- User Since
- Mar 10 2013, 5:44 PM (445 w, 21 h)
May 10 2016
The vast majority of soldiers are not trained specially for underwater operations. Even amongst those that are, many of them will not be able to stay conscious after 4 mins underwater. The only ones who may be able to pull something like that off would be the special operations divers, but they are a very small group, you can expect that less than 1% of the military are trained to that level. I don't know whether you have actually served in the military before, but I certainly do not remember having any "holding breath underwater" lessons.
tldr; I agree with OP, 3-4 mins of breath is too long.
This is a duplicate of 0001307. You should help to vote that up so the devs have a higher chance of noticing this. Also try to do a quick search before creating an new issue, so as to reduce the chance of creating a duplicate post.
I've noticed the same thing about the reflections from the chopper pilot's helmet. It would be nice to this to be fixed but I don't think that its something the devs are likely to do. Its probably going to add a severe drop in FPS for a relatively minor cosmetic improvement.
@scrim I have used both 3rd and 4th gen optics in the military some with and some without the built-in IR illumination. There are definitely 3rd gen devices with IR and there is no noticeable difference in noise between optics of the same generation with or without built-in IR. However, there is noticeably less noise and less glaring from lights in the more current gen 4 optics as compared to the gen 3. I have also seen 100% passive gen 1 optics which are all very noisy, even if you were to shine an IR light source to brighten up the area.
In the world today you would be hard pressed to find a military that still uses gen 1 or even gen 2 optics. Generally they either don't use them at all or they will purchase at least gen 3s. By the same token, we can expect that by 2035, the minimum anyone would likely have would be gen 4 optics, since it would be ancient tech by then.
@scrim actually gen 1/2 NVGs were passive as well. The noise on those NVGs had to do with inadequate tech, which has improved over the years to become our gen 3/4 of today. IR illumination for NVGs is still being used today, because NVGs work by amplifying ambient light. In some situations however, there is almost no ambient light and this is where you can turn on the built-in IR and use it like a flashlight that only the NVGs can see.
To be fair to Dragoan, the older night vision devices did have a fair amount of noise (gen 1 and gen 2 especially). However our current gen 4 devices are very accurate and I think its safe to say that it is going to get better by 2035! As for the whiteness during the day, I feel this is very correct. In general, using night vision during the day is a big no-no, since exposing the lens to bright lights can easily damage the device. All night vision devices that I have seen so far come with a lens cap to protect it from sunlight.
Really nice idea, but you would have to consider the launcher in question though, like the NLAW is actually disposable and can't be loaded at all! Although I have to say this would be very complicated in-game, especially with our bumbling AI friends. I wouldn't want to rely on them to get my launcher loaded. I think this could simply be added as an additional way to load the launcher with the current method still usable.
Agreed, 24H format watch would be much appreciated.
I think it's a good idea, but I think it would be better if there was the option to drop the launcher altogether and draw the pistol, then later have to pick up the launcher again from the ground, as would be done in real life. I believe the downvoters are simply afraid the this could give too much of an arcade feel if not implemented properly, like how call of duty does. Calm down AJackson92, maybe you could be a bit clearer with your descripton so that people will not misunderstand you?
Agreed. Although kind of similar to issue 0001307.
You are right, I did summarize my sentences to try and keep my note as short as possible, the message I was trying to get across is almost exactly what you said. Although evidence does suggest that DI weapons tend to malfunction more in extreme or long term engagements without maintenance, simply because more carbon is being blown into the more sensitive bolt carrier group comparatively. Under normal circumstances, with proper maintenance, there is little diffenence in reliability between DI and gas piston weapons.
I have to say though, while you are right to say that the majority of malfunctions are caused by the fouling of the bolt system in the M4/M16, it has little to do with the fact that it uses rotating locking lugs, the AK-47 along with many, many other modern rifles have bolts with rotating locking lugs and are extraordinarily reliable. It really has more to do with the M4 being more precisely machined, and thus has lower tolerances with regard to fouling that can cause seating issues in the breech. I'm sorry for arguing over semantics, I'm just hoping to set the facts straight, same as you.
