- User Since
- Mar 14 2013, 8:40 AM (335 w, 6 d)
May 10 2016
Su-25 at full load in life unfolds within 400 meters! In the game "To-199" - 700 meters. I wrote about this above. Information on the Internet is enough to avoid mistakes in the game, especially in the simulator.
Control of the aircraft A-164 uncomfortable, it behaves like a piece of paper. To-199 behaves as a passenger plane. Speed of these aircraft in the game roughly correspond to the actual parameters of life. Maneuverability mismatch greatly. I am interested in more realistic characterization of arms, is publicly available for almost any weapons. I'm not asking you to do ACE, I beg you not to do Battlefield, worsening or improving real characteristics.
A-164 in the game has a turning radius of about 230 meters.
TO-199 in the game has a turning radius of about 750 meters.
A-10 in the life of a radius of 350 meters.
YAK-130 in life is turning radius of 200 meters.
TO-199 but it would be fair to compare with the SU-25, its radius is 400 meters. I think all the players want to see the characteristics that should be closer to reality. Turning radius at the TO-199 is 750 meters. Does anyone of you know what plane was taken as an example?
In the game an airplane A-164 too fast "tangage" http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aileron_pitch.gif?uselang=ru, such a turn in the life of the aircraft is possible only with "thrust vectoring" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_vectoring
Watch the video where flies the A-10
I added for comparison chart DayZ Standalone. DayZ Standalone works perfectly. Please fix this problem in Arma 3.
Update: added types of missiles with this error
Sitting position , I mean knee.
It's not about accuracy rifle , weapon accuracy constant. It's about gun control during shooting , rifle control should be easier in a sitting position (knee) . Long ago I fired AK74 in different positions, and I can tell exactly what sitting position (knee) is more stable than the standing position , in turn lying position is more stable than the sitting position (knee) . More stable position greatly affects a person's ability to absorb recoil , this leads to better accuracy , in this you can see by visiting any site on Small Arms . Change of position has a great influence on the accuracy of a single fire mode , the automatic is less influence , but it is still there.
In fact, there is little change, you move the center of mass (recoil force rifle) closer to the ground (support). It also gives an advantage (if to seek help from physics) is certainly not as significant if to rest the elbow to the knee.
In this case, I mean:
Recoil weapons - the energy that strikes man on the shoulder, this value is constant.
Accuracy of fire - a value throws up rifle, or the distance between the holes on the wall :)
The distance between the holes on the wall when firing from a standing position can not be the same as when firing from a sitting position.
Rifle throws up in both cases are identical.
In this video:
- standing position
- sitting position
- lying position
If you disable objects by setting "sceneComplexity = 1" , or fly away from the island for 40,000 meters, and then change the setting visibility of objects , but do not change the overall visibility , the FPS will change , and very significantly. This should not happen , as the scene has no objects. I ask to get rid of the bug that reduces FPS without changing the image quality. This bug can be seen in the picture number 2 , I'm getting there only 34 FPS ! , Compare the quality of graphics on the image number 2 and number 3 , the difference in graphics quality is not, and the difference in FPS twice .
This problem was in Arma 2. It is easily solved if you include a 4.0, 5.1 or 7.1, and then re-encode the sound in 2.0. This allowed me to make a sound driver from the "ASUS Xonar D2/PM". In Arma 3, this method does not help :(
You did not watched the video , the guy says, " if you turn off the shadows you will better see the enemy under the bushes . If you turn the shade you will find an enemy sooner than he you." In this video, the guy does not force anyone off the shadows, he explains the pros and cons of using the settings in the game with a demonstration of the impact of these adjustments on performance. You are seeing this video , neponyali what the author says, you have insulted the author in the comments , you have come here to create a ticket , but did not use the SEARCH ENGINE , right? These tickets already have : http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1054
I believe that the ability to force the shadows on the server should be only after the optimization, you agree? And it is not nonsense, it is a serious problem.
Disabling the shadows has positive and negative aspects, there is no advantage.
Why do players turn off shadows:
- Shadow of the half objects like a stencil. Shadows of poor quality, even with it set to "ultra".
- The shadows are too dark, they lack transparency.
- Shadows greatly reduce productivity.
If these three reasons will be fixed, it will make sense to use the shade.
It is not related to fraud. The host server must not have the right to adjust my video settings, especially in the forest shadows consuming half the FPS. What kind of fraud you say? Fraud is a third-person, target lock key "TAB" and the scan button "SPACE". Do you think that I should be getting 20 FPS instead of 40 FPS because you think it's an advantage? I'm not against it, but only after the shadow stop consuming so much FPS. In addition, when the shadows are included in the game there are friezes.
