Or at least a scroll wheel function. It would be much faster than dropping it on the ground.

TasmanskyCert, I know in Operation Arrowhead AI would surrender during the campaign. I believe in Arma 2 it was a module that had to be enabled in the editor for custom missions.

There are plenty of reports of soldiers landing on Normandy being shot while under water. A show I saw on the D-Day landings said the bullets would penetrate about one meter into the water before being slowed to a non lethal speed. Also, there's a difference of angles and distance when firing from the shore at a person in the water as opposed to aiming directly at the water about a meter away. I'd like to see that Mythbusters test done one more time but with a completely different angle and range.

I haven't tried that yet. I know NVGs are a real pain to use as the sun is rising, but they still function provided you don't look directly at the rising sun. Haven't actually used them at sunrise in the game yet, so I'll take your word for it.

xsolent, this game isn't about fairness, it's about realism. And in real life NVGs are horrible at disk, and you can't us scopes with them. Dragoan, the whole white out thing is pretty accurate. Any bright light like head lights can white out the NVGs.

From what I recall of using Night Vision, it's actually extremely accurate. There is no digital noise in NVGs, and they can be manually focused so blur is unrealistic.

Maybe a bit darker in areas with extremely low light. Like out in the country side.

Ya, this was a great feature in Arma 2. It get's irritating having to manually raise my weapon every time I open and close the map.

You can use the reflex sight with NVGs by pressing Left Ctrl + Right Click. Otherwise, as has been pointed out, this isn't an issue.

Can you give the name of the fortification? Or a more descriptive location?

My post processing is on Very High, not low as you seem to believe. At no point of being shot at does my screen look anything similar to yours. At no point does my screen somehow blur like glasses have fallen off my face.

I'm also not the only one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ4BrxxfIkY

Here's a wiki listing all the features of ACE. Strangely, anything to do with suppression is missing:
http://freeace.wikkii.com/wiki/Features_of_ACE2

Either you have an entirely separate mod, your graphics card is going crazy, or you're modifying the pictures. Either way, I've never heard anyone but you ever mention that ACE has some kind of suppression effect. Even in Dslyecxi's videos, you never see anything resembling screen blur, yet they're using ACE.

So no, I'm not taking anything back.

Crosshairs don't break the reality since any soldier with his weapon shouldered will know exactly where it's pointing. Won't be the most accurate but can be about as accurate as with the crosshair. In fact, VBS2, an even more realistic version of Arma that is used by militaries around the world actually has crosshairs by the request of US Special Operations.

The hit indicator is there because there's no other way to tell if you've been hit.

Your screen going blurry as an indication that you're being suppressed isn't needed considering the whizz and crack of bullets and puffs of dirt of bullets that hit nearby are all the indication you need.

The HUD is there for accessibility since most people are used to an indicator that shows you how much ammo you have. Also disabled at higher difficulties and in the Arma community's renowned ACE mod.

Ya, sorry you're full of shit there.... =/

I just opened up ACE to see if MAYBE you were right and I just forgot. 3 Infantry squads firing at me as I ducked behind a rock, and no blur. No visual change whatsoever. I checked modules to see if it was an option there. Again, no.

And this whole thing isn't a difficulty based thing. It would be every difficulty. Besides, it would be bullshit for people who want to play realistically on Elite, but have to deal with the stupid shit of BF3 inspired screen blur.

To your first post, it's BECAUSE it's an unrealistic effect that does absolutely nothing. It's a stupid addition only added because BF3 did it. As in BF3, it would have no effect on the reactions of people and wouldn't do anything. It is as pointless as allowing you to change the color of your socks.

To your second one, if you hadn't noticed, my first post was after I downvoted and told you why. Then you started this bullshit :people don't want it because it would make it too difficult for them" in a pathetic attempt to justify why people would disagree with it. THAT is why I am making such a "who hah" over it. Less over the issue, more your idiotic perception on why people disagree with it.

And your whole thing about dirt in the eyes as would happen in real life, I got a word you need to learn: Eye-pro. Whether Oakleys or Desert Locust goggles. That's exactly what they're designed for.

You also think trained soldiers are going to just sit and hide during suppression knowing full well that the next thing to follow is a flank? Again, bullshit. If suppression was as effective as you seem to believe in real life, then there wouldn't even be battles in war. First side to get suppressed would lose every time. Sorry, war isn't like that. If you look to BF3 for realism, you've got a lot to learn.

