- User Since
- Jun 24 2013, 8:41 PM (325 w, 5 d)
May 10 2016
I just noticed it a minute ago. Just wanted to report it.
Actually I didnt buy the supporter edition. It is under the "Special Thanks" section of the credits. The thing is, I looked around the whole internet to find another SgtHannes, but I think im the only one :D
Same goes for the Government / Office buildings in Pyrgos and Kavala. That just cant be.
Just a question. How do you know those are AT missiles? Maybe they are intended to be AA. On the other hand, most BMP's and BMD's have At missiles......
"Right now the Panther feels like a toy..." Nah, dont overexagerate. It's just a bit too small. I do want this fixed however ^^
I think the Namer ist even based on the Merkeva chassis. Basically, nothing about the 3D model has to be changed in the 3D program itself. Only the size of the model in relation to the game engine has to be changed. I hope its as simple as it sounds.
Well.....very hard to decide weather I should vote up or down... I do see a small size difference. It's not really that important, but im gonna vote up since it should be 1:1 in size. A good orientation for the developers would be the lamps. The lamps should be the height of a human head (as seen in the picture)
I personally think its a waste of time. It would add no real/noticable effect at all, nomatter what counter argument you may have.
I would have nothing against this being implemented. All I'm saying is that I think its a little too late at this developements state. It would have even been too late in the alpha version. I'm not a Dev, but I'm confident that it would be alot of work to actually curve the map (is that what your saying?). The Dev's have ALOT of other things to do as the release nears.
Im just trying to see this realistically.
Absolutely unecessary feature at this point and I would imagine it would be alot of work for the Dev's. For A future ArmA game....maybe.
No I havnt. We will see what the devs say to this thread.
Its not going to happen in time for release (100% sure about that). So, if it will ever happen, its gonna come with an after-release patch. In my oppinion, this feature will never be implemented (this is what I think. Its just a feeling).
So, are you saying that its possible for the Dev's to implement it before release?
Raoul, it is simply not needed - its uncessesary. And I promise you, unlike games like planetside 2 you wont notice it that much. In Planetside 2, there are alot of colerfull particle effects, but in a game like arma 3, you woudnt have that "wow" effect. I dont know if you where talking about fluid simulation, but fluid simulation takes an extreme amount of hardware power.
Ok, you will not start insulting me, have you understood? I probably play this franchise longer than you, and I have been engaged in this community for years, so I dont have to live with some newbie coming about and insulting me.
Back on topic:
APEX PhysX also is somewhat unfair to the people with AMD GPU's. Although there is no real gameplay advantage, it is nice to run it on the Graphics Card. Especially in a game like ArmA, where there is already enough strain on the CPU. Not to forget, in ArmA 3 there are already new particle effects that are handled by the Processor.
Very unecessary. Yes, it would be nice but the Dev's have a ton of other and more important things to focus on. Also, there will be no Nimitz class in 2035 but most likely its follow-up series (forgot the name). Modders will make an aircraft carrier for sure.
I really really really agree with you. Its pretty much ported from arma 2. This is a dirgrace to the rest of the ArmA 3 vehicles.
Good idea, nothing speaking against that in my view.