You can try to be clever in a different place, but I do not advise you to try to be clever in another place that the impact of hitting a bullet to the object has less of an impact than a hammer (hammer blow enough to detonator exploded, there is evidence above), you'll look silly. You can continue to try to prove that the evidence is not enough, but it's your opinion that has nothing to do with reality....
In which country do people live who are not able to understand that the instability of the chemical compound explosives = explosive when exposed to heat, shock, friction?
Stability / Sensitivity explosives (for you) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_(explosives)
If the bullet hit the object, that object will be exposed to strong impact. Do you need proof of this?
I think you have no awareness of this issue. Does it make sense to me to try to explain to you anything else? I think not....
I'm more concerned about the following: if the players are young age playing ARMA 3 (simulator) will see that shooting in the explosive is safe enough, it can lead to disastrous consequences. As here: http://www.exponent.com/lead-azide-detonation-at-detonator-manufacturing-facility/
I believe that I should not have to prove to you that irrefutable evidence submitted by me above is actually an irrefutable proof. In addition, not everyone in ARMA 3 is realistic, but it does not mean that everything has to be changed. If the players do not bother to search for information, but require this of me (voting down), it means that they do not want it to be implemented. If you believe that the evidence is not sufficient, then subsequent attempts to reason with you is not my burden.
What you have written does not matter. This article is about the instability of explosives used in detonators, C-4 and Claymore. It is directly related to the C-4 and Claymore who are immortal in the game, and even withstand a direct spillage of 120 mm HE projectile. If you are unable to understand this, it is your problem.
You may not realize that the detonators are very unstable?
You are a troll ...
You have an interesting logic. The article in which it will be written that "the shot in the explosives will explode" may be irrefutable proof? Moving substance "PETN" from one type to another detonator make the substance safe? Can you prove it? Even the careless use can cause explosion of the detonator, unfortunately Events such happened a lot. You can buy a detonator, and try to warm him or hit, it will be conclusive evidence for you. I think you need to stop wasting your time trying to flood here.
Yes, C4 is stable for through regular contact with the bullet. But you tend to think that C4 can be stable in contact with 30 mm HE projectile? Is this a joke? How about this: http://youtu.be/_Cwz9_P5cYM. In your C4 can be stable in contact with 120mm HE projectile, and then continue to function? This is ridiculous. I also doubt that C4 is stable to the tracer bullet.
Impact and fire are separately not enough to detonate C-4, but the combination of the two can create the necessary circumstances for detonation. http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/C-4
Many detonators' primary explosive is a material called ASA compound. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonator
C4 is easily and reliably initiated by L1A2, or L2A2 detonators, detonating cord L5A1 or Detonating Cord Boosters (DCB). http://www.militarysystems-tech.com/files/militarysystems/supplier_docs/CEUK-C4-Mouldable-Plastic-Explosive.pdf
The L2A2 comprises an aluminium tube with an output charge of PETN initiated with a primary charge of Aluminium / Lead Styphnate / Lead Azide. http://www.mondial-defence.com/images/PDF_Data_Sheets/L2A2%20Detonator%20Electric.pdf
PETN is the least stable of the common military explosives. Under certain conditions a deflagration to detonation transition can occur. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETN
PETN may be exploded by rifle fire. It also detonates sympathetically with the detonation of an adjacent high explosive. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/explosives-nitrate-petn.htm
Lead Azide explodes after a fall of around 150 mm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_azide
Lead Azide explodes at 350°C. May explode from shock, heat, flame or friction when dry. http://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/11731
Lead Styphnate is particularly sensitive to fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_azide
Lead Styphnate detonation Temperature 260°C. Very sensitive to friction, heat, and impact. http://design.caltech.edu/micropropulsion/styphnate.html
Do you think that the explosion pressure rises, flying debris, the temperature rises, and the fact that the grenade consists of a metal is fiction? Why did you decide that I have to prove to you that this is not fiction?
It is important to understand that the hand grenade is not a New Year's fireworks. In the hand grenade contains enough explosive solid matter, which could have a devastating impact on the explosives are a few centimeters from a hand grenade. If you are interested in the details of the explosion occurring processes, you can study them yourself in more detail. The same is not required to spread links not relevant to the subject.
I think that if you can not provide evidence that this is not possible, it is also a proof that this is possible, is not it :) (according to your logic).
