Reusable weapon attachments for modders?

[Mr. Charles 22]

Might I be so bolt to suggest that changing attachments should not be an instantaneous matter? I mean, changing attachments in the field doesn't really work all too well, and most optics need to be rezeroed when they had been removed. Maybe the config entry for the attachment point, or the config for the attachment itself, could contain a time it requires to change, or if it can be refitted at all due to losing zero.

~~ Alwarren

I'm against this since this would mean that you have to clutter ammoboxes again with all different weapons.

[Alwarren 2765]

I'm against this since this would mean that you have to clutter ammoboxes again with all different weapons.

Why that? If you can mount attachments in the briefing, or have them pre-configured, there would be no such issue. But with changing scopes within seconds, I'm afraid that certain specific disadvantages (like having a large, clumsy TWS scope on a weapon) would be negated. It's also something that cannot be prevented from a mission maker POV since enemies will surely have exchangeable equipment as well.

I'm concerned that this way, a mission designer will have very limited control over the weapons available to the player(s), since they can easily scavenge enemy soldier for attachments, and a scope from e.g. a TAR-21 should not magically work on an M4 without proper adjustment.

[Mr. Charles 22]

If that's your fear then why do you give the enemy better weapons beforehand? When the player can't put on the scope he'll simply switch to the better weapon, don't you think?

[chortles 263]

Might I be so bolt to suggest that changing attachments should not be an instantaneous matter? I mean, changing attachments in the field doesn't really work all too well, and most optics need to be rezeroed when they had been removed. Maybe the config entry for the attachment point, or the config for the attachment itself, could contain a time it requires to change, or if it can be refitted at all due to losing zero.

Developers, please disregard Alwarren's post, he's got the wrong idea.

EDIT: does the three attachment limit count against a silencer? Is a silencer attachment possible at all?

If you mean a sound suppressor, yes it is available in the game but it does count against the three attachment limit; it appears that underbarrel is NOT counted as an attachment point, so the expectation seems to be "optic, weapon light or laser, and muzzle device," which would explain why the Magpul AFG is modeled on the MX 6.5 mm but not taking up an attachment slot, while there's a separate MX 3GL with the underbarrel grenade launcher as a separate weapon altogether (in the style of A2).

It's also something that cannot be prevented from a mission maker POV since enemies will surely have exchangeable equipment as well.

I'm concerned that this way, a mission designer will have very limited control over the weapons available to the player(s), since they can easily scavenge enemy soldier for attachments

You act like this is a bad thing, especially when this capacity to "switch out" is somewhat the point of the standardized attachment rails. :mad:

In any case, the developers have chosen not to simulate what you described for simplicity's sake (see what Vespa told RobertHammer), but it can be assumed that the attachments use quick-detach mounts or in the case of optics "hold zero" mounts, plus for the sake of "realistic time" (unlike the old E3/Gamescom 2011 builds) you at least have to go to the inventory menu to swap out/customize.

[Steakslim 1]

Might I be so bolt to suggest that changing attachments should not be an instantaneous matter? I mean, changing attachments in the field doesn't really work all too well, and most optics need to be rezeroed when they had been removed. Maybe the config entry for the attachment point, or the config for the attachment itself, could contain a time it requires to change, or if it can be refitted at all due to losing zero.

In some cases this would be true but with a lot of quick detach mounting systems it's possible to keep zero so long as the optic hasn't been removed from the mount itself (and you attach it in the same rail space). I dunno how true it is for all mounts of said type though. I would like to at least see some form of animation attaching them though, or an installation wait time, dependent on the attachment perhaps, even if it's happening while the inventory menu is up, creating a queue depending on how many changes are being made, same for clothing and other gear options I guess, to be fair. Suppressors as well, though a lot of the newer quick detach designs can be installed and removed in 5 seconds or less depending on the system, and a lot of companies are moving to that route.

[krazikilla 5]

@Panda_pl

Main or bigger part of ArmA is about weapons.

I never said that those features are easy to make or add ,but they are worth to the game and mainly for future mods.

Not a mention - the ArmA 3 is still missing a proper weapon resting and proper breathing simulation.

RobertHammer - such games as Ground Branch are usually specialized, with narrow focus and scale. Arma3 is massive in every aspect, and people forget that. If we are to manage such project, we need to be ruthlessly effective with our time and resources.

The reason there is no daytime laser with flashlight, or "only" 3 slots on weapons, is that the cost would be too high - and that, in the end, would harm the project. It's easy to get carried away, obsess about small things and lose grip with reality - I saw it happen many times, always ending up badly. So even if it may seem twisted to an outsider, I actually am proud of dropping/not doing some features - because it means the team is healthy and focused on target.

