ARMA 2: Community Configuration Project (A2CCP)

[Groove_C 267]

well, ok what target then ?

You still don't know what is this thread about?

Reality is fact that you can not fix all bugs

Yes, that's why bugs' nature picked up in CCP is limited.

can not fix most bugs

Really? Didn't know.

....You can fix SMALL AMOUNT of bugs.

Already doing this in CCP. Read this thread through looking for posts from .kju with fixes you can download and test.

To have some result you need to choose what bugs effect game play.

Those discussed here affect gameplay for sure. Like being spotted inside your Mi-24 with some pistol rounds from behind a bush while trying to take off.

Unless you simulate James bond movie you need to fix bugs which effect war simulations first.

In your previous post you were talking about James Bond movies and now about simulation? First decide what you want to talk about, than write in order to bring some sense to your comments.

PS I think that to fix your armor glass you need change addons at least and may be change engine,as looks like all glass in game have same properties.

Read carefully!

Refer to issue with Hummer M240 gunner shield dammage possibility broken from A2 to OA.

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/66995

Which proves it can be changed.

If you don't have a clue how it works, don't make such conclusions like the need to change the whole game engine.

Please, show your support regardnig this minor issue.

Shoulder launched weapons (like RPG-7) missing full iron sights

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/67385

Edited December 12, 2012 by Groove_C

[fraczek 4]

I have a suggestion about under-barrel attached grenade launchers sights. In their current state, they are unfinished and lacking in useability.

For most Arma weapons with them, they are unusable, limiting their use especially with crosshair=off. Is it possible and in scope of CCP to have them at least as 2D sights model? Something like GDT mod and TGW ?

The EGLM on Mk16 & Mk17 rifles seem to have something akin to DNS, a holographic sight (although unlike the real DNS the one ingame seems to lack the rangefinder unit), so should these perhaps be zeroable instead?

[.kju 3241]

Please check: CCP: 2012-12-14 Test version release

[kotov12345 10]

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/67226 - I'm not understand what you mean considering lack of effects in game.

Bug #65559: SMAW rounds are too small in the inventory - This one most funny.This problem appears in game when 1 smaw infantry able to kill 6 T72 in one round.As result in one of patches firepower of one SMAW was reduced and distance as well.Now if you make this missile bigger it might be out of reality.Currently you need to fire 4 missiles to destroy M1A1 or T90,so making this rocket bigger it might became not effective against armor at all.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/67226 - I'm not understand what you mean considering lack of effects in game.

Bug #65559: SMAW rounds are too small in the inventory - This one most funny.This problem appears in game when 1 smaw infantry able to kill 6 T72 in one round.As result in one of patches firepower of one SMAW was reduced and distance as well.Now if you make this missile bigger it might be out of reality.Currently you need to fire 4 missiles to destroy M1A1 or T90,so making this rocket bigger it might became not effective against armor at all.

2 SMAWs will kill a T90, and 3 SMAWs will kill M1A1 ,4 Will kill a tusk (but if you know where to shoot,you won't need more than 2)

[kotov12345 10]

2 SMAWs will kill a T90, and 3 SMAWs will kill M1A1 ,4 Will kill a tusk (but if you know where to shoot,you won't need more than 2)

Well I always play as tanker and never feel any inconveniences in fights against smaw infantry after update when it was modified.If you will read real life figures you can easily find that you need 2 guys to use metis or Javelin,that as for Javelin is minimum range is 600m

and SMAW effective range is 250m and 500m and other sources 600m is maximum.200 ms is speed.If you want to have in game all launchers with same specs as in real life - all launchers needed to be fixed - just to do it make sure that you need to put right figures in new version to prevent people wait next Christmas,when next patch will be released.

[Beagle 684]

The effectice range for all unguides AT wepo ns is to high, that's well known and one of the main arcade features in A2...Even old OFP had that better with AT grenades showing ab baklistic arc and slow speed. I guess it was changed to follow the waay of more player convenience resulating in RPG abnd SMAW or MAAWS acting as pocket cannons with 1500 meters range and no ballistic drop at all now. Why bothering to use a tank when you can have tank cannon on your back? Compared to OFP the ArmA series became a arcade game rewardng and hence promoting arcade tactics by providing arcade weapons with fantasy properties. And that's why I see no future for A3. Just more fantastic arcade weapons with just more funny gameplay features. Best example of this line is the 2A42 30mm MBT killer cannon in Armed Assault and A2, A2:OA and the legendary pocket cannons MAAWS and SMAW. BIS is making us believe that a 88mm HEAT fired from a 80cm reinforced Aluminum tube is as effective as a 120mm SABOT. Even WIKIPEDIA tells us that the EFFECTIVE range is 250m on a moving tanks size target and I know of no RPG style weapon that has no ballistic drop. I shot those weapons (LePzFst44 and Carl Gustav) myself and you have to aim really high 15° to hit something at 400m.

