@DemonMustang, Dr_Death is correct in SOME respects.

SOME suppressors have rubber “wiper” washers in that effectively have a hole in that is slightly smaller than the fired built, as a result the built loses a small amount of energy from each of the wiper washers it passes through in the suppressor but the trade-off is a quieter suppressor with less muzzle flash until such time as the wiper washers are worn then it functions like a normal suppressor (i.e. one that doesn’t contact the built), the down side is they are not good for autos and have a short finite life between servicing IF you want to retain optimum muffling/flash suppression (better than a “normal” suppressor), so are best suited to engagements where range is not the primary concern but the element of surprise/concealment is during the initial phase.

This type of suppressor is known categorically to reduce built energy thus effect range while the wiper washers are functioning “wiping” the surface of each built passing through them.

So no one can argue that “ALL” suppressors have NO negative effect with regard to range/built energy/function, as SOME do even though they are in the minority of suppressors produced/used.

fragmachine:

But developers talk and surmise about all sorts of things beforehand and early on, its not until things get well under way that things have to be dropped or changed etc even from things like “technology” (GPUs, CPUs) not progressing as fast as you thought it would, as not everyone’s crystal ball is correct on everything when you have to guess ahead a couple of years.

Shure the havoc engine isn't physx, but there are only so many ways to display stuff on screens and to transfer pertinent info across a network so it works properly rather than as a 2nd rate resource hungry compromise that has to work across a broad range of PC’s with different capabilities, take something as simple as making a map twice as long and twice as wide, that 4 times the amount of everything, when you get up to Arma 3 sizes that an exponential resource growth vs. e.g. spin tyres.

While I would love this, it’s easy the see the problems with 270km2 island with >20 people in a MP server with plenty of vehicles and all the extra data that would need to be transferred so everyone gets wheel ruts etc from everyone else and ALL the extra faces that would have to be placed into a scene AND remembered AND altered when you may be nowhere near them.

Perhaps when spin-tyres gets as big a land mass size as Arma and has MP and a long list of etc’s then it may be time to talk

Actually you could argue the range finder would be such low intensity as to render the above moot and most unlikely to be seen unlike its designator brethren which is designed to be seen when designating and is much higher power and takes a battery.

It’s also possible to determine distance from focus with high quality magnifying optics which don’t have “infinity” focal lengths, e.g. I have an old dumpy-level that I use for setting out building foundations and basic surveying, if a survey staff moves 1m back or forwards its imposable to read-off (blurred) without refocusing to the new position, its focal lengths are 0.3m to 2km (able to read 1cm marks on a survey staff at 2km !allegedly! though I have easily been able to read 1mm marks off a 5m retractable pocket tape measure at 150m), which given the rate that CCD are progressing (22 years from now vs. >15 years since my dumpy level was made) could easily change from manual focusing to auto focusing which just gets mounted discreetly within the range finder and is totally passive (i.e. outputs nothing) and could provide course 1m increments of range based on the precise distance apart the lenses or any prisms are as the CCD would be presented with a blurred image at anything other than the correct focal length which would be a crisp sharp image, if stereoscopic methods are used this increases accuracy, as you also have “images” a known distance apart laterally in essence forming another triangle to triangulate from.

See:
Coincidence (parallax) rangefinding or stadiametric (stadia) rangefinding principles.

In real life I could jog along at a steady pace while screwing on/off a suppressor in order to put it in/remove it from a pocket, I could probably scoop up a suppressor off the ground while remaining fluid and importantly NOT stopping thus being a harder target.

In the game we have to STOP for the period of time we are in the inventory to attach/remove e.g. a suppressor from/to an available e.g. “pocket”, so are more of a target for that time.

Are you sure you’re not just exchanging guns, or are playing in mode where your in the unlikely situation of finding gun accessory’s laying around the place NOT attached to anything as a mechanism of the type of gameplay like PvP deathmatch vs. PvAI coop whare you can only take things from bodies via the inventory if you want to be highly selective.

