@FeralCircus: Exactly. That's why no-one will ever see the feature you're proposing. Everyone already has a 2-3km horizon called viewdistance.
@Dr.Death: how about simulation of intestinal microflore of a soldier? Both things are plain impossible. Be realistic in what you want...
Downvoted. Almost no players play with viewdistance more than 5km - and the horizon distance while standing on a flat patch of land is 5+km. Isn't worth the effort.
@AD2001: 13+:14- now :)
Upvoted...
Possible radio protocols:
"Go loud"
"Suppressors off"
"Go silent"
"Go quiet"
"Suppressors on"
Seems related to #7421
I foretell, even a developer wanting to help wouldn't be able to tear through this wall of text... I am a software developer myself, and ticket like this would go straight to "Rejected" in my team.
416/417 are sleek, modern (at present time) weapons which well can see 30+ year service as M16/M14 did... I vote up for these two exclusively.
Well, there is some point to it. Weapon attachments add mass, thereby reducing *felt* recoil and amount of aim drift. However, this also means the weapon is harder to handle.
But - for 200g laser sight compared to 5kg rifle this is negligible. Unless you're talking about Beta-C mags...
Yeah, I was not even talking about foregrips/recoil compensators. Although, the ticket description needs to be clarified a lot.
That's exactly what I'm thinking. Asymmetric scenarios are also very fun (think Insurgency). But, admitting the high skills of ACE devs, it can't be done without engine support. I created a ticket on Community issue tracker to allow this a while ago.
So, the ticket is perfectly viable - if not as "default" piece of equipment, then at least as a potential possibility to add one in mod.
Maybe not needed, but certainly realistic.
http://www.global-security-solutions.com/NightVisionThermalFusionSystem.html
There's also a hybrid vision model being already deployed by US Army - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/PSQ-20
Monitors should be calibrated themselves, not the game... The game should match the photograph (regardless of specific monitor/settings)
Hi there.
Always a pleasure to engage in conversation with someone posessing the skill of civilized argument. Unfortunately, it is quite rare in the internet generally and on this tracker in particular :P
I'm not in any case having a problem with your opinion - after all, opinions exist to have them. What I'm trying to convey is that the initial points you stated look more like "strange/questionable design decisions" than "unlikely to ever leave the drawing board" issues. After all, the original coaxial design met a lot of criticisms from established classic scheme pilots which later proved to be not true - like dual rotor overlap (which happens not much more often than rotor-tail collision on traditional scheme - someone posted the statistics on ED forums a while ago). And that is true for many innovative decisions.
Let's consider it a draw and call it a day :) You do have some good points, whether they are worth implementing is up to BIS to decide.
Well, I haven't got rotary-wing flying experience and/or any test pilot friends...
However, I've got some experience as a flight simulation developer (Rise of Flight title), creating aerodynamic models of aircraft, and I'm still not convinced ;)
1.I can think of at least one configuration where this would be a non-issue - two tanks ahead and behind the passenger cabin. This will negate all effects you describe - and, well, if this does not work, there are plenty of configurations to choose from. IIRC, F-16 has 4(!) internal fuel tanks - and no problems with balance.
2.What are the problems you're taking about? The aircraft basically resembles Mi-28 configuration, only with coax rotors - which does only improve things.
3.If what you describe was the case, you wouldn't be able to perform autorotation on any chopper - because the moment you raise the collective to give some AoA to blades (to "flare" or whatever it's called right before landing), the blades would be stalling instantly. Alas, that's not the case.
There is always some space for *temporarily* adding AoA while in correct autorotation - and while one rotor would be losing energy due to added AoA, another would make up for it due to having AoA decreased. And remember, they are connected through gearbox, so overall rotation speed would just stay approximately the same.
How do I know it? There's no decoupling of cyclic and pedals from blades angle when on autorotation in Ka-50. There are hydro-enhancers, but pedals are mechanically linked to the blades. Hence, you are always using it to change blades AoA even when not having power. And somehow, Ka-50 can perform autorotation in real life...
Actually, all points have major flaws.
1.Fuel tanks do not necessarily need to be below floor to be filled. A simple fuel pump will allow to refuel it in any case.
