- User Since
- Apr 16 2013, 1:10 PM (335 w, 4 d)
May 10 2016
I was thinking about it and there is no need for two separate movement commands. AI has similar problem with executing any order, when in combat mode.
I propose to make player's orders surpass any current AI behaviour and force it to execute immediately. Only after the order was executed, the AI should return to its routines.
It's possible IRL to hit a slow flying or hovering helicopter from modern tank's main gun. There were even separate rounds designed for that purpose, although I don't know if they are in use. Shooting at jets is another story, I don't think it should happen.
Also the upper most dot on the aiming reticule is labelled as 200m, while the scope is zeroed for 400m and can't be changed manually. This is confusing, as to what is the actual zero setting, because in other scopes the central dot, between the crosshairs, corresponds with zero setting.
It looks like each firing mode (single-auto) has its own separate vision mode setting. This is also true for NVS scope - all special & electronic scopes seem to be affected.
Also, when you remove a mag from the weapon and drop the empty weapon on the ground, the weapon magically gets a new full mag out of nowhere. Repeat this a few times and you have a whole lot of full mags again.
I've just played a mission with Slammer tank and the AI driver was unable to reverse, moving slowly forward instead. Switching to driver's seat cured the problem, as tank was fuly able to reverse under manual control.
Related to: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8363 Add all round security formation or AI function/microbehaviour
But an animation of carrying the rifle by its carrying handle would be nice and would make more sense, than running with it like if it was M4.
It's another example, that each HUD element should be configured ON/OFF separately.
This is not only a visual feature. Sucha heat-blurred areas are called mirages and they slightly drift along with the wind. Skilled marksman/sniper can use them to determine wind strength and direction.
I'm not a fan of free for all scenarios, but I'll vote up, for the sake of fluid BLUFOR/OPFOR assignment for various factions. It would permit some interesting scenarios, where for example US (normally BLUFOR) together with Russia (normally OPFOR) launch a joint op, against some hated by everyone badguys.
There was a military sim or strategy game before, where the scenario editor gave you just two boxes, Blue and Red, and a list of available factions. It was up to a scenario designer, to put factions into the boxes, thus defining alliances and hostilities between them.
Arma could use more such boxes, for example:
- BLUFOR and OPFOR, hostile to each other by default;
- Independent, with a current setting "friendly to...";
- always hostile box, factions put here are hostile to everyone else,
- always friendly/neutral box, for civilians or possible story-related factions.
What if a scenario designer wants to have a BLUFOR and OPFOR factions working together against another OPFOR faction?
Throwing all factions into "always hostile" box would produce the behaviour you want. Everyone is hostile to everyone (because of hostile status) and can use whatever equipment found on the map (because of being on the same "side").
For a M134 to spin up to its originally designed 6000 shots per minute, it takes 0.25s. Slowdown after shooting takes 0.4s. For a comparison, blink of an eye takes on average 0.3s. So it is almost instantaneous action after trigger press, even more if we consider current limited settings of 2000 and 4000 shots per minute.
Search for other lighting related tickets, maybe there is one already. I'm interested in more developed lighting/shadowing aswell and I think that pretty much all issues are already covered.
I believe, that the "engine" itself is capable of doing much more interesting things. This is still Alpha and I can see certain, not always obvious or listed in changelog, improvements in Dev build. It's just that we're now in a pre-release heat and lots of important things have to be fixed and tweaked at the same time. Reporting issues and features is always good, if not for the initial version, then for possible Arrowhead-like major update later on.
Lighting is all right, it should be "Improve the shadowing", which really boils down to one most important issue: light shining through objects or objects not producing shadows. Houses vs. flashlight, smoke vs. sun, sunshine in the valleys etc.
Arma doesn't need Crysis-like lighting and shadowing just for the looks, but it needs them, because of how they shape the battlefield and influence tactics. There is already a massive difference in gameplay in areas, where shadows work correctly.
I kind of like the current zeroing system. It does require some degree of knowledge and practice, while being more accessible for the beginners than a realistic scope dial-in system would be.
Maybe the complexity of sniper scope zeroing should depend on difficulty setting? It would progress from 100m increments, through current system, through MOA adjustments and would finish at MOAs + windage for the most difficult setting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ540U4OV1M - if only I had a bipod there. Yup, there was a calculator at work. You can "see" it, when the scope floats around, after taking measurements and before zeroing in.
I believe, the OP wants to have a 3D "Red Orchestra Style" weapon scope/optics. In this case he illustrated it with an interesting Stalker build.
Make sure it's not another AI crewman switching seats to rear MG, in an attempt to shoot you. There are three AIs onboard and only after killing them all, the boat can be entered by the player.
I voted up, however I believe such animations and reloads are a consequence of not having bullet in chamber accounting in Arma 3, as discussed in this ticket: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=625
+1 for a flashlight from me. Back in OFP days, one of my favourite activities, was driving in a civilian car all over Malden and Everon. No fighting, no shooting - just driving, in rain, at night, at sunny morning or dusk.
I was never interested in diving IRL, but after kind of "experiencing" this is Arma 3, I can see, why it's so much popular and can imagine people just diving to the wrecks or reefs, in a purely civilian environment, just like I did with the car. It's the beauty of a sandbox :)
It should be possible to play with more difficult options, than server's settings, but not the other way. If server allows for crosshairs and you don't want them, you should be able to override this setting.
I never said, that the soldiers have to purchase all of their equipment, don't get me wrong. But what if a soldier wanted a better model of ACOG, in place of the one issued, or an Eotech instead of standard CCO? Or maybe a set of commercially available high quality mags, that won't jam or misfeed? He had to purchase one. When your life is at stake, you can spend all the money you have on any tools, that will give you an edge.
The answer is cost. If a piece of equipment isn't mission critical, it won't be purchased, to save on the money, as even the basic equipment of modern soldier is quite expensive.
Similarly, only in Arma every soldier has his own night vision goggles. Also, lots of fancy optical and reflex sights in the field, were not "government issued", but purchased by the soldiers.
In other ticket, I've mentioned, that sniper rifles with NV scopes (or with daylight scopes + NV attachment as well) are used at distances up to 300m. I've read about it somewhere and I think it's because of NV image quality and resolution, eve if the distance alone should be taken with a grain of salt. Shooting at such short distances at night, seems to me like a perfect time to use a suppressor, but such soldier could be called SF marksman, rather than a sniper. Anyway, there must be a reason behind the following requirement for XM2010 sniper rifle:
"Fitted with a quick-attachable/detachable Advanced Armament Corp. sound suppressor with muzzle brake to reduce recoil and jump and audible and visible signature with an available thermal sleeve that reduces mirage effect on heated suppressors."
The rifles are in the field since 2011 and here is a picture of one:
Yes, but our current Arma 3 bullets are clearly supersonic, there are audible cracks. That's why I'm curious, why the smaller bullet "damage" if using the suppressor. I didn't knew about badly designed suppressor thing, but it would be weird to have such poor equipment in 2035.
I'm not so sure, that they don't use them. QD suppressors are around since M4 SOPMOD project and now they are available for other rifles as well. Most SF weapons have an option to use suppressors, there are pictures and videos from recent wars, where you can see operators with suppressed weapons, including rifles, shooting them even during daylight. I can only imagine, what is going on at night. Finally, in some veteran-written memory accounts, there are mentions like "our sniper suppressors (!) were send for maintenance after 10 000 shots fired" or about Vintorez rifles used in Chechnya.
