General Discussion (dev branch)

[Tyl3r99 41]

obviously must be a task that requires years on end testing and stuff? sound familiar?:P

Yeah, good point, really that hard to fix?!

[dale0404 5]

This seems to be fixed for primary weapon switch, but, if you switch to your sidearm and take new sidearm from ammobox for example, you will switch to your primary weapon. I think it should be also fixed for sidearm, you should not switch to primary weapon when changing sidearm.

You'd have thought this would have been fixed at the same time.

Edited August 3, 2013 by dale0404
Pragmatism

[strangere 2]

Small Arms Penetration Test from Jester814.

Needs some work but maybe its still WIP...

[[aps]gnat 28]

MUCH BETTER !

Now exceeds ArmA2 in important ways!

Just need Man class to stay on the deck ......

[progamer 14]

Gnat;2457145']MUCH BETTER !

Now exceeds ArmA2 in important ways!

Just need Man class to stay on the deck ......

Make a ticket for the man class issue so we can all vote it up!

[progamer 14]

Rather than just having you avionics cut out on you when your taking damage, you should be able to see the status of the Avionics and have aircraft with dual engines Have ENG1 and ENG2 show the damage in the top left GUI separately. http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=12286

[chortles 263]

Are multi-engine aircraft engines actually simulated as separate entities in Arma 3 in the first place though?

[barakokula31 10]

Are multi-engine aircraft engines actually simulated as separate entities in Arma 3 in the first place though?

I suppose so, if they have hitpoints for both.

[chortles 263]

Again, is that the case or not under the hood? As it stands, the only reason I know that some vehicles have their tracks modeled separate is because of the "L-TR" and "R-TR" HUD icons.

[Tyl3r99 41]

on the modules for like sites etc... or any module that requires axis sizes for example 300 by 300 should have like a circle round the boarder.

currently there is no boarder so i have no idea how big the radius is.

also. can someone tell me what is so different about the "base" "fire base" "observation post" etc.. sites?? to me they seem to spawn the same amount of stuff.

and i think there needs to be more dynamicness about these modules.

more patrols

units inside buildings not just tower things

moving vehicles

flying helicopters, planes (when they arrive)

tanks roaming the roads also ( when they arrive )

so it would bring that designated area technically alive like a real "base" or "observation post" etc

at the moment they seem plain and *sorry* boring

are these sites still WIP?

Edited August 4, 2013 by tyl3r99

[progamer 14]

I was playing around with high altitude bases, weapons and vehicles at different heights from 2000m and up. Altitudes higher than 2000 have glitches like a suction effect when you step over a crack you become a pancake!:http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=12332 which would be very bad for tall user made structures and islands. I also realized just how Clunky skydiving is at the moment as well. I feel like a falling brick with slight tilt controls. The human body is really agile and maneuverable while free falling and because I have seen no improvements with skydiving, I made this ticket:http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=12333

Edited August 4, 2013 by ProGamer

[MadocComadrin 12]

@tyl3r99: IIRC, Observation Post doesn't spawn anything other than men, fills military buildings to specification, and creates a single response team. Base will spawn MRAPS, fills buildings, and creates 1 (maybe 2) response teams as well as a 2-man patrol or two. Fire-base doesn't seem to work right at the moment, but when it does, I assume it will spawn mortars/artillery.

[Victim9l3 11]

on the modules for like sites etc... or any module that requires axis sizes for example 300 by 300 should have like a circle round the boarder.

currently there is no boarder so i have no idea how big the radius is.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!! I had brought this up when I first got the Alpha. here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?155055-Modules-need-visible-boundries&p=2395894#post2395894

I got only 1 response. I guess that means you didn't search. But anyway, I think it is extremely important. The biggest reason is that they don't just have you input a radius. They created it exactly like a trigger. You can choose what shape it will be in axis a and b. So you can't just guess. Some people don't think it's a big deal because they mostly use it on bases and things that don't use the whole area. but put down a couple minefields and tell me that you don't need to know exactly how big it is. I have to constantly create triggers just so I can use the trigger to see what shape and which direction it faces. The direction it faces is very important. Some mines need to have a direction and you can't just guess.

