Sounds related to this:

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=19263

"What also happens: If you use iron sight, the shaking animation of the rifle will start to go really fast [...]"

Yes, I'm running some mods. Ticket updated with latest rpt.

Tried with all mods deactivated, but problems persists.
By the way, there should be a way to enable/disable multiple addons at the same time, for example through selecting. Manually disabling all these addons and now enabling them all again one after another, not fun to do.

See this ticket: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=19301

Updated with crashdump files. See attached .rar file.

Do you need all the files from this folder?

same thing here, it's always something, this is unbelievable...

what can one say to that...

and now that you know what i'm talking about (the not reappearing, one time welcome screen), you may recall, that its background actually was spinning, and if you want to read the whole introduction from top to bottom, you will most likely get dizzy as i got.

and since i felt, that this kind of totally unlogical design of UI was representational for many things that are wrong within arma, namely a total lack of understanding, how to make a game accessible and fluent to play, i posted this ticket. another good example is the missing play button for the campaign, they keep on doing the same kind of unneccessary mistakes, that just annoy people for no reason, since OPF. take the action menu, it hasn't changed for 10 years and is the same shit as it has ever been. they don't change it, because they don't understand, no one else would do that to potential customers, because you want to design a game in a way, that the program doesn't get between you and the gameplay, right?

"this may be the worst and most idiot ticket i have seen [...]"

i'm starting to think the real troll here is you.
on the other hand...maybe it's just the unusual amount of bugginess in this game, that seems to attract the unusual amount of buggy brains like yours...(i'm calling you stupid).

for all others, just to clarify, i'm talking about the one time welcome screen, that appears when you first launch arma, after the campaign has downloaded. it will only appear once after the update.

since the ticket was born from my feelings and thoughts, i felt offended.

i really don't care about how big they are, i just care about how they look and you don't need to push your face to the ground to notice that they are low res. and in a game, where you spent loads of time in the dirt, these textures really are annoying to me. and how do you defend the low res first person player model, or the constant flickering and on/off popping? you can't just keep arguing with the huge open world that arma delivers, if a developer wants to do such a game, great, but you have to deliver quality. if you're not capable of doing the job right, don't do it. i can't throw a broken product on the market and defend myself with how hard it is to do it right, it's not free 2 play, people pay money for this product.

if you kindly would take a look at my other tickets, you may notice i actually tried to deliver actual feedback until now. but you may consider that carefully taken steps, just to make this trolling ticket today...seriously, this community needs to learn how to take criticism to the game, what's up with that...even someone like dyslecxi started to rant out about what's still wrong with arma in his video about the action menu, of course, nobody dared to call him a troll. But thanks anyway Dr.Death, you made me had a laugh at least^^

@AD2001
take a look at the ground textures or at your own player model, i think they are really low res, how come you think they look good? Not to mention the flickering and on/off popping all the time. But anyway, not about that here.

what is wrong with the textures and the lighting you ask, well, i suggesst you LOOK at them, and then you tell me. Anyway, this ticket is not about that. Or maybe it is. Maybe it's about everything that's wrong with arma. But in the first place, it's about the welcome screen causing motion sickness. The story? Alright, i'll tell it, but not now. I need to figure out how to start that campaign without the play button...

As mentioned above " [...] all menus (showcases, scenarios) have a "play" button. Why should the campaign menu not have one ?" doesn't take a monkey to understand THAT, does it...

wow, just...wow...this game really tries hard not to be played.

i guess hitboxes for the rocks are too big.

upvoted. but grenade throwing really was shitty in arma 2, a lot of people still seem to confuse reality with clunky controls.

i don't know why they do it, but it sure looks stupid. here's a ticket dealing with it (on guns): http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=6326

alright. thx. @ mods: feel free to close.

agree. but that has already been adressed in a different ticket.

why would anyone vote that down? if you want to keep playing with outdated graphics, go reinstall operation flashpoint. but don't ruin this for everyone else.

exactly, this is why it looks so bad in first person.

same thing here

lol, arma - the akwardness simulator

yeah, the video is not in favor of the suggestion, but the idea itself: Upvoted.

indeed. sry, i searched before reporting but couldn't find anything.
the bug tracker system is as clunky as the arma series itself...

like so many things...

i didn't vote, because this is too general for the bug tracker.

but i'm dissapointed with the clunkyness and ai behaviour too (and the graphics, and the sound and the bugs ...) yeah, it's better than arma 2, but still not good enough.

but i have no hope whatsoever that this will be fixed until this game gets a new engine and a bigger development team. let's hope they make some decent money with arma 3, so that arma4 can finally be the arma that lives up to our expectations.

"Bohemia's excellent graphics artists" by this definition i should find some excellent graphics in this game...which of i course i don't...which is a shame...really a shame...

then add the hitbox in a way it doesn't do damage to vehicles driving over them. it looks ugly and it destroys immersion.

