@Goblinbutt

And exactly how does giving a weapon an accurate ammo capacity giving anyone an "unfair advantage"? Just out of curiosity.

Balancing is a dirty word in my book. If all weapons are "balanced" there's no reason to have more than one of each type of weapon... You think people prefer different weapons for their looks? No, it's for differences in performances and what suits that particular person best and his style of shooting. You care about "balancing" you might as well just make every weapon exactly the same and you end up changing weapons just for looks like a girl changes shoes or clothes. Have fun with your virtual modeling game...

Dang it Dr Death, why do you always assume everyone is out to get you? LOL. I'm referring to goblinbutt's comment and anyone else who wants to argue that it's good for "balancing."

Not to mention, BF4 correctly have it with the hammer back instead of forward like in this game. When dropped on the ground, it has the hammer back like it should be, but in 1st person view, the hammer is forward...

@Dr_Death

I read your comment just fine the first time, thanks. You are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that you agree with it, I'm saying that even if they use that excuse for it being set in the future it still doesn't explain anything. They should be "forced" to use realism even if it's set in the future.

@Goose

Just how many casual first-person shooter gamers do you see playing games like ARMA? I think they are playing Call of Duty or Battlefield.

But sadly, when it comes to the weapons and animations, I'm actually more impressed with Battlefield 4 than ARMA III right now. The 1911 in Battlefield 4 is modeled perfectly and holds the right amount of rounds, even counts bullet-in-chamber...

@Dr Death

Say what you will about the game being set in the future, if you look at the 3d model of the weapon, you'll see that it clearly cannot hold that many rounds in the magazine, unless the near future invents some kind of sub-space storage system where rounds shrink in size while in the magazine until it's fired or something...

@ProGamer

Oh, is that why neither issue has been looked at or resolved?

Honestly, I've given up. I've done my part in trying to help the developers make this game as realistic as possible, but apparently they still want to make weapons lose muzzle velocity when you add a sound suppressor (silencer), they still won't do the bullet in chamber accounting, and they won't even put accurate ammo capacities in their weapons apparently. I think they are definitely favoring "balancing" over realism in this one. Which is unfortunate. People are voting this down anyway, I guess the consumers favor balancing over realism as well. So what can you do? I've done my part. I feel like I'm wasting my time trying to report things that I find...

:'(

I'm really accustomed to the 1911 style handgun. So used to 4 sets of doubles and then reload... And the whole hammer being forward thing distracts me, because in the back of my mind I know this weapon has a single-action trigger, so seeing the hammer forward I automatically think I need to clear a malfunction... So many things are not right with one weapon, and it happens to be my favorite type of handgun. So annoying... lol

@Dr. Death

I see a lot of people mentioning the engine, does that really have anything to do with it? I'm no coder, but I thought things like ammo count was just lines of game logic or behavior? It doesn't really need to apply any actual physics calculations or anything like that... I'm literally just talking out of my rear-end now though because I have no clue how that works, but I just had a different idea in my head of what depends on the game's engine and what didn't...

It's just that there are so many older games that have this that don't even pretend to advertise themselves as realistic games, I find it hard to believe that it's such a difficult thing to achieve...

@MadocComadrin

Alrighty then. I'll stop telling it like it is so I won't hurt anyone's feelings. Thanks for the tip... If you're going to vote a legitimate issue down because you have sand where the sun don't shine, and for that reason you're willing to play a game that advertises realism yet delivers something short of it, then hey, not my problem. Like I've said, I'm merely reporting a problem because that's our job as beta testers. We are not here to form a happy community to sing songs together (trust me, there's a reason I only sing when I'm absolutely alone, that's the merciful side of me...). If you raise an issue that I feel needs to be addressed for the sake of making the game better, I am not going to vote it down because the reporter said something that is factual without saying pretty please at the end... If you guys want to do that. Go ahead, it's a free... erm, world? Lol

And I don't know what an "entitled soccer mom" even is... A soccer mom is a person who is raising children... Meaning she has to do work... I think you're mixing entitled teenager, and... um, a soccer mom, lol (sorry, can't think of anything else). And I have no clue how anything is like yelling at a store clerk for an expired coupon? Which would imply the issue I'm bringing up is wrong? Because if your coupon is expired, it's your fault you waited so long, dammit... lol :-D

But hey, I'm sure it sounded really clever in your mind, I've done that too before, we all have, no worries. ANYWAY, anything useful to add to the topic of no bullet-in-chamber accounting or single stack magazines holding more ammo than they can physically hold? Such as the idea WolveNZ brought up? They actually do make double stack 1911-style handguns. Although personally I don't like them. I like the 1911 design because of how thin it is, so the double stack version kind of defeats the purpose in my opinion...