2.(Edited) Mi-28 has the same trait, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79CbWk6uWD4 Note the aft wheel is touching ground only after the heli tilts backwards while IN hover. Basically, it's not a requirement for a heli, it's a "nice to have" option.
3.Yaw control on coaxial helicopters is done NOT by rudders. It's done by applying AoA (angle-of-attack) differential to rotors - resulting moment will rotate the helicopter. (confirmation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaxial_rotors#Angular_momentum, proof: Ka-50 manuals. See DCS: Ka-50 manuals).
Hence, the design is actually pretty believable.
Damn :) Was dreaming about the full game when writing the title :P Corrected title.
Totally agree. I haven't got a chance to go SCUBA, but from snorkel depths (1-3m) it's very hard to determine sound direction.
Fixed.
Fixed. Didn't notice the "close" button before...
Fixed.
Aren't those lights hold-to-use? IIRC, many laser sights are.
It's called "Hydrodynamic". But where did you take 10kph from?
Can you please put a screenshot in here?
Is the window you're takling about in lower part of the screen or upper one?
You are probably using -showScriptErrors parameter, either in shortcut command line, or in Play withSix (or other game launcher) parameters.
@FrankDaTank1218: Yes, it is realistic, provided the rotors are actually hit directly and blown off, and other physics constraints are respected.
As it was at the moment the ticket was created, the rotors were instantly stopped (unrealistic) with 100% probability (unrealistic), resulting in the helicopter instantly losing its momentum and falling into the ground almost vertically (WTF-level unrealistic).
I agree that sometimes "dropping" indeed is realistic, but not the way it was.
IMHO, such rapid rotor stoppage is certainly unrealistic - it can be possible only if the gearbox rapidly jams, but in that case, blades would be torn off the shaft by inertia, unless they have a horizontal hinge. But then - they still will move a while instead of stopping so rapidly.
Also, disabling the engine should be much easier than stopping/destroying the rotors. The engines are a fairly complex piece of machinery with many weak parts, while the gearbox is basically a big tight piece of metal. Rotor blades are also very tough (as they basically need to take a 10+ times the weight of the chopper of tension), so they are hard to break by shrapnel. Hence, it's much more likely to have the helicopter lose power, than having it totally "fall out of the sky". As pointed out above, multiple Youtube videos confirm that...
It smells a cracked version, IMHO...
mepwaygame >>> you annoying little troll?
Too fat. Go away, there's no food here.
Don't feed the troll.
No, mepwaygame, you're wrong. The issue here is not connected with scripting, it's discussing a flow in the base game logic - that an AI group leader instantly knows one of teammates is down, while a human player does not.
No scripting can remove this cheat ability from the game. And yes, it is "by design", but the design is wrong here.
Why this is hurting gameplay: there are cases, when a lone team member of the group or a small team (2-3 infantrymen) are separated from the main group. It should not be the case that when a stray team member is killed by a sniper from 1000 meters (where there's no sound of shot heard) the whole team instantly knows where the sniper is located. Period.
If a player is group leader, he will not know an AI is down until asking for status or giving order to the killed AI. I firmly believe same should apply for AIs - and AI team leaders should ask for status of teammates if they are far...
I think it's not a bug, in fact... IMHO, autohover is not some "hover autopilot" (which most of helicopters don't have - think of MH-6/MH-9 or Mi-8, which have very basic electronics), it's a simulation of the pilot maintaining hover manually - to help newbie players.
OFC, if the gunner (who is in control) releases the handle, he will no longer be able to maintain hover.
And yes, this also goes a long way to prevent solo piloting, which is good.
Sorry, duplicate (#9779)
Fixed.
Fixed. Didn't notice the "close" button before...
Actually fixed.
Yes, and helicopters can also fly backwards, but that's not usually used in attacks (see AH-64 footages).
I've encountered it only with the CAS module.
Okay, but "killed"? "Court-martialled after violently murdering a table, 4 chairs and (what a monster) a snake".
In my understanding, "killed" should be reserved for actually killing a civilian.
