Simple fix, they just need to put maxZeroing to a lower level, so if you put SOS on this rifle it will only zero 200 m or whatever. The round is subsonic.

Quote @oomwar: "the chevrons on the scope used by the thread cutter has dramatically larger bullet drop compensation due to sub-sonic flight characteristics"

That's only in ARMA 2. The real VSS scope does not have those bullet drop compensation chevrons like the SVD. It only has the center chevron. Instead it has very precise "zeroing" (many small range graduations on elevation turret)

Edit: here is how the real VSS reticle appears: http://i.imgur.com/sjsTOFj.png

The beeping has probably been put there for game balancing, at the expense of realism. Why would anyone make a bomb that emits loud beeping sounds? That belongs in Battlefield 4 and not ArmA 3.

I don't like it and it should be removed.

The 105mm guns are already outdated for front-line MBTs, it wouldn't make sense in 2035. Besides, the Merkava already uses the 120mm.

As for the 125mm, it is less effective than the usual Rheinmetall 120mm due to the two-piece ammunition it uses, which limits the length-to-diameter ratio of the penetrator rods. Perhaps Iran went 120mm instead of developing a new gun?

^6 seconds for most stuff up to the 40mm cannons, it is 15 seconds for larger guns (120mm on tanks). For the 155mm artillery it is 3 minutes.

However different bullets travel different distances in 6 seconds. For the Buzzard they only go about 2.3 km, the 20mm has poor aerodynamics. But for the 40mm on the Marshall they can go almost 6.4 km.

On YouTube, out of 5 years of ArmA 2 videos, there are VERY few shots that are even anywhere close to approaching 6 seconds (apart from on bots).

I watched a few shots at over 2,000 meters, one approaching 2,200. This is about 3.7 and 4.3 seconds, respectively. Still a good 2 seconds left! Only one shot I've ever seen was over 2,400 meters on an enemy player, that was about 5.6 seconds. In ArmA 3 it's actually harder to shoot that far.

So increasing default bullet lifetime is unnecessary, because assault rifles will never shoot that far. Non-issue.

However for the .408 and .50 caliber bullets it would be useful to have an increased lie.

In that case upvoted. Handguns with Crimson Trace would be cool to see for civilian weapons.

If you mean a fully visible beam, then that's unrealistic. Only extremely powerful lasers have a visible beam, even then, the beam is only visible if dust/water/smoke/etc particles are in the air, and in the first place, no one in a life-or-death situation (apart from using IR laser as pointing device) would even want a bright line extending from their gun to the point of aim, apart from Hollywood directors.

However if you just mean visible dot, then sure, this is common enough on handguns and rifles.

However lasers are mostly for target designation and night-fighting when wearing NVGs.

^example:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/GBU-10_on_51st_TFW_F-4E_1982.JPEG

This is cool, would allow increased performance and longer engagement ranges.

I hate being limited to certain view distances, for example, with view distance set to 10,000 I can't see a tank at 5,000 meters.

A lot of servers have view distance limited to small numbers.

Definitely +1

It can only ford water 1.2 meters deep without preparation.

"Before fording at a depth of 2.25m (deep wading) special preparation is required to activate the built-in hydraulic and pneumatic seals, and the folding snorkel [...] about 15 minutes is required to ready the tank for crossing water obstacles at a depth of 4 meters (underwater driving)."

The T-100 should also be able to use a snorkel for deep wading... Russian tanks since the T-54/55 have all had deep wading capability. Assuming the tank is of Russian origin.

The Merkava is the only one that, to my knowledge, does not (should, in case of semi-fictional T-100) currently have deep water fording capability.

But I don't see much use for this at the moment, takes 15-20 minutes to set it up, and there are no rivers to ford!

^helicopter's 30mm will go over 3.1 km

Yup, regular bullets last for 6 seconds. I assume the CheyTac would go 2,655 meters. It's almost identical to the max range of the AS50 in ArmA 2 (2,670m).

This was not a problem in ArmA 2 because almost no one made shots at 2.5 km, and no one expected to be able to (apart from singleplayer in editor). However, giving the guns zeroing to 2500m has changed people's expectations.

Also, the Lynx should go just under 3,310m with APDS, but only 2,380m with regular ball ammo. That could be a problem as well since it zeroes further than that!

The lifetime of bullets is easily changed however. An extra second for .408, 12.7mm non-APDS and .50 BMG would probably solve any problems.

They should look at setting the sights for more appropriate ranges. Another thing which annoys me, many of the sights do not even have the option to be set lower than 300 meters with page up/page down!

For a zero at 300m it will be almost .25 meters high at 150m...

Well, first of all the scope+base combo needs to allow it.

For example, a Barrett M82A1 has a slanted 27 MOA rail. Add 30 MOA LaRue rings, and a 4.5-14x50mm Leupold scope with 70 MOA elevation, and you have...

127 MOA total. This should provide enough elevation for shooting at nearly 2,000 meters with M33 ammunition.

However, in ArmA 3, zeroing works differently. I will use the GM6 Lynx as an example, firing normal (B32 API) ammunition.

