General Discussion (dev branch)

[pettka 694]

Sorry Bohemia if you did not want this information out yet, but it seems the damage is already done, uh?

No harm done at all, we have investigated possible improvements in technology before the alpha release and the placeholder data just stayed there, sorry for the confusion :icon_evil:

[Greenfist 1863]

No harm done at all, we have investigated possible improvements in technology before the alpha release and the placeholder data just stayed there, sorry for the confusion :icon_evil:

So shotguns confirmed for 1.36 then?

[Brisse 78]

So it's like with the F-35, and will probably not make it into the final release. Nothing spoiled then I guess :)

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

No harm done at all, we have investigated possible improvements in technology before the alpha release and the placeholder data just stayed there, sorry for the confusion :icon_evil:

Could we at least see this in the future or hear why all this amazing stuff can't be finished and added? (please don't remove, this cut content stuff can be useful for modders)

[Alwarren 2767]

So shotguns confirmed for 1.36 then?

Shotguns are already possible, CUP contains a couple of them (AA-12, Saiga12k, M1014). I guess the weapon itself will be a Marksman DLC weapon.

[AgentRev 22]

Could a dev please elaborate on what "Added: Auto-INIT scenario server-side" from v1.36 means?

[Dwarden 1125]

it means HC can auto-init mission (just like 1st player do), note this works only if server uses persistent=1; in cfg

[loud 11]

it means HC can auto-init mission (just like 1st player do), note this works only if server uses persistent=1; in cfg

So how do we enable it? :cool:

[toysoldier 35]

It's great to hear they added new sounds, hope the next one will be a night vision goggle sound :)

[gliptal 25]

If I'm not mistaken that typical whizzing sound is completely unrealistic.

Yay!

[chortles 263]

Could we at least see this in the future or hear why all this amazing stuff can't be finished and added? (please don't remove, this cut content stuff can be useful for modders)

Quick note: The M1014 previously appeared in old 2011 footage (the same year as the F-35 placeholder, the scripted satchel-charge-attaching and uniform swapping, etc.), while the Kel-Tec KSG appeared in a 2012 screenshot. However, three weeks ago Matt Lightfoot claimed that "We don't have any plans to get these into game, we had problems with simulating some of the peculiarities of shotgun-type weapons, such as reloading. Up to now we have considered other weapon types to be of a higher importance to Arma." (Considering what Alwarren said though, what's really going on probably had to do with that last sentence...)

[the_demongod 31]

If I'm not mistaken that typical whizzing sound is completely unrealistic.

Yay!

IIRC someone talked about this in the sound improvement thread. Apparently it does indeed exist, but it's far quieter than that sound we're so used to hearing in movies, etc.

It can be heard if it's quiet and you're listening for it, but other than that it's pretty much inaudible.

[james2464 176]

Interesting changes in dev branch:

11:48:14 ============================================================================================= List of mods ===============================================================================================
11:48:14 modsReadOnly = false
11:48:14 safeModsActivated = false
11:48:14 customMods = true
11:48:14 hash = '7DCA13BB17E4B50E23D464436C307F2F46C74DD6'
11:48:14                                               name |               modDir |    default |               origin |                                     hash | fullPath
11:48:14 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11:48:14                                             Arma 3 |                   A3 |       true |             REGISTRY | adb535cdbd6ef59c22654737fffadb280471c504 | C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Arma 3
11:48:14                                  Arma 3 DLC Bundle |            dlcbundle |       true |            NOT FOUND |                                          | 
11:48:14                                 Arma 3 Helicopters |                 heli |       true |             GAME DIR | da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 | C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Arma 3\heli
11:48:14                                       Arma 3 Karts |                 kart |       true |             GAME DIR | 680f81056b24993380232dc8c4cf4f9822fd76a3 | C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Arma 3\kart
11:48:14                                        Arma 3 Zeus |              curator |       true |             GAME DIR | bd374368eb888c73e81d107d9ba48d1bd321a675 | C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Arma 3\curator
11:48:14 ==========================================================================================================================================================================================================

[haleks 8212]

It's great to hear they added new sounds, hope the next one will be a night vision goggle sound :)

Why is there so many people trippin' on that thing? There's so many work left to do sound-wise, I really don't care about NV goggles sfx. ^-^'

[pils 49]

SABOT DAMAGE REDUCTION IN 1.36

Oh guys come on. You reduce Sabot damage without thinking of the other large caliber rounds?

Quick testing on the 'Air Control Tower' at Altis airport. Distance ca. 50m, angle ca. 90°, firing right in the middle between the windows, firing until building collapses:

40mm HE: 17 rounds

35mm HE: 4 rounds

40mm AP: stopped at 40 rounds (out of ammo), building still has the 'unharmed look'

125mm AP: stopped at 24 rounds (out of ammo), building has the 'slightly damaged look'

Tanks have a (unrealistically) hard time against infantry in buildings anyway. Firing HE into windows is rather ineffective, because it will only harm infantry in the same room. If the enemy is behind the corner in another room, he will remain unharmed, while in real life probably anyone in the whole building would be killed due to the overpressure. Sabot is less effective as in real life, because sabot has zero area damage, you have to hit the enemy directly with the shell or need to take the whole building down, while in real life you could blast holes into the walls and anyone near the impacting sabot round would get injured or killed by shrapnel shooting around.

Now as it takes more than the full ammo capacity of sabot to take down a single building, tanks are pretty much completely useless against infantry hiding in buildings.

Please, fix that. Increase the damage of sabot rounds to buildings again, balance the other large caliber shells and please finally give the sabot rounds a little area damage (see my signature), to simulate the shrapnel on impact.

