance of a missile completely fail to damage the target can e.g. provide a good alternative difficulty, when the aiming of your weapon system is no challenge anymore.
The second note was about how it can be used in a larger battle between tanks
as Laqueesha said: "the TROPHY has a limited ammo supply, so after a prolonged battle, it would probably be out of ammo".
So when you fight in tank vs tank battles it might be useful though it would also trigger some of the negative aspects I pointed out earlier.
Those are two possible ways to deal with that feature, but I am obviously still "not a fan of that"
Metalstorm has, as far as I know, just too many negative aspects, like low ammunition, long reload time and heavy weight, but I am not an expert and can't say for sure, but I would be curious about such a weapon (system) in arma.
don't worry about those bullets. I'm sure if BI decides to implement them, they would fake it as a single shot or stream. you probably can already fire A10 in Arma2 or gatling guns from a chopper ;)
ok, so if you implement that feature realistically it would mean:
- no use for hull down position (protection activates anyway and you loose one charge)
- who cares, whether you turn your back to an enemy tank (Trophy deals with it)
- don't combine a infantry squad and a tank in urban area to cover each other. If one of those charges goes off, it 'shoots like a shotgun' towards the missile. Don't be the guy covering that direction.
- if you have a infantry squad surrounding a tank (standard for my missions) good luck with sneaking to it, to place a charge without alarming anyone.
- ways to destroy a tank are limited to: spam rockets in a big battle until he is out of protection. -> letting a single squad deal with it becomes 'impossible'. (but is an essential part of a lot of missions)
Just to mention the price we pay. This feature is only useful when you have a tankbattle e.g 6v6 and don't want a tank to be destroyed after the first critical hit. Like World of tanks.
the video in the description (unfortunately pretty trashy) shows a 'simulation' of a rpg-like weapon fired at a tank from a distance of about 50m (in the russian video maybe 100), so if it were implemented realistically, that feature would make tank commanders pull out insane manouvers through cities and probably no combined-arms oriented clan would use them, because they just ruin the tension.
The ammo would need to be Extremely limited to not make it overpowered (2 rounds max).
the charge should be an option anyway, and the 'overwhelming with rockets' is just ... that doesn't work. Imagine, you need to tell the AI to do so, or you and your friends need to carry four rocket launchers to cover that scenario. I personally prefer a tank to be vulnerable, if put into wrong use.
if it had something like a 20% chance of success maybe.
not a fan of that ...
- how would you be able to destroy a stationary tank?
- The crew could be driving through urban areas without any worries. 'Nice' in reality, but not in arma.
put one enemy tank in a mission, and you couldn't win anymore.
please don't make a tank immune to everything.
Dammit! This is supposed to be a Simulation, not the freakin' matrix XD
why are there so many comments, that sound like the author didn't read at least the first ones.
I thought the solution Kumeda posted in the 2nd comment already solved it. At least for me it did.
"Maybe another option instead of blurring vision in exhausted state would be reducing saturation of the image instead (but not to full greyscale!). I think this could work because less saturation will make spotting possible enemy threads harder as well but without losing the general sharpness.."
the other option (fade to black) sounded good, too.
What's so bad about it?
please do the devs a favor and read others opinions before posting, or this issue will get too confusing. Most of the time you can simply agree to others, because nearly all possibilities have already been mentioned.
I agree to all who said: "decrease Saturation and/or brightness instead of blurr",
but giving each player a choice between those two, would be best ;)
same problem here, but I really don't see, why this is supposed to be major Severity and high priority.
when you have loaded the map and walked around a bit, this message appears once, and after ignoring it, you are good to go.
this error will probably be fixed soon enough anyway. Who cares now if there is some window without a texture?
You make it sound like the whole game crashed.
I am using FreeTrackNoir with my webcam, and it works ok. Why would you need a kinect interface, when arma already provides support for TrackIR and FreeTrackNoir??
Doesn't make any sense.
by the way, I have a feeling that freetrack works a lot better with arma 3 than it did with arma 2. Maybe it is because of some FreeTrack update, I don't know.