I agree, that Arma3 needs two types of bullets: standard and silent (supersonic and subsonic, respectively). It would make everyone happy, if implemented correctly, for example without forcing subsonic ammunition only, when using suppressor. In Arma 2, my favourite combination was suppressed weapon + supersonic bullets and it really made a difference, when used properly.
On the other hand, I don't think that current suppressors are overpowered.
Suppressor, even with standard bullets, offers a number of advantages:
- the enemy can't hear the direction you're shooting from (the enemy hears muffled muzzle sounds and bullets' supersonic cracks, so he knows that someone is shooting, but the characteristics of such sounds prevent direction estimation, the sound appears as coming from everywhere at the same time);
- muzzle flash won't blind you at night;
- muzzle flash won't give your position away at night;
- recoil is reduced (the exact amount of reduction depends on a given weapon);
- your weapon is much quieter and while you can't shoot people "James Bond style", the distance of detection is reduced;
- I'm not sure here, but probably the amount of dirt kicked up, when shooting in prone position, is reduced as well.
The disadvantages are:
- longer weapon (could make more trouble indoors);
- added weight (although not much);
- added maintenance (negligible from a gameplay point of view, because we don't have weapon maintenance and cleaning anyway).
Sure, you won't find suppressors in regular infantry units, but it's almost guaranteed, that special forces field them everywhere where possible, because of all the advantages.
So in reality there are more good than bad consequences of having a suppressor, yet game designers invent artificial disadvantages, supposedly in the name of "balance". For example, current Arma 3 bullets are slightly weaker, when shot through a suppressor and I can't find any reason or physical principle, to explain or validate such behaviour. Others cut weapon's damage or accuracy like in half. On the other side of the barricade, are stealth games, where you can shoot someone with a suppressed weapon and another person, sitting next to him, won't notice a thing. This is all wrong.
As for Arma 3, all it needs is a bit of AI tuning, so it has more trouble finding you and returning fire, when you have a suppressor and engage from a distance. But in general, I think that Arma is pretty good when it comes to portraying the use of suppressors, it's only the small quirks, that have to be fixed.
I saw AI sniper to attack enemy squad with pistol, at ranges between 200-500m, as measured with rangefinder. He wasn't out of sniper ammo.
On the other hand, I was playing as spotter and ordered my sniper teammate to shoot an enemy rifleman standing 800m away. The sniper used his rifle and hit with first or second bullet.
This is not about balance, war isn't balanced. It's about adding another small detail, because attention to details is what makes great games.
The L key was proposed with vehicles in mind, because LMB is a trigger already and having laser rangefinder/designator as a separate "weapon", like it was in Arma 2, isn't the most optimal solution.
Since posting of the original ticket, I've realized that L is used for lights already, so maybe another key would be better, but the idea is to have a single control to work the laser regardless of platform (man, vehicle, aircraft).
Duplicate of http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=7370
It has happened to me, but I was in 1st person perspective. I was leaning and moving near a corner of a container at Camp Rogain, in order to peek out and take a shot at AI (vehicle showcase).
Still, there is something mixed up with TRG and magazines' configs, as observed in Dev build 0.59.105679.
TRG shoots 5.56x45mm ammunition and uses 5.56 STANAG mags, but:
- TRG uses 6.5 suppressor;
- TRG is described in inventory pop-up hints as chambered for 6.5x39mm;
- 5.56 mag is described as used in Mk20 and SDAR, but not a word about TRG;
- short rectangular 6.5 mag is described, as used in TRG;
- TRG doesn't accept any of the currently available 6.5 mags (short mag, Katiba mag, BLUFOR Stanag mag).
Often it's hard to determine squad's current direction, for example with AIs scattered in combat or stealth modes, and/or ordered "watch direction". Small o'clock direction display can be confusing at times as well.
Compass direction is constant and tapping compass key is quick and efficient in orienting myself towards the spotted enemy. Even cardinal directions help. Once informed of contacts nearby, if we haven't been spotted yet, I have the time to search for targets or I can use orders combination "hold fire" + "target that..." + "laser on". If we were spotted, any general contact report is quickly updated with tracers, lasers and enemies' muzzle flashes/dirt clouds.
By the way, apart from CAS, this is why it's important to have laser pointers to go all the way to target, instead of ending 300m from the emitter source, like they do it now. There is a ticket on that: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=4691
The only better system, would be to have the AI to point specific locations as well, for example "that bush in the middle of the hill" or "fifth house from the right", but I'm afraid, it's not possible to do at the moment.
Vote up on the ticket and additional +1 on compass directions.
Let's leave Hollywood, Battlefield and Playstation for a moment.
"when characters are prone it can be extremely hard to find them"
This is why you go prone in the first place - to be hard to find.
"playing against snipers overly frustrating"
In real life, having enemy snipers in your area of operations, is VERY frustrating.
"is LOOKING THROUGH a scope"
What if he isn't looking through a scope, but his rifle lays in the sun anyway?
"In real life you will NEVER find a sniper."
Incorrect. There are ways... Sniper, while good at hiding, isn't invisible.
"There should be some way to find snipers because its going to be too hard to find them otherwise"
Actually, without grass being rendered in optics, without attaching local foliage to the ghillie and with ghillies not working well against thermal view, it's too easy to find them. Black, uncamouflaged rifles only make matters worse.
"There is no sound direction when they are far away."
This is why snipers shoot from far away, use sound masking etc.
"Real snipers are almost impossible to kill"
They bleed like everyone else. If you want to engage them on their terms, it's your faulty tactical plan, that will kill your men, not sniper's "super powers".
"make this game unplayable with everyone camping"
This is only up to mission makers. Just because I've tried some idiotic missions in Arma2, it doesn't mean, that the game itself is badly designed.
"Remember its for GAMEPLAY not just realism."
This statement is valid only, if you want to simplify a complex topic, just to make it more accessible to more users. Starting up a helicopter with a "Q" key alone, is a good example of such design decision.
"In real life you will NEVER find a sniper."
If snipers were THAT invincible, then whole armies would consist of snipers only. But for some reason, snipers are only a small minority on a battlefield. I wonder, why?
"EVERYONE will want to be a sniper"
Again, this depends on mission design. Also lot of players enjoy teamwork, intense firefights with their mates nearby, using vehicles or simply commanding the whole show from a safe bunker.
Now for the good and educated parts:
"Modern scopes all have anti reflection lens so i'm expecting these to be in 2035 aswell."
Training a sniper is quite expensive, so a couple of bucks for an antiglare shield won't make much difference, but can save a "valuable investment" from trouble in the field. Even current ACOG scopes or Kobra red dot sights have antiglare shields fitted, not to mention various stuff I've seen on snipers' rifles.
And the whole post above by mwnciboo is correct as well.
The nv-fog is present only on moonless nights. Nights with moon in the sky look like a green daylight, unless I manually add 35 fog in the editor, which makes it kind of similar to nv-fog.
The colour is now more proper nv-green, it used to be more blue-green, at least on my display.
Night vivion appears to have been tweaked recently. It has more proper green colour, less contrast and kind of "fog" effect added, to simulate limited effective range. It's way better now!
I was playing a bit more with Gimp and Arma3 screenshots. Here is one, nvg_3.jpg, treated in the following way:
- contrast: -65,
- colourise: hue 110, saturation 60, lightness 0,
- Gaussian blur filter: 2.5,
- lens distortion filter: both edge and brighten 100, the rest at zero;
- circular mask on top and completely black layer on the bottom.