In-game, the scope on the rifle "zeroes" to 2500m. In-game, it requires about 196 MOA to reach that!

However, take the scope off the Gepard, and put it on the 7.62mm EBR. You can still zero all the way to 2500m! To hit at 2500m, the 7.62mm would require over 600 MOA elevation! In real life, no rifle scope exists that even comes close, but in ArmA 3, it is instantly possible. Unrealistic.

Now, consider with high-velocity APDS ammunition: the Gepard only requires about 74 MOA to reach 2500m. Completely different, and totally capable for many scopes.

Yet it has been the same scope the entire time... so ArmA 3's system of zeroing presents serious realism problems.

Now, imagine if the scope didn't zero to "2500m". Instead, if it used angles, in MOA, or mils.

If you took the scope off the Gepard, and placed it on the 7.62mm, that particular realism problem (scope being capable of 600 MOA elevation) would not exist. Instead the 7.62mm would just fall short, being launched at the same angle the .50 was. Etc.

The only problem with this system is that people would have to learn MOA elevation for different ranges and calibers, and since people tend to be lazy about these things, most gamers would definitely not like that.

If you had a scope zeroed at 200m on a .45 ACP (silly, just an example) and put it on a 7.62 right now, the 7.62 would hit at 200m.

But if you had a scope set to 59 MOA (in-game required elevation for .45 ACP at 200m) and put it on a 7.62, it would hit at about 1100m.

So the point is, it would be more realistic to have scopes use angles, rather than ranges. Although this won't happen for gameplay purposes.

In respect to the suggestion, I think 2500m is far enough, why go to 2800m. Besides, the .408 only goes 2,650m, the Lynx goes much less than that without APDS. The bullets simply disappear in thin air.

And who makes 2500m shots anyways? Especially in battle scenarios. These are typically only editor test shots. I had only ONE shot at over 2400m on an actual enemy player in ArmA 2, and I have made *lots* of shots at enemy players, so this is super rare even to get the opportunity.

I think adding zeroing to 2300m, 2500m has changed people's expectations about long-distance shots. :/

Well, I haven't looked at the values for the new tank yet. But for the other 120mm APFSDS, muzzle velocity is 1680 m/s and airFriction is -3.96e-005.

So for 600m I would guess a drop of only 0.6m, and for 1500m about 4 meters / 13 feet drop... so you wouldn't have to change the zeroing much.

I don't really see the problem here, 120mm penetrators have muzzle velocities from 1500-1800 m/s and don't lose much velocity, this means they will reach targets extremely fast, they don't have time to drop much.

Indeed I tested the MBT-52 tank and the drop was about 4 meters at 1500 meters, judging from the height of the T-100 I fired against.

Just remembered, the 7.62mm bullets only reach ~1840m and the 6.5mm bullets only reach ~1815m, so you wouldn't hit anything anyways.

This is probably so there aren't bullets flying around the map for kilometers affecting performance, and it's not necessary, who hits shots that take over 6 seconds to impact?

Anyways it causes the zeroing system to mess up.

Larger bullets go further, GM6 could reach over 3300m, 120mm main cannon will likely reach 7km with HEAT and over 17km with APFSDS

^that's useful for solo play, etc, but for the average "vanilla" online scenarios we will have to wait for an official gun-launched missile to be added.

And by the way, the LAHAT missile on the current-day Merkava can be fired indirectly - someone else can designate the target, and the missile can be fired from complete cover and at ranges up to 8 km.

Would they even be able to fire the Titan missiles from their main guns? I'm not sure if the "Titan" was designed for that, it's possible, but it seems strange they would use the same model of missile for use on anti-air vehicles, APCs, in aircraft and in tanks as well...

The "Slammer" is based on the Merkava which can fire the LAHAT ATGM, the T-100 probably fires something similar like the Svir/Refleks.

In any case they should be able to fire some kind of missile from their main guns, if the current Merkava and T-72, T-80, T-90 can do it I somehow doubt the future ones would be unable to.

MX = 3 MOA
MX Compact = 3.8 MOA
MX Sniper = 2.2 MOA

GM6 Lynx = 1.3 MOA
CheyTac M200 = 0.6 MOA

EBR = 2.4 MOA
VS-121 = 2 MOA

^Needs to be checked against real life. Slovenian Valuk, upgraded Pandur I, has a max speed of 100 km/h, and a reverse speed of 15 km/h with 5 forward and 1 reverse gear.

The Pandur II, which the Gorgon is based on, has 6 forward gears and 1 reverse gear, with a max speed of 105 km/h. So based on that, I don't think Pandur II is likely to have a much higher reverse speed.

Patria AMV (Marshall) also has only one reverse gear (7 forward).
Arma 6x6 (Marid) also has only one reverse gear (6 forward).

Also the Fennek (Strider) has a maximum reverse speed of 23 km/h.

The reverse speeds for tracked vehicles seems higher, Leopard 2 = 31 km/h, Puma = 30-40 km/h, Pizzaro = 35 km/h. However these vehicles all have 2 reverse gears.