But this topic has nothing to do with the development branch. You should respond on the thread I started. Why don't you create a ticket so BI actually pays attention to it. Also, place the different sites down and look at it from a helicopter. Most sites, if not all, usually have at least one group on patrol. Even the traffic stop. The bad thing is is that they drop vehicles down in terrible places. Usually the second vehicle ends up on fire by about 3 seconds into the game. Some don't work. Last time I checkd independants didn't work. And they won't fill all types of buildings. And despite what it says, it does NOT put anyone inside the small cargo buildings. They have one spot inside but the soldier gets spawned outside.

[Tyl3r99 41]

in other words... sites need sorting out properly.

can we have some sort of confirmation this is being looked into at some point?

not asking for it to be resolved now by the way.

as long as its fixed its fine.

[froggyluv 2136]

Small Arms Penetration Test from Jester814.

Needs some work but maybe its still WIP...

Wow, that's pretty amazing. I had no idea Arma took into account things like the trucks engine block and the corners of objects in terms of penetration ballistics.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Wow, that's pretty amazing. I had no idea Arma took into account things like the trucks engine block and the corners of objects in terms of penetration ballistics.

The houses that he refers to drywall, isn't drywall. It's either reinforced poured concrete, cement blocks or bricks with an outer facade. Drywall isn't a very popular construction material, I suppose across Europe, as it is in the US. I've yet to come across a drywall home in the Balkans.

I can tell you from experience of being shot at while behind such walls by 7.62's, that a single (Arma doesn't simulate an effect of multiple rounds/structural wear) 7.62 isn't going to penetrate any wall of those materials in the second part of the video. The thin inside wall might be an exception as it's pretty thin ingame. Ricochets on the other hand are quite dangerous and will embed themselves in the furniture, go through multiple doors and whatnot even after several bounces from such surfaces.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Sniperwolf572

[KeyCat 131]

Seems like joystick input is broken in latest dev-build (0.75.108.469). Joystick and throttle shows correct values between -100 to 100 in the customize screen but nada input while in helicopter (tested with AH-9).

/KC

Edited August 5, 2013 by KeyCat

[sqb-sma 66]

It's probably too late to do anything about, but I've been playing a bit of A2 recently and thinking about intertia and weapons has got me thinking.

There's 3 current systems:

* Arcade/Arma 3 - Non-inertial - Your mouse look is free of negative accel and the gun is slaved to the screen (as a disclaimer, I know A3 has a freelook mode but it's currently broken, sensitivity is far too high when aiming, far too low when turning the character and it breaks my trackIR so let's consider it a non-feature until we see how the devs intend it to function). This mode has the serious flaw that you can spin on the spot and nail a baddy accurately, because the gun is always pointed at screen center (sway has a tiny effect) which is fairly unrealistic.

* Red Orchestra "freelook" - Non-Inertial + weapon lead. This is the same as before, if we deleted the gun from the screen that is. It's still free of negative accel which means looking around feels just as smooth. The "free aim" (I use "" because free aim should have a still camera and use the mouse to purely control the gun) is just the gun moving around the screen, but at all times moving the mouse still moves the camera, making the game feel responsive. If you look to your right the screen moves purely as a non-inertial, non accelerated, system, but the gun leads, going to the right of the screen. The same applies for the ironsights. This means the gun isn't always dead center, which is good because it reduces snap shooting. However spinning quickly the gun still rotates VERY quickly, so you can still sort of snap shoot but you have to do a bit more thinking with the free aim ironsights.

Arma 2 - Inertial - Let's just look at the non-free aim Arma 2 system here. In it any movement of the mouse was passed to the gun, screen movement was 100% slaved to the gun with free aim off. The gun had inertia, as you turned the mouse the gun had negative accel applied to it and therefore the screen had negative accel on it. This lead to the game feeling sluggish because any head movement had negative accel (which favoured x and y pure, instead of a proper vector but that's another issue entirely) making the game feel awful. But in return the gunplay was fairly realistic, no more snap shooting!