The screenshot was taken on a full moon night with NVG on, the moon was behind me and the view was not zoomed in. There are two OPROF ahead, one at 100m and the other at 165m. Try to find them :)
Judging by the photos, a bit of fullscreen blur could help, but not much. Many people, myself included, feel dizzy because of blur effects. Swimming underwater without diving mask, is fine for a while, but that's the limit of what I can accept. Blur and depth of view effects are the ones that I usually turn off.
But the photos reveal something else and stonestriker is right about that: lack of contrast. This is what makes it hard to see people through night vision and this is the correct way to make more believable and less powerful NVGs.
I've edited OP's non-blurred screenshot with decreased contrast and a different NVG mask, based on the photos. This is the same mask I'm using in Arma2 as a personal mod and it works fine (without contrast change, of course) :)
Also I've copy-pasted one of the guys on the light coloured background. If not for the red stripe, he would be undistinguishable from the terrain, with the lack of contrast and the fact, that the distance turns him into a few pixels.
In Stalker it's better to have night vision, than not, but flashlight will remain your friend in a role similar to IR illuminator. What's more interesting, is that Stalker's NV doesn't work in complete darkness. In BHD I like the dynamic blur on the lightsources.
Fog also fills buildings, which shouldn't happen, at least for the well maintained houses or other similar closed structures. Fogged ruins are ok.
No, it's caused by a duplication of a single command number within menu structure. Have a look at the screenshot attached. Two commands are linked to "7" and when you use keyboard to issue a command, only the first of them is executed, which is "no target".
- Scan Horizon helps, but there are two issues with it:
- the squad looks in the same direction, which still leaves an unobserved arc.
You could first turn individual people to various directions and then issue "scan horizon", but if you have time to do that, you could have set up all round defense manually as well, with "move to" and "watch direction" commands to individual soldiers.
- the squad turns and scans different areas (arcs), while I'd prefer them to ramain stationary (concealment!) and constantly scan a single arc each (easier to spot enemies in a "familiar" area).
- This is exactly, how I've proposed the feature to work. Leader gives order and people form a circle and stay there. The leader is free to move anywhere and the medic is free to move inside the circle, to treat wounded.
Then the leader issues a command to form a new formation and the squad rejoins on him, like they would do after a combination of commands "all-hold", then "all-rejoin formation".
Even with all round security implemented, "scan horizon" would still have uses with vehicles, where you want commanders/gunners to scan with their optics, without necessarilly moving the entire vehicle. Another use would be to have a single early-warning sentry placed prone on a tower's upper platform (many of those on Stratis) and scanning around for trouble, directing QRF or artillery. This could be nasty ;)
"Watch direction" should remain as well. It's helpful, when setting up a defense against an attack from a known position. With this command, you make sure, that a maximum number of barrels is ready to greet the guests.
EBR is a different story, because it belongs to a line of rifles evolved from M-14 battle rifle and has full auto capability in real life, as far as I was able to research this information.
Besides, it's good to have some variety between BLUFOR and OPFOR, so that they aren't exactly the same, only with different visuals.
Yes, 20-rounds mags would be a nice feature as well.
Also EBR has full-auto, both real and Arma3 variants, whis is fine. I like, when same class soldiers/weapons have some differences between BLUFOR and OPFOR versions.
Maybe there are differences in config values between MX and MXM, I don't know because I wasn't looking into the files. What I know, currently it doesn't matter, which one I have on the battlefield. I'd prefer to have at least some more pronounced differences between the two.
Sight used, apart from Alpha status, makes perfect sense from logistics point of view. Purchase and then maintain only one sight type, which is cheaper and simplifies supply chain.
I remember reading about something as silly as batteries in the current armies. It turns out, that every device there uses a different kind of batteries. Night vision, sight A, sight B, sight C, radio, other radio, laser, flashlight, IR flashlight, rangefinder, SOFLAM and the list goes on and on. A logistics nightmare and efforts are being made to standardize battery type.
I agree. War isn't balanced, is it? ;) But this ticket isn't about balance. Without differences in weapons' performance and functions, all we would ever need, would be a single universal rifle for every side and every soldier class. That wouldn't be fun, which is why I prefer to have many different weapons for different missions, just like for real. And this is the thought behing this ticket.
I was thinking about M21, Mk.20 SSR, SR-25 and M110 here. MXM differs visually from MX and doesn't appear to be just a MX with a longer barrel.
Even if all of them had full-auto fire mode, the other points remain valid. Limiting marksman CQB abilities would promote more tactical and team-oriented gameplay, as well as selection of right tool for the job.
My helicopter showcase doesn't crash, but I have an error message on the screen with script code. This code is also present in my .rpt file. The error message appears just after "Defend Mike-26" and "Stop enemy vehicles" task assigned messages and disappears just after "Stop enemy veicles" objective completed message. Previously the showcase worked fine, I have Dev build 0.57.105210. I've attached my files.
The same happens, when you crawl down the slope and aim downward, parallel to the terrain.
I think, that AI can't see through the walls, but it can pinpoint your exact location just by hearing you and then it can fire at you.
What is good:
- orienting towards heard sound,
- suppressive fire (= not very accurate) at the source of the sound *could* be OK, but only in certain situations.
What is wrong:
- pinpointing the exact location of the soundmaker,
- shooting with great accuracy on heard and unseen targets,
- identifying heard only targets as enemy - footsteps sound the same for everyone, however it *might* be possible to ID a vehicle by a distinctive sound of its engine alone, but only as a probable friend/enemy, not 100% sure to a point, where AI can shoot at it.
There may be something weird going on, with AI's ability to track the player. I came to that conclusion, after numerous walkthroughs of Scuba Showcase, on regular difficulty level.
My usual strategy is this: defuse two mines, disable the boat, shoot the enemy divers, defuse the last mine (the northern most one), swim 300-400m north, get onshore there (approx. grid 019040) and approach the camp from the hills to the north of it.
I did the sabotage part of the mission, without surfacing, but the boat seemed to be well aware of my whereabouts and fired at me, even from 300-350m away, just after I started crouch-walking uphill.
Also, on almost all walkthroughs, I was being greeted by enemy patrols, running over the northern hills in combat mode, like if they were looking for someone. The grids with the most encounters are: 019039, 019037, 018036. This seek and destroy behaviour was even more visible on walkthroughs, where I killed the crew of the boat, during brief surfacing period (because the boat was too well aware of me and willing to shoot me while I was stalking on the hills). The helicopter attacked me only once, when I got into the boat to use its guns to soften camp defenders.
It seems, like the enemy was either:
- able to somehow track me underwater,
- chose very large circle to look for me,
- never called back the patrols.
This is wrong AI behaviour, even if there aren't any "see through water" cheats at work. It's relatively easy to kill the patrolling units one by one, with trees and rocks providing concealment and cover, with them running (=visible) and at short ranges forced by the terrain. Assault on the camp with only 2-3 defenders is easy, especially after I got scoped rifle from on of the units in the hills. It's even possible with SDAR alone, after I got used to this rifle.
On the other hand, it would be very hard to attack singlehandedly a camp prepared for an attack, with every barrel possible scanning the hills, from covered positions. This is especially true, since AI's improvements in long range detection and shooting. I tried and succeded only once and only because of some lucky events that took place. In such case, the use of mortars would be mandatory - now it's not.
As I mentioned in other AI-related ticket:
- the AI should be more concerned about it's own survival and less willing to pursue the enemy to death (usually its own, if player is involved),
- the AI should stick together more and support each other; running in "every man for himself" mode, even if in general vincinity of AI's teammates, doesn't work and decreases AI combat potential.