Anyways, consider the Leopard:

First reverse gear = 15 km/h max reversing speed
Second reverse gear = 31 km/h max reversing speed

For vehicles with only one reverse gear, based on this info, 15 km/h seems about right to me, unless someone can prove otherwise...

Hahahaha :P

"bullets from one of the submachine-guns went straigh to the sky when zeroing was set to 700m. "

Same issue, system becomes inaccurate the more steep the trajectory is - 9x19mm, .45 at 700 meters will have massively curved trajectories, required launch angle will be ca. 9 degrees which means without zeroing, you would have to aim at a point about 110 meters (360 feet!) over the target.

IRL these rounds would never be used at anything even remotely near those distances so I don't consider it a big issue, IMO it would be silly having .45 bullets dropping down on people with perfect accuracy from hundreds of meters.

However when applied to rifles etc with longer intended ranges then it becomes more of a problem.

Mmm, not sure I understand... for 7.62mm I think flight time would exceed timeToLive at about 1842 meters.

However I don't know what equations are used to determine launch angle now.

This is due to 2 things:

-first off, 12.7x108mm ammo (non-APDS) has an incorrect airFriction. It is -0.00096, which is the same as 7.62. It should be -0.00055.

This means that at 2000m, it would have bullet drop of about 169m. Compared to APDS, which has bullet drop of about 29m @ 2000m.

You can see the massive difference...

If they used the correct airFriction of about -0.00055, it would have bullet drop of about 70m @ 2000m. Less bullet drop = more accurate zeroing.

The same is true for 12.7x99, it also has airFriction = -0.00096 when it should be about -0.000595.

However, it would probably still be incorrect above, maybe 1600-1800 meters. This is due to...

the second thing, which is that the zeroing "equation" they are using becomes inaccurate at high angles / long ranges.

First things first, change the airFriction on those 12.7x99 and 12.7x108 rounds, then see about fixing zeroing.

12.7x99 = -0.000595
12.7x108 = -0.00055

^these numbers provide velocity in agreement with Soviet firing tables / US data,

Personally I think they should allow manual input of zeroing values (by this I mean, in the weapon config, defining the actual launch angles in radians for different ranges).

"Was already wondering why I can easily destroy a MRAP with the 7.62 miniguns mounted at the Pawnee."

This is what I was worried about :/

The only reason for extra penetration, that I can see, would be to destroy vehicles that in real life would be largely protected from 7.62mm fire, perhaps for "balancing" purposes.

The miniguns have 2000 rpm, according to config.

Anyways, compensating for a slower actual rate of fire could explain splash damage, but it doesn't explain the extra penetration.

The bullets shouldn't penetrate armor or structures any better.

Also, the 6.5mm "minigun" ammunition is for vehicle machine guns, like on the Slammer coaxial. Those only have 800 rpm and aren't miniguns, so there is no need for splash damage to compensate for framerate issues. I see no good reason for the existence of the special 6.5mm ammo at all.

I remember seeing the 3-rnd Metal Storm grenade launchers in early screenshots, I never thought about it after. Agreed, they should function correctly.

You could set it to 300m and try to use it like a BDC reticle, in the editor the chevrons appeared to correspond to the following *approximate* ranges when zeroed at 300m: 300-600-800-1000

Not as useful in that way as the ArmA 2 one since it was not designed that way.

How is it useless? I assume you want to use it like the SVD in ArmA2? In that case, the SVD was "zeroed" to 200 meters, not zero meters.

In real life, you can "zero" the PSO-1 scope out to 1000 meters, and then you use the lower chevrons for 1100, 1200, etc, ArmA2 was incorrect.

I haven't checked the values of the chevrons but the scope is definitely not useless - it zeroes from 300-1200m. I think they should add a 100 or 200 setting though, I don't know why scopes in the future have no apparent need to be set for under 300 meters.

Wow, that video is pretty demonstrative...

If players can destroy "Ifrit" and "Hunter" armored vehicles with only a few rounds of 6.5mm, something is clearly wrong.

I am assuming this is current (video is from Oct 4), have not tested myself, so hopefully this is patched soon - until then I'm sure a few people online will be shocked when I suddenly destroy their armored cars with a couple well placed 6.5mm rounds :P

^Perhaps, although I am still remembering from ArmA 2, the faulty zeroing system, for example (AKM zeroed at 800 actually impacts at almost 1100m, etc

It would be nice to be able to lock onto an aerial target and just fire. I don't think the radar works on ground or very low flying targets, though.

In real life I think they would just use their radar and automatic aiming systems, they had this technology back in the 1960s.

"Electronic target acquisition, tracking, and ranging is automated; an onboard computer determines super elevation and azimuth lead."

However I don't see this coming to ArmA anytime soon - I think calculations would be quite intensive especially for a moving target.

But adjustable "zeroing", at least, is a start.

The helicopters are supposed to have bullet-proof (resistant) glass.

I tried it on an Orca from point-blank:

With a 7.62mm, the glass held for about 6 shots before the pilot died.
With 12.7mm APDS(Gepard), the pilot was killed in 1 or 2 shots.

