You can zero DMS scope because you can zero PSO-1 scope in real life.

When you use PSO-1, you use the top wedge and elevation knob when you shoot at distances less than 1000m (you set the distance at 400m for example, and then you aim with the top wedge).

The lower wedges are only used to shoot at distances 1100m, 1200m and 1300m (you set the distance at 1000m, then you use the top wedge for 1000m and the lower ones for 1100m, 1200m and 1300m correspondingly).

The amount of zoom has nothing to do with zeroing.

If you want to use DMS (or any other scope actually) follow the next steps:

1. Acquire distance (you can use either DMS's parabolic rangefinder or vertical hash marks (angle between them is 1 mil)).
2. Set the distance in your scope.
3. Fire (use the top wedge (it's colored green) for aiming in case of DMS).

Ok, then give me a link to the report.

So, as I see you want this feature never to be implemented and stick to ancient style of buildings destruction.

Would be nice to see this fixed.
Currently you can spot someone shooting suppressed weapon from very long range.

And by the way suppressor reduces the sound by slowing gas after it reaches muzzle break and lets it cool down (while it leaves the suppressor can itself). That means that flash is going to be significantly reduced as well.

MRCO is most likely a shortdod scope of some kind (they typically have x1-4 magnification (sometimes 1.5-6, sometimes 1-8, there many different models)).
HAMMER is acually a Leupold HAMR (http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/117/4/5/leupold_hamr__high_accuracy_multi_range__scope_by_scarlighter-d4xq6y0.jpg) system so there is nothig fictional in it (except for the name of course).
ARCO is an Elcan SpecterDR sight (http://www.socomtactical.net/images/4x-elcan-specterdr-scope.jpg)

So if some research is done it's easy to find the data about it.

I think it can help addonmakers (and everybody likes Arma series for it's modability), so, why not?

Anyway Arma 3 is the game that pretends to be realistic and that's why it would be better if it depicted firearms closer to reality than it does at the moment (right now it really reminds me of Battlefield 3(which is obviously a good game but not a realistic one) in terms of ammo needed to kill someone).

It doesn't really matter. Weapon damage in Arma 3 still has to be increased.

This game is a simulator. It means that it is meant to depict reality as close as possible (and as playabale).

And about that "second chance" stuff -- you have "save", "load", "restart" and "respawn" buttons if you need another chance.

By disabling it in server settings if it is hosted by me or by asking the administrator if not.

Still if killing a man requires to shoot him in the face (even in spite he is in helmet his face is not covered by any sort of armor) at least twice with 5.56 at 70m it doesn't seem too realistic whether extended armor is enabled or disabled.

Try playing multiplayer on servers where extended armor is disabled and you will notice that the damge is still low. So it's not about difficulty settings.

Mk18 (which was named EBR earlier) and Zafir use .308 (it's called 7.62x45 for some resson though).

Even if they use not exactly a .308 they use a full-sized rifle cartrige that is surely more powerfull than a assault rifle's intermidiate round.

Definitely agreed. In my opinion physics of all vehicles should be overhauled. Both wheeled and tracked.

Upvoting without hesitating.
In my opinion it should have been realized in Arma 2 or even earlier, but still Arma 3 will only win after implementation of this animations.

Would be really good to increase angle of minigun's movement on it's flexible mount. Now it's very very limited even if compared to UH-60 from A2/A2OA.

Unfortunately, pretty much every firearm is underpowered in Arma 3 for some reason.

This affects not only 20mm autocannon.

Upvoting for sure.

Looks strange that there's still no response/comment from BI (considering this does't seem to require much effort for implementation).

This will be a nice feature and make every scope independent of ballistics of the guns, so it's worth doing.

Arma should depict the real gun characteristics, so if the gun is able to fire fast in real life it should be able to do the same in Arma.

And if you want to say that there is no man that can handle the recoil of firing multiple .50BMG at asecond than just watch the videos below and think again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFXgxBGcaak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XmzuFHW3J4

That makes sense. Ability to shoot while moving sideways will make this firing positions much more useful.

