- User Since
- Nov 12 2015, 4:19 PM (287 w, 1 d)
Mar 20 2021
May 10 2016
I do recall this option being built ingame as an editor module (in ArmA2) - not sure if it has been forwarded to ArmA3 or not, but in case it was - the issue is valid
if not, then my apologies - feel free to disconsider this as applicable
Cool! I figured there had to be a good reason for that -- Kudos to BIS for getting that right then! :D
the basis for the concept here by itself may be logically unsound - however the gameplay implications of the "first shot advantage" mentioned is perfectly valid
this is a fact, even if not because of the kinetic exchanges taking place as claimed - the physics at the receiving end of projectile energy transfer may not hinder a soldier's ability to fight back per se -- but "getting shot" definitely will
once shot, the AI almost instantly resumes trying to kill you back - much like an arcade shooter character who still has "more in the health bar" to keep going as if nothing happened
once shot, an AI character should be some several moments impaired, if not completely unfit to fight (or even move) for the remainder of the engagement, and/or the rest of his shortly-ending life... whichever comes first
it's not very realistic how they continue to shoot seemingly undisturbed after being struck - if anything, at least it does look like the recovery is much too quick to be believed
This is valid only as long as the victim completely stops the projectile all but instantly
this would be maybe the case of a soldier with substantial body armor that would not shatter, but completely absorb the energy of the impact.
yet modern body armor is made to dissipate as much energy as possible, and not all the momentum of the is transferred directly, as it most unusual to land a hit at such a right angle (in which case, even body armor might fail depending on conditions)
in any case where the projectile does not decelerate almost instantly, the basic equations for energy transfer are largely unfit - without armor, a 7.62 round will almost always result in a fairly gruesome exit wound -- 5.56 often has higher velocity, and with a lesser area it exits the target even more frequently
so not all the energy in the bullet-victim system is transferred kinetically at the point of impact, which is why it is in fact reasonable a person who is not killed could remain standing from a physics standpoint alone
also -- the OP's math did not account for the added weight of gear a soldier would carry... also, in combat it is not wise to stand upright too much, which lowers the torque arm as well...
some modded versions of the M82 .50cal rifle DO actually deliver enough power to lift a target off his feet and land his expired remains several feet behind himself... those are pretty fun to try in the arsenal (and some MP servers DO allow those as well)
also very much noteworthy -- how come doesn't the shooter flip backwards himself according to your logic?
the recoil energy acting on a gun and being absorbed by the shooters arms will almost certainly exceed the total momentum of a projectile onto its target, after having travelled through air friction and leading-shock compression (bullets go supersonic, air will compress before giving way at that speed, hence that "crack" when they go by, a tiny sonic boom)
if the shooter can fire and not topple on his back, the target can conceivably receive the round and remain upright
the M82 mentioned earlier is fitted with a very beefy recoil damper system - it is also not meant for firing whilst standing up (bipod and prone, lest lots of hurt to him behind the buttstock)
and lastly - this can only be verified for certain by way of experiments, of course -- yet I don't think it'll be easy trying to find test subject volunteers
it was intended to be a duplicate - since the other two (are there more?) reports of this same issue were likely posted with an understandably less-than-cool head
let us hope that using a bit of manners can help point out the issue without the interference of user-v-user warfare detracting from the validity of what's being claimed
we all want this fixed -- so I thought at least one of us oughta ask for it nicely
we all hope for that...
...except our AI enemies, they seem to be very well enjoying our sudden inability to stop twitching somewhat
remember you're voting for the issue as a fact, not hitting "like/dislile" on the comments themselves -- the OP may be bluntly worded, but the fact it points out is nevertheless valid
confirming that the negative votes are NOT indicative of controversy over the subject matter itself, issue 0026975 reports this exact same problem, only in less confrontational wording - and it is voted at 100% agreeance
Another peculiar realization about this matter:
upon accumulating a little "fatigue" by running around with a Titan launcher plus 3 of the very bulky rockets it shoots, I came upon one of the many (often quite convenient) rock walls found around Altis -- so I used that for a firing platform, as any self-preserving soldier would...