This is caused by wrong texture mapping on the terrain.
you should rename this issue something like "wrong texture mapping with terrain quality on high or above" (low and standard work well)
The glitch only occurs on ground textures, as far as I know, especially noticeable when the polygon is viewed on a low/high angle and therefor most likely, when you get prone.
But there might be a connection with the rendering of clouds (described in this issue #0000567 , since their mapping is messed up as well).
You can temporarily fix it, by setting the terrain quality to low or standard, but I doubt it will take that long to patch, once the devs noticed.
good issue. +1
I hope this won't be too difficult to tweak. Adding random color variation of trees, or fading from dark (lower half) to bright (upper half) might already improve their quality significantly.
actually I like the current style a lot (on sunny days, of course). Maybe you can increase the shadow distance a bit? Shadow is very important to get a nice Render of the trees.
Maybe it's just my personal preference, though.
strange. I thought, "bullet through objects" was not implemented yet. I remember shooting an enemy through a wall with a full 30 rounds magazine and he didn't even noticed.
I am sure, I hit him, because he was looking through the wall.
so maybe you can also fix the "bullet block" value of buildings, while you're at it, Mr Zeloran? I will test is again in a moment to make sure I'm not talking nonsense now.
still can't shoot through walls. Can't shoot through anything. Except for Window Frames.
if I am lucky the shot goes through the Frame, but anything else seems to be absolutely bulletproof.
@Ruthberg Yes I saw that video before posting this issue. maybe I should be more precise to explain what I want.
- I totally see a "got-hit-animation". how does the victim react to the first shot? He crouches. Not because of the bullets mass, but the shock and the pain obviously. In arma I thought it could be simulated by either a hit-animation or Ragdoll (only if the character was actually injured).
hit animation would probably be better in that case.
the ragdoll however has a different advantage:
2: when a soldier gets shot in his leg/foot, it doesn't matter, which kaliber it was. He will go down. When the animation is a Ragdoll with a "fake" impact force, it should help the model to fall into the right direction.
In the video the next thing the victim does is run away, but our soldier should instinctively do something else. I mean he should go prone. The Ragdoll would hopefully make it look like an uncontrolled "go prone", when tweaked a bit.
I should have deleted that Line with "the first 9mm hit on the soldiers vest throws him backwards/on the ground"
because it is not supposed to "throw" him at all. As said: "No Hollywood flying though, please.". I just had some trouble uploading and didn't read the final version through, sorry.
unfortunately the controlled animation would fit the chest-, while the Ragdoll would fit the Legscenario and we probably can't have both.
@PvtDancer I dont see the calculation as a big problem, because it already is implemented (at least the functionality). you can see that scenario when a soldier gets hit by a car. It is the same thing. Speed and angle of the car are influencing the ragdoll. A bullethit is calculated, too, because there is a difference between regions of impact (e.g. head- and legshot). Car-collision = bullet-collision, just with much less impact. The only thing BI might need to do extra is a CPU version of the calculations they run on the GPU for the car-soldier-impact (I'm just guessing the calculations are done in GPU right now, only BI can say for sure).
@TTc30 it is not supposed to knock you down when get hit in the chest (sorry I explained it that bad). I am currently more annoyed of the lack of emotions, when a soldier gets wounded and because he doesn't fall when I shot his leg with a rifle. BI probably thought: "leginjury is not lethal -> Soldier may live", but they didn't implement a proper reaction (not blaming them). Now I think you could quite easily fake a dramatic scene, by using the same thing they did with car ramming. When you get knocked over by a car, you "ragdoll" down, but don't necessarily die. After the fall, the character should just switch to prone.
Did I make my point a bit clearer? What do you think?
voted up. I think, it should be part of the default soldiers equipement, so a soldier doesn't need to think about that issue.
Any Soldier should have them by default, but making it optional could result in a more enthralling gameplay in rescue missions, when the hostage does not have them.
in that case, earplugs could maybe become a valuable Item and having them would definitely not hurt the game.
- he still lives
- but still, he falls on the ground
I would implement it in arma like:
Whenever you get injured by a bullet, fall on the ground with RagDoll.