For example, the fact, that the AI can flank, is very good. But at the same time, another AI should be suppressing my position or otherwise keeping me busy. Without that, it's relatively easy to maitain situational awareness and get rid of single flanking soldier or to move out of the pince.
When you are doing tests, check out the following cases: player against single AI, player against multiple linked AI (team, squad) and player against multiple not linked AI (a bunch of single soldiers). I haven't found 100% proof, but some observations lead me to thinking, that AI's behaviour and awareness capabilities are visibly enchanced, if AI's are in a group.
Somehow I don't think, that year 2035 will bring a dramatic change to thermodynamic laws. And overheating in one of the big issues with caseless ammunition, which is one of the reasons, that we still use brass cartridges.
@ceeeb: Yes, thank you for adding it. This is the ticket I had in mind.
I'm not sure about the extended armour effect. With it enabled, I was able to kill with one pistol bullet to the helmet, at point blank. Also I've seen one shot kills from 400-900m afar. It seems that extended armour works in a more complex way.
"According to the available sources, the expected service life of the APS when fired "in theair" degrades severely, and the effective range is limited only to severaltens of meters."
"including the SPP-1 pistol and APS underwater assault rifle. The main drawback of these weapons is that their effectiveness (and life expectancy) for use above the water is severely degraded compared to standard 'above water' weapons."
"Out of water the APS can shoot, but its effective range does not exceed 50 meters, and the rifle's lifetime drops to 180 shots in air from 2000 shots underwater."
"Muzzle velocity: 365 meter per second (in air)" <- APS rifle
Suggestion: While over water, the speed decrease and energy dropoff, with distance travelled, should be gauged in such a way, that up to 40-50m UW bullets are lethal.
Only slow walk (with default left shift key) is silent. The same is true for moving in crouched combat pace (default C key) with pistol in hands and lowered. No footsteps, no breathing.
Both "full_moon" and "dark_grass" were taken, while the moon was above the horizon and the blue light comes from the moon. "No_moon" was made, when the moon was way below the horizon and the gun there is invisible, because there is no blue light.
From my personal experience, the only times where nights were completely black, to the point when you couldn't differentiate between the terrain and sky, were with no moon and with overcast, while far away from city lights. Walking through a thick forest, on a moonless night, also proves to be difficult, as you can't see a thing. Maybe bits of navy blue sky between the branches, but that doesn't illuminate the surroundings enough for you to see and you could suddenly hit a tree, without seeing it (don't ask how I know).
Anytime with a clear sky above, I saw that is was dark blue and I was able to make out objects silhouetted against the sky. I was even able to follow dirt roads and sandy paths, which were faintly visible among otherwise black terrain.
With a full moon, I'm able to read or walk without a flashlight.
But there is a trick: you have to be in a complete wilderness for this to happen. Having light sources around, be it a city, railway or an airport, even seen as a glow at the horizon few kilometers away, will make your eyes less sensitive and the sky will appear to be black and you will loose the ability to see. Look away from the glow and after a while you'll be able to see again.
Why the "blue light"? This is a representation of Purkinje effect, which is caused by the fact, that when there is little to no light, humans are able to see only the blue part of the spectrum and become blind to other colours. The moon appears to be white, because it radiates at sufficient intensity, for our eyes to see all the wavelenghts, which combined give white colour.
As I said, the new lighting itself is good and the moonshine is good. What's not so good, is that there are some issues in how the light reflects from various objects versus terrain + plants, and how it's not blocked by the terrain. This is what breaks the scene, not the "blue light" or else.
I was doing another experiment. I took two screenshots (Dev build 0.57.105007) of an OPFOR soldier (better camo) lying on the grass, one was midday and the other was at midnight, with full moon up high above. Then I've heavily blurred and desaturated both images, to take shapes and colours out of the equation. The sun/moon light was illuminating the scene from a similar angle. See the attached screenshots.
While it's impossible to make out the soldier on day image, he clearly stands out on night image. In real life, he would be equally camouflaged on both images, either visible or not (depending on the camouflage). It makes me think, along with "dark_grass" example, that there is something not working as it should, with regards to how different things reflect light in Arma3. It looks like the terrain + plants reflect very little and appear to be very dark, while objects like people, cars, houses, rocks reflect too much and stand out from the scene.
It's true, that you can clearly see a white painted house or a car under the moonlight, but it's never that bright like in the current Dev build (0.57.105007). The difference in perceived brightness between terrain + plants and objects should be lowered and the ability reflect light, should be equalized between these two groups. The individual contrast between light and dark parts of a single object (a man, a tree, a car) appears to be more or less correct.
A formal question to moderators: should I open a separate ticket with my findings, or is it enough to post it here, while we have this ticket open and assigned already?
Yes, I see these details, although the telegraph pole and the foliage detail are visible when I look for them and are not standing out of the scene. It's a night with a full moon moderately-high over the horizon, with partial cloud cover.
Tonight is almost new moon, so take that into account, when making comparisons. I remember nights with full moon, when you could see a mice running across a lawn. Once the eyes get used to darkness, the moonlight is enough to see much detail and be able to work like in a daylight. Without the moon, it's just black terrain and navy blue sky. I've attached two screenshots made at the same location, one with the moon and one without and they look like what I remember from being in the wilderness at night. The time was midnight and the sky was clear.
There are certain instances, when objects appear to be much brighter at night, than the terrain. I think it's caused by the fact that the terrain doesn't cast the shadow, but there is also a second separate cause. It's when the moon is just over the horizon or hill top and the light rays travel almost in parallel with the terrain's surface and because of that, they doesn't lit up the terrain.
In such situation, a grass growing on the terrain should reflect much of the light, because the grass would be almost perpendicular to the light rays. This light reflecting grass would make the terrain to appear brighter. Aby object surrounded by a grass would blend in with it and wouldn't stand out. Lit_grass_concept illustrates this, while dark_grass (14th July 2035, 00:00, grid 044066) shows the current state. In Arma3 the grass doesn't appear to reflect the light in such a way, which makes any object lit by the moon, to stand out from the dark terrain, overgrown with dark grass.
By the way, I've noticed, that NVGs in Dev build don't loose brightness under the overcast or in the forest.
Damn you guys, you've made me to switch to Dev build! Here is my opinion (based on 0.57.105007).
The new night lighting is a big improvement. I like it much more and it is more consistent with my own experience, however there are some minor issues to be tweaked.
What I like:
Night sky itself is almost never completely black, especially close to the horizon and it's almost perfectly captured now. Maybe a hair too bright, just in the lower horizon area (a visible and distinctive belt of lighter blue sky). The top of the sky dome is perfect.
Unlit terrain on moonless night is black and featureless, as it should be.
New bright lights in Agia Marina area are ideal. Just what I would expect from such area, plus they nicely white-out the NVGs.
Hunter headlights are stronger and more useful right now.
The overall night image creates more lively experience, compared to previous "dimmed" one.
The absolute blackness under the overcast is excellent.
The moonshine appears to be good.
Blinding sun is an improvement, however it could blind even more.
What could be tweaked more:
The objects (people, cars, rocks) and roads are slightly lit by an invisible blue light source, when they should be black and indistinguishable from the terrain, but I think it's the issue with the terrain not generating shadow. I'm thinking here about moonless night and it appears, as if the moon was slightly shining on objects from below/around the horizon - the angle at which the "blue light" falls, hints that it's from near the horizon, there is a shining on the water there, but the moon itself is not visible.
