metalcraze

Member
  • Content count

    5279
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

286 Excellent

6 Followers

About metalcraze

  • Rank
    First Lieutenant
  1. Yeah, in an article that is barely related to ArmA itself PC Gamer wrote a rather peculiar, if not outright ignorant, thing when discussing PUBG. The significance of it however can't be underestimated as it basically shows how mainstream press (especially ever ArmA-loving PC Gamer) and their target audience sees what ArmA has became thanks to efforts of the team that has taken over series for the past half-decade. " Battle Royale is a mod made for several open-world zombie survival games, first DayZ, then ARMA 3 and H1Z1. " You know you must be doing something very special when PCG can't even remember the name of a previous game in ArmA series and then calls ArmA3, well, what it really is thanks to all the butchering and removal of what was making it special over the past 4 years. When a character you play is a supersoldier that can do instant 360 spins while being able to carry a 100 kg loadout without ever breaking a sweat with the penalty of not sprinting (which is like... 18 kmph vs 15 kmph "difference") to fit the mindset of faceless, characterless, forever stuck in early-access, by-the-numbers "zombie survival" free-for-all deathmatch games - that's the treatment your game will get. Hey, but it's OK BIS, ArmA3 is still fairly on top of the charts - there are still a year or two (tops) left before the survival fad is over and maybe nobody will call ArmA3 - DayZ 2 by the time ArmA4 (or whatever it will get miscalled then) gets released and maybe there still will be people who will care enough to install 20 or 30 gigabytes of mods just to make ArmA play like one.
  2. malden dlc

    Even 12.5m is really bad in 2017 (and by the way OFP used subdivision to increase terrain detail nearby so it didn't look as bad but since ArmA1 we have terrain detail permanently locked to OFP's low setting). And even Tanoa doesn't hit a modern GPU in any way so a point about "smoother performance" is moot. ArmA3 terrain engine is so dated and low detailed - any mid-range GPU today eats it for breakfast. The point here is that the flat terrain is really really boring for the gameplay because with Malden's setting and with the way ArmA3 handles grass you may as well be playing in a flat desert. ArmA3 terrain engine with its non-existent ditches and ground cover is game's weakest point by far so why remake an old terrain and leave the glaring issue intact? Especially since Stratis exists for 4 years now and works like a charm performance wise
  3. malden dlc

    Why cellsize from 2001? It looks horrible. Stratis isn't much smaller than this and yet it has a 5 times more detailed terrain.
  4. Same game different title
  5. and then you realize you have to buy WW2 tanks separately... Almost as if it is some F2P game.... oh wait
  6. It's a good game and, finally, a true sequel to Faces of War instead of constant "mission packs" for the full price. Have it, plays a lot closer to the original game (Soldiers: HoWW2) with its smaller scale and thus less micro, which I personally like a lot. But I'm not sure about the inclusion of actiony-shooty-first-person-third-person... It's clear it will never be as good as it is in proper shooters without completely compromising the rest of the game, especially with a certain sad example from 2013 being in plain view here. And thus far controls are indeed pretty terrible so in many ways it gives you even less precision than "direct control" previously did. On the other hand strategy games where you can jump in and control whatever you like are extremely rare... So on the fence here. Wait for it to leave Early Access if you want to spend money, there's little content-wise in it except for the multiplayer which is completely free anyway. There's a US campaign but it's not finished and is constantly being changed thus ruining savegames, but a few missions I've played from it were good.
  7. Good to see that after 4 years of game development BIS still follows the stupid design of BALANCING NATO and CSAT both get stealth planes which are mechanically identical but cosmetically different, just like everything else in both vanilla game and expack. Let's not even start about the general idea of mixing old planes instead of using realistic super-modern prototypes. Because it would totally make sense that NATO will take F/A-18 and mix it with cancelled F-22 to produce something better. Is it so hard to make at least somewhat believable content after 4 years? At least something that would make nations half a world away from each other AT LEAST slightly different? Why is official content so boring? Gee it's as if ArmA4 will be better if BIS will not include anything but the toolbox and the engine into release and let modding scene provide actually good content - because that's how it is now.
  8. Future is when you take two old planes and mix them together.
  9. https://dev.withsix.com/projects/mikero-pbodll/files all the tools
  10. pbo is easily unpacked with Eliteness which I use to pack pbos
  11. Here is a simple mod that makes Taunus use new ArmA3 lighting for those who want it - but with some differences versus vanilla BIS configuration: - slightly more pronounced red colors during daytime - deeper shadows - brighter nights with a more natural blue tint https://goo.gl/mLtqkK Granted it still needs more dedicated tweaks to make it look better default Taunus these tweaks
  12. Oh it's the D-measuring time?
  13. antiair systems should be AA targets only anyway. For systems with no weapons use weapon switch key to simply switch radar modes - easy. It can either be a straightforward switch or a dummy weapon that doesn't shoot (like 'horn' for cars) and has radar mode tied to it. Name that dummy weapon "AA radar" and it's done
  14. For target filtering it's easy - simply show only air targets when A-A weapon is selected (AIM9/AIM120 AMRAAM etc) and show only ground targets when A-G weapon is selected (bombs, AGMs etc). Show all targets when autocannon (on A-10C f.e.) is selected. No need for extra keys since you already have a key for switching weapons. Furthermore show immediate threats in any filtering mode (f.e. incoming missiles or an air/ground vehicle that is locking you). Should be intuitive and decluttered. Radar range can be controlled with keys used for sniper rifle / weapon sight zoom levels for example. While keeping those keys for zoom levels when looking through weapon optics as they are (f.e. gunner position in AH64). Again no need for extra keys. And it makes sense since you essentially zooming the radar itself which is itself a weapon sight for missiles.
  15. Can take it a step further and depict moving air targets akin to track-while-scan radar mode in F-16 / Falcon BMS where the radar shows their general direction of movement in relation to you (helpful and realistic!) and upon locking some more info - like you already have through vehicle type, perhaps its altitude (if it's an air vehicle) etc. Knowing the altitudes of vehicles and their direction of movement will help with situational awareness on difficulties without "helpers" perhaps where you can tell your guys apart from other guys using these clues. In the pic below the TWS radar mode immediately shows you general directions of all air contacts as well as altitude of each one of them. ... And how about separating air and ground radar modes? That will declutter the new radar massively and will be very intuitive. For example selecting an Air-to-Air weapon will switch radar into an air scan mode, while selecting an Air-to-Ground weapon will switch it into ground scan mode. No need for new keys whatsoever.