I've been suppressed and flanked countless times in PvP, I've also suppressed and flanked. Never once has suppression been an issue. You're getting upset because people return fire? Really? That's the first time I've heard someone consider that unrealistic. Especially since the first order of business while being suppressed is to get UNsuppressed. Not hide and hope the bullets stop.

Shotgun, you've gotta be kidding me with that statement. "The only people who disagree don't want it too difficult". Bullshit! I play BF3 occasionally, and suppression doesn't do a damn thing. It's still a run-and-gun game. Get off your high-horse. People are against it because they want realism. What you are suggesting is unrealistic. It's like you think people stand in the open when they're being shot at, yet making their vision blurry will lead them to cover. You want a way to make suppression more effective? Extremely, ungodly long respawn times. Make it so people don't want to die.

You want a game with fake stuff put in, go back to BF3. This has never been a problem in any of the OFP or Arma games.

I definitely disagree on this. For the AI, ya that would be a nice touch, for PvP it's an unneeded effect. As your vision doesn't blur in real life when being suppressed, it shouldn't in Arma. In real life there is no indication that you're being suppressed save for the rounds that are flying all around you. You don't need an indication to take cover, being shot at is all the indication you need.

Make Love Not War, you could look East and West and see which direction is brighter. That'd give you some idea.

I personally never meant Moderators are doing a subpar job. My meaning of better moderation was more scrutiny of what's truly an issue, and what is not. As I was saying before, I've seen several tickets where people just don't understand the game mechanics. Such as one person complaining about how your own grenade won't kill you failed to realize that that was due to the difficulty setting. Or one guy complaining that a bullet he fired was going over the head of the target he was aiming at because he doesn't understand the arc of a bullet as it leaves the barrel. I've also seen a few tickets of people complaining about the bullets they fire hitting whatever cover they're behind because they don't understand that the barrel itself, not just the sights, need to be clear of any obstruction.

More Moderators is the same as better moderation. It wasn't a personal attack, MadDog.

So people like me who have been playing Arma since Arma 2 first came out, has reported multiple bugs, but never set up a forum account would basically be screwed? Sorry buddy, this isn't a members only thing.

Yes, definitely needs better moderation as I also get sick of people making complaints about "hit boxes" or "inaccurate aim" because they don't understand zeroing and bullet trajectory. Or like you said, they want to add unrealistic effects to make it look cooler. It's stupid, but that's not the majority of the feedback. At least that I've seen. I've seen several good suggestions and plenty of tickets pointing out bugs and glitches.

The more people able to submit tickets, the faster bugs and issues will be found and fixed.

This has to do with difficulty settings. Try setting the difficulty to Elite and doing it.

I understand, but I still think that's pretty ridiculous. That would be like saying Grand Theft Auto would be a role model if they had a note on a splash screen saying they don't support criminal activity. I don't see how a note can make or break a "role model" when nothing in the game changes. I mean, it's a little naive to sit there and think that the developers like war, or that putting that the developers dislike war makes them a role model. I just find the entirety of this ticket to be ridiculous.

Yet his posts before that were completely different including how he wanted the game to be anti-war and be a role model. Despite the fact that he says he agrees with your post, his previous posts had been entirely different. You're annoyed because "no s**t, it's a war game." He's annoyed because he sees it as glorifying war.

As per your post. The difference between this game and flight simulators, or other types of simulators, is there have been countless "war" games in the past. Save for possibly a few indie games unknown to me, no "war" game has ever been anywhere near realistic. The top game series are Call of Duty and Battlefield. "THIS IS WAR", in my opinion, is intended to reflect how the game is grounded to reality in it's simulation, as realism is what makes this game far better than the previously mentioned series, and what the developers take pride in. Also, it's a play on words from the saying of "This is war" which naturally means a type of rivalry, but in this case alludes to the World War that is taking place in this game.

Look, frankly this is a ridiculous idea. I'm for removing the splash screen to allow you into the game quicker, but to remove it because it somehow glorifies war? That's just an incredible leap of logic right there.

Are you afraid someone is going to read "THIS IS WAR" and suddenly jump up and run to a recruiting station? Or a politician is going to see it and declare war? I don't understand what the issue of it is.

