- User Since
- Mar 18 2013, 1:04 AM (444 w, 10 h)
May 10 2016
Honestly, it might be pretty hard to get that, since it'll be about dozens of vehicles minumum, but I'll give it a try, including pictures of how large they are in mils and thus how far away they should be, and how far away they actually are.
And seriously, who would vote this down? This is a sim, not CoD. Being able to do things that are very essential IRL is what this game is about. Having vehicle sizes dodgy is up there with not having automatic weapons.
mwn: If you don't know what you're talking about, at least look it up before you start talking about it.
A SAW is an LMG, and considering its weight, you don't fire it from the shoulder without resting it on something, just like a medium MG.
Stopping power is irrelevant for a machine gun, that's not what defines it. Being able to employ automatic fire more accurately than assault rifles, and being beltfed/large capacity magazine is what makes it an a machine gun.
This just has to be included, and at what better time could it be asked for than when the developers are already making a bunch of animations and such? To be honest, I'd take this over the recent prone "leaning" any day!
Mods, can you please ban this ass from the feedback tracker too?
Agreed, he got banned from the bistudio forums for a reason, it's a shame he's still allowed here considering his behaviour.
Yeah, this would be nice to have. Not quite sure how you'd be detected in Arma, but for the purpose of travelling mid air, it'd be a good thing to have.
Yeah, I'm sure that half the muscle mass = Same strength. Iroony...
Hm, duplicate or spam?
Eh, no. 3rd generation NVGs don't have a light source, which is what caused the noise.
The noise you get from starting NVGs is a cultural leftover from 1/2nd generation NVGs, that I believe was caused by the battery that powered the IR light source that illuminated the enviroment so you could see things.
Today though, 3rd generation NVGs are passive, i.e. they don't need an external light source, and as such there is no noise when starting them.
Other than that, I would agree with a somewhat less clear image. Even if it is 2035, when issuing NVGs on an absolutely massive basis, many of them are bound to be beyond their finest hour so to speak.
What do you even mean by "powerful sniper rifle"? There aren't even any sniper rifles in the game yet. Currently there are two DMRs, with 7.62 rounds. Not that it matters, because not even .50 cal rounds will send someone semi-flying through the air, regardless of headshot or not.
Currently headshots look quite well done. You'll see the head jerked backwards, if the guy is standing on a slope he's more likely to fall down in than just sag down like if he was shot in the chest, etc. Personally, no, ragdoll isn't the least heavy. First of all we have aout 80kg for the soldier au naturelle. Then we add another 20-30kg of equipment, weapons, magazines, protective vest, helmet, etc. and I think we're easily closing in on 100kg.
Are you honestly telling me that the holes made all over the cover are there for a scrim net to be pulled through? Exactly how would that work?
Versatile, adaptable? Exactly how does that apply to a one coloured scrim, the shape and colour of which you can't change. But no really, keep this up. People are pretty much so tired of you everywhere here that they'll probably start up voting this just because you're against it.
P.S. The holes in helmet covers and the elastic band are where you put foliage. That's how it's been since before scrim was manufactured. Why do you think the British made those elastic straps all along their helmet covers? Good luck pulling a scrim net through all those and all the holes in an American cover.
Ugh, I see why you were banned on the forums.
First off, it's not about the net glowing, it's about the fact that it's not something used for proper concealment as in breaking up the contour and camouflaging. Second, it is simply much bigger than those vehicle nets are IRL. IRL there'd be at least 1-2 dozen "parts" sticking out along the larger portions of the helmet, not the 6-8 that we can currently see.
Third, the "old net" isn't WW2, it's been used for decades since, and would helmets again be issued without helmet covers like in Arma 3, it would come back for the purpose of attaching camouflage to the helmet.
Fourth, put more grass in it, much more. The soldier who decided to walk around with just a little grass concealing the shape of his helmet is the retard, not the one who ensures his helmet is properly camouflaged. Pictures with considerably more grass on have been published by the devs. Do you really think that less than half a dozen small patches of grass in a helmet net is enough to camouflage it? No, it's so little it would be hard to see the grass, not the helmet from a distance.
Fifth, the vehicle scrim net only makes sense in a desert, which is why it's pretty much only where it's used, because you can't put sand in a helmet net. However, outside of a desert, it makes no sense. If you move from one area to another, having a scrim net that you can't change the shape or colour of would not help you conceal yourself, and as such you'd be using a "clean" net, that you can remove and add foliage from as you are moved to a new area where the foliage looks different.