MulleDK19, you should update the description and add screenshots because it's hard to understand what you mean without reading the comments.

It's still better to add the possibility to create underground structures now or in the nearest future even if it causes problems with AI. If it's added there's only one problem left -- AI.

If it's not added than there are two problems left: first is that we can't create ubderground structures and second is that after adding this possibility we'll have problems with AI.

Upvoted. Would really like to see bunkers, trenches and underground structures like in VBS 2. It would add more diversity to gameplay. Also it will add more tactics in urban warfare (just imagine a squad of SF bypassing their enemies via the city sewers).

Leaning to cover and blind fire are fine. For example in Red Orchestra 2 they've been implemented pretty well. If you want you use it if you don't you use covers as you've done before.

Would be good to add "lower rail" slot for grenade launcher and tactical grips (and bipods that I hope will be implemented) instead of making two separate models of the same rifle (with and without GL).

That was a hell of an argument. Definitely proves your point of view that bullets can't kill people.

Ok. A dozen guys survived. How many of just the same guys died during the recent wars because they were shot? A dozen? A hundred? Or maybe more? Yes, definitely more.

Just face it - bullets kill people. Armor helps sometimes but still this isn't an ultimate protection as you try to prove.

You are dead wrong about bleeding being the only reason people die and about your unwillingness to learn at least some basic physics and biology.

If you've seen a video on YouTube where someone gets shot several times and survives it doesn't mean it happens all the time - it means that the man on video is very lucky. Much more often people simply die or get serious injury after being shot. I guess you don't watch that kind of videos.

Scrim, we already discussed the penetration-killing theme and damage that bullets do by simple transfering kinetic energy from one object to another. Let's not repeat it again (we already know each others opinions).

Kirill, Arma 3 is still a game -- you can't model absolutely everything perfectly. Sometimes you have to simplify some things to make them adequate or even possible to represent. Current penetration system in A3 works fine for me. Any issues I've seen or heard of can be fixed by simple editing configs (which isn't a big deal for BIS or anyone else).

Let's wait until BIS will make at least one more comment on this subject. We still don't know what they think about it. Maybe they're not even going to change anything about gameplay until the release Arma 4 or 5 and all these feature requestes are a simple waste of time.

Kirill, the penetration in A3 is good. It's definetly better than in CoD4. Just try to shoot through different things with different guns and you will notice how much better A3 penetration system is than A2's or CoD's

Scrim you use the same logic you blame Linkin for. You just want some extra-easy difficulty level where you need at least 5 shots with assault rifle to kill a man and instead of making a feedback about difficulty you start inventing a wheel (by wheel I mean armor system that has nothing in common with what happens in real life).

Let's hope BIS will make a proper armor, medical and damage systems. That's probably the most important things that have to be changed and balanced.
Simple adding hitpoints to simulate armor is not an option for a game that pretends to be realistic. This is the level of CoD.

Neither skeptics are saying that situation with a T-shirted man is normal.
Normal armor is needed, but it's possible only with adjusted health-injury and weapon damage system. Otherwise it will not work properly.

Sure. But it's will be still actual for such calibers as .338lm and .300wm (snd of course for .50bmg). So it has to be considered as a damave source anyway.

No, Ataraxic89, that is exactly how guns work and kill people.
There's no need to penetrate armor to kill someone (if you want to make sure -- check why the most knights died in midage battles for example).

If you think that "the ONLY thing that kills you is blood loss" than you lack not only the knowledge of what fireams do (which is OK, but not welcome if you advise how to make a realistic game even more realistic) but you lack the basic knowledge of physics and biology which sucks.

Anti-aircraft guns such as ZSU-23 that were used in Afghanistan during the Soviet-Afghan war proved that with big caliber you don't need to hit some vital organs in order to kill someone instantly. I suppose you will find enough data about it on the internet.

And do not compare the kinetic energy of a pistol round with assault rifle's round -- there is a huge difference.