The objects on rising terrain north of Agia marina are not lit by the city's stretlamps, while the terrain is, which produces ugly contrast. I haven't found this effect at any other site with lamps. (Edit: might be caused by something nice in the process of being implemented as well)
While Hunter's headlights are properly strong near the vehicle, they fade out too quickly. Their overall range seems to be good, but too much percentage of the light is "gathered" near the vehicle, instead of being spread out more evenly over the whole headlight range.
Weapon's flashlight is still too weak and has too short range.
Reflex sight glass is filled with blue, if standing in Hunter's headlights and aiming at the black terrain outside of the lights.
At certain angles, side windows in a Hunter turn almost opaque, when viewed from the inside, with the light source behind the head.
The moon itself is almost invisible on the sky. (Edit: it appears to have self corrected after a game restart)
The day light appears too diffuse, even with fog set to 0.
Compass and watch illumination is so weak, that it's impossible to use them at night.
With the new stunning fog, the need to have volumetric light effects is even more apparent.
One special consideration:
The sky at night is slightly navy blue, but this effect is true only with regards to clear sky, away from light sources. In a city, it should appear to be black, because of contrast provided by the streetlapms, also the majority of the stars should be gone. On an overcast night however, the clouds should reflect a bit of streetlamps' light back down, giving the sky a slightly yellow/orange appearance. Now, an overcast night in Agia Marina looks like a clear sky night should look like, while the clear night sky and overcast themselves look unrealistically.
Overall, I think that the new lighting is a step into the right direction, but still not at the end of the road.
It's part of a comment I made for the issue "0006876: [Feature Request] Empty Magazines and refilling them"
If we had separate ammunition and magazine count, it would improve the game in the following manner:
- after loading, the bullet in chamber (a separate entity, not a value associateg with a mag) would be "attached" to the gun, rather than a magazine, so it wouldn't be extracted along with magazine change
- another function for chambered bullet extraction would be more feasible
- the same for jams and clearing them
- two methods of reloading, one with empty mag going back to the inventory and another with dropping it to the ground, would be easier to introduce
- repacking of empty mags could be done manually in the inventory, instead of artificial time counters or automatic systems (by dragging bullets item onto empty magazine item, 1 drag = 1 bullet of that type added; bullets item would be either carried separately or "dragged out" of another mag)
- repacking could include manually selecting magazine loadout with mixed ammunition (two different bullets items)
- dropping an empty mag and forgeting to retrieve it, would have certain consequences, as all ammunition sources (ammo boxes, vehicles etc.) would have only ammunition within, not the mags; there is a reason, why it's an "ammo box" and not a "magazine box"
- it could be possible to dismount automatic rifle belt and use the bullets to refill empty mags (by dragging the bullets out of the belt)
- it would also support bolt action and pump action weapons better; even if they are obsolete in 2035, there will be mods with different time periods for sure (a single "reload" press would add only one bullet/shell to the internal magazine of the weapon; after each shot an empty bullet would be manually extracted with the same function, as "clear jam/extract from chamber")
Certainly it's not the most burning issue, but a nice to have for sure:
- it would introduce more variety to the models
- it would allow for quicker and easier addons production
- it would declutter the unit selection menu
- it would allow to get rid of all automatic riflemen refusing to wear proper combat camo jacket etc.
It would rock with planned functionality to set up unit's configuration from the editor. I like the modular approach in Arma3 very much and would like to see it pushed as far as possible.
Right now I have UKSF addon installed to Arma2. It consists of men - woodland, men - desert and men - mixed (green jacket and yellow pants). One model, but three sets of textures and three separate entries in unit selection menu. And it's an easy example, the horror starts with various special operators, blackops, mercenaries, rebels, long and short sleeve, camo pants or not and so on. In order to find the guy I need, I have to either make notes or go through trial and error.
It would also have to work against AI's vision.
Some camo nets and ghillie suits conceal against infrared (thermal) means of observation, it would be good if we had this functionality too.
Still present in 1.04.111745. It's especially irritating, when you have AI JTAC in your team. Once he sees a vehicle, aircraft or UAV, he pulls out his laser designator and stands there, looking through the optics. There is no way of moving him anywhere, unless you take his designator away from him. Now, imagine this in immediate vincinity of enemy infantry or under fire, which often is the case.
I agree. I would also like to have it working in Arma that way. But there are certain differences between Arma and real world.
"The AI must follow MOVE without stopping in the open."
Fulfilling that requirement means having a smarter AI on the individual level. Smarter doesn't mean having a self-aware intelligence here. Smarter means "being able to act in the most effective and reasonable manner possible, without using cheats (like see through walls, for example)".
You don't have to tell your soldiers exactly, what each of them needs to do, you just issue "bound to the objective" or "move out" order and they act. But they know, HOW to act. And this is based on their training (for AI it is an equivalent of predetermined behaviour scripts with procedures), as well as their own knowledge of surroundings, the situation and their common sense (this is, where the AI is lacking and should be "smarter").
Soldiers won't stand up in a firefight, which is what the AI does. But they know, that sometimes you have to simply RUN, which is somehow hard to understand by the AI. Or a dilemma: to fire or not to fire? This depends on circumstances, which humans understand well, but with the AI, it's best to have them on "hold fire" for the most of the time.
Human has procedures, common sense and intuition - AI has only a set of strict procedures. If something isn't there, AI won't make it up by itself. And this requires lots of thought and writing of preplanned procedures, which will take into account multiple possible variables, that can be encountered on the battlefield.
Games like Rainbow Six, SWAT, Full Spectrum Warrior, as well as sci-fi Republic Commando, take place on small maps with closed structure, where you can afford to place smart waypoints manually and design nice looking and fluid resolutions to a limited number of corridors, doorways, corners etc. Not a chance to do it for a multi square km Arma island. How many of these games have maps comparable to Zargabad or Elektrozavodsk alone, in terms of size and complexity? Add to that mostly preplanned enemy positions and compare with vast tactical possibilities and unpredictability of Arma.
I have to defend Arma's AI, but only partially. I've seen the moments of great glory and tactical excellence on AI's part, but also unspoken stupidity and epic fails. For me, the AI is a great work, that has been started and never finished, it's half baked now. It has potential, but it's hidden. I've managed to "beat" lots of Arma2 coop missions with the AI companions, but it required me to adjust to their "style" and simply not attempt certain moves, which would be the best course of action with human squad.
The greatest problem with any AI, is to make it aware of its surroundings. Having a mechanical "mice" to exit labirynth is easy, the same for autopilot following preprogrammed waypoints. But having an automatic shopping cart, that could go to a shop two blocks away and buy you a beer, is another story.
The problem lies in giving the AI the ability to process data coming from sensors and to make rational and well thought decisions based on this data. An example outside of Arma, our current AI can recognize a face on the picture and can point to another photos of the same person in the database, but can't decide on its own, if it is male or female.
The fundamental problem with Arma AI is based on its two characteristics:
- While AI has some pretty good individual skills, it can't work in a team and act as a team. In combat situation, an AI firetam instantly divides into a bunch of individuals. Sure, they loosely stick together, but that's not exactly a team work. A team deathmatch more likely.
Suggestion: Make the AI to pay more attention to what's going on with its teammates and to stick with them more, instead of free roaming in their general vincinity. Increase the role of Squad Leader and Team Leaders and introduce chain of command (SL -> TL -> Team).