FYI: Marine infantry don't wear flightsuits, that's how much your knowledge on these matters seem to stretch.
Yes, some wore them for less than 3 years in Iraq. "In the future, marines still wear flight suits".
And no, no, no, no. Scrim is not the standard helmet camouflage since the '80s. Helmet covers are. Before helmet covers, we had nets, and if covers would stop being standard issue again, soldiers would be using nets.
Here's a tip: When you know embarrassingly little about something, don't call someone who knows much about it a moron. That's probably one of the reasons you got banned over on the Bistudio forums.
Can you even read? Seriously, can you actually read, or are you just so incredibly ignorant in regards to learning, common facts, what others want, that you can't even be bothered to actually read a very short post? No point in pointing out the very obvious flaws of your faulty logic if you'll just distort it by responding to a straw man argument, which seems to be what your capabilities are limited to.
Yeah, that totally explains things like the Korengal valley ambush in which Giunta was awarded the MoH, where around half a dozen guys were hit at point blank range in their SAPI plates without a single one of them sustaining any injuries from the stopped bullets. You are pathetically wrong about this Val, and that has been pointed out to you several times already.
No, what I want isn't a wheel, it's body armour being represented in a somewhat realistic fashion in a game that claims to be a simulator. I want about 5 shots max to PENETRATE, not kill. You're a lot more likely to hit someone in lethal areas not protected by hard armour than you are to hit the hard armour 5 times in a row.
So the fuck what Linkin? If people want to play with those settings, let them, you don't have to. You sound like a grumpy old man: "They don't play the game as I want them to play it, because of that I'll go down vote a feedback thread about something else whilst moaning about the difficulty settings people use."
Val: No one has ever been killed by shock from a bullet impacting any modern military body armour, that is simply absurd and laughable.
Yes, traumatized, shocked, and thus combat effective due to lack of breath and such, is what is suggested if you'd been bothered to read it. It isn't 4-5 bullets to kill someone, but 4-5 bullets to penetrate the plate covered area of a vest. The only persons trying to turn Arma into an arcade game are those who chose balance over realism, i.e. one hit = one kill, or damn nearly, as opposed to realistically working body armour.
Instagoat: That would be an excellent way of doing it, wonderfully put by you!
The only idiotic thing, and persons, around here is those who without bothering to read even a paragraph about modern body armour spurts out some random misconceptions about it and calling those who do know something stupid.
Ataraxic, do you even know how a SAPI looks? It is certainly not a "very small" thing. Just by that one thing alone, you have very effectively and swiftly discredited all your supposed knowledge on the subject. Congratulations.
No, a pistol shot does not hurt very much when military body armour stops it. In fact, there are several recorded instances in which AK rounds being stopped by body armour have not been noticed until after the firefight by anyone. Your logic makes no sense, how come a stopped bullet would have enormous effects on the wearer of the vest, but adrenaline would terminate any effects if the bullet penetrates?
Yet again, no, modern helmets stop a lot more than glancing rounds. They have been recorded to stop direct hits from assault rifles in several cases.
And third time around, quoting Dragon Skin as a effective vest is what could be expected of a ten year old, or someone with very little knowledge regarding body armour. Yes, it could stop many direct hits, but it couldn't stop more indirect hits than say a Vietnam era flak vest, since they'd just slip between the scales. And speaking of the scales, they wouldn't even be covering the torso, but rather all be gathered down in the bottom of the vest is subjected to Middle Eastern heat, since this caused the glue to melt.
And yes of course, in 20+ years new rounds will have been developed, which will make today's body armour obsolete. However, you'd have to be pretty damn well naive to expect body armour development to not have progressed just like ammunition development.
Putting up a well used and abused SAPI plate, shooting at it from around 100m away, isn't a very controlled enviroment, it's about as close you get to field conditions you can get without being in actual combat.
Modern helmets act in a quite different way from what you describe, and I have no idea where you'd have read that. Either they stop the bullet or they don't. If they don't, well then we all know what happens. If they do stop the bullet on the other hand, the lining of the helmet is specifically designed to ensure that the force of the blow is well distributed and dulled down. It'll hurt like a bugger, you'll be wobbly as an infant, but it won't even remotely kill you.