I'm not saying that hydrostatic shock is the only reason people die because you can't say "there is only one factor that kills people and all others do not have effect". I just say that there are many factors that and many effects (hydrostatic shock, blood loss, vital organs damage and many others) that has to be counted to do a proper damage system.

Scrim, you suggested 5 shots with assault rifle doing nothing to a man in armor. That is a complete bullshit. Buy yourself a rifle, buy yourself an armor and ask your friend to shoot you 5 times in a row.

And yes one hit=one kill is true if you are not wearing armor and you dont have a hospital nearby.

People have been always killed by the shock and other things that are caused by bullets.

By the way if man is alive it doesn't mean that he is combat effective. Man can survive multiple hits but there are very rare ocassions when that man can continue taking part in combat after that. So surviving multiple hits will send you to hospital for quite some time almost for sure. Because Arma 3 is a game such things as long healing wounds and death (or combat ineffective state and death) can be equated for common's sense sake (nobody wants to play a man that lost both his arms and legs but is alive thanks to the bodyarmor for a long time -- people would probably like to respawn or start spectating if you can't respawn).

Make killing a person require 5 shots? Doesn't sound reasonable to me.

In fact if someone in bodyarmor is hit by a bullett even if the vest isn't penetrated the man will be traumatized or even killed by the hydrostatic schock. That means he will lose combat effectiveness for quite some time.

If the author's suggestion about "4-5 bullets to kill armored person" will be realized with current health and injury system than the game will turn into another sandbox CoD crap. That means that the bodyarmor and health-wounding system must be re-created and carefully adjusted to work together otherwise it will be useless.

The thing is that even if the plate itself isn't penetrated the wearer still gets bullet's kinetic energy (hydrostatic schock for example). That's why people get bruises, that's why people get broken ribs, that's why people have their itnernals (spleen, guts, lungs, heart and everything else) damaged and that's why people die.

That's why simple methods of depicting armor ( such as "if armor isn't penetrated than everything is fine") aren't good.

DayZ realization doesn't look suitable for Arma (at least the animations look strange considering in Arma we usually play as a soldier that is carrying much weight with him).
Take a look at jumping in Red Orchestra 2 (in fact there are many interesting features that can be used as an example of realization of certain arguable things like jumping).

Add delay between jumps and adjust it with the stamina system so that one jump drains most of your stamina and that's it -- we have possibility to jump and no bunnyhoppind and other unrealistic things.

Actually right now we have a situation when something like this ( http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-75YoUDTiATE/ThTHzbb4myI/AAAAAAAAB8o/EUshvER5rS4/s1600/Trench.jpg ) can stop a batallion better than anything else.

If you don't want to jump, don't jump. If you want Arma to continue evolving try to invent some better options than just cancelling some features that might be useful in certain situations. Adding proper jumps doesn't seem dumb to me.

The most logical way to solve the bunnyhop problem is to make jumping cost a lot of stamina as it does IRL (jumping with a lot of equipment is difficult but still possible (of course if you don't try to bunnyhop)).

Don't forget that in BF and CoD stamina doesn't effect anything. That is why bunnyhoping is possible in these games. If jumping in A3 will require almost all of your stamina to perform then you will not be able to bunnyhop, but you will be able to "jump over streams, jump from one roof to another, etc".

Holding breath doesn't change the fact that sway works strange at least.
The soldier holds weapon like he doesn't use 'cjieck rest' or 'chin rest' at all.
If you want to get the idea of what I mean look this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpD2D4B6DWc
P.S. I'm not talking about getting back to 2d scopes.

For now weapon sway looks like the soldier is holding his weapon with straigth hands and without shouldering it.

The scope should always be centered in your view due to the shouldering and 'cheek weld'

If the alpha-layer will use the color of texture that is under the soldier instead of just being glassy it will solve the problem Kolins told about.
Applying such alpha-layer to other objects not only soldier models will make the ingame picture look better as well.