The fantasy figures used in A2 lead to the point we have no in PvP, everybody runnign around with a AT laucher he should not be able to operate effectively alone. (especially Carl Gustav) and btw This kind of weapon does not have a smoke trail because there is no burning rocket whan it leaves the starter TUBE, the propellant is burned inside the tube and instead of a smoke trail you abe a smoke cloud remaining where the shooter is. To effectively neutralize a MBT it is strongly advise that TWO AT shooters attack drom different locations and NEVER attack the front.

That's a knowledge from 2nd month of cold war basic training...but we all know it has no meaning in A2 because the arcade way works even better because you can reload your RPG on the run in 4seconds...and sorry but that

's a joke. if you know how much steps it takes to reload a RPG type weapon. CG and SMAW are herby the fastes one to reload...but usually that's done by a assitant AT gunner because SMAW uses a round contianer thats VERY BULKY and CG uses a breech lock loading mechanism with two handles.

RL AT wepons are all considered one shot at a time because reloading on the spot is impractical since you have to move after the shot and you can't reload on the move. That's why the 2 AT shooter team is standard tactic. In the real military you dont add more AT round to each men, instead ypou add more AT weapons per squad amnd lone wolfing is no military concept not even for Special ops units. (Minimum team size is 4)

Edited December 15, 2012 by Beagle

[Muecke 114]

@Beagle

Ok but its fantasy to make arma2 a realistic game too. Its a game and game means also fun.

The best middle is to be found here.

I dont think a3 will be more arcade than older BI games but thats not the point here anyway.

To me its important that we have a good balance between the factions. So the SMAW seems to be a problem then.

Let them change it and see what we got then.

[xeno 230]

To me its important that we have a good balance between the factions.

I always thought that A2CCP is not about balance...

Xeno

[Muecke 114]

I always thought that A2CCP is not about balance...

Xeno

Yes correct but i said "To me its important". So i can benefit from some changes of A2CCP for my personal use.

I was wondering about those Hesco walls in ArmA. Last night they could eat 4 sabots.

Dont they break down anyhow if they get heavy fire ?

[-=seany=- 5]

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/67226 - I'm not understand what you mean considering lack of effects in game.

Good luck with that. Seems if you question anything that they want to see implemented into the game, you will just be ignored. No explanation, no reason, no discussion.

Edited December 15, 2012 by -=seany=-
toned down

[Tonci87 163]

Yes correct but i said "To me its important". So i can benefit from some changes of A2CCP for my personal use.

I was wondering about those Hesco walls in ArmA. Last night they could eat 4 sabots.

Dont they break down anyhow if they get heavy fire ?

Why should they break down because of Sabot rounds?

[On_Sabbatical 11]

Why should they break down because of Sabot rounds?

Because of the tears ...

[Muecke 114]

Why should they break down because of Sabot rounds?

I dont know why, was just asking. Iam a Player not a military expert.

I saw this clip on YT http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HGZyvqBuVMw

looks like the wall completly was gone....

[-=seany=- 5]

In that vid the tank is actually firing HEAT rounds, so that's why the wall is gone.

I'm not sure what a SABOT would do to a HESCO wall. Might just get buried in it, or go straight through even.

[Dwarden 1124]

well SABOT is kinetic penetrator while HEAT uses shaped explosive charge ...

so let's consider the SABOT just penetrates the wall with way less overall structural damage than HEAT

[Beagle 684]

well SABOT is kinetic penetrator while HEAT uses shaped explosive charge ...

so let's consider the SABOT just penetrates the wall with way less overall structural damage than HEAT

The problem in A2 is that you need three times the amount of HEAT to destroy a HESCO barrier. It simply deems to us that the HESCO is far off in damage & HP values. Same goes for some walls.