This being a game really as opposed to reality, I do realise simulating things like whiplash, concussion in a realistic manner wouldn't do, but it's up there with a tonne of other things, which are compromised already, which is why I've suggested that you A, get knocked down, and B, suffer from blurry vision, restricted field of view, etc. for a while after taking a hit to the helmet, provided the helmet stops the bullet of course.
Then there'll be a number of exposed areas that I'm quite sure the devs could include, such as the shoulders, throat and down, gaps between main and side plates, i.e. the area not covered by the plates. That area is probably big enough to mean that you'd end up having a shot hit an exposed area before you've actually had 5 shots all impact in one of the plates.
Those are a small proportion of the issues reported, and who are you to say that only DayZ/Wasteland people want it? Personally, I don't want it, but there's probably plenty of people who've been playing Arma for years who do want it.
And so what if they include the A2 wounding systems you mention? They're just gonna port it over, and they'd have made it either way. And if you'd actually take some time to read about modern body armour, you'd know how effective it is. Read "House to House", just before the battle of Fallujah, the author took part in trying their SAPI plates by shooting at them with 5.56 and 7.62. The 7.62 would break through after 4-5 hits, and the 5.56 wouldn't break the plate at all unless they aimed for the horizontal curve about 3/4 up. And since then the E-SAPI (E for Enhanced) has been introduced.
And of course they'd have to make sure that the parts of your body not covered wouldn't have ballistic protection. In fact, they've already made that. The current helmets and body armour have a small faction of ballistic resistance, and getting hit outside of them won't mean you suffer less damage.
Can you prove that Raoul? I know I said I wouldn't respond further to you, but your ridiculous claim that most people using the feedback tracker haven't played the game long enough or are DayZ/Wasteland "fan boys" is simply such an idiotic statement that I can't resist asking you to prove that. I for example have played Arma for quite some time, and I've never played either DayZ or wasteland.
So, would you mind proving that for us?
Oh, by the way, it's not realistic to have 1 shot, 1 kill. That would make it hard to explain why more soldiers have survived being shot than have not since the start of WW1, nearly 100 years ago.
And due to some childish people spamming so much that it's almost impossible to read everything that's been written so far, I'll repeat this for everyone's benefit: Helmets and vests in A3 already have a certain degree of resistance to bullets, but not nearly enough to be realistic. What I'm asking for, (and 247 other Arma players) is that it be brought up to realistic levels, which are for the devs to determine via research. Any mission maker who feels that his missions would be negatively impacted by realistic body armour and helmets could circumvent it by simply not including the mentioned items, just as he can chose to not include tanks, helicopters, etc. if he feels they have no place in his mission.
Raoul: I see no point in responding further to your childish posts here. The majority of Arma players are in favour of realistic body armour, the devs who have created this superb game have decided to take a look at it, and there's nothing you can do about it. Deal with it, and grow up before your attitude gets you banned from the feedback tracker.
Raoul: So, close tickets you don't agree with? Seriously, take a hike already.
Please don't: I believe it will just encourage him to keep spamming to do what he can to prevent this from becoming part of the game.
Demon: You shouldn't call someone a moron when you spell it "boron".
Further, being autistic isn't excuse enough for you.
That's about it, just can't argue with you. And you can't really do any damage, since it's already being reviewed.
1, The MP7 is made specifically to penetrate body armour, so "little" is a stupid, irrelevant way of describing it.
2, That was commercial, soft body armour, not military body armour with trauma plates, i.e. "hard armour".
Doesn't matter what you're suffering from, you ought to have more common sense than that, otherwise you would've been locked up and unable to access the Internet.
Well, I have no idea what country you are from, but SAPI plates work quite well. Look at the details of the ticket: I have provided ample proof for the effectiveness of SAPI plates, and as I've written multiple times, what I've written about how many hits it should be able to take is under "what's expected", it's guidelines. I've stated several times that it's up to the devs to do the research.
Further, doesn't matter what you suffer from, I simply don't understand what you mean, nor do you seem to understand many things you write about, including how I play the game.
Look, I just don't understand how you can aruge the way you do. You admit to not even ever having seen a SAPI plate, you've compared it by showing a film of goats being shot with .50 cal, etc. There's simply no way of providing an intelligent answer to this, all I can say is that you should stop assuming so much about things you admit to not knowing anything about.