It would be good to see those animations implemented in Arma 3, and of course weight of your equipment have to affect the amount of stamina reuired to perform them and probably the speed of those animations.

If it's will not be implemented than Arma 3 will be banned in Russia because this will be the game where you can't kill a terrorist in a shithouse.

Upvoted for dismemberment.
It's actually a good way to check someone's status: if one's head is blown off the medic definitely doesn't need to risk his own life to check this body's pulse.

Another question: is that possible to make this compatibleItems class generate dynamically?

For example the game checks all the items and lists those that have the same "interface type" (picatinny rail or dovetail) in one list/class.

After that if the rifle that has the same "interface type" it inherits the class/list.

That means it is able to use all items that have the same "interface type" as the rifle itself without necessity to state all attachments in config.

Why is it marked as resolved?

Request was to do a configuration system where both Rifle and attachment have a mounting system stated in their config, and only Attachments that match a weapon's configged mounting system can be attached to it; that means we wouldn't need to state attachments in weapon's config.

As far as I see it is not done, and we still have to state each weapon attachment in weapon's config (it's easier than it was earlier though).

I think if BIS are going to change the mounting system (and I hope they do because despite the customization system is great and already works much better than in Arma 2 there are some ways to improve it), then it would be great to add some kind of "sub-attachments" that are attached to the attachments itself. Lets take scopes for example: you can set a high powered Leupold scope on your rifle as the attachment itself and AN/PVS-22 as a "sub-attachment" for your Leupold. Another example is EOTech and AimPoint sights -- you put on EOTech/AimPoint as a scope attachment itself and you can add a magnifier or AN/PVS-14 as a "sub-attachment" for them. Also it will make possible to create combinations such as M203 with tactical grip (just like this one http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/rifle_hot_rails_1-tfb.jpg ) and many others.

There is probably better idea than render-to-texture:
It should be possible to achieve the same result with the help of geometry shader of some kind (I might be wrong about the correct type of shader though)that will increase sizes of objects (distance between vertexes)that must be seen through sope.

Pros:
Visually the same result as using PiP but without need to render the picture again (much better perfomance than PiP).
Cons:
Probably it's more difficult to implement than PiP.

That would mean moving the sight to the side of the image. That doesn't look realistic, and what is much more important that would harm Arma's playability.

When you aim you focus on sights of your rifle and your target, so your brain will make it look like it's in center.

I don't think that perfomance is a real issue here because when you use magnifying scope your field of view and amount of rendered stuff significantly decreases and and that is why using 3D-PiP scopes will not significantly hit framerate.

By the way I am sure that BIS can make PiP function properly (high resolution, shadows. etc).

Actually any feature in Arma 3 can be called "not vital". But with that approach we would be stuck at Operation Flashpoint level of evolution.

So my point is that 3D scopes that use PiP are worth implementing right now (this will allow creating nice scopes, correct magnifiers combined with holo-sights, mirrors for searching mines and much more).

CXN2615

We need not only the scopes but ability to create complex sight systems (examples: EoTech+Magnifier, mirror to check cars if they have IEDs and many others) and depict them correctly.
This is the exact reason for creating 3D optics using render-to-texture and that is why 2D is not a variant.

And by the way it will fix all the issues with TrackIR.

No it's bad idea. It will not give any profit in terms of perfomance or anything else, but it will make absolutely impossible to look around while watching through the scope.

Render to texture combined with current 3d scopes is a way to go in my opinion.

Raoul, they don't ask community because the community doesn't have access to the game's engine that has to be modified to make this feature real.

Going from the current state to using RTT for scopes si just the same huge step forward.

And third point is also the argument. Right now there are no addonmaker that can do scope with RTT technology for A3 that will be playable.

Anyway if the engine of A3 will have such ability no one will lose. Please don't write about the framerate again -- right now using PiP in vehicles doesn't kill FPS so it won't do much harm when used for scopes either (it will lower it a little bit but not drastically).