- AI seems to have some kind of awareness regarding its surroundings. It can take cover, conceal itself, drive along a road, find a flat spot to land. It can avoid the tailrotor area while getting into a helicopter, it knows how to lean from behind a corner, it can flank. AI can even take shortcuts through a building or enter a building in which I'm hiding - it happened to me on numerous occasions already (I thought I was safe there, because of Alpha problems with building routines - a bullet to the back proved me wrong).
The problem starts with using of this knowledge, especially for some procedural tasks: proper road/street crossing with overwatch, room entry and clearing, stacking up against a wall with proper sectors division and coverage, all round defense while stationary, walking with tail-end-charlie, procedure to break contact with teams, the whole fundamental concept of fire element and move element. These items are especially important and beneficial with the proliferation of missions with dynamic and random enemy spawning.
Suggestion: For standard situations, add standardized solutions. In a room entry example, ordering such maneuver should put the AI into a preprogrammed subroutine, which tells it how to move into a room and how to divide sectors of responsibility. After the room has been entered and enemy neutralized or found to be not present, the AI would return to its normal movement routine and be ready to follow the leader or execute another order of any kind.
I know it its easier to talk, than to make it happen. But most of the building blocks for advanced AI routines are already there. It's just they either do not work flawlessly or work separately of themselves, instead of together.
Example 1: stationary AI seems to divide area into observation sectors, but doesn't take into account full 360 degrees coverage.
Example 2: AI does things like on the attached screenshot, but the problem is, it doesn't produce expected results; all of them died there, even though they moved tactically and knew about enemy's whereabouts.
Example 3: AI knows how to flank and retreat, yet it's still possible to kill them all in an extended firefight across a valley; they just lay down there and shoot back, regardless of mounting own casulaties due to accurate enemy marksmen fire.
Example 4: AI knows how to drive along a road by itself, to a point where I have trouble keeping up, but it's greatly incapable of driving in a column, along the same road.
Example 5: AI knows, that leaning out from behind a corner is a smart move, but sometimes it leans the wrong way and all the bullets end up in the wall.
Example 6: AI can shoot quickly and accurately, yet for some reason can't use their weapons their full potential. Arma2 KSVK sniper, set to max skill, needed 3 bullets to finally hit me at 700m. I was standing stationary, wasn't shooting back, it was day, the sun wasn't blinding him and there was no wind.
Example 7: It's possible to have fire and move elements, with the use of "colourful" teams, but because of AI's inability to work as a team, often it's more reasonable to just go there with them all and do it the guns blazing way.
Example 8: AI uses tactical movement and sometimes it works great. But on other occasions it's like this: "c'mon, run across that street, into enemy fire and then I'll run there too, to see if they can shot me as well".
At least the AI should be able to clear a single room, designated by the player. Point a mouse at the door or doorway, select the teammembers you want to make entry and use option "clear room" - similar to how you order them to get into a car, for example. Maybe there should be a limitation, that the "clear room" option is available only, when two or more AIs are selected? AI would clear the building room by room, as commanded by the player following his squad.
Adding clearing capability to AI-only squads would be even more interesting, but it would require to have the squad leader AI to be aware of the whole building and it's architecture, so it could effectively command the other AIs.
I've uploaded a simple mission. You are a forward observer and your task is to destroy 2 empty Ifrits, parked somewhere north from your position. You have 3 mortars with unlimited ammunition at your disposal.
Rules of engagement:
- you can't move from your starting grid,
- you have to set "extended map info" to disabled,
- you can't call artillery with 1st person view mouse click,
- using of shift+left mouse click marker is not allowed,
- you can use standard markers placed on a map, to aid you with correcting fire,
- you can use mouse pointer for a "laser rangefinder", if needed, but only after Ifrits have been pinpointed with binoculars or rifle's scope.
Tip: you have a GPS in your vest.
Suddenly, artillery spotting becomes an interesting art!
Regarding the original issue, recording different voice samples for interaction with artillery (and air support) could make it sound more real, but that would be audible only for those, who know the real procedure. For the majority of casual players, the current voices are "pro enough".
At least the possibility to call in artillery with ingame mouse cursor should be removed. Want to mark a target - open a map, mark it with a click (based only on observations from the game), order one round and then observe, if the round hit where you wanted. Repeat marking and spotting, if needed, or call for more rounds, if the previous one was on target. This could make calling the artillery more along the lines Stalker 1 wrote, but without a complete rebuild of the current system. The "map system", as described, is in game already.
AI has already some method of directing artillery fire on detected enemy's positions.
When I saw the first screenshots with OPFOR infantry, my thoughts were "these must be some black ops special forces guys". I never thought, that the whole infantry would look like that.
Also there is an overall inconsistency with OPFOR gear. The helmet and uniform design is more sci-fi, than just modern, yet they still use vests based on LBV (introduced in 1988) and Katiba is just a solid rifle, nothing very unusual about it.
I like the fact, that OPFOR has different design and style than BLUFOR, it's just it looks like OPFOR was created by combining elements taken from two separate designs. I would left the rifle and the vest like they are now, but the helmet and uniform could be redesigned to match the "not so new and advanced" rest.
Maybe something like this would be better?
The OPFOR helmet looks weird because of "sinister" V-shaped tactical displays and protruding electronic bays, which support them. Remove these and the helmet starts looking all right, kind of similar to Russian Sfera helmets.
In the uniform I absolutely love the camouflage pattern, the additions of ventilation mesh and reinforced noncamouflaged fabric. But the armoured arms, neck and ventilation vents on the back look weird, like if it was a Crysis power suit or something like that.
The AK-47 in the system I proposed, would have a single left side dovetail type attachment point. The 3D model would have specified mounting point in the appropriate position and the config would describe the type of this point. Any scope with the same point type in its config would fit and it's up to the maker, to ensure that the geometry is correct. But that would be as simple as modelling PSO-1 correctly. M16 with a scope/red dot mounting point on a carrying handle would use the same method.
But you've inspired me to take that a bit further and imagine a RIS adapter mounted to AK's dovetail: http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/4929/jacek1.jpg
There are two possibilities here:
An easy one would be to model the rifle with the adapter fixed from the beginning as a part of rifle's geometry. In the config and in the inventory it would be simply a rifle with a single upper aft RIS rail. Mounting of classic Russian dovetail scopes would not be possible and would require having another AK model.
Another, more interesting but also more complicated method, would be having an adapter attachment. It would occupy dovetail slot, like a PSO-1 would do, but instead of providing a scope straight away, it would only enable a second slot, which would accept modern RIS-compatible accessories.
It would look like this (the top attachments row from my screenshot):
[dovetail] [X] [X] [X]
[adapter mounted] [X] [X] [RIS rail]
After dragging a modern scope to the RIS rail
[adapter mounted] [X] [X] [modern scope mounted]
In the config, it would require having a scope "looking" for any active attachment point of correct type, doesn't matter if it's associated directly with a weapon in player's hands or with another accessory (adapter) mounted on player's weapon.
Yes, it is. I remember reading this issue, hence a special thought given to modmakers. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find it again.
I've left the slot system, because it's the best compromise between many possibilities of reality and limited ways in which things can be programmed into the game, without taking too much effort and time. There needs to be some flexibility, but within certain rules, so the weapon mods creation can be more streamlined and standardized.
If the "Red Orchestra style" scopes get implemented, we may yet see chained scopes. Even if I myself like the current scope design, I also think about the wishes of others and leave room for different possibilities. The current scope system could also be used for making it a NV scope, with the help of additional attachment, in the same way as adding NVGs to character's head make it NV-capable. In Arma2 you had a two mode scope, toggled with N. In Arma3, instead of pressing N while zoomed in, you go to the inventory and attach/take out the NV addon. The end result would be the same, but the process would become more interactive.
