- User Since
- May 26 2013, 1:26 PM (412 w, 2 d)
May 10 2016
No hard feelings but it seems to me the >feedback< tracker was turned into a wishlist of tertiary and minimal usefull features.
Also i get reminded that everytime a trailer of dull action shooters and movies like CoD where released, two days later we see feature "requests" here.
What a shame. :<
After a little bit search via goole I hit http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/ka-60.php
No proof but that underpins my guess. The KA-60 also serves as troop transporter and without any protection against smallarm fire, this thing would stay empty forever. (also supplies needs to be protected against small arms fire)
So it dosent matter if you can "see" the protection level.
Its also very difficult to differ between and protected and unprotected limousine for example. Most of the ppl wouldnt even recognize the tiny optical differences of 10cm thick bullet proof glas from normal 5mm thin glass.
Or take a look at the all so famouse U/A/H/H-60. It also looks like paper to me but is also protected against small arms fire.
This helicopter is a multi purpose military machine.
Most of the modern military helicopters are at least resistant to small arms bullets. Some manufacturers claim that their machines even resistent to 14,5 or up to 20mm on some areas.
Most of the time the cockpit receives the most attention in terms of armor.
Try a tank round. ;) (maybe a .50 cal will do too)
Good find, thanks! :) (will check it and add to the description when iam back home)
To support mwnciboo statement i like to add a little experiance i made myself during my active service with the german Bundeswehr.
First off, it is possible to carry such a load. Whats important are the circumstances and the degree of usefullness.
Carrying such a load on combat operations? Combat efficency should be totally broken down.
Carrying on a long march? Possible, but expect major restrictions in the soldiers fighting capabilities after a long trip with a such a load.
Carry such a load for transport reasons? Good possible and on short distances below 10km you are still able to perform fairly well.
My experience on this:
Once we had an little mocked up evacuation scenario where we all had to carry a ****-load of equipment and wounded personal.
We where wake for already around 36h with a good workload in befor so everyone was really tired. Then we received the command to evacuate the area ASAP.
Distance was about 7km first for the equipment.
At this distance i had to carry my backpack with a load of about 30kg, my G36 + some empty Mags in sum maybe 4,5kg, two (yes 2 ...) MG3 each 11kg and two small boxes of ammo each maybe 5kg.
So i hit the road with my backpack on my back, on each shoulder one MG3, my G36 in front fixed with a gun sling and two hands for two small ammoboxes.
Made around 65kg with a fairly uncomfortable positions for 3 out of 5 items to carry.(guess which ones ...)
I have to say it was fairly good possible for 7km. ofc my hands and shoulders hurt and for the rest of the march (somewhat of 30km) i couldnt realy feel my hands any more. But still we where able to transport some wounded and loadbalanced the equipment so everyone had still 40+kg to carry.
Thats from my side, i hope you understand my point on this issue and that i have to vote down, because its not specific enough to say "its should not be possible".
Remember the who, where, what and why questtions. :)
I dont missed it, I just ignored it because as Dr_Death said: one glass more dont make it more special.
Actually I researched for about two years on augmented and virtual reality technologies and I recognized that over time, watch out spoiler incoming, that hardware efficiency in terms of usability increases while their physical dimensions getting smaller.
No news here, soldiers always try to minimize theire overall load and focus on specialized technology.
Mybe the standard infantry helmet got a additional facebook and twitter screen. .... *roll eyes*
This ticket smell like serious goolge-"knowledge" problem.
Arma3 = Future scenario
90% of the things people know about "SF" = bullshit/hollywood
Stop it, please.
Ah and if anyone missed it: Arma3 = future scenario
The "how many times do I have to hit it" problem really started hurting with ArmA2 but franky, I'am waiting for this mechanics at least since 10 years now.
I'll hope this tracker and voting mechanics give us the opportunity to express our desire for that feature.
By the way, a similar problem exists for the "damage model" on the infantry level.
Like armapirx said, if implemented, an option to turn this behaviour off would be nice.
There are games out there where you can try out if you would like such a feature. Or pick a broom and walk through your apartment.