@sed101: well, leving out the regular "middle-of-the-line" infantry there are still special forces (which have laxed views on uniform - see "Lions of Kandahar", "No way out" books), private military contractors, paramilitary operators (CIA/GRU), and guerillas/rebels. For all these categories, uniform disipline is not such a concern.
This is a modded game, from what I can see. The mods may screw up the configs and, correspondingly, FX/sounds.
I can confirm that now the hot air in the exhaust is visible where needed: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/57455736/2013-09-26_00001.jpg
Would be cool if it was like on the real helicopter (long lines instead of just two points), but only if possible.
Still valid. Also related: #23955
Duplicate of #5610
I think developers would be more likely to look into the issues, if the title would be less like yellow press ("The heli landing is totally unrealistic!!!") and more like specific issue being reported ("There is no dust upon helicopter takeoff/landing").
@DennisModem: Nope, it's not dependent. You speak the right thing, but the ticket is about other issue.
He's talking about ground speed being affected "reversively", and the effect is seen without any indicators - you just see you can't fly by the wind, and fly twice as fast into the wind. No speedometer needed ;)
Isn't it a mission problem?
Totally works for me, but AFAIK scope con't be placed into uniform, only vest/backpack.
Totally and utterly agree
0.25s is actually very noticeable. It's the time it takes for an item to fall from 60 cm height. For reflexes (and both good gamers and soldiers have them) it's actually quite a delay :-)
Well, thing is, it is an exception, not the rule. If everyone could withstand multimple wounds and continue fighting - there wouldn't be an award for it, would there?
Also, the fact that there are awards doesn't change the fact a 7.62 will kick you down if your armor stands - they are not awards "I got a bullet in the head and not even flinched". Read the memoirs of special forces soldiers ("No Way Out", "Inside Delta Force", "No Easy Day"...).
Still an issue. Example:
Delta Force operators train center-mass double-tap with M1911 pistol (.45ACP) for guaranteed kill (See Inside Delta Force book). Currently, ACP-C2 requires 3 body hits on unarmored target to achieve kill.
EDIT: Yes, I know about Mozambique drill and triple-tap, but that's an exception, not a rule.
MordeaniisChaos, you've got your numbers all mixed up. Pistols with 9mm ammunition have around 400m/s muzzle velocity generally, while battle rifles have 800-900m/s. I think you confused feets-per-second with meters-per-second.
Example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_92
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_FAL
You have a point... Just, in my opinion, it's not worth to change weapons characteristics based on "balance" viewpoint. But the rifles you mentioned give a good example, I agree. Mk.20 SSR even looks almost similar to MXM :) Changed my vote.
Disagreed. Analogous weapon variants like Mk17 Sniper, HK 417 20" (precision) retain the auto-fire capability of base weapon. MXM is just such variant.
Related to #5182, IMHO
Big or no-big, it's still an issue. GLTLegislator made a good thing repoting it - maybe someday some developer will have time to fix it.
In any case, it's better than requests for general relativity and earth curvature to be implemented.
I disagree with the above. Usually the person who is healing and who is healed are facing different directions. If an enemy walks in in the process, the medic might not see him, and the wounded person is the only one having time to react.
I'd better start the healing process again, than have both me and medic dead in such a case.
Besides, as was mentioned above, healing/being healed is the team interaction. It's you who need healing, not the medic. If you can't stand still for 10 seconds, that's your problem.
Upvoted the ticket.
+1. There was an idea floating around of having magazine/weapon compatibility based on "interfaces" rather than a direct list of compatible magazines. Same idea may be applied to the attachments - example of interface may be some classes like "RIS_rail_up","RIS_rail_side", "RIS_rail_bottom" which are referenced in both weapon class (describing which rails it has) and in attachment (describing where it can be attached).
Dark, how do i explain this to you... maybe i forgot about the upper barrell rail because its something just a few guns have, but
there you go, 4 standar rails for most of the weapons, nowdays weapons are using 2 side barrel rails.
Nowadays weapon *practically always* use rails for scopes (even a simplest AK47 has a Warsaw Pact mounting dovetail), so the argument is not valid ;) Most weapons don't have not have side/bottom rails, though.
