- User Since
- Mar 6 2013, 9:31 PM (360 w, 41 m)
May 10 2016
@mrflay: that's complete and utter bullshit. Sound waves are longitudinal waves of compressed air, meaning that unlike a laser, they'll reproduce spherically.
ThePredator is very right in almost anything he says. I do think suppressors are implemented horribly in ArmA 3 however. No subsonic ammunition and somehow the round magically becomes less potent with a suppressor. This is a major step backwards from ArmA 2 and one of the many areas where the developers completely f'ed up.
Current name doesn't make sense. (but then again, none of the vehicles make sense either)
@MadDogX: As I explained in my previous comment, this "issue" has no basis in reality at all. I can't see why this should be assigned in the first place, while things that are clearly instrumental to military simulation (bipods, firing from vehicles,...) seem to get completely ignored.
"Most likely because they don't see it as all that important"
"Yea, Im all for realism but there has to be a line and i think blood transfusions are a bit much."
"a full first aid system is just too complicated and takes too long for the average game experience"
I disagree with all these comments, but I downvoted for realism sake. Combat medics will never, I repeat *NEVER* perform a blood transfusion of any kind. They will administer blood plasma to temporarily counter the blood loss, which is not affected by blood type. Further medical attention will be given in a (field) hospital where they will first do a quick test to see what the blood type is of the patient (which is standard practice).
If you're in a situation where the blood plasma transfusion (and epinephrine shot) does not suffice to keep the patient alive until you reach a hospital, there's nothing much that would have saved him otherwise.
Also, the HE rounds don't seem effective at all against building compared to the automatic 35mm of the ZSU. Heck, even the 40mm GMG levels buildings faster than the 120mm HE.
Duplicate of http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=958
Related to http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=7977
Duplicate of http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=432
Seriously, use the search.
You're right that the current setting is too close, but 30 km is way too far. MANPADS like the Stinger and Igla only go 4.8 and 5.2 km respectively.
- Duplicate of tons of others
- Can not replicate, all tests I've done show the fatigue system is pretty solid. Sprinting 200m without gear takes 30s with moderate fatigue, it isn't a staggering time, but then again soldiers do not train specifically on 200m sprint.
3)"At least make the blur take in effect of sprinting for more than 5 minutes"
Sprinting for 5 minutes sounds next to impossible (I know I'm not able to do it and know no one personally who can), let alone with combat gear.
- As for the blur, I agree it can be annoying. I like the idea that if you're tired you perceive less accurate, but since some people report sickness and headaches due to the blur, I'd remove it.
This is really out of scope. Maps are way (and I mean WAAAAAAAY) too small to simulate >1000km aircraft carrier operations, or a 600km Granit strike.
Suppressors still make noise. A rifle suppressor will make the shot sound like that of a .22 LR unsuppressed.
A pistol round can be suppressed to sound like a hard knock with a pen on a table, but the impact on the target will also generate noise (crack of skull etc.).
Have you tried to reproduce this when they are 50m apart?
ProGamer: handgun bullets do not behave like rifle bullets do. Here's an interesting report by the FBI on this issue: http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf
Summed up: while a hit from a rifle bullet centre-mass will often incapacitate the target immediately, a handgun bullet can not be expected to do the same. Only a shot to the central nervous system is guaranteed to immediately incapacitate the target. Hits centre-mass are likely to incapacitate targets over time, but even when they hit the heart or aorta (and thus will kill the target with 100% certainty), the target may continue to function for up to 20s, until his brain runs out of oxygen.
So that's why I proposed this health system (at standard engagement range for each weapon):
Any bullet that manages to penetrate the CNS (head) should immediately kill the target.
A handgun bullet that penetrates the chest centre-mass or to the neck should drop the target anywhere (randomly) between 0-30s (to simulate differences in psychological/physical state), without ability to heal. A handgun bullet that penetrates anywhere else (limbs, shoulder, hip, stomach) should cause bleeding and performance los of said limb, but only kills if left untreated for a couple of minutes.
