- User Since
- Jun 21 2013, 1:22 AM (309 w, 3 d)
May 10 2016
How exactly does one change the severity and priority? I thought that was reserved for developers and moderators....
Kind of asking for the world here, especially with how late in development this game is in.
Also there *is* going to be a guerrilla faction, which is why the Tavor rifles are present but unused. There is also plenty of evidence for a police force being planned. Whether these replace the "insurgent/insurrectionists" usually found under their respective BLUFOR/OPFOR tags, or will be completely separate forces remain to be seen.
Needless to say, please do some research before making a ticket. Not trying to be rude or anything, but a lot of these "asking for everything" type requests do nothing but make developers take longer to find an issue that's actually problematic.
There are "less lethal" alternatives.
That being said, the entire purpose of a mine is to be frustratingly lethal. It can be used as a method to prevent players from moving into areas that the level designer doesn't need/want the player to go through.
As long as the designer makes it obvious enough that there are mines, I see no problem with how mines are currently implemented.
Yes, the waypoint is very much attached.
What I found peculiar is that when one plays as commander of the group, the vehicle connected to the "get in" waypoint does not show up in the commands menu as an option to use the "board" command with. It's as if the vehicle is "off limits", despite it being unlocked and large enough to transport the entire group. One can interact with it through the scroll menu (so I can board it and drive it myself), but not through the commands menu.
The mathematics involved in completing such a feat would consume a gigantic amount of processes, of which there would be minimal gain (if any) in terms of gameplay.
Keeping things on a flat plane reduces a lot of unnecessary calculations. That being said, if the maps of Altis and Stratis were to be combined into a gigantic 600 km^2 region, then the need for such a feature might be needed. However, the current draw distance (that the game engine allows) is too short to allow the player to view the curvature of the Earth, even if their altitude was high enough to see such a thing in real life.
This would be very useful for mission campaigns where one can see buildings destroyed from missions previous.
Asking for a bit much here. Dev's are probably overloaded by doing tasks like designing interiors alone..... asking for an entire map to be ported over would be a task that would (realistically) set BiS back to Q2 2014 if they were to seriously tackle it.
One of the few times I'll actually say this, but I think it would be appropriate for the modding community to take care of a task of this nature. Heck, if I'm not mistaken, they've already begun such a process. Might even already be done.
Although the sarcastic/sardonic/satiric nature of this post probably will not please the majority of the community (or the moderators), I do agree that the stamina rates should be fixed. Running 60 meters should not trigger the low stamina visual, and I feel that a lot of people will not have such a negative opinion towards the low stamina visual if it's effects weren't triggered so frequently.
That being said, I like the low stamina effect in itself, because it is an effective way at making the player aware of things that usually only the character could be aware of. After a solid minute of pulsating grey screen, I feel like shit just as much as the character probably does. It just doesn't need to be tripped up after what's more or less a brisk jog.
Personally, I think it should start after the player runs a non-stop distance the equivalent of 3/4ths the airstrip (however long that is), but that's the call of the game designers.
Helicopters are no different from other vehicles. Just because a missile hits the vehicle doesn't mean it should blow up immediately (if at all).
Good design of a vehicle is whether or not the crew makes it out alive (or at least lives long enough to die hitting the ground, in the case of the helicopter).
Ah! And you are correct! It even retains the facial features as well. Would be very odd to see a person of Chinese descent as an Iranian combatant. I will again update this ticket, thanks to your clarification!
I thought it was a US/UK NATO group.
That being said, one could say that the UK invested in some patrol vessels from Sweden or Germany.
I thought NATO had maritime units, why specifically does the USMC and USN need to be involved?
Keep in mind there is a difference between Silenced and Suppressed.
Weapons that truly are "James Bond/COD" quiet generally have an ultra effective suppressor that is engineered for that weapon, and even integrated into its design (MP5SD).
The kinds of supressors that have been included in Arma 3 (so far) are supposed to be interchangeable, and thusly are not engineered specifically for any one weapon, so they won't be as effective.
Not sure if you are implying mine is a copy or not. That being said, your ticket does better illustrate the problem at hand.
No worries, I don't expect everyone to be well versed in every single subject.
That being said, you are correct and I should change it to a general health issue.
Not only is it a health issue, but one literally can't see a damn thing with it. It whites out the *entire* field of vision when the flash occurs.
There are varying states of epilepsy. Some folks trigger more from sounds than vision. For some it takes a very strong pattern to trigger, while others may not take much.
Some folks can and do play videogames because of this, but it is recommended that they don't. That being said, I wasn't aware/prepared for the screen-filling strobelight effect, and while I myself am not an epileptic, I do know that exposure to something as strong as what is shown above will cause some people real problems.
Amazing structure to your write-up! It details many problems I have seen, and many I never even noticed!
Please excuse any potential mis-use of the nomenclature, as some of this is new to me.
I myself have found lots of frustration in "dumb" ATGM's. When playing as a gunner for the Mi-48, I considered it a "game-over" scenario when I ran out of ammunition for the auto-cannon and guided/homing/FaF missiles. When using "aimed" missiles, the gunner is completely at the random whim of the pilot, and because of this it is completely impossible to line up a shot in a single-player setting. Similar problems occur with the "Ghost-hawk" gunship, as the pilot seems to prefer turning on the side opposite of the player/gunner. When the Ghost-hawk does maneuver in a manner beneficial to the player, velocity is not matched and the targets-of-opportunity speed past the player's FOV.
I have also found it immersion breaking to have vehicles that cannot possibly be in the LOS (either by weather conditions/draw-distance or by mere geography) be "called out/identified" from rather extreme distances. I have also observed that the pilot does not take waypoints into consideration for specifying targets, either. I have experienced helicopters engaging targets on the other side of the map (targets that are supposed to be engaged later on in the mission), instead of targets near a surrounding waypoint (a "search and destroy" waypoint, for example), simply because the targets being currently engaged are closer.