Curisouly, the same up and down movement of my gun while being held on arms CONTINUED - all but unchanged - even after the largest part of that mass was relieved upon this rock wall
in wanton disregard for how the physics of solid objects should work, the gun continued bobbing up and down, almost mockingly, as if the thousand-year-old rock wall I laid it over was built with piles of half filled water balloons
this was clearly visible before switching to gunsight view -- upon doing that, the result was not unlike being aboard a small sailboat mid ocean during a storm with ten meter swells hitting the broadside...
to avoid further sea-sickness, as well as somewhat IMPROVE my aim, I picked up the gun and shot it from the shoulder, now very wary of the deceivingly "solid" appearance of these Altian rock walls - very possibly put there by a very cunning enemy in preparation for our assault
- the last update plain old BROKE all weapon resting capabilities
two minutes is indeed madness -- if you can do that IRL, congrats, and/or - be careful doing that, you might pass out...
in ArmA, however, we're not talking about holding your breath for as long as you can without the world going dark - we're looking to allow ourselves a little bit of aim stability for an amount of time that is actually useful in combat (unlike currently modeled, which is not)
it takes just about 1.5 times the current usable "hold breath" time on average to steady the aim on a target for one single shot
if you're REALLY fast and luck is on your side, as well as your mark isn't moving at all (while also standing up for your convenience) - you can perhaps use the hold breath function to pull of that stable shot
on any less lottery-winning-lucky situations, you'll spazz out and spray lead all around your target's neighborhood - most rounds hitting so far off he might not even notice he's being shot....
then you die from one single magic bullet from that same dude -- they actually CAN steady their aim, somehow....
it's very hard to conclude anything other than the obvious fact here -- weapon sway is largely exaggerated, making it unequivocally UNFAIR
hold breath or no, they can shoot straight - we cannot
curiously, after being shot (specially to the head), my character becomes able to hold his breath indefinitely... he doesn't do much of anything else though
worth noting: I have read in other issue-tickets this seems to be related and vary according to whether or not the building has it's door open....
there's something comical about it... blast through window with a machinegun, nope - gotta open the door first XD
but it's indeed a bug - we're not shooting windows just for giggles (sometimes)
we got a war to win (or lose)
Well no, I'm afraid you've misread my point.
Of course, real life helicopters (not all, but the more advanced ones) are equipped with autopilot systems which are often capable of maintaining a stable hover.
my point was to observe that in ArmA - the "autohover" feature is NOT in any way a means to represent those systems. In fact, it had been present in the earliest versions of this game, even in Operation Flashpoint - in the early 2000's - this was all way before AFM was introduced...
which is why I strongly advise anyone who's relying on it not to do so with AFM enabled. Since it was not built to safely fly anything more realistic than the basic model (may have been updated a bit, but still)
also, a lot of the real-life counterparts of the ArmA rotor fleet do not have any autopilot.
the MH9 or AH9, based on the RL MD500 namely, does not feature any automation, in fact it also does not feature an "auto force trim" switch (as represented by "set manual trim") - instead, it has a hat-switch that incrementally adjusts the forces on the cyclic with repeated pilot input.
as a freebie - the ArmA MH9 (by 2035, some upgrades, right?) has an auto-force-trim that works even on the pedals (whereas the MD500 has trim only for the cyclic) -- it does not however, seem to have any true autopilot installed - look around the cockpit, pretty basic stuff, eh??
so back to my point -- auto hover is not analogous to autopilot -- it's a legacy system from previous arma versions placed there for the sake of helicopter accessibility for the joystick-impaired (and the lazy) - and it was not built to correctly respond to the minutious intricacies of each and every different helicopter in the game under AFM.
AFM is based on Rotor-Lib, a Third Party rotor wing simulation platform which was built with RL pilot training and high-level flight-sims in mind. It was used on "Take on: Helicopters" and that's why it was added to ArmA 3 as well.
rule of thumb - if you're bound on using "auto hover" - then leave advanced flight model turned off
helicopters are definitely not stable creatures -- for every control input given, it'll try to kill you in a different way in return
a stable hover is achieved by a fine balancing act, which requires a lot of constant corrections... it does become intuitive after a while with some practice - and a good joystick....
curiously - the Huron and Taru helicopters should have a lot less of such tendency to yaw from torque - this simply because the two equally sized counter-spinning rotors should cancel each other out (to some degree, it ain't perfect)