- User Since
- Mar 10 2013, 6:44 AM (524 w, 1 d)
May 10 2016
Upvote this - http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=5374
I think what you're saying is this - http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=4239
It seems the devs don't get the idea or there's some strange limitation we users are not aware of.
This is especially serious with a Vermin.
Upvoted. It's not addressed yet.
At first I thought Fireball meant the problem has existed for a long time but then I found this - http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=5697
I agree with you anyway. This would be easy for BI to fix.
Why would a soldier do that in combat lol
We'd better use urban prone or high prone to shoot high, not this yoga thing.
I reported it earlier thinking it's a bug and then this - http://beta.arma3.com/spotrep-00006 - happened. I'm not sure what BI's intention is.
Upvoted. Details matter. So many details have been overlooked in the previous games. This should change.
So the devs haven't fixed this yet.. upvoted anyway.
Check these out:
And don't forget we can currently equip/unequip things like optics, uniform, vests, etc pretty quickly.
Thanks for the info, AD2001.
SO it's intended removal. Is this really a 'rollback' then?
InstaGoat said at http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10237 that those from the forum who can't drag and drop mounted NVG into their backpacks asked for this 'rollback' and BI did so instead of modifying the default loadout. What an amazing story! You guys are really smart, are you not?
So we finally got visible mounted NVG in 10+ years and lost them in a few months all because of those who can't UN-MOUNT them. Seriously, this is very much disappointing, BI. You should make them visible again. You should do what wolfstriked suggested above to satisfy those in the forum incapable of simple inventory work.
You are right. I saw those parts too. Devs are possibly modifying the goggles?
Good idea. I think it will solve some known problems.
Not during the day I guess :) There are some people complaining about NVG being mounted 24/7 and even welcoming this 'bug.' This 'bug' has to be fixed, but what wolfstriked suggested would be a nice compromise.
I confirm this is fixed. The hammer is now properly cocked.
What are you talking about? The point is not that it's cocked when on the ground but that it's not cocked when in your hand. As Goose mentioned above, 1911s are single action pistols and you 'have to' manually cock the hammer of one before the first shot.
But I'm not asking for manual cocking/decocking or something, since Arma is not Receiver. What I'm asking for is just the hammer staying cocked. There is no situation in Arma where the hammer is decocked.
Maybe these will help you see what's wrong with the hammer in Arma 3 :
Thanks for listening :) I hope this will be fixed soon.
I said 'mixture'. Its grips, slide and the integral rail are more like TLE/RL II while its camo/color scheme and sights are identical to those of Covert II.
I think it's a mixture of the pistol you mentioned and this- http://www.kimberamerica.com/1911/custom-ii/custom-tle-rl-ii
Anyway, I agree with you. The Vermin(...) have the same problem. Hopefully, they will change when .45 ACP is implemented.
Read and upvoted. Unlike other things(ammo, fire mode, etc) this one is necessary.
Then vote here - http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=2510
In addition to this, 'Low ready' would be great for CQB.
If done right, this will give shorter weapons some advantage which is nonexistent now. Nice idea.
Read and upvoted. But it took some time for me to understand...
There is a related thread in the forum.
+1. This should be the default stance.
Low ready is very much different from that Lower Weapon where your weapon is not shouldered.
Strange. I tested it with an Ifrit HMG just now and this bug is still there. I'm using the Dev build too.
Not fixed yet.
That specific LMG suppressor is for Mk200, not MX SW.
I'm not sure if this is intended..
Deadfast is right. If you turn your head to the right using Alt key, you can see the shells in flight. I voted up anyway because it still looks weird..
Probably this is a low priority. I believe the devs will eventually fix this and that turning in adjusted stances thing you mentioned.
BTW, even Borderlands 2 has this implemented..
The videos don't play..
Fortunately, there's a duplicate report with working links.
<Turning to a certain degree>
C1. Current anim without Aiming deadzone
Weapon + Upper body + Head + Lower body(Just like old tank destroyers)
C2. Current anim with Aiming deadzone
Weapon + Upper body - Head - Lower body(Natural.. kind of)
E1. Expected anim without Aiming deadzone
Weapon + Upper body + Head - Lower body(What we want!)
E2. Expected anim with Aiming deadzone
Weapon + Upper body - Head - Lower body(The same as it is now)
What he describes is the animation exclusive to Aiming Deadzone, not Aiming Deadzone itself. Aiming Deadzone is about your weapon and upper body moving separately from your 'head(= center)', whereas the said animation is about your weapon and upper body moving separately from your 'lower body(to a certain degree)'. Logically this animation has no reason to be exclusive to Aiming Deadzone. Aiming Deadzone or not, we should be able to turn to a certain degree without moving our lower body.
Explanation failure? Some technical limit that binds the directions of the head and the lower body? I'm not sure...
Good idea. I don't see the reason the already existing upper body turning animation is used only when Aiming deadzone is on. The current turning animation without Aiming deadzone is like that of WW2 tank destroyers which lack turrets.
May 9 2016
Insurgency 2 seems to have this feature too.
I agree that it's unnatural. But since we can turn it off, there's no problem :)
If they change the deadzone option like Psychomorph suggested(this will enable natural Low ready) and make the 'deadzone only' turning animation the default turning animation(like this suggestion - http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=4239 ), everybody will be happy.