You will find a lot of military stuff is “hardened” with regard to EMP busts, though it’s true geostationary satellites are a bit of an Achilles heel somewhat more so than GPS satellites that are about half the distance away from the earth as the former, while low earth orbit satellites are the lowest risk which would be the realm of most satellites regardless of if they orbit relative the equator or the poles, imaging satellites are mostly on polar orbits synchronous to the sun angle.

But for it to affect “infantry electronics” and “vehicle systems” is a little silly considering EMP from nuclear detonation is lots more powerful in a localised area (up 1000km or more beyond the blast zone) and IS a consideration when making military electrical/electronic equipment, likewise an air burst from a meteorite also generates more EMP in a localised area than solar flares do.

You would also need to factor in “time” from the sun to the earth and relativeness to day/night cycle and the effects of the magnetosphere at northern/southern points, which is why the northern & southern “lights” occur.

CH47 can land on relatively calm water for short periods in standard form, longer if the engines are left running regardless of if the rear door is down or up, as it’s how they get RIBs in and out.

So perhaps it’s more important to actually give helicopters the ability to float where applicable, and in the context of sea state and if a controlled landing or a minor crash vs. a major impact, e.g. to float upright or inverted vs. almost immediate sinking due to impact destruction.

edit:
ch47
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEPRlZXk49s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML78tNtdPQI

I came across this also, but I was in an MP game and quite shortly after some idiot started teleporting people and vehicles out to sea, so I just put it down to that silliness.

The two bridges I have seen it on are the one closest the sea in Agia Marina and the one nearest the barracks/firing range in Agia Marina.

It appear as if the bridge just drops vertically with the edge walls disappearing while you (player) levitate over the gap as if the bridge was still there.

So it’s not just limited to AI.

To be blunt, the MXM isn’t really supposed to be anything more than a long barrel “accurised” variant of the base weapon as opposed to say a carbine variant which may be issued for CQB.

So given it has 2 sights it would need to have semi and full auto so it can also fill the suppression role too, after all burst wouldn’t really be needed given marksmen are slightly more disciplined with the trigger and are generally better shots to start with.

Just because a helicopter falls on its side even when running on or close the ground at low speed and e.g. gets the rotors snapped off etc etc doesn’t mean it should explode or even catch fire, given many military helicopters have fire suppression systems.

Youtube is littered with helicopter crash videos showing low speed crashes, crashes from low/stationery hovers caused by tail rotor failures or rotor entanglements, even helicopters striking the ground at ~60kph at low angles, which show they don’t explode unless there is significant speed and high angles involved at point of impact, even fire doesn’t happen that often.

Having everything explode at the merest provocation is very Hollywood

It is still broken, though the mortar now appears in the supports menu with an icon on the left/top of the screen signifying availability, however it is ultimately broken at the point you would select the number of rounds to fire (1 or 2)

If you press “0” > “8” (supports) > ”1” (artillery strike) > “1” (mk8 mortar [8 echo]) >

You get on on screen error/script message

“Error in expression <omm_burst" + format [", ETA %1s", round getArtilleryETA [vehicle _provider, _sup> Error position: <getArtilleryETA [vehicle _provider, _sup> Error format: Undefined variable in expression: getartilleryeta”

Taken from: arma3_2013-05-23_09-55-22.rpt & arma3_2013-05-23_10-32-26.rpt

edit: FYI: one .rpt was with "r3f_armes.pbo" (mod) loaded, the other .rpt was with it off thus mod free, also the mortar inc the AI man with it is in place on the map, as I also ran to its position.

As of the v0.59.105634 build that came out today 23rd May, the problem seems to be fixed.

You can disregard my early post (0028645) above from today, as that was the prior v0.59.105592 build.

Perhaps you also need to make a better "5" font so it won’t look like a "6" when scaled down!