A rifle bullet penetrating centre mass should give immediate incapacitation and death (lung/heart/neck shot). A rifle bullet penetrating a limb should render it completely useless and start bleeding. A rifle bullet penetrating other areas (stomach) should cause incapacitation and bleeding but not immediate death.
.45 ACP and 9mm should have similar damage models, but the 9mm is too weak as it is.
Any amount of shots from either one in the foot, arm or hand should *never* kill instantly, but targets should start bleeding and die within some time.
Any penetrating shot of either one centre-mass should make the target bleed out in less than a minute.
Multiple shots centre-mass or 1 headshot should kill instantly.
I think the OP of that ticket is updating his post frequently. I get the mails too.
He's just enjoying some Chernarussian tourist documentary on his HUD ;)
Suppressors for sniper rifles will undoubtedly be implemented. However, note that sniper rifles with suppressor are not all that stealthy. There's somewhat less chance that the enemy will pinpoint the location, but the supersonic crack of the bullet will still make sure everyone is aware of the sniper. On top of that, a suppressed 7.62x51mm will be heard to 200m in silent surroundings.
*NATO army. Blufor is NATO, not the US Army.
I don't think it would be unrealistic if there were carriers in the Mediterranean sea...
In the plot Greece is under Opfor control, so I'd expect carriers to be at least 1000km away (outside anti-ship missile range), thus not anywhere on the map of Altis.
Some sort of carrier in the object list would be nice, since it would allow custom scenarios with different storylines to use it as a base, but a Nimitz class is not the right ship for this because:
- it is not meant to be so close near a disputed zone, Altis map too small for carrier operations.
- it requires a complete Carrier Battle Group around it because of poor defensive armament.
So I'd rather expect something comparable to a LHD. In fact, I think the French Mistral class would be a great addition:
it's modern (so would serve in 2035 as well), it's a NATO country, is meant to be near battle zone,...
I've found no cases of forest fires ever being used as a tactic in war. This could probably be regarded as a war crime.
Just take cover before you reload a missile... Small arms can be reloaded on the move, just not heavy weaponry like missile launchers. Seems reasonable to me.
That being said, a way to cancel the action (pushing one of the move keys maybe) would be a welcome addition.
Duplicate of http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10058
Wow, great job on wasting 20 seconds of my life. Can we have a close and ban fast?
Doln: huh? What has that to do with this particular issue. This is particularly about being able to set waypoints on the map that show up precisely, without deviation on the HUD and with an accurate ranging beneath it.
DevilDogGamer: vehicles already have the azimuth permanently displayed on the HUD and have their locations shown exactly on the map. That should be more than sufficient to navigate.
Not judging anyone who does, when it's in the game, you better well use it in MP... (I've used it too to range sniper shots)
And some clearer footage with another technique, also with light tanks:
I have no clue what they're saying though.
Here's some footage of the Russian VDV, with animations of the specific technique:
Apart from gameplay reasons, this is simply ridiculous.
How the heck are optics of an extremely expensive and advanced weapon system supposed to become so dirty, despite constant maintenance?
LOL made me laugh.
@dovafox: with the recent influx of retarded feature requests and considering Poe's law, that's not really surprising ;)
You completely seem to overestimate the amount of energy a capacitor can hold compared to the chemical energy that is stored into the propellant of a shell.
Yes, because a tank with a main gun using ludicrous amounts of electricity is supposed to be realistic.
Or change them to NATO emblems.
The best solution would still be that the view around the 3D scope is not zoomed in.
Duplicate of 0007979 [http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=7979]
Duplicate of 0001264 [http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1264]
Related to 0004227 [http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=4227]
Duplicate of 0002192 [http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=2192]
InstaGoat: no. Co-witness in general only refers to the ability to use the BUIS through the optic. Absolute co-witness is what you describe, where the reticle of the optics rests on top of the BUIS when you use either one. A 1/3 co-witness is the one used in ArmA 3, where the BUIS are below the typical line of aim.
