Alwarren

Member
  • Content count

    3606
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

2008 Excellent

About Alwarren

  • Rank
    Chief Warrant Officer

core_pfieldgroups_3

  • Interests
    ArmA 2 ^^
  • Occupation
    IT Consultant / Freelance Software Engineer

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Contact Methods

  • Twitter
    AlwarrenSidh
  • Steam url id
    Alwarren

Recent Profile Visitors

993 profile views
  1. I agree with most of what you say. There are other things that need to be done about AT weapons in Arma 3: Reduce the number of rockets/missiles carried to a realistic amount. Increase the reload speed to a realistic level #1: The default Rifleman (AT) for the NATO side carries three missiles for an (in reality) not even reloadable launcher. The CSAT Rifleman (AT) carries five (!) missiles, three of which are (by the looks of it) tandem AT warheads, and two are HE. If you ever lugged around a Carl Gustav Launcher with ammo, you'll agree that this is rather on the high side. Even worse, the Missile Specialist (AT) both carry three missiles of a type that in reality is an anti-personal warhead. I know, 2035, but there are certain laws of physics that aren't that easily circumvented. Lighter AT like the AT-4 would cure this problem. Make them single shot, make it possible to carry one or two in a backpack. #2: Reloading a launcher is way too fast. Reloading most rifles is actually slower than reloading a launcher. Especially with AI, this leads to an offensive potential of AI infantry that is just way out of proportion. Apart from the fact that reloading the launchers till uses the "voodoo magic" reload animation, it's just unrealistically fast (and in some cases, unrealistically possible like with the NLAW/PCML). In comparison look at the much-demonized "Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising" for how reloads SHOULD look: https://youtu.be/PNVjR_8nbQ4?t=623 (check the time index 10:20 and onwards)
  2. I'll keep annoying them... I can be VERY annoying :)
  3. APEX is out for over a year now, and the visual upgrade was IIRC already present in a patch before that, so it's a bit late to not having decided what the definitive lighting will be. They don't even need to fix that, the community could take care of it IF there was adequate documentation.
  4. Absolutely, I never understood why the launchers cannot be used from prone position, more so since the fixed Metis launcher in Arma 2 is fired from prone...
  5. I am quite sure the AK is from DayZ SA as well, as is the MP-5k.
  6. No idea about CR, but yes, Lythium has the old night lighting and it looks great. However, the author has asked "not to steal" it. But this shows that decent night lighting IS possible, and all the more infuriating that there is not sufficient documentation.
  7. This image shows exactly what is wrong with the current night lighting. The white logo on the scope is shining like a beacon while it should not be visible at all because it is in the shadow of a twilight evening just as the rest of the scope, but due to the weird color table, the gap between black and white is artificially widened to a degree where it just becomes ridiculous. That means that shadow always look like black holes even in a moonlit night since they are artificially "enhanced" PEASE, BIS, at the very least release some updated documentation on this so that one of the community can write a patch to fix this horrible night lighting mess, if you don't want to do it yourselves.
  8. So, after release, here's my feedback on the Laws of War DLC. Some of it will probably not make friends, but well, here we go. First of all I enjoyed the campaign. It was well done, high production value, very original, well voice-acted, and the definitive highlight of the pack. All of the assets quality is very good, the Van is a very nice addition. As a matter of fact, I only really have one criticism of the DLC. All of the DLC tells me to respect the laws of armed conflict, which is well and good, and something that more games should strive to do. However, in the end it has zero impact on the gameplay of Arma 3 itself, and ends up being only waving a finger of moral superiority into the player's face. Why? Because even after this DLC, Civilian assets and ambient civilian life is underdeveloped and not at all represented in the game. I said it on numerous occasions and probably will sound like a broken record, but what I was really hoping for was an efficient, in-engine solution for the Ambient Cars and Ambient Civilian modules from Arma 2. There modules could actually get civilian life on the map and make the lessons from the Laws of War DLC significant beyond the "War is Bad" message (which quite ironically complements the "This Is War" subtitle). None of the lessons from the Showcase has any bearing even on the campaign itself, nor on any of the previous campaigns in Arma 3 since none of them represents civilians in any shape or form on the battlefield. For most missions, it's too much hassle and frankly, too much lag, to fill the map with a meaningful amount of men in shorts. While Arma 2 tackled topics like wartime rape and civilian mass executions in a war-torn country, the only thing we get from that in Arma 3 it the raised finger of "don't shoot civilians" that, as I pointed out above, does not have any bearing on the game. There are no encounters with civilians on any mission I have played (with a few exceptions that take place in a sufficiently isolated area so that lag is no longer an issue). The Alpha and Beta of Arma 3 had "sites" on the civilian site, but they were removed from the game prior to release. Civilian interaction (even the "hello" and "what's the weather forecast") have been completely stripped, as is my much-loved ALICE and SILVIE. I know that other mods, like CUP, offer more civilian assets, but please understand that it isn't really the assets I am talking about (even though, yeah it could use more). It is the lack of integration of that content, even what's already there, into the game that is what I am talking about. Of course, one could argue that "if you want something like SILVIE and ALICE, feel free to make it yourself", but that is a bogus argument. You can stretch it as much as you like. "No we don't need helicopters in the game, if you need them make them yourself". And there is always the lag issue. having 200+ AI on the map (combatants and non-combatants) would pose too much of a strain, so preferrably this would have to be at least partially supported by the engine. Also, a lot of the information that was contained in the Arma 2 maps has not been carried over to Arma 3, making an implementation even more difficult. I feel like the LoW DLC would have been the ideal umbrella under which such an extension could have been done. I appreciate the fact that is wasn't in the scope, that resources are limited, etc etc.. yet, I do think it is a valid concern, and it's one of the very few points where Arma 2 still outdoes Arma 3. Sorry for the long post. No potato here.
  9. We aim to make it possible to do the same thing you could do in Arma 2, but we're not trying to bend over backwards while doing this. For example, the Russian troops have gotten an overhaul in terms of equipment (no more NVG's, AK-74M instead of AK-107 etc). Might or might not happen, I can't promise anything. We've still got a shiteload of stuff to do, especially with the new dynamic loadouts (which are finally completed), hitpoints for the planes, MFD's/HUDs, it's way too much for the team if we also want to do things like modifying existing planes or adding a T-62. It's not likely going to happen.
  10. IIRC, setUnitTrait should work in the latest versions.
  11. Possible? Yes. Likely? No. As a rule, if it wasn't in vanilla Arma 2, Arrowhead or one of the DLC's, don't expect it, and please don't ask for it. We sometimes add third party addons and we sometimes do our own stuff and add that, but this should not become a wishlist. Thanks.
  12. We'll keep doing what we're doing. We actually have a backlog of stuff that was donated to us for inclusion and that we hadn't had time yet to add, so I would expect more. Also, we didn't port everything yet, like the ACR units and, most importantly, the trator ! At the moment though the dynamic loadouts for the planes are a high priority.
  13. We take care not to change the names, and usually if we do that we introduce scope=1 variants of the old definition. Even then, though, it shouldn't crash. Did you send the crash files to @dwarden?
  14. The stuff you see in AddonsMetaData isn't pbo names but rather CfgPatches names, which might or might not be the same. Most of the stuff you list is from the Terrain pack... It shouldn't really cause a crash though. Maybe you have corrupted files?
  15. Yes, it works with 1.74. I would recommend subscribing it from the Workshop, though, as that is the most likely place to be updated first.