Not expecting it to change and not doing our job as testers to report things as we find it are two different things in my opinion. I find the not accounting for the round inside the chamber to be a mistake and will continue to report it and vote up people who report it. Because that's what I am supposed to do as a beta tester. If BIS decides to be lazy and not implement something that every other game does, at least I know I did my part and that mistake is on them.

Except you can clearly see it's a single stack magazine if you look at the model while it's on the ground. (sorry, the pic I uploaded isn't at a good angle to see it) and you can also see that it's a single stack when the character is reloading...

They all come with 7 round magazines, but literally everyone I know with a 1911 style handgun (or with multiple 1911 style handguns) have those stored at home and they only use 8-round magazines at the range and for conceal carry. I see a lot of Wilsons and Chip McCormick Power Mags (which I prefer for their metal followers rather than plastic followers). But I guess I must know a strange group of people. I wouldn't doubt it, lol.

Honestly, I care about 0% how many "kills per magazine" (I thought it depends on shot placement) you get out of what. The ONLY thing I consider is how many rounds the real deal has. Balancing is the thing that has been killing every first-person shooter on the market for me. Picking your weapon is just based on how "cool" they look to you...

Uh, sorry, "balancing" is the crap that games like COD does. This is supposed to represent the real world and in the real world there are real world differences between one weapon and another...

@Goose

I still think they should model the 8-round magazines that the majority of 1911 owners use. And make the bullet-in-chamber thing work and voila, have 9 rounds and be realistic at the same time...

Well, it is, kind of, but I also put into account the issue of the lack of bullet-in-chamber accounting which is completely a gameplay issue. If it was an extended 9-round magazine, then reloading the weapon while a round is still in the chamber, the count should then be 10 rounds available to fire.

Edit: I accidentally typed magazine instead of chamber...

Wow, lol. It's not the fact that they are fictional, it's the fact that they bend the laws of physics. Why not just say that this handgun holds 50 rounds? Hey, it's the future, why not? LMAO

I'm sorry, but if I wanted to play a game with fuzzy logic full of "what if's" I would play a sci-fi shooter, not one that is supposed to take place in the real-world. Especially a game like this that prides itself in being true-to-life. New engineering considered, a .45 ACP round has certain dimensions. That weapon in the game, whether you want to call it a 1911 or a "ACP-C2" has certain dimensions. You do the math of one dimension divided by the other dimension, that would tell you how many rounds of .45 ACP would fit in this weapon, without looking at the stats of a 1911. Seeing as how the magazine lays flush with the bottom of the weapon, it'll already be a stretch to say you can fit 8 rounds in that magazine, much less 9...

I guess in the near future they found a way to fit more .45 ACP in the same amount of space with magic science...

For those of you voting this down, maybe you should add a note and share with us your great wisdom as to why the issue I'm raising is somehow incorrect. I'd very much like to hear some of these...

Ok, sorry, I did an internet search for it so I didn't have to relaunch the game just to see it, and it's called the "ACP-C2." And upon closer inspection with the side views of it I found on the internet, there's a whole lot more wrong with this one... Wow...

First, apparently they combined different parts of different 1911's. The slide they used was off of a "GI" model 1911, which has a very small ejector opening. Almost no high-end modern 1911 design uses this anymore, they always use the flared ejector cut since they are more reliable. The third-person view if you drop the weapon has the hammer correctly back, while in the first-person view while holding it, it is incorrectly in the forward position. And the magazine in the weapon in the dropped view is flush with the bottom of the weapon which would indicate a standard 7-round magazine. Even the 8-round magazine sticks out a little bit, much less a 9 round magazine that it seems to have in this game...

Sorry, I don't really pay attention to the in-game names since I know what they are, lol. Looks like a modified Kimber Desert Warrior to me, which is a 1911-style handgun. I simply call all of them "1911."

So, what is the in-game name?

Well, not yet, remember it's still in alpha...

They should. They need to use the radio to communicate while flying...