@plutoto74 @Raoul1234

agree with you too.

on topic: upvoted. need this!

that. it's okay you can't reload a launcher on the go. but there's no reason to take control away from me and just freeze the player while reloading.

exactly, the combined arms showcase. but this behaviour can be discovered on any map or mission, it think it is present since operation flashpoint. that's for more than 10 years, i guess somebody at bohemia thinks, this is really a good idea. can't explain it any other way, for all i know, they do play their own game.

upvoted. totally annoying and redundant behaviour, why would anyone program a game like that, what does that have to do with realism? this made me so angry just yesterday, that i just alt+f4 the game, after i fired a rocket at a vehicle, wanted to take cover while reloading, couldn't and died.

who would vote that down for heavens sake? whats wrong with people?

upvoted. shoreline itself is just ugly btw...

upvoted. even if not super important. but these little details do break immersion. and after all, if i can't have some decent next generation graphics and sound, at least i want some f** bullets in my magazine.

his video pretty much speaks my mind. makes you wonder though, why people have to rub bohemias nose into it. everyone else immidiately sees how shitty and annoying this system is just by playing the game. the devs should have been the first to notice that years ago...

@ twistking

yep. already voted that up. ingame UI in arma really needs loads of improvement

thx, taking screenshots worked, so i added some.

i wish i knew myself. i just get a black picture, whenever i try to alt+print and then insert into paint. same thing if i try to configure taking screenshots in arma with a different key combination. the screenshot is always just black.

as i wrote:

@Fireball

mis-feature seems a pretty good description for this.

thx, will try that.

if so, it doesn't give me the impression of it. i find it rather irritating and apparently it leads people to think, that something is wrong with the game. in real life i don't wonder about something like this. so if it is really lensflare, it should be modified in a way, that people recognize it as such. i opened an issue on this bug tracker because of it, don't think that's the goal...

no, it's definitely not only the sunflare. Look how the lighting on the ground and rocks etc also changes.

@ FeralCircus
ah damn, i was afraid someone would come up with this.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

Let me explain again:

As soon as the sun is out of screen (viewport), the light emitted from the sun disappears. It is like the game thinks "okay, if the player doesn't see the sun anymore, there is no sun, thus there is no light"). Of course, not all light disappears, but the change in lighting is significant.

Also, if it was simulating your pupils, your eyes would adapt after a while, which they do not. The scene just gets darker immidiateley. You can do this over and over again very fast, and the effect is exactly the same, in real life your eyes don't adapt that fast.

The point is, in real life, the lighting is not depended on wether the lightsource is looked at or not, if i look away from the sun, of course there are no blinding effects etc, but the light emitted onto the world is the same, which, at the moment in arma, it is not.

@mwnciboo

of course i don't expect BIS to fully reveal their technology, but with other engines like with frostbite, at least we know such things like the middleware they use for lighting.

and as i said, when there's almost no information about the technology used, how can we know, that the engine is not capable of doing bettter? for the new sky in arma3, BIS even used a middleware, we know that, not sure anymore what the name was (the one from take on helicopters). i wish there was more information like this. but you're right, i don't have any experience in game development, so maybe i'm not seeing what others may do just by looking at the game and its files.

@ MadDogX and others

before i try to be more specific with the title of this ticket, or i open another ticket considering the lighting, like suggested, would it even make sense at all? because if as many say, the engine is not capable of doing better than now, there can't be anything done about it, until a new engine will be rebuildt from scratch anyway.

@mwnciboo

i heard many people say that it's an engine limitation by now, but when i tried to get some decent information about armas engine, there's almost no information. so how do people know it's an engine limitation?

@metalcraze

because battlefield does not pursue an authentic graphic style like arma does. they use color filters and exaggerated post processing in bf3. frostbite could do way better.
concerning hardware power, i think you can produce very realistic looking scenes by now,just look at this screenshot from a crysis mod from 2008: http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,647910/Ultra-realistic-forests-in-Crysis-new-texture-mod-in-the-works/Imagegallery/&article_id=647910&image_id=839717&show=original

i thinks this already looks very convincing and it's 5 years old.

@armapirx

even though i agree with you, for me graphics are not only important for tactics, but in a simulation like arma, i'd love to be as immersed as possible, and thats where convincing graphics play a major role, besides sound and gameplay.

@MadDogX

i agree, that this formulation is a bit broad, but there seem to be many things, among some things that were already mentioned in this thread, that i would consider part of lighting. should it be broken down into single issues with tickets for their own? like e.g light shining through objects or objects not producing shadows, or textures not reflecting light realistically etc?

hm, maybe you're even right at some point.
also i just thought again and noticed, it might as well be the textures causing me to think, that lighting is bad, because they don't really give the feeling of beeing a real surface, like they don't reflect the existing light realistically enough. but then again, i count that and shadows to be a part of lighting.
also, if you turn your head around in game, you'll notice the lighting tends to shift very unsmooth.