However, you're talking about "regular" weapons, but the system *must* be adapted for the extreme cases (like I described), otherwise it won't work at all. Having an old M16 somewhere doesn't change the fact that there exist modern rifle like mentioned SOPMOD M4 (example of the kind of setup I've described: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3307/3450575663_3a990074cc.jpg) and Bushmaster ACR (http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/civil/civ018/masada-2.jpg). Speaking about "regular weapons" we better just go play old OFP.
I mentioned magazine because it also takes an _interface_ slot (i.e. place in the inventory screen). So, no, it *does* count.
I've left the slot system, because it's the best compromise between many possibilities of reality and limited ways in which things can be programmed into the game, without taking too much effort and time. There needs to be some flexibility, but within certain rules, so the weapon mods creation can be more streamlined and standardized.
I fully agree here, that's what I was saying in the second part of my post.
Actually the standar rifle has just 4 attachments port, for scopes, GL/hand grip, muzzle, and barrel, not 8.
Let's count on a SOPMOD M4...
Muzzle - 1 slot
RIS rail on top - basically 3 slots (example: AIMPOINT 3xMAG+CompM3+LPI)
RIS side rails left+right: 2 slots (handguards or additional stuff)
Bottom RIS rail: 2 slots (tactical foregrip+flashlight)
Magazine: 1 slot.
Basically, 9 slots here.
Alghough, the division is pretty arbitrary. The RIS rails are not "slot-based", actually. For the sake of the game, some limitations may also be applied.
Basically, we have only 2 types of attachments - lasers and flashlights; to not have the weapon overloaded, it's fair to limit those to 2 side rails. The scopes "chaining" will not most likely be present; hence, the scopes will most likely be in one piece (even the AIMPOINT CompM3 + 3xMAG combo). Hence, only one slot is needed.
That yields 6 slots total: muzzle (1) + side rails (2) + top/bottom rails (2) + magazine. Adding more is going to be an overshoot, IMHO.
I reckon if Ballistic Computer wasn't enabled, then it's probably not finished - includeing this bug and possibly others. Besides, that may be the mod problem by itself.
To "update" to 0.55 (which is DEV version) you need to opt-in to Steam "beta" program for the game (it's called development builds). It's enabled in the game properties - like here: http://img.netupd8.com/steam-eurotruck2-beta-linux-testing.png
Well, how do you explain the ability to carry a rifle, a backpack and a grenade launcher at the same time?
Simple - try to strap a backpack and two big drawing tubes (https://www.google.com/search?q=drawing+tube) on your back - that's a simple task. You can easily walk with this - because the backpack stabilizes the tubes; also, one of them will be in your hands most of the time.
And then, as a contra-example, try to put 3 drawing tubes and walk with them, then pull out a random one into hands. That becomes an awkward and clumsy task.
Carrying 3 rifles is totally and utterly not needed. That's a common sense limitation, not some artificial one.
Basically, same proposal as here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=5374
But I really disagree with having more than 2 "main" (non-pistol) weapons (as you suggest), because having 2 weapons on the same shoulder is asking for awkward situation when they entangle between each other. Remeber, you should also be able to shoot from pistol (and that means hanging all 3 rifles on your back). And a separate slot for pistol is perfectly backed up (holster).
Firmly believe this should be a script suite. There were some community ones for ArmA 2
Have you turned on "Vehicle freelook" option by chance?
Basically this is solved by a simple trigger + small script.
Hostage (soldier), name "hostage", init string: this setCaptive true;
Game logic, name "hostage_pos"
Trigger with condition: (hostage_pos distance hostage > 5), on activation: hostage setCaptive false
Voila - everything works, AI will shoot the hostage if he moves away. No need for module.
CNR (could not reproduce). I Alt-Tab frequently when playing, to view TeamSpeak player list, etc. etc. Works perfectly for me
Maybe your Alt key is stuck after the Alt-Tab? Happened to me in ArmA 2 (and no keys were working due to Ctrl+F1 becaming Ctrl+Alt+F1 for example)
Can you try explicitly pressing Alt after alt-tabbling and see if that helps?
"hardcore"? You mean fantasy right? When you're shot the bullet doesn't have enough kinetic energy to 'push' you back, nothing from a mid range caliber anyway.