Mi-48 had similar results, was able to kill pilot and gunner.

HOWEVER I noticed that the pilot/co-pilot did not appear to be dead (even though they were). They remained sitting upright and looking straight ahead.

So perhaps a ticked should be created for that issue - pilot's heads should slump over when dead.

"The IAS is an important value for the pilot because it is the indicated speeds which are specified in the aircraft pilot's manual for such important performance values as the stall speed. These speeds, in true airspeed terms, vary considerably depending upon density altitude."

This has a 40mm CTWS cannon. It is extremely powerful compared to smaller cannons, such as those on the Bradley or the BMP-3. It fires a tungsten APFSDS round that is said to penetrate 150mm of armor at 1500m.

Anyways, this cannon produces 320 kJ muzzle energy. Based on energy would produce a damage value of about 113. However, it has a damage value of 148, which appears too high to me as well (differences are squared, so 148 is 70% more damage than 113).

What I think MAY have happened? - perhaps someone based energy calculation on the mass of the entire projectile (sabot + penetrator, etc), not the mass of the penetrator alone.

When I did the calculations for the entire projectile, including sabot, I ended up with a damage value of hit = 150, which is almost the exact same as the 148 value currently in the game.

So it seems it should be toned down to around 113 or somewhere in that range. Although, there is the possibility damage is increased for sabot rounds to try to make them more effective compared to a normal bullet of the same energy.

Note, in ArmA 2 this same cannon was on the BAF Warrior, it did hit = 300... way too high.

Also, I noticed the Marshall only holds 40 APFSDS and 60 HE rounds. Is that an attempt at balancing? Because the 40mm CTWS ammunition was designed specifically for the purpose of saving space!

By the way, I tested it on Varuk just now - I shot all 40 rounds of AP, and it did not destroy the tank. In fact the only major damage was to the right track (this was firing at the front armor of the tank).

That is probably less of a problem with the 40mm cannon and more of a problem with the tank's armor.

It is certainly possible but it doesn't seem that "authentic" to me, wouldn't a tank would probably try to avoid an attack helicopter unless it was a lucky opportunity or a last resort?

Besides, it has a machine gun on the turret which seems more sensible for attacking something light like a Little Bird.

Still needs to be fixed!

1. 6.5mm seems very small for a MBT co-axial gun.

2. It has 2,000 rounds, but that is the stats for a 7.62mm. 6.5mm caseless should have increased ammunition capacity.

3. The 6.5mm used in the tank has increased penetration, to the level of .50 caliber bullets. So why not just add a .50 caliber coaxial instead of putting unrealistic values for 6.5mm?

And the most important thing: look on the tank, above the barrel... there is a mounting bracket for a .50 caliber MG! But it's empty! So there OBVIOUSLY should be a .50 cal mounted in there, otherwise... why is the mount there?

See these images, .50 cal above the barrel:

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/merkava__4.jpg

http://www.fyjs.cn/bbs/attachments/Mon_1304/26_11071_5cd9405484271d5.jpg?127

As well, 7.62mm on the roof!

I think people might have voted it down without reading the details, at first glance the title appears like a request for a form of "balancing". Weight of magazines is very similar, so weight should be similar in game.

However, I checked config files and noticed the following:

Mass of 16Rnd_9x21_Mag = 6
Mass of 9Rnd_45ACP_Mag = 6

So apparently they are already functionally the same.

Generic 9mm weight: 12.3 gm
Generic .45 ACP weight: 21.70 gm

9 x 21.70 = 195.3 gm
16 x 12.3 gm = 196.8 gm

The weight of 9 rnds .45 ACP and 16 rnds of 9mm should be similar, the weight of the magazines should be similar as well.

^Yes, it doesn't work, so it's kinda pointless correcting it (that is to say, making it look correct but without actually functioning).

ArmA needs to focus on the vehicles a bit more. Infantry is decent enough, vehicles need work. Compared to dedicated tank or flight sims, it's completely arcade. Properly functioning planes, helicopters, tanks would be great, armor and air has traditionally been unplayable (compared to sims) without mods like ACE etc. This would take a while so it's unreasonable to expect it to all be fixed immediately, but it should be worked on step-by-step.

Anyways, dumb bombs are almost impossible to use effectively without a bomb sight.

I think .357 Magnum should be chosen - it makes the most sense.

Why would they choose a revolver in the first place? If they wanted a handgun chambered in those 9mm options or .40 S&W, they would choose an automatic, right?

So I think .357 is the only caliber that really makes sense.

Getting into more detail: I think they would choose a light bullet for maximum muzzle velocity, because (1) the 125-gr hollowpoint is commonly said to be "the" load for .357 Magnum, and (2) it seems all armor-piercing handgun cartridges try to have as high a velocity as possible, to maximize kinetic energy on impact.

Perhaps they use a hollowpoint, I doubt Iran cares too much about any prohibitions on them, perhaps they use FMJ, perhaps a special AP bullet for use against body armor.