Proposed changes to A3:

1) Lead into drag - Ro2 style "free aim" with an inertial gun that's NOT tied to the camera directly. In this the camera would always behave purely without negative acceleration!!!! The gun would try to lead your mouse movements (i.e. it would multiply your mouse movement by 1.5 or so and then apply an inertia model to that), however it would have a max turning speed. If you turned slow it would be just like Ro2 except with a wee bit of momentum, if you spun on the spot very quickly the gun would (if we consider this in slow mo) move to the right of the screen as you start your turn, reach it's top speed and fall off to the left as you spin too fast for it. In this situation you would see your enemy behind you before being able to bring your gun around. The benefit of this is that the gun behaves with inertia again, so aiming could be made more realistic like in Arma 2 without sacrificing the better feel of Arma 3. Furthermore when turning too fast for the gun your player could automatically lower the weapon, by holding it closer to the body you would allow the weapon to rotate with your body instead of lagging such that when the rotation stops your player could again automatically raise it to the center of the screen.

In the end I think it's best that we find some way to re-introduce some form of inertia to the guns, but the Arma 2 way was far too clunky for a game, the Arma 3 mouselook is brilliant as is but leads to arcade gun handling, so why not combine the two and come up with a new freelook mode?

Edited August 5, 2013 by SQB-SMA

[dayglow 2]

I think your system idea has some merit. Also if guns had weight and center of gravity that would effect inertia. That way a small SMG or carbine you could 'throw' around the screen a lot easier, while a long sniper rifle or LMG witha lot more weight would take more effort to start moving or stop their inertia. This could help reflect the controlabilty of different classes of firearms.

[chortles 263]

It's probably too late to do anything about,

Thank gosh if that's the case, I and others have actually been using the current system as a selling point for Arma 3, much less the new rotational envelopes, although the bit about Red Orchestra 2 handling interests me. For purposes of disclosure, in both Arma 2 and Arma 3 I keep deadzone off at all times and I was pleased to see it not being used in official footage.

[sqb-sma 66]

Thank gosh if that's the case, I and others have actually been using the current system as a selling point for Arma 3, much less the new rotational envelopes, although the bit about Red Orchestra 2 handling interests me. For purposes of disclosure, in both Arma 2 and Arma 3 I keep deadzone off at all times and I was pleased to see it not being used in official footage.

Haha, I know exactly what you mean. The better mouse movement in Arma 3 is for sure a selling point, and I wouldn't want to remove it ever. My idea effects only the gun, never the camera, so the looking around is still just as responsive.

I too play with deadzone 100% off in both A2 and A3. I'm not a fan of the A2 implementation, and A3's is broken. But I would like some form of free aim and weapon inertia, especially as BIS has already put the effort into creating such a system.

[tpw 2315]

I'd like to see the head movement (freelook) faster than the body movement, instead of the other way around like it is currently.

[TSAndrey 1]

When will "Set task destination" module be fixed?

[old_painless 183]

The houses that he refers to drywall, isn't drywall. It's either reinforced poured concrete, cement blocks or bricks with an outer facade. Drywall isn't a very popular construction material, I suppose across Europe, as it is in the US. I've yet to come across a drywall home in the Balkans.

Fascinating video, indeed (Jester got himself a new subscriber). I agree that the outer walls must be concrete. I was a bit surprised however, that the last rifle (50 cal?) could not penetrate the post and the engine block. Would that not be expected?

[Tyl3r99 41]

sync this module with the create task and the trigger that activates the succeeded module for the destinations after the 1st task.

for the first task just sync it to the create task.

also please make sure all set task states are not synced together like I did -.-

people have said it randomly works and it does need to be addressed :)

When will "Set task destination" module be fixed?