Arma needs it for these reasons:

1. It adds much better looking realization of scopes.
2. Creates new level of immersion.
3. Creates much opportunities for addon-makers.
4. Ability to create magnifiers for EoTech\AimPoints and other complex sight systems.

If PiP scopes are done without significan't hit on perfomance in RO2 then it's possible in A3 as well.

Anyway, it has to be ability to use RTT for creating scopes (this is the only way to depict EoTech+Magnifier combination properly) in the game's engine at the very least.

Making a view around the scope rendered with PiP is a very bad idea. It'll make impossible looking around via moving your head (for example with TrackIR or Oculus Rift) while looking through scope.

All we need is the "render to texture" applied to scopes. Just like in RO2. That's the most logical way to solve many problems and this is what this feature request about.

Again: "Render to texture" + "3D scopes" + "Arma 3" = awesome!

Using PiP with RTT for peripheral unzoomed view is a bad idea because it will make impossible to look around by moving your head while being in "on scope mode".

As reporter Viik said earlier:

"there is no way we can build a magnifier properly atm, maybe we can do it with PIP, but something tells me that it wasn't designed with such usage in mind + we need not just an image, we need ability to pass it along the custom shader so things such as chromatic aberations, distortion and polarization can be added."

So we need this feature not only for "fancy Red Orchestra-style sniper scopes" but also for ability to create more complex modifications for Arma 3 in future.

Raz, what BIS implemented is not a PiP scopes. The world outside scope is magnified with just with the same strength of evenything inside it. So despite BIS have done good job I still hope they will also implement PiP mode of 3D scopes.

Still, having this feature is much better than not having.
First - it's common sense (there are many situations where you will need this feature).
Second - the community wanted this for a very long time and now, while there are not so many vehicles that have to be adjusted for this feature this is the time to implement it.

The ability to shoot must be given to all vehicles that have firing ports, windows, skids or anything else that allows you to point your gun at someone else.

First of all when you get ambushed and your vehicle is immobilized you don't need to leave your cover (the car's hull is better cover than nothing) and can shoot back right away.

If you can't fire accurately through the firing port -- fire not accurately. This is still better than just wait until you get killed by an RPG.

Balancing issues should not be considered in Arma 3 in the way they are considered in CoD and BF style games (like not giving opportunity to shoot form a vehicle because it makes vehicle overpowered comparing to something else). That is because every mission (coops or PvP doesn't matter) is balanced by a mission maker mainly.

To sum up all what I've said: just adding the possibility to fire from any vehicle where it's possible (APC, helicopters, pickup trucks, civilian vehicles and much more) will be really great and will make already good game even better.

It would be great to add ability to switch to your own gun and binoculars while being a gunner at the turret as well.
It would help if you need to identify target while being a M2 gunner at Humvee or to defend yourslef if your turret guns needs to be reloaded.

Nice feature, especially if combined with "firing form vehicles".

Incorrect. You still hold weapons's grip and use weapon's stock. And you are still breathing and your heart is still beating (it means you are moving).

If your gun is rested on something and you hold it there is still some little movement. The only way to get rid of it -- stop holding the weapon at all.

That is why VTS's way of bipod working is correct -- bipods don't remove the sway, but they reduce it greatly.

Engine realization absolutely needed. Otherwise animations and changing pivot point from playe torso to resting point will not be possible.

Button that reduces recoil is ok only if you are a modmaker that doesn't have access to the engine. In spite of this fact I think that waiting for what BIS want to do is better (A3 is still pre-release so they have much time to polish the system).
And if you want the "button that reduces recoil" right now instead of waiting some more complex bipod/resting system than download a "VTS Simple weapon resting" and enjoy it.

Then it's better to wait until BIS will finish their perfect variant and enjoy it than to make them "release it as just a button that reduces recoil" and suffer until the release of Arma 4.

Shift and Space or H are good options. Anyway making a separate button (user-changable button) for deploying bipods sounds much better than making automatic-context-dependent-deployment.