But i still don't understand, why decent middleware solutions can't be integrated into the existing engine. after all, even cry and frostbite were not really re developed from scratch i guess, they just modified and buildt on what they already had. and i don't understand why this can't be done with armas engine. but then again, i'm not a developer, maybe we really have to wait for a complete new engine, which would be sad, because this would be a long way to go.

I never said the engine was bad and as i said, i know it's a sandbox game, i know that. it's huge, really. but i don't know, what that has to do with graphics? as i said, if it's just a performance thing, put them in ultra settings, where's the problem.
and have i seen the future? yes i have, and i have seen the past, this is a crysis mod from 2008: http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,647910/Ultra-realistic-forests-in-Crysis-new-texture-mod-in-the-works/Imagegallery/&article_id=647910&image_id=839717&show=original

and this is the future: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8HVQXkeU8U&feature=player_embedded

now you saw it too. and note aside, cod hasn't really looked good again after cod 2...

I'm sorry, but i can't share your opinion.
Unfortunately, whenever i try to take a screenshot i just get black, so i can't show you what i mean on a picture.

But look at a container or hesco standing on the ground for example, look at how it looks somehow flat and seems to float over the ground because of the weak lighting.
Compare arma 3 lighting to frostbite engine 2-3 and cryengine 2-3, if they had arma's authentical graphics style, they would be able to produce much more convincing scenes.

what does "need more info" mean? should i put more info into the description?

lol

yeah, sometimes i see them taking cover behind corners of buildings for example, but then again, they run around like headless chickens not caring about cover at all. Also i'd really like to see them behaving more like a team, helping each other out, carrying wounded away etc...

upvoted. this bug got me killed several times now...

i guess it is better to show the developers that there is interest for implementation while the game is still in development, than to find out it won't be supported later.

also, for 3d vision to really work properly, the devs need to add support from their side i guess, i don't think it's just a driver issue that could be solved by nvidia alone.

besides that, a 3d vision request for arma 3 already was posted on the nvidia forums, but not much going on there:
https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/534662/arma-3-alpha-not-even-close-to-working-in-3d/

concerning ground texture resolution, i made a ticket for it here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11850

"ArmA 3 "close-up" ground textures looks amazing "
excuse me, but where do the ground textures look amazing? they are low resolution and look flat.

upvoted. to hell with those ugly stencil shadows. bring this game to 2013 :)

upvoted. and while talking physx: with physx already available, it shouldn't be too hard to make branches able to be shot off during firefights, or am i wrong?

also shooting at those grainy shadows (on trees) produces bright spots on them: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11969

upvoted. calling for a medic never really works

I want this badly, too. But this game will never work in VR, they don't event get it up running properly in 2D. Palmer Luckey doesn't get tired to emphasize, that it's not enough to just port a game to VR, in order to work in VR, it has to be designed with VR in mind in the first place. Now look at the glitchy, buggy mess, that is arma 3. You'll most likely puke, if you have all these glitches, texture popping, bugs and whatnot right into your face. And most important: It has to run with at least 60fps and vsync, i fear the day that arma 3 will run that smooth will never come. Also, there are over 8.000 open issues on the tracker, that are waiting to get fixed, they will need YEARS for that. Never ever will they be able to make this game work with VR in time. I just hope someone else will come along, and make a decent military sim for VR. But for all i know, it most likely won't be BI.

also for VR, a higher resolution first person player model would have been great. unfortunately my feature request for that was closed with a sloppy comment by a dev. thanks BI for taking paying customers who take their time to suggest improvements seriously. http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11844

you mean it makes YOU sick.

@ St. Jimmy

where? at E3? what did he say?

@ shole
you wouldn't be surprised? the consumer version will DEFINITELY be 1080p at least, they never get tired of emphasizing this. atm the availabe rift is a DEV KIT. visit their website, all the information is there.

any new information on this after e3?

still doesn't work in beta...

Upvoted. 3D Vision Support, or stereoscopic rendering support in general, would be awesome.

issue still there, still gets me killed on a frequent basis. still frustrating.

@ShotgunSheamuS

" if it does get implimented, please do so that will benefit all users equally regardless of their choice to what brand GPU, or TV/Monitor they have, and also minus any additonal accessories. "

arma 3 also has 5.1 surround sound support, by your logic it should not be implemented, because some users only have a stereo setup. you just can't benefit all users equally. and besides that, ati/amd has the most shitty s3d support ever, i don't even know why their are spending their time on it anyway, if they do it so half-hearted. "gaming evolved" for sure. so anyone who is really interested in s3d has 3d vision anyway. the only thing i agree upon is, if you play on a 3d tv, then there should be the possibility to use formats like side by side, in order to use your tv's glasses.

full ack @RickOShay

@GepardenK

absolutely, thanks for your addition.

i'd like to see the option to first bring up the grenade in your hand by pressing "g" (or whatever you prefer) and then be able to throw it by first pressing and holding and then releasing the left mouse button.

that way you could aim much better and also, by holding the left mouse button for a certain amount time before releasing, you could adjust how much force you want to use to throw it.

upvoted. this is just annoying, ugly and unnecessary.