Sorry to say that an "unjammable" weapon is completely unfeasible, even 20 years down the road, I'm afraid. Even if we were to have frictionless and/or self maintaining materials (which is an IMMENSELY complicated thing to create) there will still be a possibility of the weapon jamming. Even if we ignored the most common contributing factors (ambient temperature, dust, feeding/magazine issues, improper gas regulator settings, ammo contaminated by the environment, operator errors, etc, etc) parts inside the weapon could simply wear out, or you could simply be using a particular type of ammo that does not work well with the weapon in question. Even if the weapon was electronically operated, not mechanically, malfunctions are still possible. Did you know that weapons such as electronically fired missiles may also fail to fire? Things like RPGs, fire and forget missiles or even aircraft mounted air-to-air missiles!
Yes I'm 100% sure the CURRENT in service M4 /M16 are direct impingement systems, which is why the potential for a rifle like the HK416 to replace the M4 was such a big deal. That said, Colt has announced its "enhanced M4", which is gas piston operated. Although, so far the "enhanced" M4 has ONLY been adopted by special operations forces in the US, with the rest of the military still using the direct impingement rifles. The Army has still not adopted the "enhanced" M4 and it is still unclear whether they are actually going to make the swap. Only time can tell. I've added some links below for further reference, if you are interested to read more about this. If you are able to find some newer information to prove me totally wrong, I would love to hear it. Discussion is always good.
Make Love Not War, the study you quoted was from a while back when the US Army was considering a possible replacement for the M16/M4 platform and it is certainly not the first time there have been complaints about jamming. The platform is known for being very sensitive to dust and other kinds of fouling, partially due to its direct impingement gas system as mentioned in the article. However this can be mitigated through proper maintenance (Which is why the army is so damn anal about weapon cleaning). You also have to consider that the test mentioned there was really extreme, and does not necessarily represent true combat conditions. (Unless you happen to be fighting in a sandstorm) From my experience the M4 performs fairly well (but not perfect) under normal circumstances with proper maintenance. As for caseless ammo, one of the many the problems they are currently having in development is the depositing of carbon on and around the area around the bolt carrier group (somewhat similar to that of direct impingement systems, like the M4). Normally the casing would help to contain some of the carbon before being extracted, rather than have the carbon plaster the internals of the weapon. So I believe that it is safe to assume that we can expect to see similar reliability to our current day M4/M16 in future caseless platforms. I apologize for going on way too long, but I didn't want you to get the wrong idea about what the realistic stoppage rate of the M4 may be under normal conditions.
Agreed, although I still wish that they would allow firing launchers while prone. IRL you can safely fire any modern launcher that has a "soft" launch (such as the NLAW) from the prone position. Although training is required to ensure that operators prone at an angle, with their legs at a 45 degree angle away from the back of the tube.
May 9 2016
I think the speed is fine but perhaps the duration is slightly longer than what your average soldier could do. I can run at that speed with standard combat load, and have done it many times before. Remember, your average soldier isn't a couch potato.
I agree, I spent the last 3 hours fiddling around in the editor trying to get the AI to land near the enemy, to no avail. Once the AI spots the enemy (in my case from 1.2km away) it will bring the chopper into hover until the enemy is destroyed, or moves out of sight. Very frustrating. In some rare cases the AI will actually unload the troops, but will then do the same thing again and just hover there, ignoring its subsequent "move" command.
Agreed, but is a duplicate of issue no. 0001307.
I agree this needs to get fixed, although you have to admit its pretty hilarious. I can't help but laugh every time I see one roll over with someone on it.
I'm really loving the PIP as it stands now but I think it still needs some work, especially the gunner seat PIP. Although, as MadDogX pointed out I don't think that it can ever be made perfect without causing some major slowdowns in overall performance. Upvoted anyway :)
I agree, this NEEDS to be put into ArmA 3. Another thing to note, in addition to belt-fed machine guns, all open-bolt operated weapons will also not have a round in chamber, this mistake has been made in other games that have this feature.