After 1 second switch to prone (already implemented with "run over by car", I guess).
it would be WAY better, than what we have now. Usually people fall, when they get shot and it doesn't matter, if they still live. There are plenty of videos out there.
Imagine, you are patrolling with some friends, you hear a snap, and "ragdll" to the ground. wouldn't that be much more thrilling than a look to the sky, or a red flash? Same goes for the AI, if they are hit.
please consider my suggestion.
I highly doubt, that will be done (and I don't want it either).
- if a Soldier moves from one Waypoint to another, and there is a Rock in between, he would disappear into that rock, if you are closing in at the wrong time.
- those simulations you are talking about, would probably need a full recoding of Arma's Multiplayer Framework (this will most DEFINITELY not happen)
- I like my 1500m shots.
- If you need a TotalWar Mission with 500 Soldiers on the other side of the map, the task is up to YOU (the Mission Creator) to manage those soldiers using the given scripting features. You need to come up with your own simulation, of how the Soldiers should behave, if the Player is, let's say, 1500m away. That can be done already.
May 9 2016
under some circumstances this glich/bug makes a normal rifle more useful than the 9DAR underwater gun.
Must be fixed before any underwater pvp action can start, although issues like 0004203 or 0000678 should have an even higher Priority.
wanted to report the same Issue so here is my Information
Steps to reproduce
- go into editor
- add a diver (player) and another soldier (e.g. Rifleman)
- additionally you can add a diver in the water to search for
- take the other soldiers Rifle
- go into the water (you need to have a diver for that) until the character is swimming.
- aim at the water surface (from below or top works either way)
- water surface is not being rendered and uncovers underwater landscape
my GPU is now a gtx 660 ti
but it also occurred with Radeon HD 5770 that I used earlier
Extra note: that xRay scan area hides insects but not fishes or birds
Game Version 0.5.102571
I hope it doesn't matter too much, how many votes those issues get, while BIS could be planning to change/switch the flight model anyway.
Making this issue more distinctive, might let the votes it got become invalid.
Best thing to do would probably be to get a short answer from the Dev-Team about what their plans are in issue #0002192 and close this one here.
I just see this issue as something, that doesn't need so many votes. It either gets changed or not, but after all I don't know how the Devs are coordinating this Project.
Is there a chance to get some short official info in either issue? Would be nice.
thx johncage I saw it just now.
with that as a fact, nobody cares, how many votes those issues are getting, right?
I tried to recreate the error, but couldn't.
The savegames I have uploaded do not work anymore with the latest build (error : wrong version).
I've checked about 5-6 new autosaves, and all worked fine.
However, I wasn't able to recreate the error more then once, when the bug was active, too. No way for me to find out if it was fixed or not.
I've used the new dev build 0.53.103754
I just got the same error.
I was playing the Vehicle showcase and got the error after reloading the autosave.
It was the first autosave, after I stole the Vehicle.
I manually saved once before (before assaulting the 1. base).
played on elite (only 1 save allowed I guess?)
It was the first time i reloaded that file.
Arma 3 Alpha 0.5.102571
one mod installed (a german texture for rifleman)
(was running fraps in background, but not recording)
System: Windows 7 x64
I have uploaded my RPT, the failed autosave and additionally my manual savefile
It's the autosave_error.zip
I've uploaded a second package after the same error occurred again.
only file missing is the DxDiag.txt I forgot. if necessary I can send it too, but personally I doubt, it would help in this case :(
the game crashed again after while trying to load the first autosave of Vehicle Showcase.
I basically sneaked into the base, not killing that many enemies (3 or 4 maybe)
and I ran one over with the vehicle
when trying to reload autosave, the Loading screen showed and about 2 seconds later it crashed to desktop.
also, if you change your stance with 'X'. you switch to primary weapon, change stance and then switch back to binoculars. Very annoying.
I am using a GTX 660 Ti as well, but I have never seen that glich, as you described.
Just wanted to add, that this might be caused by something else than the Graphics card.
since you say it occures always, you might want to add some screenshots and check the RPT File for errors, that look helpful.
I am sure, with the current amount of Information you provide, devs will not be able to fix this Issue.