It's not really about being true x1, but being parallax free. The way a variable power scope works prevents it from being parallax free, even if it is a true 1x (which are rare).
Duplicate of 0002714 [http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=2714]
Duplicate of issue 0008592 [http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8592].
@Surfer: that's why I said related and not duplicate. It can be handy for moderators and developers to see which tickets talk about the same issue, be it from different perspectives.
Related to 0009890 [http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9890]
I'd suggest editing the title for clarity.
Duplicate of http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=6248
Wingsuits are not generally used in the military. HAHO jumps are used is scenarios like the one you described.
Unable to reproduce. Without any gear, 200m sprint in 30s with not that much fatigue. 200m sprint in 33s with only pistol, still able to aim pretty good.
With full loadout: stops sprinting after 150m, lots of fatigue.
"- how would you be able to destroy a stationary tank?
- The crew could be driving through urban areas without any worries. 'Nice' in reality, but not in arma."
Note that the radar of such systems wouldn't work at nearly point blank, and wouldn't work time and time again. That being said, I don't know if I'm too keen on this either.
Or ARENA in the case of Russian tanks:
@Kingsland: I'm sorry, disregard everything I said. :) It seems this issue, the one I posted and the solution by the developers are slightly different.
While it is nice to have these kind of extras, they don't really improve game-play. Compared to ArmA 2, models and animations are already immensely improved, adding these little tiny details at the expense of considerable modeller time seems ludicrous to me. (but of course we'll see how BIS decides about that)
Duplicate of 0004661 [http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=4661]
Related to 0000238
Duplicate of 0001819 [http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1819]
I agree with DarkWanderer.
I agree with fraczek. Combat scopes (ACOG type) shouldn't be 12x zoom, the new scopes better represent their purpose.
@Scarecrow: I think you misread me. If the chopper detects a missile lock, it's certainly a radar guided missile, thus it should dispense chaffs.
If the chopper detects a missile launch, it can be a radar guided, thermal guided or wire guided missile (maybe even unguided rocket) and therefore should dispense both flares and chaffs to maximise its odds.
Only on the appropriate missiles. MANPADS usually use IR seekers, which are not detectable by the target during lock. However, the launch signature *may* be detected (but not everytime). On a missile lock, the helicopter should thus dispense chaffs, not flares.
If it detects a launch, it would dispense both flares and chaffs.
And yes, I think this issue needs to be addressed soon. Even without TrackIR it's inconvenients to have to centre the view before firing.
Also related: when looking around, the markers around vehicles on the HUD show up on the wrong place.
Related (almost duplicate of) 0000238 [http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=238]
@samogon: the Browning HP is not a 1911 clone, not by any stretch of the word.
@Scarecrow: if that is true, then 16 rnds of .45 ACP is really ridiculous.
Duplicate of 0001819. [http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1819]
They look pretty similar to me, apart from the fact that there are 50 (!) MGs in the ArmA video.
hladas: the gunner should only fire when commanded by the pilot, so I don't see the ammo problem.
EDIT: sorry for the misdirection exxDUDExx, this post was meant for hladas.
Duplicate of 0000910 [http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=910]
Duplicate of 0004227 [http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=4227]
Marksmen typically have scopes with less than 6x magnification. Just a few NATO countries that I know for certain:
US Army SAM-R: 4x ACOG
British Army L129A1: 4x ACOG
Belgian Army AI AW: 6x Leupold
Austrian Army Steyr AUG HBAR-T: 4x ACOG or 3.5x ELCAN
German Army G3A3: 4x Hensholdt
Former combloc: 4x PSO
So sorry, but you're completely wrong. Designated marksmen *do use* the type of scopes that are currently in-game. /downvoted
Yes, I was wrong about the SAM-R, dot it confused with the SDM-R. The point is still valid: designated marksmen often use x4 and x6 scopes, with some exceptions. I'm also confused by your original post, that marksmen have better optics than infantry.