Taken at 1600x900
http://webspace.ssesurf.co.uk/~m.todd/images/arma3_5or6.jpg

I too get this ~ 60% of the time when I Alt+Tab out of the game.

likewise if I shut the game down, I get "arma3 stopped responding" etc about ~ 75% of the time.

edit: odd formating of "%" in post

Given the availability of throat mic etc and bone conduction headphones today, then the period that A3 is set in there should be less absolute shouting in general given the use of tactical radio.

The new sound are less shouting and perhaps more conveying “urgency” through being louder than normal talking without it being like your trying to shout at people up to 50m away above the sound of gunfire etc.

For me in sustained level flight with the ka-60 with zero wind and 23% overcast at 15m above the sea the top speed is ~ 305kph repeatable in all 4 principle directions consecutively negating existence of wind factors etc.

The speed of aircraft is given for level flight based on an ISA day and is seldom the same as Vne (Never exceed speed – the speed YOU must never exceed), but there are a couple of military helicopters today with Vne >190kts (352kph) and even over 216kts (400kph) and there have even been a couple of helicopters that have been proven to fly >400kph in level flight (modified Lynx) not just over short distances but over 15km and 25km distances of sustained level flight.

You should also remember in A3 you in essence have maximum take-off power available at all times, whereas in real life maximum take-off power is normal duration and duty cycle limited and that many helicopter have far more power from their engine/s than you could hope to use in RL at sea level, as it is there to deal with altitude (physical vs. density), so you still have the same performance at e.g. a 6000ft take-off as with 0ft take-off.

I get this also most of the time on game shutdown.

uploaded b101uk_arma3_2013-05-16_15-37-21.rar

I think shoehorning Stratis onto the bigger Altis map is just a waste of time all for a “token” get in and take off, given the big island has a couple of natural “land” choke point that lends its self to side vs. side MP even if you want to make it asymmetric, besides, having both within artillery range of each other would screw it for Stratis as it has so little (by comparison) places to have bases of any size which couldn’t just be guess and using blind firing and your MP score to detect where they are, yet alone if just one or two good players from the opposing side got on the island as they could sweep it quite quickly to direct artillery by comparison to how slow Altis would be to sweep.

It’s already possible to start ~ 200km away from islands (from world 0,0,0 point really) with no ill effect to the sea (much beyond 200km there is increasing “shimmering” effect of the sea surface directly around the players boat and by the time you get to 2500km away its very apparent in aircraft over a much wider area)

However 200km potentially gives you 400km between start/end point off opposite sides or ends of the map or if returning to the same location (e.g. aircraft carrier), that’s approximately 1h helicopter ride (MH9/AH9) just to get to the island, then another 1h helicopter ride to get to the end point, or by the fastest boat in the game so far 200km to the island is >2 ¾ hours assuming you want to get to the near side of it, so there is plenty of places (159730km2) an aircraft carrier or other ships etc could be placed even if outside the bounds of the traditional map-space.

I quite like how it works now, as there is little need when moving for anything other than the “standing” “crouched/kneeling” or “prone” stances which can be fluidly switched to while moving, after all its better to get to LOW cover and go prone in a fluid fast single movement THEN adjust the stance up to firing position rather than getting to the same LOW cover adjusting the graduated stance in the final few meters slowing your movement leaving you exposed for much longer.

But then I don’t play with WASD, so don’t suffer its shortcomings being a left hand mouse user using most of the right of the keyboard and/or my joystick (flying) with the right hand.

Run a tank into a big mature oak tree at 30mph dead-centre, and while the tree and the tank may suffer mostly superficial looking damage, the personnel in the tank may in some respects come of worst vs. people in a good modern car hitting the same tree at 30mph.

This is because the people in the car will have a crumple zone ahead of them, which will decelerate the car over e.g. 1m thus a longer amount of time as the front crumples, with a tank there would be little crumpling so the tank stops comparatively much faster over a short distance e.g. 10cm, thus the impact the tank crew would suffer would be an order of magnitude higher as the tank stops BUT their body’s keep moving colliding with the stationery robust interior of a tank vs. the by comparison plush/soft interior of a car with its seatbelts.