There is still the question on, why is no weapon resting feature implemented yet?

This doesnt take too long, and improves the infantry game a lot.

Edited August 19, 2012 by KrAziKilla

[chortles 263]

I can't believe you quoted him without understanding his intent... you really have no idea how long it takes (not that BI are saying either). Then again, I can see "we didn't simulate bipods" as a reason...

[krazikilla 5]

.. you really have no idea how long it takes (not that BI are saying either). ...

What if i do?

[Alwarren 2765]

If that's your fear then why do you give the enemy better weapons beforehand? When the player can't put on the scope he'll simply switch to the better weapon, don't you think?

"Better Weapon" is relative. If you have a g.8 caliber ACR without scope and your enemy has an MP5 with scope, the ACR is the better weapon and you wouldn't normally switch.

---------- Post added at 11:00 ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 ----------

Developers, please disregard Alwarren's post, he's got the wrong idea.

Beg your pardon, but who are you to make such a call? Your opinion might be different, but then voice it as an opinion.

In any case, the developers have chosen not to simulate what you described for simplicity's sake (see what Vespa told RobertHammer), but it can be assumed that the attachments use quick-detach mounts or in the case of optics "hold zero" mounts, plus for the sake of "realistic time" (unlike the old E3/Gamescom 2011 builds) you at least have to go to the inventory menu to swap out/customize.

The game is still under development so what the "developers have chosen" or not is pretty much up in the air. From the visuals, the guns do use Picatinny rails. Contrary to PCAP, the rails need rezeroing. It is impossible to just transfer any scope from, say, a 5.56 weapon to a 7.62 without adjusting it in the first place.

Yes, I think it is a bad thing to be able to just switch out half a dozen scopes. That means that if any opponent has a TWS, you will eventually get that and use it, but you will be able to swap it out of a close-range scope in zero time. Yes, this concerns me, as it takes away control from the mission designer.

---------- Post added at 11:17 ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 ----------

Guys, please stay on topic. The weapon resting feature is something I'd like to see but I didn't open this thread as another wishlist, so features like that, or how long they take, are way off topic. Thanks :)

[dragon01 902]

Scopes like ACOG do hold zero rather well, and even the larger ones will still work after being detached and reattached, but in case of high magnification sniper scopes, you do lose some accuracy. I agree that swapping weapon attachments in the field should take time, but zero in a scope after swapping should move a tiny bit. And of course, if you put a scope on a different weapon than it was zeroed on, it'll be completely off. Perhaps some simple zeroing system could be implemented. It could be a simple menu with two "knobs", which you can turn to adjust the aimpoint.

[hund 0]

With respect to the flashlight/lazor combination, might it be possible to simply do a combo attachment that includes both (and some fancy-ass scripting to allow you to switch between them)? Of course the placement of the objects might differ between gun types...

Oh, and to me personally, arma is as much about weapons as farming is about shovels. I do see Mr. Hammers perspective tho - he has made guns his business in this great game of ours (and I am very much looking forward to some cool-as-beans RH stuff for the next game - the new system should allow for some truly amazing things!)

[Alwarren 2765]

Scopes like ACOG do hold zero rather well, and even the larger ones will still work after being detached and reattached, but in case of high magnification sniper scopes, you do lose some accuracy. I agree that swapping weapon attachments in the field should take time, but zero in a scope after swapping should move a tiny bit. And of course, if you put a scope on a different weapon than it was zeroed on, it'll be completely off. Perhaps some simple zeroing system could be implemented. It could be a simple menu with two "knobs", which you can turn to adjust the aimpoint.

Things will get difficult when multiple attachment systems get involved. Obviously, the rifles in ARMA 3 all use rails, but if you look at contemporary weapons like AK's and M4's, there is no way to put a normal AK scope onto an M4, it will not physically fit.

[PuFu 4591]

i guess types of attachments that are allowed can easily be defined in the weapon's config (as per official statement).

[Steakslim 1]

here is no way to put a normal AK scope onto an M4, it will not physically fit.

define "AK scope" and why it couldn't physically fit. There's very few things that wouldn't fit on an M4 or any other AR15 platform rifle.

[PuFu 4591]

1p29 with russian side rail for instance

[Steakslim 1]

1p29 with russian side rail for instance

Ah very good example.

[Alwarren 2765]

1p29 with russian side rail for instance

That's what I meant. Most AK's don't have Picatinny rails but rather side rails, and you cannot attach a PSO to an M4. In a context where both sides use standard rails this is not an issue but for contemporary armies (and I am 100% sure that contemporary military will be available at release day) this is an issue.

And please don't get me wrong, people, I love the fact that attachments are going to be in. I made 120+ variations of the ACR to get all the attachments in that I wanted. I am not keen on repeating that.