They could make the option like this - http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/4866/armadeadzone.jpg (related to http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?151506-Another-suggestion-thread-this-time-full-blown-overkill )
This seems to be related with the default Lock-on/Zoom key binding. If you change Lock-on/Zoom to any other key than Hold sec. mouse button, then you can switch to target view by pressing sec. mouse button..
I realized this just now. It also occurs when you reload in high prone. The reload animations run as follows.
-High standing : Moves the upper body forward needlessly
-Standing : Natural
-Low standing : Natural
-Hight crouch : Moves the upper body forward needlessly
-Crouch : Twitches
-Low crouch : Raises the upper body
-High prone : Raises the upper body
The current reload animations in stances other than prone are fit only for two standing stances. Maybe because it's WIP.
I suffered the same problem(so I upvoted this) but it's fixed in the latest build. If you are using the latest Development build, you should check again.
Meanwhile, rifle to binoculars transition has become a mess. The natural drop animation since ARMA 1 is gone and it's this 'rifle on back' now. Even the transition in OFP CWC( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llR9sNZcHy0#t=0m10s ) was more natural than the current one in ARMA 3.
Why are you doing this BI?
It seems switching weapons on the move will be realized. That will be much more natural if a soldier drops his primary weapon instead of shouldering it.
That level of details would be great but I think we should ask for basic ones like this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFDDhNGUP94#t=1m53s - first, considering the current status.
Smookie, check these out.
With the rifle dropped to the side, additional procedure can be eliminated.
It seems like someone is preventing you from improving animations :(
To sprint and hit the dirt and crawl fast 25 meters with the pistol in our hands, we have to survive the situation that made us switch to the pistol first. To keep it realistic, the weapon should be dropped immediately in order not to delay the weapon transition and not to get yourself killed(an enemy rifleman turning to you from 5m away etc.). It WAS rather uneasy for common players(we reporters here are common players, right?) to acknowledge additional procedure(putting your rifle on back) before initiating a life-and-death movement that is UNHOLSTERING YOUR PISTOL and that's why this ticket exists without a single downvote.
As you may know, the problem of the current transition is twofold. It's slow(while prone this issue is dead serious - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBJ8nos5yqc#t=27m33s ) and unnatural(the animation itself and the fast-forwarded speed) all because of THE wrongly placed additional procedure. If some additional procedure(putting PW on the back / pushing PW to the rear) is necessary, wouldn't it be more natural to place it before less urgent actions like sprint or going prone? Why put it before the very last resort? If we reach out to our pistol instead of running or reloading or something, it means the threat is imminent and at close range. Running with the pistol etc. are actions subsequent to the transition. The ability to sprint faster after the transition means little when a soldier gets killed during the transition.
Please let us do it like IRL. It's natural and fast.
My suggestion is as below.
- Drop the rifle to the side, not to the front: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGU-liVAlw0#t=0m18s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IEOtvupVnE&list=WLCE25DF3D40C16D40 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HfwUO-iWH4#t=1m27s It seems sprint and going prone are possible because the rifle is completely out of the way. Sprint would be similar to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFVfbPFADF4#t=0m57s IMO a crawl is even less urgent than sprint and going prone. Pushing the rifle to the rear when we start crawling would work.
- Or make 'additional procedure before initiating fast reaction motion' easy for common players to acknowledge. Pushing the rifle to the rear from the dropped position could be fast and simple: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKdQMCPMdlg&list=WLCE25DF3D40C16D40#t=2m5s
- OR make it like the current binoculars animations(NOT auto switching back to the rifle whenever you change the stance part!). If we wanna sprint etc., we should manually switch back to the rifle, which is natural. Maybe you can add manual shouldering option in Actions menu for those who wanna run around with their pistol. IIRC, OFP had this feature.
- In a sniper's case, you can hold your rifle with your left hand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh99zEh9WpU#t=0m28s Or just drop your rifle on the ground. soldiers in OFP/Arma have dropped their weapons without mercy whenever they die and the weapons have been all OK! Since when did we give a damn about damaging the weapon? :) Or are you planning to implement Jagged Alliance-like(or S.T.A.L.K.E.R.-like) weapon condition feature?
Please, Smookie. YOU are the one who made the cool and natural weapon transition animation for ArmA 2. YOU are the one who gave us hope of better animations in Arma. Please don't forsake us.
They may or may not be implementing those which got 'reviewed' eventually. Now is not the time to judge.
I'm thankful for the reason ShotgunSheamuS said. They are paying attention :)
And it doesn't mean they're going to do nothing either :) or does it?
Hooray! Thank you, BI!
Here comes another example..
Yeah, that was beautiful. I really hope to see it in Arma 3.
I can't believe this got only 70+ votes while that female soldier model thing got 700+..
+1. You did this right in your SMK animations mod for Arma 2..
Confirmed. Rolling cancels aiming in the latest dev build.
This happened every time to me and my friend..
+1 to what meansoap said. That could be used for bolt action too..
OK, I downvoted that action menu thing you mentioned because there are MUCH more important aspects of the game that should be given priority FIRST(like Deploying a weapon / proper use of bipods, AI, optimization, etc.). Thanks for teaching me the true meaning of downvoting.
You are right, but don't worry. I didn't actually downvoted it. I just wanted to show Oktyabr how ridiculous his argument was by copy pasting some part of it. The ticket in question is what I upvoted months ago, after all.