---------- Post added at 12:12 ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 ----------

@Beagle

Ok but its fantasy to make arma2 a realistic game too. Its a game and game means also fun.

Aha, but how was BIS able to do it right in OFP and Armed Assault? Ballistic flight profile for rockets from aircraft and RPGs?

[Tonci87 163]

Yeah the thing with the simplified ballistics for rockets really sucks. Thank god we have ACE

[kotov12345 10]

If you just watch carefully you can see wall fall on ground as wasn't one structure - nothing unusual.If you want to see such implementation in game you need to send a letter to Intel to urgent make for you special chipset allow to see such effect in game.

[fraczek 4]

Re: https://dev-heaven.net/issues/62196 & https://dev-heaven.net/issues/14436, may I ask what's the state of that? The 9M119 Refleks and 9M117M1 (T90's and BMP3's) missiles are still unguided in game, while expected is a beam-riding SACLOS missile. Running latest 100056 beta. I thought the CCP changes were incorporated into the beta, right? Not needing another CCP.pbo or something. At least the TAB issue with AutoGuideAT off seems in.

[-=seany=- 5]

I'll try to come at this from another angle, a fresh start perhaps?

So...AutoGuideAT=Disabled will be used to remove the ability to Tab Lock. That is fine.

But, so no one has to lose The Tank Fire Control System, what about adding in the Tank Fire Control System that Q1184 designed for ACE? I would be very happy with this, anyone who has used it most likely would too. In fact, I think it is far better than the BIS method of "box locking". This would suit everyone and make the game more realistic. The AutoGuideAT change could stay as is, TAB Lock would be gone and everyone gets to have a nice (and realistic) Tank Fire Control System.

How difficult would it be to implement in the A2CCP, would it be too complex, also would you need permission from Q1184? It works pretty much flawlessly in ACE, it isn't at all buggy or glitchy.

Here is a link from the ACE wiki about how it works: http://wiki.ace-mod.net/Tank_Fire_Control_System?view=open

Here is a YouTube video Showing how it works:

Bo5UnOhUrbY

Please discuss, I am trying to be reasonable...this about my forth suggestion/compromise. It bothers me quite a bit that I'm being ignored. We are all fans of the same game aren't we? I'm not bringing up this issue to be awkward, believe it or not.

Edited December 17, 2012 by -=seany=-
added links

[Guess Who 10]

Seany, A2CCP is not for implementing new features.

[[frl]myke 14]

Seany, A2CCP is not for implementing new features.

So if adding a new feature would fix a bug...it is a no-go? Care to explain the logic behind?

[Guess Who 10]

Myke;2265495']So if adding a new feature would fix a bug...it is a no-go? Care to explain the logic behind?

Well' date=' implementing ACE, fully or in partls, is hardly a bugfix. Not that I wouldn't like some new features or a working FCS, but that is simply not in the scope of this project, which, by the way, was clearly stated more than once from the start. The logic behind this is: [b']read post #1!

We would like to introduce a new initiative aimed at improving Arma 2 Experience. In a nutshell, result of this initiative should be small addon with various fixes and tweaks in existing game configuration files that can become part of the official distribution of the game. There are few key things necessary in order to make this initiative succesful and possible so if you are interested in participating please make sure to read more detailed overview below. Few key points:

* only fixes of obvious bugs or missing definitions are within the scope of this initiative

* all submitted changes must be under a license that allows Bohemia Interactive to freely include and distribute it

* changes must not break any of the existing official missions and campaigns

* kju is going to coordinate and submit resulting addon to Bohemia Interactive for final review

[/b]http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?141732-ARMA-2-Community-Configuration-Project-(A2CCP)&p=2242163&viewfull=1#post2242163

[Tonci87 163]

Well, implementing ACE, fully or in partls, is hardly a bugfix. Not that I wouldn't like some new features or a working FCS, but that is simply not in the scope of this project, which, by the way, was clearly stated more than once from the start. The logic behind this is: read post #1!

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?141732-ARMA-2-Community-Configuration-Project-(A2CCP)&p=2242163&viewfull=1#post2242163

Ok lets look at the choices we have

1) Leave it as it is and play with a bad system that nobody likes

2) Disable Tab Lock for Gunners only and play with a "half fixed" thing

3) Implement a perfectly good, stable, tested and working alternative FCS.

I´ll take number 3 anytime!