First, it's not energy, it's momentum. Second, if a bullet couldn't push you *at all*, the rifles would have no recoil at all - it's called "momentum conservation law". So, please tone down a bit.
Ever seen someone unprepared shoot a rifle? They are thrown on their back by it. And that's the same momentum you will get when you are hit by the bullet from that weapon.
Although the death in the videos seem a little bit (and that's literally just a little bit) too dramatic, I upvote. AFAIK, the only case in which a human will be instantly dropped to ground (as currently in ArmA) is a direct hit to cerebellum - all other cases will result in some agony and/or involuntary muscle contraction (resulting in shooting). That's why it's not recommended to shoot in hostage situation unless one can make a perfect shot.
Now, this is the main problem of democracy. Everyone has their "opinions" even if the right answer is right in front of them on a table. And of course, every person's opinion on physics is as valuable as a physicist's one. So yeah, keep rolling.
Makes sence. But why would pointing nose up increase speed?
It should not, it's a same kind of bug.
No, that's not how it works. When you lower chopper nose, drag is increased, but the forward-looking component of the rotor thrust is also increased. Hence, you will only accelerate.
(I'm a physics major, and worked on Rise of Flight aerodynamics with some guys formerly from Eagle Dynamics... So I know what I'm talking about.)
Totally agree. "Ctrl+1/2/3" style selection would be much, much nicer - and in line with the already implemented grenade separation.
@47Pilot:
Okay, you're right here... I apologize for the tone, have been annoyed by some really ridiculous stuff.
I was not talking about adjusting focus, I was talking about 1 diopter being bad but not bad enough to not read at least gauge-based instruments (vspeed, velocity, fuel, engine power - all the list of the backup ones). But, well, won't argue with you on that - you probably know better.
I say again: In reality, when you're in the cockpit and you have your NVG's on, you CAN NOT, _CAN NOT_ read your instruments. The lighting of the instruments will often be too bright for the goggles
Nope, you're wrong. In Russian aircraft, I know it for sure, the instrument backlight is designed specifically to not interfere (= be readable) with NVGs. I highly doubt western equivalents will be inferior in this sense.
Civilian aircraft instruments may not possess this quality, but modern military - certainly do.
, but more importantly, the goggles are focused for infinity, so the instruments would be severely out of focus.
1 meter versus infinity focus difference is just one diopter. It's not "severely out of focus" by any means - I wear contact lenses specifically undercorrected by one diopter, and it doesn't cause any issues for e.g. reading car instrument panel.
Of course, the instruments are closer than 1 meter - but, well, that still will be enough to at least quickly scan the gauges position (which is what analog instruments are for)
In reality, the pilot looks down below of his or her goggles to look at the instruments with eyeball mk1.
Problem is, it's not possible in the game. Hence - why not fixing it for the benefit of everyone?
I am totally aware of what you're talking about, and I agree with the above *in general case* - a thick tree will of course be an obstacle. As an extreme case one can remember sequoias, which go as thick as 11 meters in diameter - hitting one will be the same as hitting a concrete wall, which will leave the armor mostly unscathed, but will influence the crew fatally.
HOWEVER, I'm talking about "standard" trees which grow in urban areas. Small ones with trunk diameter of 15cm and less WILL NOT be an obstacle for an MBT and WILL NOT influence the crew. This is not the case in the game - and there's plenty of such trees in Takistan.
And THIS is the problem.
Totally agree. This is also a big problem with armored vehicles, i.e. crashing a (Afghanistan/Takistan style) mud wall or a tree with a tank won't even scratch paint on the tank IRL (see Russian tank shows), but in the game (A2OA) results in damage to the crew and the tank itself. I reckon same will apply with the current model.
From this extract, it appears, based on the class AmmoCoef, that the damage for this particular suppressor is 0.8 of the non-suppressed bullet's damage, the flash is reduced to .8 normal, bang to .6 normal, and the velocity (typicalSpeed variable) is reduced to 0.6 of the normal value. This code is for the machine gun suppressor, but the other suppressors show similar values, all with hit reduced to .7, and speed to .6 of their normal values.