I prefer to point the weapon in the direction of a potential threat and use my legs to maneuver around obstacles over auto pull down and not beeing ready to shoot because of potential ugly hitboxes that force this behaviour to be triggered.
Only because moving your body a little bit(remember leaning) is faster than pulling the weapon down and up again.
I agree with you on the fact that turning around in prone should be handicapped.
But turning around in crouch and standing position shouldnt have any penalty, because in comparison to prone stance, you in fact can turn very fast, with some pracatice and the right technique.
For sure you are able to turn faster with a pistol then with an assault rifle and for sure you turn even slower with an machinegun than with an assault rifle. But these time differences are on milliseconds level and depending on how familiar you are with handeling your weapon.
The only real difference her is, you have to put in more enegery to move more weight at the same speed, so you get tierd faster at some point. (espacially with heavier weapons)
Just for clarification:
For a prone position, there are also techniques for "turning" (i.e. changig direction of aiming) fairly fast, however with simple turning, it is slow normally yes.
So IMHO there should only be a penalty in turning speed while in prone position.
Just to add my 2 cent:
Remember the way an explosion looks, sounds and feels like have many dependencies.
How intense the shockwave, fire, dirt, particles etc. are produced depents for example on distance to ground and trigger, weight and kind of the explotion, weight and kind of the hit material, weight and kind of the other surrounding material etc. etc. etc. .
Think about the comparison of FRAG Grenades in the woods, HE Grenades in the desert, APFADS on Building and HEAT on bricks, IEDs on Roads and Bombs on Airstrips.
There are thousends of different factors and kinds.
But one thing is for certain, current explosion visual effects are too slow, there is no feeling of an intense explosion at all to me. Also most of the time there is too much fire effects involved that last too long.
I see you had fun since.
@SGTIce: Iam not trolling at all. Iam just feeding a troll.
I dont know what wrong on the other end of this line, but in my culture, its reasonable to support an opinion with facts, knowledge, experience, etc.
If someone trys to gag someone else, without any plausibility but stupid trolling(in this case the attemp was aimed at me), i prefer to feed the troll.
Unfortunately the troll was bored of himself and left the building. :<
No hard feelings buddy. ;)
I dont see where i attempted to "disrespectful attitude insult someone of my family".
Nothing to add to this one. *shrug*
"we don't care about the fact that you don't want to see 2 heavy weapon + a pistol, if you don't like it, its simple, take a SINGLE weapon"
To write it in two sentences:
I dont care if you care about my preferences.
But there are a ton of reasons why you should care about possible balance/authenticity problems which can only be avoided with alot of work because the current implementation of Arma3 cant handle some very obviouse problems that are almost exclusively related to the ticket issue.
If you dont understand that, I can explain it to you in pictures or with a song if you prefere ..
"I'm sure they will implement this feature and if you don't like it, don't use it, simple as that, almost 95% of people here want this feature, the troll is mainly the one who come in a place where we talk about something and critic this idea"
Sorry to say that, but thats an largly wrong statement.
You may feel trolled. But that may come from a narrow minded sperspective on other opinions.
Beeing "against" a feature/opinion, isnt exactly the definition of trolling. Google it please.
I may annoy you, but I shared my experience and knowledge with you. I explained why I think this can cause a lot of problems. BTW the explenaitions I shared are there primarly to provide information to the developer/reviewer/SCRUM-master/ who ever.
".. like people come in a youtube video about classic music (simple example) to say that classic music are bad..."
Then please start to read my stuff and not only one out of ten sentences. I dont think I blew the door and screamed "GTFO".
So I dont really care about any trolling or blaming attemp because I think the developers will focus on facts and not on a stupid result of a voting process.
To make it a little bit more clear, the voting is mainly an indication for the reviewer to take a look at the information thats provided by description and comments. They dont go "wow 90% upvote, we shall implement this shit". So come one, dont be naive, please. Thats not a mocked up democracy.
" i don't care about who have the best army, but we still have the FAMAS a nice weapon, French are part of the best shooter, we have the best tank on earth,"
Sorry, after reading such a statement, I cant help myself but stop reading.
Spoiler: 90% chance the next post will be a hater
Hahaha i lol'd.