I'm just curious, but do you know why they wear headsets with microphones to communicate with each other when they are inside of a helicopter?? ;-)

I actually really liked that fact about ARMA 2, in that the sound effects are actually loud. It does add to the immersion that when you're near a helicopter it'll make it hard to communicate. Also, I think someone made a mention of this, but modern helicopters can alter the pitch of the rotors, so when it's landed and idling, while the rotors are spinning, they are relatively flat, so are not chopping the air. In this mode, they are actually relatively quiet. But when they change the pitch of the rotors to take off or when they are actively trying to add lift, you'll notice a significant increase in the decibel level...

Pretty much, helicopters are loud, that's just the way they are...

I was playing the infantry showcase. I believe the weapon used in that was the MX? As far as I know, it's an imaginary weapon invented for the sake of the game? But the core mechanics of it, it should still abide by other weapons of the same type that currently exist in my opinion.

For example, after you fire the last shot, the charging handle will appear to be locked to the rear. When you initiate the reload sequence, the charging handle will magically appear in the forward position. After the reload, it appears to "charge" itself, meaning it moves back and then back forward, in a kind of slow and fluid way that's just odd...

In real life, if the charging handle is held to the rear after the last round is shot, while reloading, it'll stay to the rear. Once you insert the new magazine, the operator would hit a button or lever on the weapon used to release the bolt. This would have the bolt and charging handle slam forward with the force of the recoil spring behind it. So it should be the reload animation and a *snap* of the bolt going back forward.

Alternatively, if reloading while still with a round in the chamber, the charging handle should be still in the forward position during the reload. After the new magazine is inserted, the reload is done. No charging of the charging handle, no releasing, nothing. Simply a magazine change in that instance would suffice.

Any update on this issue and if it'll be looked into?

Well, my main gripe is not that the incorrect type of reload is used, but it is actually implemented wrong. The charging handle seems to move on its own during the reload animation and is actually quite distracting...

How long does it usually take for issues to be reviewed? I know there are a lot of things being submitted every day, was just curious, not rushing...

@dovafox

You are probably right, but I wouldn't know because I never use the AUG. Not really a weapon I've ever been interested in.

@Dialn911

Except it also says to slow down normal rounds to below supersonic speeds and decrease their effectiveness... Which unless you're using an obsolete suppressor from the 70's that only lasts 5 rounds, real modern suppressors do not do that...

LOL, well, I intended it to be more vague since I'm including all shooters, not just those that consider themselves "military simulations." Balancing ruins all games in my opinion. It makes choosing weapons more about style than about the actual advantages and disadvantages of that specific weapon.

And honestly, while the original Operation Flashpoint is still one of my favorite games of all time, ARMA 3 is looking more and more like it's straying from the whole "military simulation" thing. So far it seems like they will never try to fix the lack of bullet-in-chamber accounting, they are decreasing damage dealt with suppressed weapons, and one particular weapon I used in the beta, the "ACP-C2" doesn't even have an accurate ammo capacity, and the first-person view has it operating with its hammer forward when it's a single-action trigger weapon so the hammer needs to be back... I'm kind of disappointed with the little details I've been noticing from the alpha and beta... Reload animations are all wrong too...

I've made several tickets. Since the alpha I've been reporting things. None of them have been addressed...

+1 to BlackLord.

To me, "balancing" is a dirty word in the world of first-person-shooters...

No need for a "smart" reply. The facts are out there. Modern suppressors do not have a detrimental effect on muzzle velocity. If you don't want to admit that you've been applying obsolete technology to modern equipment, and won't be happy unless people think you're correct. Then fine. Maybe they will have your suppressors that stop working after 5 shots in the game. I never object to having more options. Except I don't think anyone, except you, will ever intentionally use that type of suppressor in the game if they chose to include it. There's nothing I can say, or anyone else can say apparently, that will change your mind. This back and forth is getting boring. So... Whatever it is you have to say, my response is officially: Sure thing buddy. ;-)

If this game takes place during the Vietnam Era, then yes, we should look into adding that into the game. And make them like the real ones where after a few shots they stop working...

Sure thing buddy. ;-)

And Dr. Death, who actually still uses those types of suppressors? Kind of silly to use something used back in the Vietnam Conflict era as a basis for modern day suppressors...

No reason to go through every if and or but, this game is trying to be realistic. Realism says modern day suppressors should not slow down the bullet, therefore your weapon should not have a decrease in effectiveness. Done, end of discussion... They definitely need to make the suppressors to the way they are in the real world, not to movie and video game world...