Cameras are currently a mess with both the Mi-48 and the Blackfoot. Both ships have their cameras placed "in" the auto-turrets. This isn't so much a problem with the Mi-48, but the Blackfoot suffers miserably as the muzzle-flash occupies the entire screen. This makes FLIR-WH an incredibly useless tool, as with every shot fired a brilliant flash of white obscures the entire screen, causing headaches and other (more serious) potential health concerns. FLIR-BH also suffers from the same flash problems, but it is not as prone to causing headaches.
Lastly, I have noticed that vehicles do not undergo a kind of "encumbrance", unlike human character models. A Ghost-hawk filled with passengers operates in the same manner as an emptied Ghost-hawk. I feel that adding weapon weights would possibly be going "overboard" with the flight model, but cargo like personnel should be considered.
Please forgive me if you have mentioned any of these, as there was a *lot* of things you covered in your original ticket! Thank you for taking your time to read this, and please go on ahead and modify your ticket if anything I provided was helpful!
I'll just leave this here......
@Raoul1234 Yeah I am aware it was a concept, but that doesn't mean that with the mythical future tech it couldn't be accomplished today. Plus, one must have a *little* suspension of disbelief with any video game.
What exactly do you hope to accomplish in abusing the Feedback Tracker? All this is going to do is result in getting a ban.
Although the thought and sentiment are well and good, please realize that this is for reporting bugs and the like. Messages of this nature do not actually help BiS in finding problems with the game.
You are absolutely right, modern tanks and apc's tend to be very conservative with their space, so it would be even less real estate to have to work on, as compared to the roomier light vehicles.
Seriously a must have. Right now, such a detail oversight is a legacy hold-over dating back to Arma II. I was surprised they released the beta without full 3D models for the interiors of these vehicles.
That they do. Retracting the eyepiece retraction is the easiest (and that usually means the best) fix, as no animation changes are needed and very little effort is required.
Thank you for having this issue fixed. If I had the ability to close my tickets, I would have done so when the fix was first applied.
Isn't all about the fact it's in the top 10. How long it remains there is a factor to possibly consider as well.
Get something like 100+ downvotes, someone will HAVE to acknowledge it.
Can confirm, this is indeed a problem. Lasers from other units are visible to me, suggesting that it is the AI that is unaware.
Confirmed. Even using the new module has a limited set of visual effects, none of which really work properly, and the AI seems focused on the player, despite the use of the "setTarget" module.
This PiP thing would be crazy great......if only it would *work*.
It would be nice to see, especially if BiS decides to stick with OPFOR's crazy looking HUD setup. Currently all scopes, binoculars, NV just get placed over the opaque eye pieces.
They certainly don't appear to be practical. Current vision modifying methods have the character model bring said object directly over the eyes.....where the obviously opaque HUD panels are.
This means the wearer must be getting whatever's on the panel through a video camera, and it's safe to assume its the camera located on the left "cheekbone" of the helmet. This means that instead of the stereoscopic vision (with the source located in front of the face)humanity regularly enjoys, for some inexplicable reason some handful of Iranian generals thought it would be a good idea to nix that evolutionary trait their soldiers have adjusted to (and used their entire lives) for a monoscopic view, located to the *side* of the face.
This would be utter hell for a human being to adjust to, with absolutely no benefit at all. The eyes are perfectly located on the head; move the head to the left or right and you still have an unobstructed cone of vision. However if you move that vision to the left side of your face, you will have an obstructed view every time you swivel your head to the right. It's like closing your left eye and focusing the right eye as far left as possible without moving your head. A fair amount of your vision will be obscured with your fuzzy nose on the left side. Same concept would apply here, only this time you would be your entire head obstructing your view, on the right.
The problems mentioned above are the tip of the iceberg if such a product were to exist, as these are serious impairments to basic motor-visual skills. Not to say there might be some trade-offs to be had. A visual system could be hooked up to weapons sights, making any "out of cover" exposure a non-issue. A camera filter would be all it would require to change one's vision to NV. Binoculars would be obsolete. Gyroscopes in the helmet could potentially turn any soldier into a controller for a turret, in a manner similar to how Apache pilot's operate.
That being said, if BiS seriously implemented any of these perks, OPFOR would be an unstoppable machine (as comfort and ergonomics don't matter to software). A simple revision of OPFOR's helmet cosmetics would be the least resource consuming method to solving the problem.
What exactly does "assigned" mean? Is it assigned to a person to be reviewed and thusly validated? Or has it already been validated, and someone is working on the solution?
because "Arma isn't SimCity"
I remember that I first got into FPS's on the PC and military games in general because of Sim City.
Every time I had a very complex city going on, I thought to myself: "Would be very cool to see a huge column of tanks just storm downtown....."
I am fairly certain any number of craft designed in a fashion similar to these would be perfect for the island setting.
I like the idea for a changing weather/climate system based around the seasons, as they already have something for phases of the moon in place.
That being said, Greece doesn't really get a lot of snow.......
However, I am aware that the community is at work with landmasses other than Greece, so I do see the purpose and use for such a system. The only problems would be anything concerning the "how" portion of implementation, and whether it would be worth it in the end.
How many people are working on A3, specifically the "requests"? How much processing power would seasonal conditions eat up? How long would it take to build/test/implement such a system? What potential bugs could erupt from seasons? How much editing and adjustments would have to be in place so that the simulation remains realistic? Would there have to be other unplanned skins/models/objects (think camos, vehicles with skis, water turning to ice) built in order for the AI and player to adapt to the environments?
I think it might be a bit much to request this late on in the development, but it could be an idea for a future expansion (or most likely the next engine).