Conversely if the car and the tank were to collide with each other THEN the comparative size, weight, strength of a tank given its ~ 40 times the weight of good modern car wins through.

So while armoured vehicles may survive things relatively intact, the crew inside are subject to more forces in some instances even though they are far less likely to suffer intrusions of objects/structures into the occupants compartment, likewise the weight of a tank will help it ONLY with movable smaller objects rather than immovable objects .

You can test this out by jumping up and down on the spot, if you bend your legs as you land you stop slower thus the forces put through your body are much reduced, IF you were to do the same but were to keep your legs locked straight for the landing even from a little jump, you stop much faster and the forces put into your body are much higher as the “stop” is over a shorter distance and time, this is akin to an armoured vehicle hitting something that stops it suddenly with little deformation of the armoured vehicles structure vs. something softer with more deformation colliding with the same object.

As for MRAP’s losing wheels etc, they are designed to do that, as they are a sacraphicial component designed to be sheared in an explosion so the shape of the hull can do its job, also so the suspension mounts on the hull remain intact so they can be put back into service quickly using standard kits when smaller explosions are involved.

Personally, I don’t have any problems with the durability of vehicles or damage to people inside them from colliding with things, given the limited amount of vehicles so far.

This can only really be achieved IF the tank has a blade fitted OR if there are engineers tractors near with blades fitted, otherwise it’s a huge undertaking to hand dig a hole big enough for a tank with just a tank crew, you would need a couple of days with just 3 or 4 people from a tank crew!

Also newly dug emplacements can be quite barren when viewed from above unless constructed by a highly skilled machine operator where time has been permitted to do so rather than it being a quick defensive measure in the context you are proposing.

In such a case you would do better to employ the terrain and vegetation to your advantage.

Perhaps they should be done in relative order with times running consecutively with repairs taking the longest, while refuelling would be the quickest

1st: repair.
2nd: refuel
3rd: rearm

On the other hand holding a weapon (e.g. assault rifle etc) in your hands underwater while trying to swim would be a farce UNLESS you had flippers, it’s hard enough to use an almost neutrally buoyant spear gun without ANY flippers underwater.

Next time you at a swimming pool try swimming with a house brick in each hand with cloths on and some boots or use some of the other “items” used in swimming lesions that you recover from the bottom of the pool, but remember you need one for each hand and should hold them in a similar constraint as you would a weapon like an assault rifle.

Hardly “urgent” priority or “major” severity is it.

It needs to be like how TKOH did it for helicopter cyclic, in fact just import the TKOH helicopter dynamics completely.

DrHat, they sound exactly as they should for the northern half of the Mediterranean region, you could even argue the sound in some places doesn’t play often enough or with multiple instances at different distances thus sound levels and phase to each other!!!

Having spent a lot of time around the Med in the past, it’s a sound I can switch-off in my head BUT if it was missing it would be a loss of environmental sound realism, as they are really that loud even when 10m to 20m away.

p00d73, the US mil M320 is designed to be removed and used as a standalone IF needed and fits on the same rail as the foregrip on many M4 etc sub types.

The idea goes a bit to pot in the case of throat microphone, which would be virtually mandatory for divers or people needing to communicate very quietly/clearly in both noisy environments and quiet environments alike, or people subject to lots of wind noise.

It appears opfor either all have throat mic or no radio, though most blues have boom mic bar snipers, spotters and divers which must thus have throat mic.

I wander if in RL rabbits are like cats, in that they can fall from higher heights and stand a higher chance of survival than if below the critical height so that they have time to orientate themselves to land while maximising drag.

The terminal velocity of a cat is ~100kph (vs. a man at ~200kph)

i.e. veterinary studies have shown cats falling from higher than two building stories and less than seven stories on average have more injury’s than cats that have fallen more than seven building stories, as enough time has elapsed for the cats righting reflex to be performed and for them to increase drag slowing slightly.

