General Discussion (dev branch)

[petek 62]

hi

Getting a lot of crash to desktop with this update. Seems to happen randomly with numpad defined actions and F keys (including `) for selecting squad. Cheers

[oukej 2910]

Seems like F keys (at least F2) can crash the game.

Anyone else?

I still have default controls so I'm selecting a unit.

Ticket http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=22355

hi

Getting a lot of crash to desktop with this update. Seems to happen randomly with numpad defined actions and F keys (including `) for selecting squad. Cheers

Development branch truly isn't in the best shape today. We're sorry about it.

[petek 62]

Well it's the Dev Branch;-) So long as it leads to bigger, better, stabler things;-)

Cheers

[fabio_chavez 103]

Changed: Unlocking hardcoded number keys and function keys

[St. Jimmy 272]

Hopefully this is one step closer to kill unnecessary actions from the action menu! Like weapon selecting at first.

[Alwarren 2766]

Anyone else getting this? Right mouse button toggles the "Reply" menu for me, the same you get when you press the commanding key (Default Tilda key). I have that remapped to space, though, and when I press space bar, the game crashes.

[roberthammer 582]

Anyone else getting this? Right mouse button toggles the "Reply" menu for me, the same you get when you press the commanding key (Default Tilda key). I have that remapped to space, though, and when I press space bar, the game crashes.

Yea , same here - very annoying when aiming heh

[noubernou 77]

One thing that has not been mentioned in the changelog regarding the initSpeed in weapons may be interesting for you: Using negative value for initSpeed in weapons takes the property from magazine as before. We are going to discuss a few possibilities, but feel free to set:

initSpeed = -1;

in the weapon class to have previous behaviour :icon_twisted:

Can you explain where this would change would ever be useful from a design standpoint?

Every mod now is going to have to put initSpeed = -1 in all weapons to retain the original functionality because the original functionality offered way more options in terms of implementing weapon behavior.

Please consider not pushing this and using a modifier like you already do with suppressors, you guys made the right design choice there, and to go a totally different incongruent direction with this just seems silly.

[roberthammer 582]

Yea i agree with NouberNou , this decision makes no sense it just makes things harder than easier - so do it correctly or nothing

[pettka 694]

Can you explain where this would change would ever be useful from a design standpoint?

Every mod now is going to have to put initSpeed = -1 in all weapons to retain the original functionality because the original functionality offered way more options in terms of implementing weapon behavior.

Please consider not pushing this and using a modifier like you already do with suppressors, you guys made the right design choice there, and to go a totally different incongruent direction with this just seems silly.

First thing first - we have set the initSpeed just for our hand weapons. Default behaviour is to count initSpeed in weapon as -1 in case it is not defined. No need to worry, modded weapons won't be affected unless they use some of our existing weapons as a base, in which case the change actually makes sense :icon_twisted:

As for the design question, we are discussing possibilities, but we are going to use the constant for some reason in the upcoming Marksmen DLC, whereas we don't have that much use for the coefficient. Still, there is no need to worry, as I have written, we are discussing the options and we may possibly adjust the current solution to suit even community needs better. I don't promise anything until it is done, but we hear the feedback and there are already some ideas to enhance this new config property.

Just to calm you down, this change is not a part of the 1.38 update, but we are already releasing adjusted weapons config with it. That means even the community should have a plenty of time to give it some proper testing.

And one more thing, we have heard rumours and gossips about this affecting vehicle weapons (e.g. artillery). As I have already mentioned, we have set only the hand weapons, that means no vehicle weapon should be affected by this now or any moment soon :icon_twisted:

[Sniperwolf572 758]

First thing first - we have set the initSpeed just for our hand weapons. Default behaviour is to count initSpeed in weapon as -1 in case it is not defined. No need to worry, modded weapons won't be affected unless they use some of our existing weapons as a base, in which case the change actually makes sense :icon_twisted:

I'd love the hear the explanation how it makes sense? From where I'm standing, you're basically limiting your weapons to never be able to fire ammo with less "punch".

As a silly example, imagine a bullet with no gunpowder at all in it. Your logic is that it should still be fired at the velocity of a normal bullet because the barrel says so. Not everything is a railgun.

[Jackal326 1172]

I'd love the hear the explanation how it makes sense? From where I'm standing, you're basically limiting your weapons to never be able to fire ammo with less "punch".

As a silly example, imagine a bullet with no gunpowder at all in it. Your logic is that it should still be fired at the velocity of a normal bullet because the barrel says so. Not everything is a railgun.

^ This.

[Brisse 78]

Tested some addon weapons on 1.38rc and there's no problem. They work exactly like they did on 1.36.

[Jackal326 1172]

Tested some addon weapons on 1.38rc and there's no problem. They work exactly like they did on 1.36.

Its not the functionality that is the question, its the limitations it imposes upon weapon config'ing.

[Brisse 78]

Its not the functionality that is the question, its the limitations it imposes upon weapon config'ing.

I know. I'm just confirming what pettka wrote, that it's not going to have any ill effects on addon weapons when 1.38 is released.

I would like to see a more advanced and flexible solution too, but I don't agree when people say it's worse than it was before, because it does give slightly better flexibility, while being backwards compatible.

[pettka 694]

I'd love the hear the explanation how it makes sense? From where I'm standing, you're basically limiting your weapons to never be able to fire ammo with less "punch".

As a silly example, imagine a bullet with no gunpowder at all in it. Your logic is that it should still be fired at the velocity of a normal bullet because the barrel says so. Not everything is a railgun.

You are actually looking at the issue from a different point of view - it's not about limiting the lower speed of ammo, the issue we are addressing is about using too strong ammo in specific conditions. I cannot provide more details until we announce some parts of the DLC.