- Mines (pressure) from the grenade will explode, as garnet in the center of the explosion generates a pressure of about 100 kilograms per square centimeter (maybe more).
- Mines (wire stretching) from the grenade will explode, as grenade creates a blast wave and fragmentation effect that will have an impact on a wire stretching.
- Mines (heat sensor) from the grenade will explode, as the explosion of a grenade is an increase in temperature.
- Mines (magnetic sensor) from the grenade will explode if you throw it close enough, as it is made of metal.
You can deny it?...
Neutralization of anti-tank mines:
I think that the people involved in ACE knows more about it than we are. If they did, this was a good reason. I showed you 4 points that explains why this is possible, in principle, but that is not enough. As proof of this is not possible of arguments, there are suggestions are based on the assumption that in real life, you can destroy a mine with a device "Anti-Personnel Obstacle Breaching System", which undermines the mines by shrapnel charges (like grenades). There is also a video (unfortunately I can not find) which demonstrate how the M1A2 tank gunner undermines the anti-tank mine with a machine gun 7.62 mm. There is no evidence that God exists, but that does not mean that it is not.
You may be of the same mind and the next, I'm not going to convince you. If a mine is triggered by falling bullets and explosives, it also explodes by a grenade here do not need proof, as it obvious. Anti-personnel mine (pressure sensor) also explode if it drops a stone weighing a few pounds. On it you will also need proof?...
Gekkibi: Hand grenade explosion generates a pressure of about 80 kilograms per square centimeter at a distance of 5 meters, which is enough to trigger the mines with pressure fuse.
Here is an example: You set a land mine with a tight wire (if you touch the taut wire, the mine will explode.) Then you throw a grenade next to mine, the explosion of the grenade hitting hurt taut wire, then the mine explodes. This is common sense. It is clear to all things, I suppose.
CKykis: I remind you once again that it is about the interaction of grenades with explosives, not just C4. What is relevant here are created by me earlier ticket? You should be more polite I think.
Gekkibi: If the mine is being undermined by the interaction with a bullet or bomb, why it should not interact with a grenade, call the cause?
CHykis: Here is a question not only of C4, please do not be nervous.
At the moment, anti-tank mines and anti-personnel mines only interact with explosives (C4, explosive satchel), and provided that the mine has got some bullets, it does not cause problems. But there is no interaction with a grenade.
I'm not sure what to detonate the C4. But the anti-tank mines and anti-personnel mine definitely needs to interact with a grenade, as the explosion of a grenade creates all the necessary conditions for the destruction of mines, such as pressure, temperature and shrapnel damage.
We are talking about the interaction of explosives with a grenade, which is absent.
I think the ability to scan the enemy must be disabled at all levels difficulty. Thus, almost all servers use "Regular", and they can use it.
30mm shell must break a man to pieces. Difficulty herein should not matter.
Geometry and grass together in the "terrain". I think these settings should be separated. In multiplayer, the "terrain" is set by the server and if the server is set "terrain" = Low, the client has the stones hanging in the air. The client must be able to increase the quality of "Geometry" regardless of the settings on the game server.
Blocking should be limited by technical capabilities of weapons. The anti air defense captures the target with radar! Settings distance visibility should not change the technical specifications of weapons! What is your home computer, it does not matter.
Update: Added types of air defense assets with this error
AD2001: You are right, "TAB" is needed as well to capture the target which is illuminated by laser designator.
Inability to capture the invisible purpose should be turned off, there are three good reasons:
- In life there are no limits visibility range of 2,500 meters (this distance is often used on game servers due to high load on the server)
- Most of the modern means of destruction (self-guided) does not require visual target tracking, as they work in the heat and radar signature.
- If the gaming server limit visibility distance is 1000 meters, this leads to that the efficiency of air defense drastically reduced.
I think that the problem of capturing targets beyond visual range should be solved in another way:
- Remove the key detection of the enemy "SPACE" (does not happen in life)
- Add the possibility of destroying the target beyond visual range. (Happens in life)
Ability to disable the shadow should stay until their developers do not optimize, they squander the FPS to 50 percent. Vote down.
The marks on the optics nepravelno, even if you adjust the ballistics of bullets from a distance, because the sight distance from 200 meters to 300 more than the distance from 400 to 500 :). The missile apparently complete copy of the "RPG-32", and the missile "RPG-32" flying 700 meters, and it should not fall with the acceleration as it is now, it's not a brick :)
No fixed in 0.76.109065
I'll write you one last time, since none of your comments is not an argument for the presence of dirt on the optics mi-48.
