- User Since
- Apr 3 2013, 11:27 PM (420 w, 15 h)
May 10 2016
Coordinates, building IDs, etc. would be appreciated and make this much easier to reproduce.
I disagree. I feel like such a system would actually be less intuitive while removing useful features of the current implementation.
Persistent bullet holes would be neat, but depending on the some low-level engine details something like this would be non-trivial to implement technologically, and could possibly take significant art asset creation.
That being said, more battlefield persistence is always better in my book, and anything that could be done to improve that (even if it's just increasing the number of possible visible bullet holes and the duration of the applied effect) would be welcome.
Looks like I borked the issue links, they lead to entirely unrelated ones. Should be issue 0000225 and 0005832 respectfully.
A fine idea. As a suggestion for an implementation that uses the current infrastructure as much as possible, perhaps a new waypoint type PATH_OVERRIDE that tells the AI to follow the line drawn from the previous waypoint exactly? Of course, if you tried to path an AI through a building or tried to do this with a group of units, you would run into issues, but that should be obvious to the user from the preconditions of using the waypoint.
Obviously, a more elegant UI would be better of course, but that would be a good quick and dirty way to implement it that would be useful for mission makers.
Crawling prone is a completely different beast from crawling on your hands and knees and requires a good deal more bodily strength to be able to do well.
My guess is that part of the reason why its low priority is because its for all intents and purposes, solved to an effective and relatively elegant level by the community already. Why waste resources on something the community can easily do instead of working on engine features that are difficult or impossible for the community to implement?
(That being said, I'd love to see this natively in-game too provided it doesn't co-opt something more interesting)
I had a crash once involved with facetrack noir 1.7 where Arma3 would continually CTD if it wasn't running until I started the game with it running and disabled all the associated controllers (including the emulated joysticks). The game would start normally after that.
Possibly related to others problems?
@ShotgunSheamuS That entirely depends on how you play the game! For those of us who enjoy playing tactical co-op, getting shot generally means at best a 30 minute stint out of the action as you have to be transported back to the action and then walk the rest of the way, and that's assuming the mission allows respawns! In such a situation where dying really sucks, you learn to fear and respect incoming fire and extra suppression effects would only serve to break immersion and add unneeded mechanical effect.
Of course, Arma is a lot of different things to a lot of different people (hence the bitter debates on almost every feature request) but this is a feature that runs contrary to many people's experiences and is satisfactorily handled by the modding community for those that wish to implement it.
The problem I have with suppression effects is that it it's a mechanic that should be unnecessary if the player is taking effective suppressing fire. The effect of it is entirely psychological and forcing the player to take mechanical effects when the game already fairly accurately simulates those psychological effects is redundant.
Getting shot at doesn't impact your aim, it does however think twice before popping out of cover to take a shot. It also heavily discourages you from moving the element (which if the enemy force is smart will exploit that to send another element to flank you).
Think of it this way, if your squad's enjoyment of Hiking Simulator 2013 gets interrupted by enemy fire, you're not going to just sit in the middle of the road or continue on the same path you were before. You will stop and take defensive positions. This is suppression.
As an outsider to this debate not particularly caring one way or another, I would like to say that neither side has presented compelling evidence from a reliable academic source, and in particular, the burden of doing so should be on the ones proposing the change.
Easy to implement this for players, but then you have to modify AI routines so they don't walk blindly into the rotors which I've seen happen in Ace. (Nothing ruins a good 2 hour rescue/escort mission like your charge walking face first into the extraction chopper rotor).
Additionally, easily implementable by the community.
May 9 2016
Confirmed. Was about to post this before I remembered to search for it. Reposting my writeup below for extra information since I've already written it anyway.
Description: Smoke emitted by smoke grenades passes through building walls unimpeded, allowing smoke to billow out the sides of buildings or into other rooms and vice versa.
Steps to reproduce: Spawn a soldier at 3010,6028 at grid 030060 facing azimuth 175 with smoke grenades in Agina Marina using the editor. Throw one of the smoke grenades next to a building wall either inside or outside and watch it billow out the other side. This works on other buildings as well, but this one has convenient large windows.
Add. Information: My gut programmer intuition tells me this is likely unfixable (at least not without a big performance hit or significant work), but reported for completeness.
While technically this would be a purely aesthetic feature, it's an aesthetic feature that has some rather unfortunate implications if not included. Arma2 had the excuse of women ostensibly being disbarred from the front lines at the time of release; not including this feature in Arma3 would strike a more sour note in both the general gaming public and the press.