Demon: You seriously write and argue like a 4 year old. Do you suffer from some sort of condition (no, that's not an insult, your behaviour legitimately causes me to wonder that). For starters, you obviously don't know anything about interacting with people in a socially acceptable manner (neither does Raoul), nor do you know anything about how many soldiers, Marines, etc. who've been killed in Iraq, what I've actually written, or how SAPI plates work.
Here's the deal: You come back and write something that doesn't make you look like you have the mental capacity of a child, and I respect you enough to take the time out of my day to respond to you. Because currently, you seem to have put so little effort into writing something with quality as opposed to quantity, that I would be at a major disadvantage debating against you since I'd actually take the time to write like an adult, whilst you would write incredibly longer posts without a problem in the world, since most of it would look like random words thrown together and called a sentence.
Raoul: If you don't understand how things work, like body armour, you can, quote "PISS OFF". Most Arma players want a realistic game, and for realistic body armour to be implemented.
Demon: 1, You don't even seem to understand what this is about, as you rail on about something completely different. 2, No, shotgun ammo isn't that strong. You further demonstrate that you don't seem to understand what this is about, nor do you seem to understand how firearms work in a war.
Raoul: I know perfectly well how current body armour is made, and you make just about zero sense. For starters, SAPI plates cover most of the front and back of your torso. The side SAPIs make sure that you don't get bullets coming in from the sides either. Other branches than the Marines also use body armour, and yes, it does work very well against AK rounds. The year is 2013, not 1995.
And "thank you for stating the bleeding obvious", body armour doesn't stop bullets from penetrating the parts of your body that it does not cover.
Ok Ang, you're not calling me stupid, you're calling me uninformed and stupid, way much better. You know what? I don't really care about debating this with you. It is very clear that most Arma players want this, and aren't so narrow minded (like you) that they can't conceive of this being implemented without breaking this game, Bane style.
Of course people will take claims that they are lying and lies from you personally. For starters, the statistics I've posted are quite accurate to real life. Grow up and do your research before crying "u guise just want more hitpoints". This is how modern body armour works, and how effective it is.
Further, if you just jump on to random DM servers, there won't be any realism regardless of realistic body armour or not. Doing that and complaining about it being unrealistic for any reason is akin to complaining to the store that your bread toaster doesn't work when you try to fry fries in it; You're using it incorrectly in the first place.
And "round trajectory, speed it is travelling, type of armor, type of round fired, heat/humidity, weather, victim stance, point of impact, material of the round, gravitational pull etc" already come into play without realistic body armour, so you're just making straw men arguments there.
Angels: No, implementing realistic things into a sim wouldn't constitute arcade. Do you know what arcade means? Further, VBS2 already has a system that works, and I doubt the devs wouldn't be able to perfect it.
And with 211 votes against only 33, and already being under review, why d'you even bother being such a grumpy bore?
I'll gladly calm down, but I'd like to point out who wrote GTFO, and yes, it's the Internet; It's not always very clear at whom comments are directed.
The thing is that AFAIK ACE doesn't really simulate broken ribs and such, and ACE is also a very deep mod so to speak, a depth which doesn't appeal to all players. I know that ACE already have put realistic body armour on their to do list for A3 over on Dev-heaven, but this ticket is about the entire game, not what a mod provides.
Yeah, and who has actually said you're going to survive large caliber hits?
And exactly how would you simulate broken ribs in Arma?
Huron: No, you need to "GTFO" and actually learn how these things work IRL. The fact is that people pretty much always stand back up with bruises at worst, sometimes they don't even noticed they were hit until after the shooting is over and a buddy tells them there's a slug in his plate.
Fireball: The realism, all I can say it's up to BIS to find out themselves. I could present them with facts, but people like Huron would come along and say that it's BS, and thus put them in the situation of taking the word of one of two people they don't know, or do research themselves about it.
As for the config values, I'm not much of a computer guy, even less of a programmer/whatever-it-is-that-is-relevant-guy, so all I can say is look at the system VBS2 has (one could imagine that a simulator the military pays millions of dollars for is made realistic), perhaps add a bit more research, and put it into the plate carriers/flak vests and helmets.
I've gone ahead and added two interesting links that at least ought to indicate how body armour and helmets work IRL.
That's regarding real rifle rounds, not assault rifles. AFAIK, modern helmets don't stand up to rifles, but they frequently resist assault rifles.