- The Mi-48 is much booking - it's funny, he gets off one rocket AA. Glass on the mi-48 and Ah-99 caliber bullet split 12.7, although mi-28 in life, it can not be broken by a bullet caliber 12.7, and the glass on the Ah-66 will be split, with the crew I think.
- Mi-48 has the most powerful anti-personnel weapon in the game - 38 HE rockets, which is controlled by the gunner o_O.
- Do you bad at math as 8 missiles at mi-48 can not consume more technique than 24 on the ah-99, the power of missiles is irrelevant, except maybe tanks, but the tank is not all that is in Arma.
- Probably green squares located on the HUD ah-99 you are not confused, right? I would not bother it, too, if nebyli cheat, which points to the enemy's equipment, simple terms it is called WH.
- I suggest you check this, as this is not true. When flying AH-99 if the opponent grabs you in the sight of the grenade launcher, you will find the yellow indication is on the radar. On the mi-48 do not exist, notification of the rapidly approaching rocket you not to take timely measures.
- This is a lie
- For your information it is not an advantage of a helicopter gunship in Arma, because the game has enough helicopters to transport soldiers.
P.S. I would ask you not to flood this thread. For your information I play from the beginning of OFP, only in multiplayer, PvP.
I would not be writing about it as ah-99 is better than the mi-48 with the following characteristics:
- the number of anti-personnel weapons.
- the number of anti-tank weapons.
- the number of anti-aircraft weapons.
- the ability to control the helicopter and firing one member of the crew.
- cheat, highlighting enemy armored vehicles.
- the size of optics.
- a clear optics.
- threat warning system.
What do you say to that, my friend.
I wrote the developers just about one issue, and you allow yourself to tell me that it does not matter, you are ignorant.
- I'm happy for you.
- Let the dirt on the optics ah-99 brings variety to the game.
Here are the reasons for which I have written about the problem:
- optics by helicopter mi-28/ka-52 not look like this, and is more comfortable in fact.
- The optics can not be contaminated if the helicopter was not raised in the air.
- The optics can not be contaminated only by helicopter red side.
I can `t be called a dirty optics mi-48 variety in the game, in fact it is an imbalance.
for those who do not understand. at the moment the gunner has the ability to control the helicopter mi-28ub, mi-35, ka-52. those helicopters that make up the mi-48, and to deny it does not make sense. This is not about the future, it is on these helicopters now.
At the moment, the gunner can control the helicopter Mi-28 in the modification of Mi-28UB. In 2015 there will be vypusheno new helicopter Mi-28NM which also can control the helicopter gunner. It is logical to assume that the Mi-48 should also be the opportunity. In the Mi-35, too, by the way.
The helicopter mi-48 is a mi28 composes and composes ka52. These helicopters have a backup system of all the elements of any of the crew members can take control of the helicopter as well as fire control. Besides these helicopters are the safest in the world. Therefore, all the arguments in favor of the lack of opportunity to take control of the gunner mi-48 in their hands are not valid. Hopefully this will be fixed in no time.
I hope you understand that if you do this for ah-99, then mi-48 must fly sideways at top speed, is not it? Otherwise it will look like a deliberate understatement of the characteristics of mi-48.
Developers, where are you?
should be able to turn off all post processing effects, exceptions should not be as it adversely affects the vision of players.
This occurs at any point of the island which has a slope of the ground surface is more than about 30-40 degrees. I believe that a game character under any circumstances should not perform any actions without my orders. I think that this is not a bug, it's a decision the developer is very similar to the one that can not be shot from a grenade launcher in the supine position. This is a very strange decision in my opinion.
Well, how do you explain the ability to carry a rifle, a backpack and a grenade launcher at the same time? I'm just asking to add the ability to take the grenade launcher instead of a backpack and take a rifle instead of a grenade launcher. The point here is not about convenience but about incomprehensible limitation which does not allow me to take a rifle instead of a grenade launcher, or take the rifle / grenade launcher instead of a backpack.
Have a solution for owners of graphics cards NVIDIA, the program "nvidia inspector". http://abload.de/img/crysis.3.profile6luqb.png
This option is very necessary! It is needed in order not to use the extra resources graphics card, for example I do not need longer than 60 fps. The absence of constraint options FPS results:
- Use of excessive energy.
- Heat the video card (reduced life).
- The fan noise.
In my opinion stable 30 fps better to read than 30-45 races, as well as 60 fps better than 60-80.
I ask the developers to take seriously this issue is important.