Remington 125-gr JHP has the following figures:

Muzzle velocity = 1450 ft/s
Velocity at 50 yards = 1240 ft/s
Velocity at 100 yards = 1090 ft/s
Velocity at 150 yards = 993 ft/s

So config would look like this:

initSpeed = 442;
airFriction = 0.003; (average of all three distances/velocities)

Hit value, at least equal to .45 ACP, at most I think +1, so either 9 or 10.

IMO

The Chiappa Rhino 60DS does not use .50 AE.

In fact, I don't see any Chiappa products that use .50 AE, so I am not sure where this information came from - it is incorrect.

It is offered in the following chamberings:

.357 Magnum
.357 Magnum/9x19mm
.40 S&W
9x19mm
9x21mm

Indeed, double-checked - 11 rounds is incorrect! It should be given the real number, 15 rounds.

I'm pretty sure that would be a LARGE DLC pack... anyways I wouldn't want to play with OFP tanks in ArmA 3, it would look ridiculously outdated.

However I get what the OP means, mods are great, but good luck finding a populated server that is running specific mods.

The problem is that all the content would need to be updated to ArmA 3 standards, otherwise it would be a mess. Tanks need to have armor defined in their models, weapons now have to be adaptable to attachments, etc.

I have had this problem also; on many ground and air vehicles. It is extremely irritating and occurs seemingly randomly.

Didn't look too closely at it but the new tank appears to be the MBT Revolution, an upgrade of the Leopard 2A4.

I believe the Leopard 2A4 has 20/-9 degrees elevation/depression.

http://defence24.pl/uploads/images/2012/09/MTB-Revolution-1.jpg

"This is untrue since there are documented cases of 120mm APFSDS fully penetrating T-72's and even M1A1's in friendy fire cases."

Exactly, and many of the people in vehicles hit by DU penetrators survived, check the friendly fire incidents... a "nuclear ball of fire"? Sorry, no, that's fiction, DU is pyrophoric, what happens is it can ignite ammunition / fuel.

It can't bring a moving tank to a halt either, let's see, 41.5 tonne T72 at 30 km/h has 3.458*10^5 N*s momentum, it is hit by an M829A1 penetrator weighing 4.6 kg with an impact velocity of 1545 m/s (~500m range), the penetrator has 7.107*10^3 N*s momentum, best case scenario, assume it stops dead on the armor transferring all it's energy immediately, inelastic collision (yeah right)

So we can calculate the tank's speed after the impact, 29.4 km/h, hardly slowed it at all, only 0.6 km/h. And in real life the penetrator would go through the armor like it was butter, meaning even less effect on the immediate speed of the tank.

What's "ACO"?

Lights are fine, so are lasers. However I don't want to see any optical sights on handguns, they are not practical for carry. Even small ones add too much bulk in a holster and are more fragile than iron sights, fine for IPSC competition, not good for military duty.

^ About blood and gore, blood is not usually clearly visible when shooting someone, unless of course you hit them in the head, etc.

In fact it may be hard to know if you even hit them.

Too much gore can mean less realism. Bullet makes a small hole when entering, and since the impact is under clothing, you won't actually see much of anything right away...

...exit wound is where the blood will be, it may be the same size as the entrance wound or significantly larger.

ArmA is a simulation. Simply because VBS2 is a more detailed simulation doesn't make ArmA an arcade game. Look at the cost of VBS2 - clearly not made for public consumption.

Most people into ArmA want things real and authentic. That's why they buy the game instead of Battlefield.

It should be 100% realistic... and if you don't like that? Then simply turn down the difficulty!!

Personally I don't think it's a huge issue being 100% true to life, for example drift of 8.5 MOA in-game, when in real life it is 7.5, is acceptable. As long as it is reasonably correct I'm fine with it, it's more the method of calculation which would concern me, the principles of the physics should be correct.

I did think of that, it could perhaps register the current time of flight and continuously adjust the bullet's position accordingly, although I don't know well how that would work in real time and with hit detection, etc.

In any case wind drift is dependent on lag time, the difference between actual time of flight, and time of flight in a vacuum.

IIRC the ACE mod uses a coefficient for each bullet for the wind drift.

For the wind drift, they could use the following formula:

x = w(t-(d/v))

where

x = drift
w = wind velocity
t = time of flight
v = muzzle velocity
d = distance

So example calculation for the .408 CheyTac M320 LRR

airFriction = -0.00049
initSpeed = 910
wind = 10 km/h at 90 degrees = 2.78 m/s

Time of flight 1000 meters = 1.41 sec

x = (t-(d/v))
x = 2.78(1.41-(1000/910))
x = 0.86 meters

Drift at 1000m = 0.86 meters

This formula is more than accurate enough for game purposes, of course it requires that the in-game times of flight match the real life times of flight.

Edit: didn't see ProGamer's response above.

I would say: priorities first!!!!

Before humidity, temperature, Coriolis effect, etc, we would need proper ballistics.

Right now it's just a single airFriction, and drag is proportional to the square of the speed. It's like fitting a straight line to a curve, it does not reproduce ballistics very accurately.