This is a strange statement since 1) marksmen *are* infantry and 2) most other squad/section members do not have magnified optics (except the occasional 1.5x-1.6x scope) in most NATO countries.
Why do you feel the current scopes are not suited enough for marksmen? Do you suggest 8x or 10x scopes?
@Dr Death: Bicycles have been used by the military for quite a while, and they are still popular in asymmetrical warfare. (ArmA 3 will be asymmetrical warfare...)
"wanna go hangliding at Lemnos/Altis
Seriously, are you here to play a military game or a tourism simulator?
iSoldier: I read them and saw the pic. That's still not a military application but a one off application by irregular militants.
Do we really want the devs to put huge effort in developing flight models for these hang gliders while they are not regularly used by any military today? As for the "civilian" argument, I'm sure modders will cater to your needs. There was a hang glider mod for ArmA II. Or you can use a specific hang glider simulator where it appears as is.
If you want to play a hang glider simulation, go ahead. However, I can't see how your request is relevant to ArmA 3, which focuses on combat.
The community will be quick to offer such maps. Fallujah for example should already be usable if you import ArmA II models.
Just a clarification, the ticket is specifically about the fact that you see the exact range on the HUD when using command mode, not about the fact that the actual commands contain weird distance descriptors. (although that is a problem too)
It seems that this issue is solved, at least in the dev build. Rolling landings at 50 km/h work well, I did take minor damage when gently landing at 150 km/h though. I don't know whether rolling landings in real life can be done at that speed?
@track silver: Please actually read the ticket before voting. The driver is completely submerged, with only a tiny fraction of the rear compartment containing air. The driver has *no way* to reach that air pocket. The expectation would be that the driver would drown whether or not someone in the back has air.
Can confirm on the dev build. (maybe the devs are preparing new radio sounds?)
Duplicate of 0000739 [http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=739]
da12thMonkey: ACE 2 had a front focal plane sight on one of the sniper rifles with variable (gradual) zoom. It was buggy, but it worked. http://wiki.ace-mod.net/sys_reticles
Magazine... please just call it magazine.
Duplicate of 0002766 [http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=2766]
Well that escalated quickly.
Duplicate of 0004227 [http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=4227]
Still very important IMO. The current way to assign teams is clumsy and AI doesn't make use of fireteams.
Wait what, can you actually zero the scope at 2300m?
Just put the controls on something else? I put "hold breath" on one of my other mouse buttons.
I don't think this is something that should be changed by default though, ArmA already requires a lot of different keys. Those that really feel they use the zoom a lot while walking are already able to change it.
Agreed. This behaviour makes stalking very hard in dense/uneven areas.
Duplicate of issue 6302. [http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=6302]
I really don't get all these "soldiers get tired too soon" tickets. I simply could not reproduce any of them.
Do some tests yourself: sprint 200m without gear, time it and look at the fatigue. >> result: 30s flat, moderate fatigue. That's around the result I'd expect from a physically fit person sprinting with combat boots.
@Dave Zembler: Read this very carefully since you read my last post saying the same thing, but didn't understand a word.
The default gun position in ArmA (all titles) *IS SHOULDERED*. There is *NO* hip-fire in the ArmA-verse. If there were hipfire, I'd agree with you the crosshair is too accurate.
However, when using a rifle shouldered, but without looking down the sights, you can *easily* hit a door at 100m, which is about the accuracy you get now.
If you don't like the crosshair, turn it off, if you don't like servers that enable it, don't play on them, if you want more servers without them, make your own.
Things like a crosshair, stance indicator and fire mode HUD allow you to do things that are easy in real life, but hard when you're not the one holding the weapon or standing in the world.
@cychou, @Dave: I disagree. Keep in mind the soldiers in ArmA 3 *NEVER* hip fire. The crosshair view is just with the weapon shouldered, but not looking through the sights. Using this technique, you have a pretty good idea of where the weapon is pointed in real life.
The ArmA 3 crosshairs are improved over the ridiculously accurate ArmA 2 crosshairs to reflect this.
Duplicate of http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1315