If you're looking at a game to be some kind of role model, then you're looking in the wrong places.

This whole thing just reminds me of the recent incidents of kids in the US being expelled from school for having objects that are vaguely in the shape of guns, whether it be paper or food. It's pretty sad that people take such offense at inconsequential things. This IS war, as in it IS a war game. It's an accurate statement. You treat it as if it's saying "War is fun".

It reminds me of all the people who try to link video games to violence.

"This is war" isn't celebrating war, it's saying that this is the most realistic war game you'll ever play. I think you're reading a bit too much into it to be honest.

I'm sure this will be worked out. I think this is an "Alpha" thing. Arma has always had realistic sounds, I'm assuming they just haven't implemented that feature yet. Much like the current helicopter physics, I'm guessing it's just a placeholder for the finished product.

It definitely is a really cool feature and that Max Payne video is pretty cool, but it's more for arcade style shooting games. That's the only problem. The ragdoll physics in Arma are definitely in need of some work however.

I wouldn't say too heavy, but they definitely don't move in a realistic way a lot of the times. Sometimes they'll sorta bounce up and spread their arms and legs out like when you die in Super Mario almost. Other times they fall to the ground in weird ways with some joints locking up a bit. It's OK as it stands, but as I said definitely needs a bit of refining.

This is a video of a US soldier being shot by a sniper in Iraq. It hit his vest and he survived with only a large bruise (the sniper and his friend weren't so lucky)

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

Being hit in the plate causes far, far more energy transfer than a round that pierces flesh. Yet, notice how he barely even reacts to the round other than falling down.

Actually, just dropping to the ground is more realistic than being knocked backwards. There's not a very big transfer of energy when a round penetrates tissue or bone. The head may jerk a little bit, but when someone is shot it's more easily described as a marionette that has had it's strings cut. The only reason you may see someone fall backwards is due to the reaction of the person being shot IE jumping backwards out of shock. A bullet to the brain kills faster than you can react to being hit.

Someone posted a video on a similar ticket where a 9mm is described as having the same force as a 10lb (4.5 kg) weight being dropped from .72 inches (1.8 cm). A shot from a rifle isn't going to cause much more energy transfer.

Someone being knocked around by the sheer force of a bullet is only realistic in Hollywood or video games.

hitman, an obvious way to not catch your face on a rotor blade is by not walking into the rotor blade. There is no possible way this can "mess everything up" unless you have some kind of good luck ritual of running face first into the tail rotor.

There have been multiple tickets made about firing from vehicles. This has been a common thing with Arma games and I really don't see them ever changing it for whatever reason.

Never experienced that. Always one hit kill in the head for me.

AssassinenMuffin, in the Alpha, you're right. The Alpha is missing about 90% of the full game content, so I'm sure we'll see modern weapons in the full game.

That doesn't seem like something they'd do intentionally in my opinion.

RickOShay, I'm no designer or programmer. The video is actually from an Arma 2 mod called Advanced Combat Environment/ACE. Those guys are the ones who should be working for Bohemia.

strangere, exactly, or say a rocket or missile blows up a vehicle, or lights it on fire, the ammunition should also cook off. Basically, if it catches fire and has ammunition anywhere inside, the ammunition should cook off.

Ya, I spent about 5 minutes staring at the options and wasn't sure which to put it under. Sorry about that.

xCryonic, they do have something to that effect implemented and I believe they had something similar in Arma 2. The "ammo cook off" module in ACE mod expanded and improved on it. Vehicles would burn or spew fire as in the video link before blowing up, and after blowing up ammunition would cook off and fire in random directions. Compared to it, at least in vanilla A2, the explosions were very bland. They've improved a bit in Arma 3, but in my opinion the whole ammo cook off would make it even better.

Just tried it, and it works perfectly. I'm sorry for ever doubting you guys.

They actually do have them, but they're only found in their plate carriers/LBVs. Since you can't loot anything from those, you actually have to take the entire thing off them. Definitely needs to be fixed.

I think some of the soldiers that landed in Normandy would disagree with the Mythbusters here. A show I saw on D-Day on the Military Channel talked about how rounds would go about a meter into the water before being slowed down. Also, I think for the Mythbusters, aiming directly at the water about a meter away from it would have different results than the angle and distance of shooting at someone in the water from the shore. Just my assumption.