We would need multiple airFrictions for every projectile, or we would need a better drag model, neither are going to happen because it's too much work and no player will notice in-game if a bullet is going 360 m/s when it should be going 340 m/s at 1200 meters range.

Anyways, what about wind drift? That is a far bigger priority than Coriolis effect etc. Unless you are using artillery at 15km Coriolis effect will not play a big part in a bullet's flight, wind will, and we have no wind effects.

IMO the biggest things we need are airFriction as array and wind drift.

For the airFriction as array I mean something like this:

supersonic = -0.00096
transonic = -0.00120
subsonic = -0.00105

airFriction[] = {-0.00096, 408, -0.00120, 272, -0.00105, 0};

No; anyways, turns out I had magazine names mixed up, MX SW appears to use 100rnd quad-stack magazine, similar kind of magazine to Surefire 60rnd, although I believe it describes it as "belt" which is incorrect. 850 m/s vs standard 795 m/s.

I tested the tin shed in non-dev version, both 100rnd and 30rnd tracers went through with minimal deflection. Perhaps dev version has changed something in the tin shed.

Depends on the gun, Minimi for example can use both because it was designed with that feature. Usually no.

No, you need a special upper receiver or some other conversion. First of all there is no spring to push new rounds into place, so the gun mechanism has to do that, second, the gun needs to deal with the discarded links or belt... the MX is fictional, but it doesn't seem likely it could use belts.

@Dr Death: yes, but the ticket suggests "penetration should be determined by the gun and not what magazine is loaded", that suggestion is not something I agree with.

Bullet's muzzle velocity should be affected by barrel length, that is all that is needed... not sure why this feature wasn't already added to the series even in ArmA 2 or OA.

Also, another issue perhaps: why can the MX even use Mk200 "magazines"? Doesn't the Mk200 use belts? The MX doesn't appear to have belt-feed...

You're right, I did not make myself clear. Bullet's inherent penetration is defined by value "caliber" in CfgAmmo, ie:

class B_65x39_Caseless : BulletBase {

		caliber = 1;

};

class B_762x51_Ball : BulletBase {
caliber = 1.6;

        };

class B_127x108_Ball : BulletBase {
caliber = 2.8;

        };

In turn is modified by current velocity, less velocity = less penetration. One would expect barely any difference in penetration between 850 m/s and 795 m/s, but it appears the slight extra velocity makes a big difference in this particular case, probably an issue with penetration properties of the shed.

Shorter barrel does not affect muzzle velocity in ArmA, as far as I am aware they have not changed that.

Double-checked, all 6.5mm bullets have same penetration.

The reason 100rnd magazine has higher penetration is because muzzle velocity is different:

100rnd = 850 m/s
30rnd = 795 m/s

This is probably because the Mk200 machine gun is supposed to have a longer barrel, and the 100rnd magazine is meant for that weapon.

The extra 55 m/s probably allowed the bullet to pass some "threshold" of penetration in the metal shed.

Try this: load a 100rnd magazine, move 75-80 meters from the shed. Impact velocity at that range should be about 795 m/s, same as muzzle velocity of 30rnd magazine, so the bullets should curve down just like the ones in the 30rnd magazine curve from point blank.

Nnnnnnnnoooo, I don't know why this has so many upvotes.

Penetration is calculated using the BULLET, not the magazine, not the gun. The tracer magazines contain tracer bullets, perhaps someone put an incorrect value for that tracers. Anyways:

Different bullets = different penetration. This allows people to put different values for hollow points, tracers, armor-piercing, high explosive, they all can have different penetration.

It doesn't make sense using the gun to determine this, the gun is not penetrating anything, it's all in the bullet. The only way magazine affects this is with muzzle velocity, less velocity = less penetration, but I'm pretty sure muzzle velocity is the same for tracers and noTracers.

This is an issue with the tracer bullets, NOT with the game mechanics.

Title should be changed to "tracer bullets inadequate penetration" or something like that.

Basic damage and penetration values are defined by the bullets used.

The magazines change the speed the bullet is fired at. This also changes basic penetration and damage.

The 100 rnd magazine must have a faster muzzle velocity (that is, if it fires the same bullet as the 30 rnd magazine, too lazy to check). Muzzle velocity is tied to magazines, not guns. BIS needs to introduce a way to allow barrel length to affect muzzle velocity. The best system so far is the magazine velocity arrays in ACE - they should put something similar to that in the game so it doesn't require modding.

@copper2010: the operative word being "if". Who knows what a fictional "BTR-K" could do? It may or may not need to be changed... but if something physics-wise "feels" really unrealistic, it probably is.

@Goblinbutt:

Pleeeease (rolls eyes). Almost every game which has a 1911 gives it seven or eight rounds. Was it a problem in ArmA 2? It had 7 rounds there. How about Call of Duty: Black Ops 2? Only 7 rounds! Battlefield 4? Again, 7 rounds!

What about the Zubr .45? It only has SIX rounds, so how is this even a "balancing" issue?

There is no reason for it to have 9 rounds. There are many good reasons to give it 7 or 8.

If you don't care about authentic portrayal or conforming to the rules of the known universe, you're missing out.