And no, it's up to BIS to actually get a hold of that. I could sit and gather evidence for them, but at a certain point, it's time to remember that this is about feedback, and not doing their job.
If I go to the length of providing them with sources, they will either A, disregard them and look for material themselves, or B, they will rely on it, which would be a practice I wouldn't agree with, because though I know that I won't deceive them, others might not be as honest about what they do, nor do I think it reasonable to in the end of the day tell thousands of customers who've bought this game to be relying on what sources I pick. The fact that the poll is now in +100 against 17 opposed is feedback, feedback illustrating that people want realistic body armour and know it does not currently exist in Arma 3.
Please read up on the subject, and read what people actually write before you comment. And do you even own a copy of Arma 3? You can't carry 5 rockets as it is.
For starters, I'm not saying armour is to be improved "because of the future", I'm saying it needs to be improved because of how it works today, and has worked for the last decade.
Second... Never mind, it's not up to me to explain this to every person who comes along and starts writing without reading, it's up to people who write to actually read before they write. If I'd been a mod here, people would've been blocked from topics the first time they ventured there and wrote without reading what's clearly stated.
Regardless, .45 is a strong caliber, that penetrates more than others. And PASGT helmets being in a virtually different generation compared to the ACH, LWH and MK7 helmets of today, is truly a testament to how resiliant body armour and helmets have become. Any self respecting sim, or any other game supposedly realistic can still ignore this and model both body armour and helmets like they are from WW1.
John: Take a hike, you're not appreciated here by anyone. If you'd bothered to read what I wrote, and read up on the topic you'd see that I'm suggesting that sniper rifles only be withstood once, and that SAPI plates definitely can withstand at least 4-5 assault rifle shots. E.g. David Bellavia, the author of House to House writes about a test they did with SAPI plates a few days before assaulting Fallujah. The plate could take 5 AK shots before breaking IIRC, and 5.56 was almost incapable of breaking through all together. And that was a SAPI plate. Since then E-SAPI plates have become standard issue, and they do one heck of a better job.
Frost: Yes of course, it should be optional, and only apply to modern body armour with SAPI plates, which are level IV.
CXN: Level IV body armour used by the Americans are E-SAPI plates, which cover from about below your throat down to around you belly button, and of course extend to the sides. There are also smaller plates at the sides of the vest (apparently, shots that wouldn't have killed in the first place would go into the sides of someone, and when hitting a plate bounce back around and cause a mess).
Apart from the fact that I just mentioned "yeah, why not make it an Option or a module?", I'm going to make myself very clear: I don't give a flying shit about how this affects PvP. Arma is not a PvP game, CoD is. If you think this will affect PvP negatively, and can't be bothered to actually read what I write, then go play something else than Arma. Arma is a sim, not a shoot 'em up FPS.
Not to mention that, like I wrote, sniper rifles would need either 1 headshot, or two hits to the vest. Now, if you're unlucky enough to hit the vest, the guy will still be knocked over, allowing you to take a follow up shot. And then we're ingoring some obvious things like: You're a sniper, you should be patient enough to wait for a good shot, and body armour works IRL, meaning it bloody well should in a game that is a sim.
And no, buckshot will not spread out so much at 30 yards that a shot aimed at the center of mass will hit beyond the trauma plate. Do you have any idea how big they are? And no, shotguns just can't penetrate trauma plates, that's a bunch of malarkey. Also, yes sure, people might stop using shotguns in some missions. Just like how soldiers don't really use shotguns in a conventional war anymore, because if the enemy has body armour, the weapon will be useless, which is why shotguns are mostly used against insurgents these days, ergo they'd work well in counter insurgency missions in Arma.
For the last time, Arma is a sim, not a PvP game. The fact that there are 60+ votes in favour of realistic body armour and only 7 against means something.
And for the last time, it's being suggested as something that can be enabled/disabled in Options, or enabled via a module. And if that is too complicated, you can always make PvP games without body armour and helmets.
Robot: That website is hardly manned by experts. They write as if the ACH was newly introduced, despite that it's been standard issue since 2005. They don't provide a link to the test, nor do they say what helmet they tried out. It could've been an older PASGT Kevlar helmet, which are considerably less resistant.
CXN: Yeah, why not. Or maybe a module, so mission makers can decide on it.