While we're at SOPMOD, maybe someone wants a setup like this:
It was available in America's Army, only with Trijicon Reflex Sight, at least when I played it some time ago.
If someone wants to have something on every rail at the same time, I say let's allow for that, because that fits Arma's overall sandbox concept. Do what you like. Milsim oriented communities will place some restrictions on attachments anyway and everyone will be happy.
And for really silly ideas, we have a system preventing this already in place, so that you can't attach suppressor to a scope slot and aim while looking through where the bullet usually goes.
You made a valid point, so I investigated how different weapons look ingame. I used Splendid Camera for close up looks and the results are:
1 long upper rail
1 long lower rail
2 short side rails (1 on each side)
1 medium length upper rail
2 short side rails (1 on each side)
no lower rail - in this case having a separate variant with GL, instead of GL attachment, makes sense
2 short upper rails
2 short side rails (1 on each side)
1 short lower rail
1 long upper rail
2 short side rails (1 on each side)
1 short lower rail, aft of which is bolted a home-made foregrip assembly
1 short upper rail
1 medium length side rail (on the right)
no lower rail - see Katiba comment
Having a QD suppressor or flash hider, is an open question for any of the rifles above and for gameplay's sake, I'd say let's allow for them, like it is now.
Now for the pistols:
a threaded and protruding muzzle end for suppressor installation
a short dovetail-slide mount under the barrel
nothing, although there might be a possibility to attach a laser or a small flashlight with some trigger guard adapter
In my proposition, there are only 4 rails + muzzle end, exactly like the MX model has. "Magazine" is not really an attachment point. I have separated long upper and lower rails into two slots each, in order to accomodate some combinations involving two separate attachments on one long rail, as I've described them above. Also, having a defined attachment points and point types, instead of freestyle rails, will make weapon and mod makers' lives easier.
I know that optics can be used on pistols. But given Arma's reality, I just don't see people sniping anyone from a pistol. Even if that would be really wanted, after examining P07 model, there is only one possibility to mount a sight there:
Which would make use of the current "Pistol lower" slot anyway.
The pistol location was decided based on how the inventory looks like on a soldier. Two main long weapon slots for two shoulders and an additional small slot for a pistol - be it a leg mounted holster or a holster attached to the vest. Certainly not another "shoulder type" slot!
Yes, I had to cut out the pistol sight slot, but honestly, would it be that really needed for the distances, at which the pistol is effective? The slots for more common lasers, flashlights, suppressors or maybe even compensators are still there.
I use tracer light mod and it didn't cause any performance drop, even on my old computer. The light is visible only at night and the ground is being lit even if bullet is travelling few meters above. Tracers also lit up nearby objects, like trees, when shooting into a forest. So yes, it has an impact on game play and immersion, because tracers are more visible and have more dramatic appearance. There was a debate on the forums and it was finally decided, with the support of real tracers firing movies, that they do lit up the ground, while flying low.
On one mission, I told the AI to plant a demo charge directly under one of these towers, the one farther in the perspective on the screen. He did it, but then got stuck and wasn't able to move. He just stood there and didn't react to move commands.
Now, with the latest 0.56 build, I tried to reproduce in the editor and this time he planted and moved from under the tower without problems. Also AI navigated the shed there, walked around all over the place and didn't stuck, not even once.
Previously there were "ground" objects around, but now they're gone. Looks like it's fixed.
Northweast from Camp Rogain
I was stalking guard tower on vehicle showcase:
4956.01,5943.38,0.00273132 (crawling on a heading 222 deg)
4965.29,5956.11,0.00332642 (heading 230 deg)
Here I was spotted and killed by the guards in the tower.
Cliffs between Agia Marina and Airbase
I was crawling up the hill to a sniper position:
2448.11,5767,-0.000518799 (heading 153 deg)
Northweast from Camp Tempest
I was exiting from water there on scuba showcase:
1830.55,3621.33,-0.00211859 (heading 128 deg)
It's a VERY steep terrain between the rocks, which could be possibly navigated, with the help of some gear. Even a knife sticked into the soil, to create a supporting point, would do. It would be a slow upward drag, on your belly, with both arms and legs pulling you up. But in Arma3 you can't crawl there, while walking uphill is possible.
North from Camp Rogain
Another find from vehicle showcase, I was crawling there to stealthy sneak into the camp:
5016.9,5968.1,-9.15527e-005 (heading 172 deg)
After my character stood up, I quickly dashed forward and got prone, only to stand up again a few steps further:
In the current Dev version, character stands up only to a crouch, but it's still wrong. The ideal outcome, when encountering too steep or otherwise impassable terrain, would be to stop the character's movement there and leave up to player's choice, whether to change stance or to move back and find another way.
Default movement stance on a very steep terrain should be prone, when moving up (climbing) or down (sliding). When moving across such very steep terrain, it should be possible to walk or crouch-walk, but with a possibility to slip and fall down, especially when moving fast.
@ceeeb: the default stance on very steep terrain, should be prone. It would simulate climbing or crawling on both legs and arms. Sliding down would also happen in the prone position, possibly with rolling effect. If rolling, the speed would increase, until the character hits something or rolls down to a flat terrain. Character could be injured or killed in the process, exactly as during an accident in the mountains.
Customizing vests would be great, especially for campaigns, where you have to acquire equipment and then carry it from mission to mission. But it's Alpha release and the primary reason is to have more realistic infantryman loadouts + more varied and interesting inventory system.
Yes, but how to tell the AI, if it's in the combat zone or if it's in a safety of airbase? Also on long missions, taking place on the whole island, when you have to travel on foot significant distances between objectives, it would be extremely tiring to crouch with a backpack all the time. It's up to leading player or mission designer to set the correct behaviour for the situation, and as such, standing and Safe have some uses.
In the post above I only made a comment about stances. The slow motion of AI under Stealth and Combat is another matter and can be a huge problem, when you have to actually move, for example breaking contact or assaulting position dynamically. But on other occasions, this extra care on AI's side saves their lives.
If only we could have two variants of Stealth and Combat: careful and dynamic.
I was thinking about the same issue. Whenever I look at a map and automatically take a knee, my digital buddies just stand there happily and enjoy the beauty of Stratis.
My proposition would be a little different, in that any AI representing trained army should:
- on Aware behaviour: always crouch when stationary (and prone when player lays down or when enemy was spotted, but this works already)
- on Safe behaviour: stand when stationary (like they do it now)
Stealth and Combat stances are generally fine, they either run, lay down or crouch behind cover.
Agreed on performance and alpha status.
There is another explanation: people from the towns and villages have fled the warzone, taking their belongings with them. Takistani houses had stuff in them, but that could be explained with lack of transport capable of taking everything.
I'm not against sensible filling of houses with furniture and items, but the "ghost town" appearance produces that special eerie feeling, the sense of immediate danger. It reminds you, that you're not on vacations there, but have a job to do. Also it's easier to navigate empty rooms, when in trouble.
Thank you! :) I appreciate your vote and our discussion.
I had shot rifles and pistols and I have a degree of experience and familiarity with them. I have used ironsights, as well as reflex sight, which is really helpful, but which required a bit of practice and getting used to it nevertheless.
I was doing some experiments, after I got the idea to enchance aiming, but before posting the ticket. My goal behind this idea, is to introduce an enchancement without forcing anyone to use it, without complicating players' lives and without requiring BIS to create something very complex.