Uh, okay...

Now can we all agree it's not reasonable to stuff 9 rounds into a magazine well that can physically only hold 7, maximum 8 rounds with a space-saving spring design?

Someone just needs to change the number of rounds to 7, or 8. It will make the realism people happy and will barely affect the casual people's gameplay.

Still present as of today, dev version.

This bug still exists, the magazine is still flush and should have 7 rounds.

You can see quite clearly in this picture, 9 rounds will never fit in a flush magazine!

http://i.imgur.com/QOagb8S.png

The magazine would have to stick out quite a bit, like so: http://i.imgur.com/o2xtFfH.png

This needs to be fixed - it's not hard to type in the number "7".

Could be either way, 7 or 8 in 2035. Perhaps 8 rounds are more common by then, or perhaps not. Some people may carefully inspect the 3D model and note it is a 7-round magazine though (haven't checked myself).

Personally I am not bothered by tiny modelling things as long as the overall effect is both logical and believable... 7, 8, wouldn't really mind either way since I am not taking screenshots or the gun and magnifying things, etc. 9 is one too much though (and the hammer should be cocked).

Well, the gun is a single-stack 1911 design, and it is impossible to fit 9 .45-caliber rounds in a single-stack magazine that still fits flush with the bottom of the 1911's pistol grip.

As for fixing: why not? It's a simple matter of typing in "7" instead of "9".

Having 7 rounds in a 1911 never "negatively affected my gameplay" in ArmA 2, even though other sidearms had 15, 17, even 30 rounds. In ArmA 3, pistols appear to be much more powerful so there's even less reason to complain about "lack of ammunition". Simply make it a 7-round magazine. :)

Agreed with ProGamer. Why an arbitrary 25% chance?

Ideally, buildings should go up in flames only if they would ignite in real life, this would require many variables.

I doubt it will happen though - would require lots of work for (arguably) little value.

I am not a fan of using the RFB as the underwater rifle - it's not an underwater rifle. It's not even a 5.56mm rifle - currently it only comes in 7.62 NATO.

However I somehow doubt it will be changed after all the effort that was put into it.

No, no, no, no, no.

That DayZ "combat roll" is LAUGHABLE!

NOBODY does massive somersaults over fences and onto concrete, gravel, hard rocks, etc... especially while carrying a rifle and a backpack!!!

Sorry for the capitalization, but I really hate that animation, it's ridiculous. Players are not supposed to be ninjas or acrobats.

However there needs to be some sort of vault that does not require the player to come to a complete halt to move over a 20 inch obstacle... so I will refrain from voting this either up or down.

I haven't checked to see what the values are currently.

I know a few days ago the damages were like so:

.45 ACP = hit 9 = 9^2 = 100%
9x19mm = hit 5 = 5^2 = 30%

9mm only did about 30% of the damage! .45 was over three times as powerful.

.45 should be about 1.5 times as "powerful", at most... in ArmA2 (after damage update) .45 was 1.56 times as powerful.

Hit value should be set to perhaps 6.5 if the 9mm is at 5 (however BIS seems to only use whole numbers for hit values).

I don't see the problem with adding a SUPPRESSED sniper rifle, however:

• subsonic .408 CheyTac or 12.7x108mm? That would be absurd... the rifles would have to use supersonic ammunition with corresponding sounds.

• in ArmA 2 suppressed rifles couldn't use "normal" magazines. That should be changed of course, but then the sights and point of aim magically changes to suit the new magazine, which doesn't make sense either.

I'd prefer if any suppressed rifles simply didn't have subsonic ammunition, because it doesn't make sense how those rifles can't use normal ammunition etc. Especially things like subsonic 5.56 were silly...

As well, in ArmA 2 subsonic 7.62x51 was much more powerful than supersonic 7.62x39... what's up with that? Just because it says "x51" doesn't magically change the ballistics to be more powerful if the round is a 200-grain subsonic...

@Vulcanexius: I am aware he is using Blastcore - the point I was trying to make was that in many aspects, ArmA 2 is much improved with Blastcore's more impressive/"realistic" effects.

However since we are onto ArmA 3 now, it would be nice if it came with great effects by default, without having to install various third-party mods.

This is actually quite important - it gives a feeling of power to the weapons and this makes the game more fun, as well it allows people to correct their shots. However it can be overdone... so keep it at "realistic" levels.

For example in ArmA 2, .50 caliber impact effects made the guns feel "weak" compared to the ACE mod which seemed to give (incendiary?) rounds a large "flash" upon impact.

Also check this video for examples of how bullet and grenade impacts can greatly enhance gameplay:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIsEve9cK54&#t=8m6s

Look at the large clouds of dust hanging in the air, obscuring visibility, etc.

This enhanced "feeling of power" coming from the weapons make the game/sim a lot more fun to play, it's a big part of the experience!

This is because the slow bullets have to be launched high into the air to impact at 200 meters; zeroing for submachine guns should be under 100 meters, perhaps closer to 50.

Haven't checked, but agreed, the sights on these types of guns should be set for short ranges.