Anyway I am off to a pet store to buy 50 fluffy bunny wabbits to throw from differing heights off a tall building! ;)

I have to do exactly the same, and yes I am right handed but use the mouse with my left hand,

There was a time when this was standard practice, as with WASD you have very few buttons you can use with your little finger plus you cannot mouse look while at the same time using a joystick while at the same time making it easy to switch back to the keyboard instantly unless you have a wide desk and don’t mind your joystick or mouse mat being out of place.

Well some axis have screwed up things happening, the 2 most noted for me is that turbo mode for vehicles is applied to the beginning of the reverse portion of the axis (http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9176) and the general screwy nature of collective implementation.

Most axis are -100% to +100%

If you map the collective so “collective up [analogue]” is the up portion of your chosen axis (either + or – range) and conversely “collective down [analogue]” gets mapped to the opposite range, you end up with a collective that only works through half its range, as “0” gets mapped to the centre of the axis while the lower half gets ignored regardless of if it’s the “+” or “-“ portion mapped to “UP”

Mapped like the above the mh-9 (full fuel and just the co-pilot)
Up = 2100ft/min
Down = 1800ft/min
BUT the axis only works on half its range.

If you remove the portion of the axis mapped to “collective down [analogue]” and instead place it in “collective up [analogue]” in addition to the other half of the axis (you will now have both “+” & “-“ ranges mapped in “collective up [analogue]”)

You yield for the mh-9 (full fuel and just the co-pilot)
Up = 2100ft/min
Down = ONLY 1250ft/min
Now the axis works throughout its full range, BUT you are then deficient in sink-rate making it harder to get down to land.

If you then keep both “+” & “-“ ranges mapped in “collective up [analogue]” then head back to the “collective down [analogue]” and map as SECOND conflicting instance (will show up in red) for the down portion of the axis (you should now have “+ & -” ranges in the up and “-“ also in down mapping, assuming + is up and – is down, if you put the wrong one on you will have no up or no down)
Up = 2100ft/min
Down = 1800ft/min
Now axis works through about 75% of its range, BUT the lower half of the axis is sensitive just past the “0” centre point which then tails off, BUT is still better than having all the function in just half the axis, but makes landing harder as the lower part of the range beneath “0” is none linear while above “0” it is linear .

Therefore rather than suffer only half an axis working, or 75% of an axis with the lower 25% being sensitive, I decided to map both the "+ & -" to “collective up [analogue]” thus giving me my axis working through 100% of its range, I then also mapped my hat-switch down (digital on/off button) to “collective down [analogue]” thus with the analogue collective fully down I get 1250ft/min sink rate and if I press the hat-switch down it goes to 1800ft/min sink rate and if I release it, it goes back to 1250ft/min sink rate, I also mapped my hat-switch up to “collective down [button]” to take advantage of the quasi altitude hold it gives once released if momentarily pressed, though luckily for me it remains active even with some quite big cyclic/tail rotor inputs.

When you get cavitation or the propeller suddenly coming out of the water when it was under high load on an engine without a hard governor, it can lead to engines detonating, in addition with 2-strokes it can cause leaning of the fuel/air mixture thus the lubrication is reduced at the same time RPM rise much increasing the risk of seizure which is further compounded by the raw-water pump sucking air into the cooling circuit of the engine (water from the sea/river/lake acts as the cooling medium pumped around the engine), also in the case of cavitation either on water jet propulsion units or conventional screw props it can actually start to abrade the metal from the blade tips and their leading edge, as small area of water near the tips/leading edge actually vaporises causing small vapour bubbles which then suddenly collapse due to the pressure change which can cause localised point pressures of up to 60000psig (4137 bar) on the propeller blade surface, when abrading starts to damage the tips/leading edge this only serves to cause yet more cavitation, in extreme cases cavitation can destroy a propeller in minutes – e.g. repeatedly lifting out and lowering back into the water an outboard motor propeller at maximum rpm.