Go for the sandbox boy. :)
We are talking when you grown up and put something in thats not only *mimi* and *qqq*.
How about provide us a little bit with your experiences or at least opinions?
Do you have anything to tell us?
What do you think should be done?
Come on, dont be shy. :)
Thanks for the text. I know it can be annoying to type so much stuff.
Just to provide you with a little bit of my experience to maybe enable you to imagine what are the differences between airsoft and real life.
(not to blame anyones hobby or his equipment!)
You know how to wield a gun-like-"toy" thats a replica of a real weapon, thats totaly fine, but still primarly its just about weight you have to handle.
The aiming and the way you have keep your weapon at the ready in real life is in many ways way different from airsoft behaviour.
Its starts with aiming and keeping the weapon at the ready where you dont have to compensate recoil, goes to movement where you have to consider you cant evade slow flying balls, you have a team on your side and have to adapt you position/movement and everything to that. You also often have alot more equipment on your chest than you described above.
These are actually things you will also face in ArmA too.
But all these things are tireing you down in some way.
That is given especally with a second heavy weapon on your back.
I know it from my own service, how annoying it is to have a second weapon on your shoulder and have to be quick on pointing targets, keep up with your mates, find good cover, stay comfotable in the way you move and everytime to avoid getting wrapped up by the bulky, uncomfortable thing(whatever it is) on your back/shoulder in a military environment.
Its not like going on a field with a lightweight 20kg pack for 2h having fun and "restart option". Its more like going in the field where every tiny mistake can potentionally cost your life or even worse one of your mates.
The physical and foremost the mental stress level was sometimes so high, I dont want to experiance that again a single time in my life.
And this is the time where many mistakes happening and every bit of annoying equipment pissed you of ten times what leads to more failures.
Not to blame anyone for not having this experience.
Sure you cant (and wont) simulate emotions but at least they tried to reflect the stress a soldier can experience and thats where the annoying shaking and weaving starts.
To sum MY opinion up (and avoid trool feeding ...)
- Yes it is possible and makes sense, thats for sure, no question about that.
- The implementation in Arma should not only enable you to allow the discussed setup but also introducing (simulated ofcurse!) the very ugly things of such a setup.
- At the moment there is only limitation in space and weight, I hope after so much text i wrote, its clear that this cant be an authentic reflection.
- An from that given, Iam sceptical about if its really worth to be implemented in a (in my opinion) good way and not only as a gimmick that could destroy more than just the degree of authenticity. (thats is my indirect hollywood "knowledge" criticism)
The last point is very important for a simulation, like Arma wants it to be.
Iam out, enjoy your weekend, bye. :)
And now we got some guy saying:
- He tried himself to carry an MG for some distance and now considers it impossible for everyone else to carry it for 10km (sic!)
Thats what you wanted to read, but not what i've wrote. Read again please.
- It smells like hollywood to him (no comments)
No comment on that seperation of fact without mentioning the dependent statement.
- That everyone else is full of logical fallacies, but he is the one and only carrier of the ArmA mindset (all in white)
Trolling approach because again missunserstood on purpose.
- He doesn't want players to abuse it
Thats a basicly bad thing, I learned that by now ...
- And on top of that, he blames everyone and everything for being engaged in all kinds of logical failures/biases.
Repeated, not recognized trolling approach and again only the way you want to see the statements. Maybe a little bit too emotional here?
and hence it does not exist - even though the facts say otherwise...
Never said it dont exist. The other way around is true, I said alot it is realistic but a minor side setup. And again missunderstood on purpose.
I'm not surprised such people exist. I'm surprised anyone can take him seriously.
Same on you.
Come on, guys, it's not funny. It's such an obvious demagogue logic/trolling that I can't believe anyone else will not see it. I'm wordless...
You traped yourself already. o.O
/edit: And please put at least some ideas of interest in you "post". Your approach of trolling is just a waste of space.
Weapon on secondary slow don't require any big modification of the game structure.
In a perfect world, where your assumption is placed, it shouldnt be not much more difficult to implement a 3D Model. ;)
The endurance of the soldier is a "little bit" low ATM, thats true.