The reason for the shotgun causing no penetration is because that's how it works IRL. Wether or not it makes for a good PvP arena is completely irrelevant in a sim.
Snipers, that I forgot to cover. I'm not quite sure about how they penetrate, but I do feel that A, if you can't get a headshot you have no business playing that slot, and B, I believe that they can penetrate helmets just fine, even without resorting to .50 cals.
And as I've said, groggy effects, etc. should obviously be part of the system, as its quite realistic to not be combat effective for quite a while if you get hit in the helmet without getting killed by it.
Effects like a complete loss of breath for a few minutes should be caused by all hits except pistol to the vest, and a permanent loss of breath, along with maybe a dimmer screen and smaller FoV should be the results of all hits except pistol to the helmet, until healed by a medic with medkit.
So? Make a bleeding ticket about that then, instead of doing your best to ruin this game by saying "if I can't have the ammo sorts and a fun PvP arena in this sim, you won't get realistic things that exist IRL". First of, this game is about realism in coop, not enjoyment in PvP. Second, we're talking about a vest and a helmet. That hardly covers 95% of the body. There'd be places on the torso not covered, and then there'd be the throat, face, neck, lower abdomen, etc. Third, getting hit in the vest would knock you over, cause you to loose breath, hits in the helmet would cause concussion effects, etc. that would render you incapable of fighting. Fourth, if it's that bad, rent a server, and host PvP games without body armour and helmets.
Note: It's supposed to say "~" 8-12 where it links to another report. Instead it became a link to another report.
No. The reason for 25m increments is because that's how the sight works IRL, and Arma 3 is supposed to be a simulator. Further, you will only do 25m adjustments when pressing CTRL. That means that you will only have to do 2 25m adjustments max. If you want to go from e.g. 200m to 350m, you do 1x Page Up adjustment (300m) and 2x CTRL+Page Up adjustments (350m). If you want to go from e.g. 300m to 375m, you do 1x Page Up adjustment (400m), and 1x CTRL+Page Down adjustment (375m).
Long story short, 25m increments is for realism in accurately depicting the sight properly, and more than 2x CTRL+Page Up/Page Down adjustments will never be required, meaning that it will not be too tedious to make smaller adjustments.
A such a large explosive charge like the satchel charges in Arma would take out the sort of buildings that are on Stratis.
May 9 2016
Yeah? All that tells you is how far the round will go without compensating for drop. It's supposed to be like that. Holo sights, ACOG type sights, etc., don't work like that, you can't zero them for different ranges. They're not for sniper rifles.
Actually not. The ARCO sight is an ACOG type, and IIRC it has numerals in it along the lower vertical line. Those are the ones you use for ranging.
Start what animation? You know this is Arma 3, right? There is no animation for tossing a grenade like there was in Arma 2.
No, you definitely can't aim down scopes when you have NVGs down. Seriously, aiming down iron sights with NVGs is a pain in the ass. Ask any military man from a Western country who's used NVGs recently if he can look through them down a scope.
Indeed. If this is intended to be the final state of boats, they have a lot to learn about how they act in water. E.g. when moving forwards like that, the rear simply won't go underwater, it will stay on the surface. Overall, it seems like all the weight of the Assault boat is in the center, as opposed to being spread out evenly over the length of the boat, which is how boats are designed.
Know what, you have the link, so why don't you go there and tell the dev he's got no idea what he's talking about.
Spycho: YES IT IS HARD, A DEV WAS QUOTED AS SAYING JUST THAT IN A NOTE JUST A LITTLE ABOVE YOURS.
German: Maybe because as the dev said, it'd be extremelly time consuming for something very small. +1200 new things to add is like a DLC just for the sake of allowing people to change from right to left handed shooting.
Cheers, I searched quite a lot on the forums without finding it. And of course it turns out to be one of the threads I looked in, but missed the post.
Down voted. One of the devs explained it better on the forums, but the jest of it was "not gonna happen, because we'd have to add around 1200 new animations/models for it".
Yeah, I'll link to it in a new post shortly.
Using PIP for sights? What about people who can't run PIP at a good quality without getting a bad FPS, or can't even run it at all? Are they going to be left completely unable to actually aim with scopes?
Besides, this is a simulator. You look 100% down your scope, there's no compromise between the scope and what goes on in your surroundings. Adding that would be extremelly unrealistic.