That is why off-shore power boats used for racing actually have a guy who’s only job is to work the throttles and adjust the trim tabs to help keep the propellers in the water and to back-off the throttles when they do come out of the water, in order to protect the engines and minimise cavitation when they renter the water.

Throttleman doing their job:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h19TNzelcK8

So the principle of getting engine damage of high performance 2-stroke or 4-stroke engine (outboard motor) is not itself incorrect OR likewise having to reduce throttle when out of the water is also not incorrect, the automotive equivalent of not having your propeller in the water is like having your drive wheels off the ground.

However the problem in the game with the RHIBs, is that their centre of gravity is in the wrong place when under power, meaning that the front of the RHIB is dropping over the wave sooner than it should thus lifting the rear out of the water, when in reality the centre of gravity (fulcrum) is much further back and in essence moves with power and speed changes, given if you are pushing water backwards to generate forwards speed then there must be an equal force being pushed forwards from the propeller centre beneath the fulcrum which also wants to push the back of the boat down and conversely lift the front up as they rotate around the fulcrum.

So in essence the RHIBs need a dynamic fulcrum point which moves backwards with power application and speed (it still needs to be further back than it is at the moment), this then would allow them to be stationery and act much as they do now while at the same time when under power it would shift to the rear.

Also what doesn’t help I think, is you sea waves are to close together which is only serving to create steeper waves with a more pointed top, when you could probably move the waves twice the distance apart and marginally make the troughs between the wave tops slightly lower ending up with waves with less steep sides and a wider top and marginally taller which would reduce somewhat the rear of the RHIBs lifting out of the water.

A small or medium size Anti-Tank Mine NOT damaging the tires! LOL

They will quite happily sever an MBT track and take out one or more idler wheels and suspension units and if the tank was moving at >10mph on relatively soft ground it would probably end up with the remaining wheels partly sunk in the ground, yet you think a tyre will hold out or would still be connected to the vehicle.

e.g.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8jUQ7jKdSM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0Tr1Epiga0

you should note that most mine-resistant vehicle designs that use wheels, they are designed to be relatively easily repaired and parts like the drive shafts, suspension, hubs and the wheel assemblies are designed to be sacrificial, as engineered weak-points are used so hull/chassis etc and their connection points remain undamaged, this can lead to perceivably weak wheel/suspension mountings in comparison to the overbuilt nature of conventional axles and their fixings to chasses on e.g. trucks

I don’t really think it’s needed even in first person view.

It’s easy to distinguish the 3 principle positions (standing, kneeling, prone) of which prone is the most obvious, while kneeling is quite obvious as the camera height changes between moving and stopped, leaning is also obvious as is left/right gun handedness.

Most of the other intermediate up/down/left/right stances are really more of use for firing from behind cover, while the different speeds (walking, tactical, jogging, sprinting) are also quite obvious, as most of the time you are going to be using tactical and jogging while sprinting overrides both for the duration its activated.

The comparison of tuned NONE standard off-road/SUV vehicles and race tuned ATV’s as an argument is quite flimsy and silly for military/work spec vehicle,

given the specs of race ATV’s vs. work counterparts is well documented as are the principle differences:

Race: low weight <200kg, very high power (for the cc) at high RPMs, manual clutch and gears and almost exclusively just 2wd made for just one person to be on it primarily.

vs.

Work: higher weight >260kg, low to middle power range to promote torque, almost always some form of automatic transmission for ease of use with selectable 2wd/4wd, and built to carry load on the front/back racks in addition to the driver and passenger AND to tow a trailer.

For an ~ 500cc (~ +-50cc) work type ATV, the one in game is not to far off, and is so far the fastest land vehicle taking the direct route cross-country.

“off-road” pickup:
The 0-60mph(0-100kph) time for the “off-road” pickup is ~ 15sec, which is on par with a low to mid-range spec ~ 2500cc td/tdi 4x4 pickup of about ~ 120hp.