@plutoto

The thing is, the whole using suppressors to kill people in close proximity of others and have them not hear it thing is only in the movies. In real life, yes, you can still hear gun shots, even with suppressors. The difference is that it's much harder to tell where the shots are coming from, and at night, suppressors get rid of most of the muzzle flash that would be present, especially in handguns. Modern rifles have very good flash suppressors, but in pitch darkness there would still be some flash, but with a suppressor, there probably isn't any real noticeable flash. The noise is suppressed, a lot, you can fire weapons indoors with suppressors and not have to deal with the ringing in your ears like you would a regular weapon without hearing protection on. This allows for you to better communicate with your team as well. People don't realize from watching movies and playing games just how loud gunfire really is. So even though a suppressor will make it MUCH quieter, it's still not "silenced" which is why I kind of hate the term "silencer." That whole "pew pew" sound you hear in the movies is complete garbage...

Lola, please don't have the team look at this, it's not a real issue... In fact, you have to look into it to make sure that weapon power is NOT decreased with suppressor use because that's MORE REALISTIC...

@DR_Death

It's not JUST the cost, but that's a big part of it. The government barely wants to pay for body armor much less upgrade every weapon to be able to take a suppressor... Also, it does add extra length, and it also could suffer from the heat problems I've mentioned before if they end up in a firefight and do a lot of sustained firing... There are enough downsides (whether logistically or practically) to equipping your entire military force with suppressed weapons for them to not really consider that an option...

@b101uk

Ah, now you've struck my curiosity and I've done some research into it and found that the "wipe" type of suppressor was used by our military, but mainly back during the Vietnam era since they lack practical use for more than a few shots. So pretty much, what Dr Death is describing most likely is not what is featured in the game, and most likely they are of the type I am speaking of, which would have the qualities I've mentioned.

But seriously, thank you got the info, I love learning new stuff, even though they are, for the most part, not used anymore, it's still good to know that they've existed...

Personally, if given the choice, I would not choose this type, and not just for the cost of having to replace it, but for the sake of the mission, I personally would not sacrifice accuracy for sound suppression.

@b101uk

Wow, are you serious? All the ones I've used or seen are the kind that does not make any contact with the bullet itself. Although admittedly I've mainly only used what was given to me, have not gone into purchasing any for my own personal use, don't want to go through the class 3 BS, so in that regard haven't done extensive research into the different types of suppressors available. So I've only been exposed to the kind I have been talking about. Do modern militaries still use the kind you speak of? Thanks for that info...

Dr Death, it doesn't really matter what you "think" should happen to a suppressed weapon, the fact is, a suppressor actually would increase muzzle velocity, not decrease it. This is due to the fact that a suppressor is essentially an extension to the barrel's length, and this gives more space for more of the powder to burn. Longer burn in the barrel, the higher the muzzle velocity. This is proven in real-world ballistics. Yes, all of the movies and most video games have it wrong.

It's true IF they use subsonic rounds it would decrease the muzzle energy, but the OP is wrong that they "need" to be used. You can use regular ammunition with suppressors, and if that's the case in the game, then it actually is more realistic for it to NOT affect the weapon's power and accuracy...

Well, adding a suppressor will shift the point of impact as any extension of the barrel would, but the actual "accuracy," as in the size of the groupings, should be the same.

@Dr Death

Also, the reason why a suppressor have a limit of usage is not at all for the reasons you stated. The reason is because of heat. I don't know where you heard about rubber bands, a suppressor is made up of internal baffles, that allow for the expanding gases to expand into. This contains a lot of the expanding gases that would have otherwise exited the muzzle adding to the weapon's report. That's how it makes it quieter. But at the same time, this expanding gas is hot, and containing it within this can causes it to retain a lot of heat. Using a suppressor for any length of time, especially under rapid fire or automatic fire will cause the suppressor to overheat, which could cause it to warp, which would then misalign the opening, causing contact with the bullet, possibly resulting in an explosion (not from expanding gases but from the bullet actually impacting the inside of the suppressor).

It bothers me quite a bit that an unrealistic game like BF3 actually has this aspect more realistic than ARMA 3 so far... In BF3, the effectiveness is reduced with a suppressor, but it states it's because you're using subsonic rounds. While in ARMA 3 it seems that they made it completely unrealistic in where the suppressor itself is decreasing the weapon's effectiveness...