Nice tone. My down vote stays on that basis.
I want a model of a soldier who's got a prostetic leg. What? There are more infantrymen (you know, the ones that this game is about, the infantry combat) who've returned to their job after losing a limb than there are female infantrymen, because in the end of the day, they can't do the job better, or even equally as well as a man who is missing a limb. Go ahead, think about that for a while.
And then seriously, soldiers with prostetic legs. Arma is about realism, right? And there are, and always will be more of the latter than female infantrymen, or female servicemembers in any other combat position (cue the retarded statements about "war has changed, there are no more front lines". Seriously, anyone who seriously believes that should be put on a roster of people who in the next conventional war will be drafted, equipped, and subjected to the same RoEs as in a counterinsurgency conflict).
Damned spammer. Seriously, there's a function on this tracker that keeps you from getting duplicates by refreshing repeatedly, so that doesn't look like a mistake.
EY: And let's not forget what the Brits had to carry from one end of the Falklands to the other, owing to their helicopters getting lost on a sunken ship.
80kg per man. Doesn't matter how strong a woman is, due to her skeleton simply not being as strong as a man's, she can't carry that much. And you know, not being able to pull your own weight and thus putting it on someone else's back totally makes you the most popular soldier in the company...
The "High" priority is for gamebreaking things, not addons that you just really really want. In that case I'd be making about half a dozen requests a day with high priority.
The PC hype part is painfully obvious. In fact, it's so obvious that the OP didn't even bother reading the attachment before adding it to this report, just assuming it would be pro women in the infantry.
Yeah, I down voted this thing because of the PC hype. Read before you post, it's like in the very post you quoted. The only thing I said about the self righteous priority is that it justifies arguments along the lines of "the devs have more important things to do". Face it, if the reporter claims that this is a game breaking thing, then it will be compared with actual game breaking things.
I want morbidly obese soldiers in the game too.
Hey, let's face it: Odds are there are more Arma players are morbidly obese than women.
On a serious note though: Why add female characters? Why would that be more important than adding things like let's say, not have the game crash 2-3 every average match? Or enable weapon resting? If female characters are added, we all know that they will not be touched by 99% of the community. Of the 1% that will use them, 90% at least will be trolls who'll walk around without clothes on, 8% will by "I'm a woman trapped in a man's body", and 2% of the use will come from women who play this game, and actually give a flying fuck about wether or not their character is male or female. Oh, and were so lazy and technically inept they couldn't download an addon for it.
Seriously, I'm down voting this purely because of the silly PC hype about it. Did the reporter even think of requesting something more sensible, like enabling female characters to drive and use weapons? Nope. That would've made sense, and you know, technically speaking you ain't asked for it, so personally I think it'd be absolutely hillarious if the devs decide to troll you by saying "OK, female soldiers added due to this report. No one reported the whole thing about not being able to drive and use weapons though, so we've decided we're still gonna keep that out."
The "they have other problems to solve" is a legitimate argument when the reporter of something puts the priority on "High". High is for bugs that causes the game to crash often, not for any sort of addon request. Putting "High" on this is fucking spamming, not a feature request, and in no way does it help the devs get this game working properly, which is what this place is for. Seriously, this report should've been closed and that Brecker guy told to make a new one, without abusing the priority setting.
Yes, then the argument would make sense, because it's very well known that this is a game played by at least 99.95% men. Which is why, in its current form, it makes no sense.
Oh, a smartass, how very original.
I think it works well and realistically with the current timing. Let's face it, IRL it takes longer than in Arma 3, yes. But IRL you can chose to pick your grenade out of its pocket, remove safety tape, etc. way before actually tossing the grenade. In Arma, you can't simulate those preperations without just reverting back to the Arma 2 animation system really.
Because as I wrote, IRL you can prepare your grenade a little time before you throw it by removing safety tape, keep it closer at hand, etc. E.g. IRL you could pick up a grenade, remove tape, hold it in your hands as you walk up to the corner of a wall, and pretty much instantly then toss it around the corner. How would that be possible with some delayed grenade action?
Verox: Yeah, when a boat touches the bottom, it is still able to move. The problem right now is that the moment a boat even touches the bottom, it's stuck and can't get off. Even assault boats get stuck the moment they hit the bottom, though the power of their engines and speed IRL means that they'd go straight through.
Why cook grenades? They can't be tossed back.