I just asume that this will be "fixed" in the final version. So there is still space for handicaps where they are needed and not everyone running out of breath after 5 meters of walking.
Another thing I want to mention again is that not only weight influences your endurance.
No hard feelings, I dont know if you have any experiance with military equipment and service, but when you do, you will agree that you handle your "mocked up military" / painball equipment and paintball-markers way different from real equipment and guns.
Actually the handling of different kind of rigs and backpacks and the ergonomics they bring with them influencing you endurance the most.
Maybe you can imagin when you try to carry a 20kg weight with a single sling over you shoulder, with your bare hands or with a backpack.
You can try out at least. And I think everyone will agree that there is a major influence from that.
Sad to say but reality (and a proper simulation) isnt simply about weight.
Like Donald Norman said, simplicity is not the answer.
I see it more from a developer perspectiv but from my personal reference point in terms of effort in correct/authentic/usefullness (you name it) implementation and reward from such an implementation.
Its a little bit like the female soldiers request on the outside, but on the inside you propably have to adapt much more game mechanics.
But it seems nobody is taking a look out of everyones own little box so far.
So lets go for the crossfinger tactics ... and hope the finaly implementation will at least introduce strong negative effects on fatigue ...
Nice explanation, my appreciation on that.
You lined out the basic problem here.
Maybe through that now its more clear where I see the problem with that specific feature request.
I'll try to add some points to that:
You mentioned it already, its a game so you cant (and dont want to ofc) simulate anything.
On the problematic of carrying two "main weapons", to make it close to reality or at least prevent action-like mechanics, you have to take much things into account that are not covered by the current state of the implementation.
Frankly I dont see the point in adding a lot of logic and changing a single feature (the frtigue system) to make one special case of equipment combination be reflected in a realistic way.
If there would be more use of such a heavy change, maybe it would make for mo e sense for the whole product, but i cant see where else it could be used.
/edit: Yes there are easy and quick ways to implement this feature but it wouldnt be anywhere close to feel authentic or acceptable to me and for sure many more people that know the tiny painful things related on carrying equipment. :)
Yes there are regulations and planned structures, sure there are.
But my experience from the german Bundeswehr is, that this stuff dosent matter that much down in AFG, you wil always adapt to the circumstances. Gernerally that means reducing equipment and put away useless stuff the regulations said you should carry.
Noone complains about that?
Not in the gaming community right, but in real life even machinegunner getting annoyed very fast.
Actuall its so annoying, if you carry a GPMG on a patrol, you hardly carry much more than you weapon, and one (1 .. O N E) additional ammo box.
The MG3 I carried often only weight around 11kg, most of the western shoulder fired RPG systems weight that much or more on their own.
The guy with the RPG system generally is much more pissed than the machinegunner ... and you dont wanna fuck with one after 10km of walking.
The reason why this is legit is because is a general setup in almost every army, still the implementation in ArmA is lacking a LOT of handicaps for this kind of setup.
And yes, weight is major handicap, but if you ever would had to carry such a setup you would know your combat efficiency is reduced by at least 50%.
Intruduced by slow and carfull movement that is necessary to not mess up in slings, or get pinned by a bush.
Try it and out yourself (as i had to..) and request it again ....
I agree with you on some points SGTIce, but i still see the problems that could be done to the gameplay with a feature that is abuseable.
Like Brynjard said, we would face alot of .50Cal and MG combos in multiplayer and for me personally, it would break down the atmosphere of an simulation environment to zero.
The example with MP5 + AR or breaching shotgun + AR are good to discuss about how such a slot should work.
You dont have you secondary (room clearing(...)) MP5 ready to shoot in a real scenarion.
Same for the breaching shotgun.
Almost everything you see on youtube, liveleak etc is mocked up, remeber that.
So in general I also would like to have such an option.
But(!) not as a "switch weapons in a split second" way and also not without any additional handicaps except of weight.
Remember ArmA3 wants to be a simulation and basic gameplay implementation have to be rock solid for that.
Please dont try to break it with "personal prefered" features. (also in regards to time that have to be spent into development)
If if read something like: "If this guy will be stuck to use a single weapon at time he would have had been killed with all his team .."
Then i dont want to share experience.