In ArmA2 sights on the MP5 and Bizon were set at 50 meters.

If it's a single-action the hammer should be back. I can't imagine any time in-game in which the hammer should be in the forward position.

Looks like someone from BIS has to go edit the 3D model and rotate the hammer to the correct position.

"You'd have to shoot an enemy in the right place to make his boddy fall where no one will see it making a stealth mission even more realistic."

Bullets don't send people flying, even .50 caliber. Watch any video of someone shooting a 150-200 lb deer, does the bullet make it fall in a particular direction? No.

Depending on the magazine they choose, it could also be 8 rounds which is fairly common to see these days, in the 2030s I imagine probably more so. I haven't looked at the magazine model.

One of the problems is with the entire system, I doubt they'll change it in this generation, probably not in the next either...

Damage is just a set amount, "x", and the player bodies have no real "vital areas" apart from the head.

In real life even a small bullet can kill with one well-placed shot, in ArmA it needs to be a headshot, and even that can fail.

Ideally there would be other vital areas like "heart", "lungs", "spine", etc, and bullets would penetrate through the player body.

It does depend on the bullet, however standard military 5.56 is definitely designed to fragment. However it can also also inconsistent, and it will not fragment at lower velocity.

Therefore at high velocity (<100-150m) 5.56 should do more damage, when it slows down it should do less damage. This would probably require it to be considered by the game to have two damage values, one more damaging, one less damaging.

@Dr Death: fragmentation is what the 5.56 is designed for. Tumbling is what the 5.45 is designed for. Both bullets should do more damage in a certain velocity range.

http://www.frfrogspad.com/wound1.gif

@Dr Death: ballistics are implemented but there is only one "base" damage value for regular bullets, therefore 5.56 is always weaker than 7.62 (since game ignores cavitation/fragmentation effect that takes place at high velocity).

The 5.56 should do similar (or more) damage than (non-fragmenting) 7.62 at high velocity, and at lower velocity it should do less damage than 7.62 because at lower velocities the bullet will no longer fragment.

This would require 2 damage values and 2 "typicalSpeeds".

It is a single-action only pistol; the hammer needs to be in the cocked position in order for the pistol to fire.

@Laqueesha: haven't checked.

As far as the chambering goes I found this in the beta config:

"class B_45ACP_Ball : BulletBase {

		hit = 9;
		indirectHit = 0;
		indirectHitRange = 0;
		cartridge = "FxCartridge_9mm";
		caliber = 0.33;
		visibleFire = 16;	
		audibleFire = 18;
		cost = 5;
		typicalSpeed = 260;
		airFriction = -0.001;

};"

So there already is a .45 ACP apparently, so I guess it's ready to go. Personally I think it's too powerful as it is currently coded... the 9mm only does roughly 30 percent of the damage at the moment.

It should be in .45 ACP, and the "Vermin" should also be in .45 ACP. It's a 1911, everyone expects it to be a big bore.

It also shouldn't have 16 rounds.

Quote: "So i suppose they didn't have time to research and implement the round in time."

^I doubt that! They had it in ArmA2. This is how the important values for magazine/ammo should look for the 1911:

hit = x
typicalSpeed = 260;
initSpeed = 260;
airFriction = -0.0008;

About the "hit = x", a .45 FMJ should obviously do more damage than a 9mm FMJ, in the previous ArmA title it was 9mm = 4, .45 = 5. I think that's okay, that would mean .45 is about 1.5 times as effective.

As for why airFriction is so low - the round is not aerodynamic, but it is launched at a very low velocity, this means less drag.

Look at the real-life ballistics and you'll see it loses very little velocity. Check out to 150 meters. To get a similar rate of deceleration in ArmA.... you should use airFriction - 0.0008.

ArmA 2 used a higher airFriction (-0.0013522) but I found this didn't give velocity numbers that were in accordance with real life.

Of course if the same bullet is launched at a much higher speed, it would have a higher airFriction! That doesn't present a problem here since the KRISS Vector has a 5.5 inch barrel - velocities will be very similar to the pistol.

Anyways, seeing as this is a known issue, hopefully we will get a .45 ACP with an 8 round magazine in a future update.

"So you basically want .50cal MG with sniper optics."

No, I just want it portrayed correctly. IRL you can fire it pretty fast, you won't hit anything if you spam bullets though, it should be the same in-game. 0.75 sec is too slow, IMO. Personally I would be fine with about 0.4-0.5, it is capable of much faster mechanically, but pulling a trigger with .50 recoil is a lot different from clicking a mouse...

@KillZone Kid: uhhhh... you can do pretty much anything yourself, that isn't the point of the feedback tracker, besides, what about online play?

The weapon does not behave correctly, which is the point of the ticket, so yes, there is a need to reopen the ticket.

It's 0.75 sec per round, that's 1.5x slower than even the M107 in ArmA 2, which was twice as slow as the AS50.

"Good balance" isn't an excuse to slow down rate of fire to unrealistic levels. I would like a gun that behaves like its real life counterpart.

The EFFECTIVE rate of fire can be slowed by changing recoil values.