[x3kj 1247]

Now as it takes more than the full ammo capacity of sabot to take down a single building, tanks are pretty much completely useless against infantry hiding in buildings.

Better then bringing it down in 3 shots with a fast oversized bullet (aka tungsten penetrator) a few centimeters thick. I dont see a problem here.

Why is there so many people trippin' on that thing? There's so many work left to do sound-wise, I really don't care about NV goggles sfx. ^-^'

Agreed... most people turn that thing off exactly once in a game. And maybe play long enough to turn it off. But that's it. Not worth the time compared to other sounds you would hear a lot more often.

I have used one gen.2+ NV goggle regulary for some months and i never heard a sound.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Fennek

[Brisse 78]

I personally own night vision equipment, and if I am in a completely silent environment and put my ear right next to it, then there is a slight sound. Is it worth putting into the game Splinter Cell style? No, and it's not realistic to hear in a noisy environment.

[DancZer 65]

Pils: sabot is AT round. Dont have any serious explosion in it. It is only bounce on the ground in real too. Basically it is a fast moving spear. That's why it should make less damage in buildings. It is just go through without any damage.

I agree that the HE and the HEAT should be more effective inside the building. I suggest to ignore wall defense inside the buildings for explosive class, and calculate the damage based on de 3D distance from the center of the explosion. This method simulate the pressure inside the buildings in some way. I think it would be better then as it is now.

---------- Post added at 05:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:05 PM ----------

Pils: sabot is AT round. Dont have any serious explosion in it. It is only bounce on the ground in real too. Basically it is a fast moving spear.

M1A1 Abrams tank shooting at targets: http://youtu.be/mnusyfLh-4s

[Brisse 78]

I feel that the word Sabot is heavily misused and misunderstood in this thread, and maybe in the whole Arma community.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabot

[ProfTournesol 956]

maybe in the whole Arma community.

Or not.

[pils 49]

I feel that the word Sabot is heavily misused and misunderstood in this thread, and maybe in the whole Arma community.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabot

Guys, I know very well how a sabot round works. Please read carefully. The lowered damage of sabot to buildings would be fine, but:

a) the other large caliber rounds are not equally balanced towards the new damage reduction. See my test. You think it's alright that you need 30x 125mm sabot and at the same time only 4x 35mm HE to take down a building?

b) Arma 3 lacks game mechanics that let tanks effectively fight infantry in houses. Therefore the strong sabots were the only useful option to fight infantry in buildings -> by taking it down.

We need either strong sabots back or another game mechanic that makes tanks as powerful as they are in real life against targets in buildings. Either let HE rounds ignore walls in buildings (simulating overpressure) and/or give sabot rounds area damage, simulating shrapnel shooting around when the dart punches through the wall.

I mean, what do you think will happen if the 10kg dart from a sabot shell made out of extremely dense depleted uranium is punching through a concrete or brick wall beside you, or impacting into the ground or a rock near you @ 1500-2000m/s? It will accelerate brick/concrete/rock shrapnel all over the place.

---------- Post added at 18:25 ---------- Previous post was at 17:59 ----------

Oh and, HEAT (and possibly HE) tank rounds should have a penetration value, to be able to penetrate one common wall and cause area damage inside the room behind it. I mean, that's exactly what the HEAT round is made for, penetrate armor and shower the crew inside with molten metal.

Here an example of tank fire at a building. During the first hit you can actually see how the round impacts at the front and how stuff gets blown out at the very rear of the building.

(

) Edited December 6, 2014 by pils

[Brisse 78]

Guys, I know very well how a sabot round works. Please read carefully. The lowered damage of sabot to buildings would be fine, but:

That's weird, because you are still misusing the word in that very sentence. The "Sabot" does not even hit the target. The stuff that hit the target is called a "kinetic energy penetrator". Those two together are called "Armor-piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot", or simply "APFSDS". I'm not saying your reasoning is wrong or anything like that, I'm just saying you are misusing the word (using one word, meaning something else), and that you should use proper terminology instead. People might take you more seriously then.

---------- Post added at 19:43 ---------- Previous post was at 19:42 ----------

Or not.

Sorry for dragging the whole Arma community into it. That was just plain stupid and ignorant of me. I know a lot of you are very knowledgeable people.

[pils 49]

That's weird, because you are still misusing the word in that very sentence. The "Sabot" does not even hit the target. The stuff that hit the target is called a "kinetic energy penetrator". Those two together are called "Armor-piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot", or simply "APFSDS". I'm not saying your reasoning is wrong or anything like that, I'm just saying you are misusing the word (using one word, meaning something else), and that you should use proper terminology instead. People might take you more seriously then.

---------- Post added at 19:43 ---------- Previous post was at 19:42 ----------

Sorry for dragging the whole Arma community into it. That was just plain stupid and ignorant of me. I know a lot of you are very knowledgeable people.

Jesus Christ, you do like hairsplitting, don't you?

The shell still can be named 'sabot' or 'sabot round'. Actually 'sabot' is the common term tank crews use. They say e.g. load 'sabot'.

But why make things easy of you can make them difficult, right?

There is nothing wrong about saying a 'sabot round' does little damage to [...]. It's not denying the fact the sabot is discarding in mid air.

So good arguments and argumentation is not enough to be taken seriously?

Does anyone knows if there is a ticket already online with that issue?

[fareast 20]

BIS just need to add HESH or HEP round which is effective against buildings

[pils 49]

BIS just need to add HESH or HEP round which is effective against buildings

Yea that would be nice. But they still need to tweak the gameplay mechanics of the large caliber rounds. I mean, that's the very basis of the game. That's way more important than any kind of new content or other fancy stuff.