For sure there are examples around where soldiers carry two "main weapons", like an expertise scandinavian soldier did during the second world war.
But we have alot of things here that are feeded by missinformation:
"Main-weapon" or primary is the thing you point at enemys primarly.(time related)
Not as secondary weapons, that you use for secondary or special uses, like a grenade launcher or a pistol.
Another thing is is simply internet chair-commander stupidity that wont waste a lot of thoughts team lineup.
But back to topic:
Recons/Snipers with assault rifle and DMR/SR make sense and is a common setup, becaus in most of the armys, there are in the field with only one buddy.
AR + DMR on one soldier in a normal infantry squad.
Pff screw that one. heavy load, main target, way faster fatigue
Grenadelauncher + AR in a normal squad. Makes sense, ofc.
Just a few thoughts:
What we should talk about is, how we prevent the abuse of such a "quick access" slot and what weapons could be carryed in both "secondary" slots.
Sniper would need two "primary weapons" for example.
But most of the time they dont carry both quickly accessible. (handeling slings etc is way too anoying)
Another thing that should be taken into account is how such a "quick access" slot will work.
Just try to carry two weapons quickly accessible and you will face some ergonomic problems youn dont want to have in a firefight. For example a fast way to go prone. (and a shitload more)
And yes again there are examples where its still make sense to carry two quickly accessible "primary" weapons but this involves.
Fitting circumstances where the negative effects having not so much impact, a lot of training to handle the equipment right, etc. etc.
I could go on for a couple of pages to explain it to you but it would be too much for the average user to read so i skip that.
Iam still sceptical about such a feature:
- not everyone is a highly trained solder
- wrong implementation could lead to CoD-like gameplay, bad balance and so on
- only usefull on very few situations (i asume you dont want to play the "solo rambo army" game)
- generaly too much hollywood invovled to be taken serious
smells from hollywood here
put your second "primary" to your backpack ...
carry two primary weapons quickly accessible make no sense at all
if you put yourself i a situation where you would need such an option, you basicly did something very wrong
May 9 2016
My subjective impression is that this bug almost only occure on "larger" (i.e. more units/objects are around) multiplayer maps. I face this bug very frequently on the Domination 2.99e Map and can't reproduce it on singleplayer or simple editor maps yet.
Wind and temperature is very important for a common rifleman.
Oh wait, we only got hollywood-chair-commanders in Arma. That abviousely a totaly different thing ofcourse.
Cost–benefit ratio converging to null. (null)
And nobody mentioned the weight of a weapon an spring mechanics so far ...
The whole "arguing" on caliber X has more recoil as caliber Z, is just ridiculous at the moment. It would only make sense when you take in account alot more parameters other than only the load of pouder and caliber or super duper recoil eliminating weapon attachments like the ultimative non-beatable hollywood proven foregrip ........
The whole shooting mechanics is a huge step away from being realistic/authentic and I guess it was implemented on purpose to introduce a balanced feeling for everyone and thats fine for the basic game.
"The thing is, the recoil is backwards, not upwards."
Not entirely correct.
Basicly that statement is true yes. But the recoil that is received by the body is mainly influenced by the muzzle break/ flash supressor and most important from the offset of the barrel axis to the buttstock alginment.
So for the AR-15-kind rifles the alginment of the barrel is much closer to the buttstock axis, with a smaller offset, the recoil will go more straight backward. For AK-kind weapons, where the offset is larger, the weapon tends more to move upward.
In the end it more complex how the produced recoil is received and compensated by the shooter. The ways to compensate recoil are more complex than having a foregrip and stable stand.
Reasons why this feature will break authenticity are given above by many people.
To add/support a simple one.
In real life, you are able to have controll over the recoil and its impact on how the weapon is moving.
Now who is it to say how fast my weapon will zero in again?
And maybe I can perofrm much better manually?
Maybe its an additional reward of individial satisfaction when you improve your marksmanship on your own and not by faulty game mechanics?
Just my 2 cent.
In science and design of things there is an special topic for such request of lazy people(made by industry) or features of hyper carefully industry offers.(reaching maximum amount of people)
Its core problmes is outlined by overdone assistance provided to people/user/consumer.