In my interpretation, this issue is still not fixed, either on the damage or velocity front. <<<
Wow. This basically means that damage is actually scaled even more, because the velocity is also reduced (my guess: 0.8^2 (0.64) of original, relation seems to be linear).
Wow.
Definitely needs a fix.
Can you try setting the default audio in Windows to the headphones?
I think there should be like an "Emergency secondary weapon button" [...]
Totally.
Yeah, 15 years of Internet use manifest itself :P As wrong as flogiston theory, but still trying to look good by means of cheap tricks. They won't change the fact you're a demagogue, though.
And please put at least some ideas of interest in you "post". Your approach of trolling is just a waste of space.
Look, who's talking :D
Keep (t)rolling, I'm out.
But it seems nobody is taking a look out of everyones own little box so far.
I'm surprised how many people can fall for this obvious manipulation (aka trolling).
1.Many soldiers are carrying a grenade/rocket launcher in addition to the main weapon - check.
2.A rifle/shotgun/SMG is lighter and more convenient to carry than a said launcher - check
3.Law enforcement, special forces, regular infantry frequently carry two weapons (confirmed by videos, books and manuals) - check
And now we got some guy saying:
And the above stuff somehow transforms to "it's not realistic" and "carrying two weapons is CoD-Hollywood-unrealistic" (sic!!!) and hence it does not exist - even though the facts say otherwise...
I'm not surprised such people exist. I'm surprised anyone can take him seriously.
Come on, guys, it's not funny. It's such an obvious demagogue logic/trolling that I can't believe anyone else will not see it. I'm wordless...
Okay, since my post got unfortunately deleted (no problem with that; thanks for cleaning up, anyway), I'll add some more weighty arguments.
Main argument against, as I see, are "it's special forces only"/"it's unrealistic".
I'll just leave it here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-11/c01.htm#sectionii1_7 (FM 3.21-11 SBCT INFANTRY RIFLE COMPANY, US Army Field Manual), section 1.7-c-1-b:
Squad Designated Marksman. Although normally functioning as a rifleman within one of the fire teams in a rifle squad, the squad designated marksman is *also* armed with the M24 7.62-mm sniper rifle.
This precisely means that regular infantry companies (Stryker Brigade Combat Team) employ specialists (marksmans) carrying two weapons (M4 and M24). Either there are many CoD fans in the army, either having 2 weapons yet finds use in RL forces sometimes. (Though, even it wasn't - regular forces don't employ IR laser pointers and SCUBA diving, don't they? However, we see that in ArmA 3.)
2armapirx: IMHO, even that won't be needed, provided proper weight-fatigue system is implemented. If you try to take an M60 and an M107 in ACE, you will be able to run less than 50 meters before collapsing. Adding to that engine-provided aim shake will deter anyone from trying to play a walking arsenal :)
Although, the idea is nice. I would only suggest changing the name, because "is" prefix suggests a boolean value (true/false), not something with 3 or more values.
Why not two launchers?
And that would be perfectly an option, by the way. One can easily pack two M72's on his back, IMHO, provided he doesn't carry anything else (except a holstered pistol)
Probably related to #8309
We have some clues but can you provide us with specific reproduction steps (including info about who is group leader, who server and who client) and - if you can - a sample mission where it is reproducable?
Will try to question participants next time I see it.
Bug occurs also on cars sometimes, see: http://steamcommunity.com/id/elquentaro/screenshot/882978868002841835
I confirm the ItaliaPRIME's observation. The bug happens when two people try to occupy the same position at the same time. Repro requires high ping for one of or both players.
@MadDogX: maybe it's also worth to transfer priority and impact (set by CSR Kryssar) from the ticket #7328?
Well, from a prospect of a fellow developer - it can be done, although will require some magic.
To make such feature working, the following needs to be done on the client:
This scheme is complex enough, but solves all possible problems "by design" - i.e. does not require feedback suppression, does not have problems with explosions being doubled when a person speaks "directly", etc. The two downsides are doubled VOIP network load (though the bandwidth required is fairly low ATM) and a requiredment to perform signal mixing on the CPU - though the latter factor is negligible, considering ArmA would unlikely ever load all the cores of the modern processor.
So, it can be done, but requires a fair bit of tinkering.