I can confirm the suppressed grenade launcher shot for the Katiba at least.

I think, after the firefight has stopped, the AI engaged in the fight should move towards the last known location. It'd add a bit of realism.

.... Well that took a dark turn.

+1

It's not a "cop out" it's a real type of ammunition that's in development.

Keragon, I think it's pretty clear (though interpretations may vary) that in the Infantry Showcase, you're playing as Americans. It's also said with an American accent. This is just incorrect. It's not a game-breaking thing, but one for accuracy.

Saying Roger and Wilco together is redundant as it is since you're not going to comply to orders if you didn't receive them. Saying Wilco implies you received the orders that you are complying to.

You may have been an EMT, I was in the Army. I'm sure we do a lot of things differently for the sake of keeping the net clear. Such as during a long transmission, you're supposed to say "break" to open up the net for a second if anyone needs an immediate transmission to get through. You have to keep in mind that a lot of people are going to be on the same net. Especially at Battalion level and up. That's where "brevity" comes in. Saying Wilco alone may not impede any other traffic, but it's better to keep the net clear all the same.

Fact remains, for the US at least, we are told from the get-go to NEVER say Roger Wilco along with several other common Hollywood phrases. So the problem here lies in American forces saying it. Any other NATO forces may say it, I don't know. In the US military, however, it's a violation of radio etiquette and would not be said.

Like Traxus said, it's about accuracy.

Haha, no I got that, but my argument was, as was the original posts argument, that it's inaccurate for the US Army to say it. That's why earlier I was saying other NATO countries, sure, but you wouldn't hear it in the US Army. It's obviously not a huge issue, but more of a tweak for accuracy's sake.

I wasn't actually ranting, I just put that at the end as a joke since I basically wrote an essay.

The US Army is actually in the midst of phasing out the worthless ACUs for MultiCams as they have been proven more effective to anyone with a pair of eyes. MultiCams have been issued to soldiers deploying to Afghanistan for the last couple years, and soon you won't see ACUs anywhere.

The way the US Army trained us was that since Wilco implies you understood, hence why you're complying with the order, not to say Roger along with it as a means to keep all non critical radio chatter to a minimum. The US considers that to be an extremely important thing, hence why we were forbidden from using it even though it's not incorrect.

While the Alpha has not explicitly stated it is the US Army, there's actually a picture listing all playable units in Arma 3 (though it may or may not have changed). Those units are:
---US---
US Army's 7th Infantry Division

DEVGRU (Seal Team Six as they're more commonly, yet incorrectly known)

SFOD-D (Delta Force, the US Army's rip off of the SAS)

5th Special Forces Group (Green Berets)

---UK---
SAS

---Germany---
KSK

---Poland---
GROM

---Italy---
Il Nono

Last thing, just to be clear, the reason why you are not to use redundant words over the radio is because every second you're on the line is another second a wounded serviceman can't get a MedEvac. THAT is why those three phrases were hammered into us as something you don't say.

Is it the US? If so, then apparently not if you've never been trained not to use Roger and Wilco together. Several of my friends served in the Navy, and only one of them ever even used a radio. However, I was in a reconnaissance unit in the US Army. Radio communications, along with several other things, were very big and we had constant training on it. As I've said, it was hammered into us never to use roger and wilco together considering wilco is saying I understand and will comply.

Now, let's look at your claim of since you play as NATO forces, you will somehow adopt a different radio etiquette.

First off, that's not true, nor even feasible if you've been trained one way for years. Whether it's acceptable as NATO communications procedure, someone who has been trained NOT to do it for years isn't going to start saying it that way just because it's acceptable.

Second, you play as NATO in the sense that when watching Saving Private Ryan, you're watching the Allies fight. While technically true, you're only watching one country. They don;t jumble up their units all together, they all have different sectors and wouldn't likely work together on a large scale. Therefore, radio communications from the US Army would be going to the US Army, not other NATO forces. The other NATO forces you play as are Special Operations units, not other assisting armies. So, I stress, while hearing other countries say roger wilco, it may be correct, it would never be correct to hear the US Army say it. It would be like saying it's accurate to have an American say "lorry" instead of "car" because "lorry" is used in other English speaking countries. It may be used correctly, but NOT accurately.