What I did, was to try to keep my head turned to such position, that would hold the red dot exactly in the middle of the screen, while aiming and shooting. I was also trying to align various parts of a rifle against themselves and to keep them aligned, while looking around with mouse in standard (not aimed) view. Is is certainly possible to coordinate head and hand movement, after a rather short training.
An example aiming procedure could be as following (easier and faster to do, than to write and read):
- You sit on a position, don't move and only look around for enemies.
- You spot one and turn towards him with a mouse, while keeping your head on him with headtrack gear, for now only just not to loose a sight of him.
- Once turned towards the enemy, you press the "aim" button and see the sights, which aren't perfectly aligned yet. The enemy is still visible somewhere in your field of view.
- You move your head with headtrack gear, so that the sights are aligned or red dot is visible on the glass. It would be easy to gauge, what direction you have to turn your head, just by looking at the sights or a rifle model (if you have a reflex sight).
- You keep your head stationary, to keep the sights aligned and turn the rifle with the mouse for a final aim, just like you do it now. The only difference is that you have to keep your head stationary during the aiming process, which isn't that hard to do.
- Shoot once the sights or red dot are on the target.
- Repeat for another target OR just aim with the mouse at another target, while still keeping the head stationary, to keep the sights aligned for quick shooting.
The only difference from the current aiming system, is the addition of step 4 and the requirement to keep your head stationary until the target is down. After that, you're free to look around, until you want to aim at the next enemy. With training, you could even merge steps 4 and 5 into one smooth move. If you had a reflex sight, aiming would be even easier. Looking at the enemy and aiming at him would somehow "automatically" align everything, so that a red dot would appear near the enemy or even, with a bit of practice, on top of him.
There is also one advantage, that this improved aiming system provides over the current system and it would be visible on SDAR. SDAR is zeroed at 30m, which calls for rather high hold over, when shooting on land at greater distances. At the same time, the thick muzzle sight hides the target. With the improved system and a bit of practice, you could aim at targets, without them being obscured by the muzzle sight. It's kind of similar to the case, when you zero your rifle at say 300-500m and make headshots at closer ranges, when aiming below, to keep targets in plain view, instead of hidden behind the ironsights (I used that for AK family in Arma 2 with much success).
"I myself would be so focused on the parallax, that I would completely neglegt my surroundings. Headtracking in my opinion is not as precise as it should be to accomodate this feature. "
It's kind of similar to being able to hit a specific key on a keyboard without looking at it. At first I had to look down, for example to find that R for reload, but now I can hit it precisely with my eyes focused on the screen all the time. Also it's similar to walking in one direction, while looking in the other or looking into the turns, instead of directly ahead, where the aircraft's nose is pointing.
It's a matter of practice, which by the way, shouldn't take too long, once you're familiar with Arma's concept of having your view detached from the crosshair, unlike in an ordinary FPP shooter. For me, at first it was total spatial disorientation, like "what?? where am I looking and where am I walking?" but now I can't imagine not to have a headtracking device in Arma.
Regarding the precision, it's only a matter of setting the TrackIR profile to suit your preferences. You can make it less sensitive or to react in a non-linear manner to your head's movements, you can add a deadzone in the middle, there are certain movement smoothing options as well. I don't know if your device, or other headtracking solutions out there in general, have similar options available, but I assume, that the other devices are configurable as well.
I didn't knew that. I have TrackIR and I can freelook around while aiming, so I assumed this is the same when using freelook. I did a quick test and you're right. However it doesn't change anything, because without headtracking device the sights are always aligned and the feature wouldn't work anyway, so no problems for those without headtracking gear.
It's not about simulating parallax effects inside scopes or sights. It's about something entirely else.
When you shoot a real rifle, you hold it in your hands and aim it at the target. This is what we do with the mouse and the fun of shooting ends here. Point and click.
But for real, you have to put your eye in a correct position behind the sights, so that the eye, muzzle sight, back sight and the target are aligned in one line. It's not that easy, it's a skll to learn and reflex sights were invented to simplify aiming, *especially* at close ranges. With reflex sights, you have to align only two points: target and red dot, the eye doesn't have to be perfectly aligned, as long as you can see the dot on the glass (there are some optical issues here as well, but for the simplicity and gameplay I left them out). IR laser pointer is even easier to use and serves a purpose.
This is what we miss and our sights and lasers are only for show, not really needed, which I find to be a pity. My proposition is to allow for simulating the eye-sights-target aligning process with the use of TrackIR. It would be a skill to learn, for those interested, because this parallax aiming would be a option to choose (or not).
With the feature active, you would have to place the eye (by turning your head) in the correct position, so that the sights are aligned and only then you would hit the target under the sights. If you had a reflex sight, it would be enough to look at the rifle at such headtrack angle, so that the red dot is visible - putting the dot on the target would happen as it happens now, with the mouse. It would require head and hand coordination with what you see on screen.
Try this: in Editor, place your character (BLUFOR medic) on the runway at Stratis Airbase, directly west from the ATC tower. While ingame, get into urban prone position. Aim and try shooting the windows on top of the tower. Then remove the red dot sight and try doing it with ironsights. See the difference? This is what we miss from aiming.
First Rainbow Six had only a cross on the screen, no weapon model visible at all. OFP had black bitmap ironsights, then 3D ironsights were later introduced. In Arma2 reflex sights were still painted on the glass. Now we have "real" collimated reflex sights, so why not to use them? Why not to push onscreen aiming a bit further? At least as an experiment for those willing to check it out. Without innovation we could as well stop games' evolution at Doom or Duke Nukem 3D. The building bricks are in the Arma3 engine already, I don't ask for something requiring massive programmer resources.
"we play "soldiers", which are trained in aiming and countering this effect."
With that in mind, all that could be demanded from a player, would be to only hold W and left mouse button, because he plays a trained soldier, whow knows when to move and when to shoot.
OFP, then Arma always were about personal experience. It was the player, who learned the right stuff and overcomed the difficulties in the end. There was no life bar, one bullet ended it. The enemies were hiding and none of them were eager to jump right in front of you. They were good at hitting you, not like in other games, where the enemies miss you from 10 meters away. There were no "perks", which magically improved your aim or made you run faster or being more bulletproof.
In a word, Arma is unforgiving, yet it has survived and has grown a huge fanbase. So maybe a way of "personal experience" is the way to go? Others have to release a new title every year and they are still only "one of many". If so, why not to give players more things to learn?
As a side note, I'm impatiently awaiting introduction of ToH flight model to Arma3. I know how a helicopter works, I used to study FAA publications and similar and hadn't had any problems in any sim out there. But o boy, this will be fun to read: "help! the helicopters are now unflyable!!" or "plz make the pilot class use the old flight model, because he is *experienced* and can fly a halicopter with ease".
It's all about personal experience. Which is why I still love Arma.
Confirmed. The "climb up" action appears, when you stick into a corner, at the end of the corridor, on the groud floor. Try "walking" into the wall and turning left/right, with mouse-scroll menu visible. Sometimes I was able to see through the wall there and see the ladder on the other side.
The best thing would be to have an additional item, along with the paper map and GPS in the glasses: a military GPS receiver, with a moving map and all kinds of interactions available there.
Check out RPDA - Ruggedized Personal Digital Assistant. Having this would be nice! Our current HUD GPS would be tied to tactical glasses (having glasses means having GPS on the HUD) and GPS slot would be used by RPDA item instead.
But I'm realistic and I understand, that the developers have much work with more serious issues. Because of that I've asked for something relatively easy and quick, which will make the GPS more useful, instead of more complex request/idea.