[chortles 263]

That's what I meant. Most AK's don't have Picatinny rails but rather side rails, and you cannot attach a PSO to an M4. In a context where both sides use standard rails this is not an issue but for contemporary armies (and I am 100% sure that contemporary military will be available at release day) this is an issue.

Whereas I find this not much of an issue for vanilla ARMA 3 at least, unless you're talking about people making their own "contemporary military" small arms/attachment addons?

[Alwarren 2765]

Whereas I find this not much of an issue for vanilla ARMA 3 at least, unless you're talking about people making their own "contemporary military" small arms/attachment addons?

It is an issue (apparently one that is already addressed, I never saw that) if you can attach a scope or other attachment to an incompatible attachment. Whether that is for a specific addon or vanilla ARMA 3 I cannot say, since we have not seen a complete list of weapons so far. Obviously, some kind of "compatibility" setting needs to be present ( a scope on the side rail would look weird :)). But yeah, a PSO taken from a non-railed AK cannot be put on a railed weapon, and the game should reflect that (which it apparently does). It doesn't matter whether that's a third party addon or not, ARMA wouldn't be what it is if there wasn't third party addons.

Note that I am not trying to tell the devs what they should do, it's their job obviously (unless they want to hire me, in which case I'd gladly quit my job - programming ARMA III would be much more interesting than programming graphics card drivers ;) ), I was merely trying to find out whether this could be an issue or not. ARMA has always been a great deal about authenticity and realism, so things like that do matter IMO.

(Really hyped for the Community Alpha - I hope we won't have to wait too long for it)

[arigram 0]

The disconnection of the main weapon with the attachments is an important feature that will ease further development and present new gameplay approaches.

No, its not important to be presented in a realistic manner in the core game as long as the system is there.

Restrictions can be placed by mission and weapon/module designers and animations can be added in, but the system has to be there in the first place. Is it unrealistic perhaps to exchange modules in the middle of a firefight and not have the proper animations of the removal and placement? Restrictions can be scripted in, new animations can be created and the whole concept can be expanded further.

If there is a limit of attachments in the present code, maybe that can be improved in the future, like with all other features.

As long as the base system exists.

If the code exists and its flexible enough it could well have other uses, maybe in relation to vehicles, or other objects, such as having for example weapons or gadgets in pieces that need to be put together before use or further interaction with objects in the environment.

I do not know the code, but it could be made to bring up an inventory-like screen when interacting with an object (a vehicle for example) that let's say in the mission, misses a part which needs to be attached or a static weapon that can be "upgraded" with a new attachment or something of that sort.

It well could be more than just exchanging scopes in rifles.

[Alwarren 2765]

*sigh* Never mind. It doesn't seem like I can make clear what I was trying to say. Moderators, please feel free to lock this thread. I got all the answers I was looking for (thanks again, Vespa), but this is veering way off topic now. I certainly did not want a new feature request thread.

[b00ce 160]

Maybe there is a config entry like "Magazines" called "Optics" that lists all of the compatible sights.

[kylania 567]

Better yet a scripting command disallowAttachment or something where you can blacklist specific classnames of optics. So be default anything works, and for those realism minded they can cater to their desires.

[Alwarren 2765]

Maybe there is a config entry like "Magazines" called "Optics" that lists all of the compatible sights.

A "mounting" or "rail_type" config entry would be the better option. That way, current and future attachments would be usable as long as they are using the same rail/mount

---------- Post added at 20:44 ---------- Previous post was at 20:42 ----------

Better yet a scripting command disallowAttachment or something where you can blacklist specific classnames of optics. So be default anything works, and for those realism minded they can cater to their desires.

Scripting support for that is important, also for scripted attach/detach, if you want to emulate combined laser/flashlight modules.

[wiggie 24]

I'm curious;

I am an Indie Games Designer, although considering a lot of people call themselves that nowadays, I'll say Apsiring, currently working on a project with a group of friends, for that project, we each have our own Design/Concept, and Production roles. Mine, being Character modeller. I've not modded for ARMA 2, but I think come ARMA 3, I'm going to jump into the scene, mainly focusing on items of clothing, armour and other such apperal. Which brings me to my question.

The same usage of proxies that will allow attatchments to be dynamically added to weapon models, will they be able to be utilized when designing pieces of armour and clothing? For instance, NVG's on helmets, should they be in the players inventory, Chemlights and Strobes hanging from a vest. Pistols in holsters, or, something I would really love to achieve (even be it a long shot), dynamic pouches, so that a players vest changes depending on the gear that he is carrying inside it.

I have no idea to the extent that proxies can be utilized, but in theory, if it can be used to attatch a sight to a weapon, it can be used to attach a piece of equipment to a vest.