-end rant-

Kid18120, no. Just no. What you also wrote before, while true, isn't accurate. Those aren't NATO procedures you posted, those are responses over radio and what they mean followed by your own interpretation. Roger and Wilco used in conjunction are redundant and not to be used together.

It's clear you have no actual experience in this matter, as opposed to people like me who have served and learned proper radio etiquette by NATO standards.

ROGER AND WILCO ARE NOT TO BE USED TOGETHER. Saying roger means you understand. Saying Wilco means you understand and will comply. Both are interchangeable when receiving orders, but not to be used together.

@ViiK, that is true, and it's understandable. However, when playing as the US military, it's just not accurate. As the other services included in the game, I can assume it would be fine, but I don't know for sure.

US Army and NATO procedures may be different, but the fact is you still wouldn't hear a US soldier saying "Roger, Wilco."

In the US Army, they hammered into us 3 things NEVER to say over the radio.

1- "Roger, Wilco."

2- "Roger that."

3- "Over and out."

So, while other NATO countries may use those phrases, the US military wouldn't under any circumstance. Especially since bad things happen to the poor souls who say those things during training. Bad things.

It's not that it's hard, it's that a lot of people don't know the commands. Especially because as it stands everyone must type #vote kick (player name). I've been in plenty of games that can't launch because one person won't ready up, or the recent aggravating incident of someone mic spamming themselves playing a guitar nonstop, and while I can tell English speaking people what to type, the language barrier causes some issues.

I think integ3r's solution is a great idea and definitely worth implementing.

Actually, Assault Rifles are typically zeroed at 300m. Judging by where the rounds were hitting, it was right on your 400m mark on the scope. It's all pretty accurate. The only difference is in real life there would be wind affecting the trajectory.

Also, 400m is equal to 4 football fields. The fun kind where where people don't roll around screaming anytime someone brushes up against them XD

Timziito, it looks accurate to me. Are you measuring along the ground, or with an imaginary straight line? Also, it's highly unlikely they'd mix up meters with feet because Bohemia Interactive is based out of the Czech Republic and they use the metric system.

So, your solution is add something that takes away from realism and forces people to use it no matter how realistic they want the game to be? Think about it, in the future when they have planes dropping 500lb bombs, imagine someone accidentally dropping in the wrong area and kills a group of their own team. That's something that happens in real life and should be allowed in game. Much like someone not paying enough attention and shooting one of their own teammates by mistake.

This isn't an oversight, this was on purpose.

With the rest of the game to be distributed later this year.

Marlon, it's definitely not the high pitched whistling sound you hear in movies, but you can definitely hear it. I know for a fact that mortars arcing over head sound like a jet that's fairly high above.

cychou, the AN/PVS 14s aren't a scope. That's just modern day Night Vision. The monocle design counters the depth perception issues caused by the previous generation dual eyed NVGs, PVS 7s.

I tried reading it, but your broken English is kind of hard to decipher.

Asaob, are you complaining about it being difficult to aim while moving and shooting?

It's not really an arbitrary difficulty. A GPS won't make you suddenly appear on a paper map in real life. You get the 8 digit grid off the GPS device and then find your position on the map.

An incarnation of the ACRE mod would boost teamwork as well. ACRE is a TS3 plugin for ACE in ArmA 1 and 2. It makes it so, without a radio you can only talk to people within realistic voice range, and with a radio you can talk to anyone on your channel within the limitations of the specific radio. It's hard to explain why, but this created the best communication and teamwork I've ever seen in any game.

I agree, but this isn't "major" in severity.

Honestly, I doubt you took into account that the barrel is below the sight.

A - You claimed you were hitting the rock despite having a clear picture through your sight. As I and others have stated, these two do not correlate with each other

B - I have never had this problem. I've taken cover behind plenty of walls, rocks, and windows, and I've only hit my cover when I wasn't high enough. A minor stance adjustment would allow me to fire free and unobstructed. Judging by the votes as well, this is not an issue many others are experiencing. It's possible it's a bug that only affects a few, but I personally have never encountered any problems with being "pretty well clear" of an obstacle and still hitting it.