I agree with Goose. Balancing is a dirty word in my opinion. It makes any first person shooter unrealistic and makes the different weapons pointless... Just pick the one you think looks the coolest and go with it...

@CXN2615

As far as I know, those types of suppressors that physically make contact with the bullet in order to slow them down are not really widely used anymore... From what I've read they were used back in the Vietnam conflict era...

Thank you OP, voted your issue up. I definitely think a game meant to be realistic should portray suppressors realistically and not like how they portray them in movies...

Water clarity really depends on so many factors. Some waters you can see for a good 100 meters, others you can't see your hand in front of your face. And it's not just geographical, but water clarity changes with the tide, for example in low tide, river water and drawn out and visibility will be greatly decreased.

The one thing I find unrealistic in this game is the ocean floor. I mean, why is there a bunch of hills and rock formations? Most places it's simply flat unless you happen to be where there is an active reef, but even then, it's still relatively flat...

@Traxus

I've stopped playing the game. There's not much that we've brought up here that have been fixed or even addressed. We still have inaccurate ammo capacities for some weapons, no bullet-in-chamber accounting, suppressors that decrease muzzle velocity and energy like they do in movies (but not in real life), inaccurate reload animations, hammers staying forward on single-action weapons, and many other weird things that shouldn't happen in a game advertising "realism." I've given up on trying to report issues here...

@Traxus

LOL, but come on, over 90% of the people are not doctors, so it's ok to have all of those incorrect terminologies in a movie or game about what happens in a hospital right??? ;-)

Come on Traxus, movies cannot be wrong. Now I'm going to put a pillow in front of my firearm to silence it while shooting a car's gas tank to make it explode. Over and out... ;-)

I don't understand why there are vote downs on this and why there is such a huge discussion about the issue. The FACT is, it is improper radio etiquette to say "Roger Wilco." You say "Roger," OR you say "Wilco," you don't say both. Just like "over and out," it's something movies do but is completely wrong...

This isn't "nit picking" people. This game is trying to present itself as a realistic depiction of war and the military. It's the same as a game or a movie about nurses and doctors where they use the wrong terminology or suggest the wrong medicine or instrument to fix a problem...

Seriously, this discussion is stupid. The game got it wrong, this tester reported it AS HE SHOULD. The End...

@ExploitedYouth

Hey, regarding the ACU's, they DO work for mountainous (no snow) terrain, but that's about it. So you are right, about 80% of the time they are useless. They are too gray for the forest, and too green for the desert, lol.

MulleDK19

All I have to say is, there's a difference between needing to go online and look in urban dictionary and Wikipedia to look up info and someone who knows because it was actually part of their job...

Useless feature? Oh, look at the name, killzone kid. I guess if you get all that you know from a video game, it'll result in comments like these...

And it's such a difficult thing to do that many games already have this feature that don't even attempt to be realistic. Those devs must have magical powers I guess...

I'd love to hear the reason for the 5 people who voted this down. Apparently they think there must be a magical way that the bullet disappears from the chamber when you load a new magazine...

Bump, this simple thing STILL is not fixed in the beta... I thought this should be a simple fix...

@KellanKelloggs

In a game where realism is the focus and one shot can mean the difference between killing someone and not, yes, one bullet is VERY important. I load all my weapons with +1 in the chamber for this reason.

Definitely one of the first things I noticed when playing the alpha. Their animations in general are pretty wrong. Strangely, even though Battlefield 3 is a very unrealistic game, their reload animations are spot on. They use some fairly advanced reload animations in that game. I'm 100% positive they hired someone with significant firearm knowledge to perform those animations because they use some methods some fairly experienced shooters don't even know about. I hate to say this since I know ARMA III is not anything like Battlefield, but in terms of reload animations every shooter needs to take a look at their animations and try to duplicate them because they actually got that aspect completely correct...

@Squelch

Well, to be more specific, for #1, that's only for closed bolt automatic weapons. For open bolt automatic weapons like most true machine guns, that isn't the case. Also, for #2, most modern weapons have a device called a bolt hold open that activates automatically after the last round is fired. The only company who cannot seem to figure this out is HK. Obviously their 416 is an exception, but that's based on the AR platform which already had that feature designed into it, so it's not like HK developed it... So for the most part, in the case of a reload after firing all of the ammo, you don't need to "cock" the weapon before firing it, you just need to drop the bolt after inserting a new magazine.

But anyway, yes, I understand where you're getting at with your points. I wish they fix this problem before the game is released...