This is actually a real-life issue. When I was in the Army, a friend of mine was on a range shooting at targets from behind a HMMWV, long story short, he was aiming at a target over the hood and put a round into the hood of the HMMWV. Just think of it like this: You could put your hand over the barrel, and wouldn't know it was there looking through the sights. Muzzle awareness is the name of the game.

Good call. I get annoyed when opening a door knocks me off the patio. Especially when I'm in contact and trying to get to cover.

+1

GOATier, you shouldn't have to fire 2-3+ grenades at someone to kill them. It's extremely unrealistic and a waste of ammo that seems to always be extremely limited.

Catalonia has, recently, been taking steps towards independence. It's not unusual for futuristic, fictional media to take modern day political issues and run with them. This is not an issue, a bug, or an error. This is a waste of time.

With all due respect, Chris, this game isn't supposed to cater to people who claim things are "OP". This game is about realism. In real life, people in the backs of trucks, or on the sides of Little Birds can fire their weapons.

I don't understand the issue here. I'm assuming you can't fire it underwater since that's not mentioned. What's the problem with being able to pick up a weapon off the sea floor?

Apo, that's kinda ridiculous. It should be a constant speed no matter what the mission is. Especially since a hardcore sim is supposed to be realistic, and having to stand completely still to change weapons is anything but. Also, instant weapon switches is far from realistic. I'd rather not see this game turn into Counter Strike/Call Of Duty.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL! Just look at the tags: "trolling". Just ignore him and move on to the real issues.

Well, I guess since this has turned from issues for a game into a debate, I might as well put my two cents in.

I don't have a problem with women in a combat MOS (Mission Occupational Specialty) per se. What I do have a problem with, is women being allowed into a job that requires a huge level of physical fitness while their PT (physical training) standards are well below that of their male counterparts. I believe that if women want to be in a combat MOS, they should be held to the exact same standard as men. No doubt there are some women out there who can kick my a$$, but the vast majority of women are physically unable to handle the physical stresses of a combat MOS.

Look at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w846UcmIo5o

That video shows a what a soldier regularly carries into combat. This can be anywhere from 90 lbs (40 kgs) to 130 lbs (58 kgs). There are many men out there who wouldn't be able to carry that into combat. Now imagine a 110 lb woman trying to carry that. If a woman is physically able to, then by all means. If she's unable to, yet passes the bare minimum female PT standards and is allowed into the infantry, she's going to be a burden on the rest of her fireteam/squad/platoon/company. This would undoubtedly force the other soldiers in her unit to carry her gear for her weighing them down even more.

So, while I'm not totally against women in combat, they should absolutely be held to the exact same physical standard as all the men in her unit. I mean, there are no groups crying for the physically unfit or the morbidly obese to be allowed in because "everyone is equal". In some respects, such as freedom, laws, employment, and pay, we are all equal. But to try to get a job that you are physically unfit for because you're still "equal" is no different than someone with no college education trying to apply for a high level management job at any corporation.

From one of the video showcases about a year ago, the ability to attach explosives to vehicles is going to be in the game. Whether that's changed, or just hasn't been implemented in the Alpha is the question, since it also showed the ability to wear enemy uniforms which looks likely to have been cut.

SeXmeHarD, look at Relovance's comment and my comment. No, it's not good. Considering you have to pull it out of the grenade pouch, take off the tape wrapped around the spoon, pull the pin, then wind up and throw it. It doesn't just materialize in your hand.

What Relovance said is similar to my experience when I was in the Army (didn't throw half that many grenades though). It takes a relatively long time. I wouldn't want to see it take THAT long, but at least an animation of the soldier pulling the pin before throwing. I don't see how it could cause you to be immobile, like in Arma 2 since it only occupies your arms.

I disagree Spruten. There could come situations where you want to move fast, but lay down suppressing fire. That's my opinion anyways.

What Blooner said. Plus, with the actual game, I'm sure they're going to implement the drag feature allowing you to drag wounded friendlies with your off hand while keeping your weapon raised. I actually prefer to be able to keep my compass on screen without an arm and hand blocking a portion of my view.

jjondle, have you tried pressing 0 on the number pad?

As for the crosshair, I believe it's visible on my end. I'll check real quick to make sure.

Ya, just checked, it's visible. it's a big red crosshair.

My understanding is the reason the bodies will not move after they settle is because of restrictions in Germany that ban games that allow manipulation of bodies.