Creating powder-less ammo makes as much sense as e.g. placing a fish into stratosphere in game and expecting it would behave correctly. I don't know the results for the fish, but I would not expect anything working in case I do something that doesn't make any sense :icon_twisted:

I know. I'm just confirming what pettka wrote, that it's not going to have any ill effects on addon weapons when 1.38 is released.

I would like to see a more advanced and flexible solution too, but I don't agree when people say it's worse than it was before, because it does give slightly better flexibility, while being backwards compatible.

Thanks a lot, kind sir, we'll do our best to try to improve it. And thanks a lot for the feedback :icon_twisted:

Edited January 20, 2015 by pettka

[Sniperwolf572 758]

You are actually looking at the issue from a different point of view - it's not about limiting the lower speed of ammo, the issue we are addressing is about using too strong ammo in specific conditions. I cannot provide more details until we announce some parts of the DLC.

Creating powder-less ammo makes as much sense as e.g. placing a fish into stratosphere in game and expecting it would behave correctly. I don't know the results for the fish, but I would not expect anything working in case I do something that doesn't make any sense :icon_twisted:

Just because we're looking at the issue from a different point of view, does not mean what I said is invalid. At least I don't see how it becomes invalid.

No powder and lower power of the ammo were just examples, it also affects the higher power ammo. With the current implementation, in all those cases, the bullets are fired at the appropriate speeds defined by the ammo. The change you made makes those values irrelevant if the weapon defines it's own init speed.

The only type of weapons that I know that behave sorta this way are railguns, catapults, slingshots and so on, which propel the projectiles themselves (and even there I guess there is variance depending on the mass of the projectile, even without a combustible propellant).

Hopefully the feature that requires this kind of an approach will be announced soon so we can have an open discussion about it and potentially propose better solutions rather than just us being shut down by "you don't know what we're doing" arguments.

As things stand, from the information given to us, this is where we stand.

Currently the system is:

1. The thing you load in the weapon determines the speed it leaves
   
2. Weapon has no effect on it
   
3. Muzzle attachments can affect it via multipliers
   

What the future looks like with your current implementation:

1. The thing you load in the weapon has no effect on the speed it leaves
   
2. Weapon determines the speed no matter what you load in it. Falls back to the implementation above on negative values or a missing definition
   
3. Muzzle attachments can affect it via multipliers
   

What is proposed by the community:

1. The thing you load in the weapon determines the base speed it leaves
   
2. Weapon can affect it via multipliers
   
3. Muzzle attachments can also affect it via multipliers
   
4. Currently impossible and will continue to be impossible unless implemented
   

I'll make a little tool to illustrate this more vividly.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Sniperwolf572

[noubernou 77]

I am going to 100% guess the feature is (and this is a guess I stole from Commy on the AGM team) that they want to show the muzzle velocity in the Virtual Arsenal for the guns and associating it with their default magazine would be too complicated (for some reason). :p

[roberthammer 582]

Yes , as you might know there are many ammo types of the same caliber - let's say 5.56x45mm - you got Subsonic , Hollow point , Long Range and so on

each one has its own Velocity and Energy - while it is possible to make them in arma but the main problem is to make them work properly in all barrel lengths (short>slower , longer>faster)

and this is why we need some multipliers to replicate this realistic behavior of the bullet instead of creating each individual magazine configured for specific barrel length

Edited January 21, 2015 by RobertHammer

[pettka 694]

Just because we're looking at the issue from a different point of view, does not mean what I said is invalid. At least I don't see how it becomes invalid.

Your arguments are pretty valid, no need to worry, I have just described our reasoning why did we do it the way we did. We as a team know what do You mean and, as I have written before, we are discussing possible solutions according to feedback given. The only issue may be time required to do that, that is why I don't promise anything until it is done - it may prove along the way that there is some bigger issue that we didn't anticipate :icon_twisted:

Hopefully the feature that requires this kind of an approach will be announced soon so we can have an open discussion about it and potentially propose better solutions rather than just us being shut down by "you don't know what we're doing" arguments.

...

I'll make a little tool to illustrate this more vividly.

I may be wrong, but I don't think there is any need to illustrate more vividly, nor to be afraid of being shut down. If developer participation in the discussion is not enough to prove our interest in the community opinions on a new tech, then I don't know what else could be. Possibly changing the tech outright which takes some time however. It has been mentioned several times that we are discussing possible solutions and I am sorry to say, but expecting a sudden change out of the blue is like Your signature image :icon_twisted: Simply removing the change doesn't make any sense as it improves current system (maybe not in the way that suits some needs the best, but still adds some more possibilities while maintaining the old) and improving it simply takes some time. We are glad for the feedback, it helps us to make the game better, and we hope we'll be able to do that even with this tech given enough time.

[bullhorn 18]

I'll make a little tool to illustrate this more vividly.

Implying BI devs are incompetent? :p

It's my first time visiting this thread and hard for me to believe anybody doesn't understand this.

[killzone_kid 1327]

Implying BI devs are incompetent? :p

It's my first time visiting this thread and hard for me to believe anybody doesn't understand this.

If you just bought your popcorn, took your seat and waiting for the drama to begin, you are in the wrong auditorium.

[bullhorn 18]

And a shame it is.

Nonetheless, realism aside, this should have 0 ramifications on gameplay. You can watch YouTube video demonstrations of people shooting all kinds of calibres from all kinds of firearms - and you can see that even 9mm from a handgun is enough to penetrate flesh or 2" thick wood over 200m, so why do people care about this so much?

[roberthammer 582]

And a shame it is.

Nonetheless, realism aside, this should have 0 ramifications on gameplay. You can watch YouTube video demonstrations of people shooting all kinds of calibres from all kinds of firearms - and you can see that even 9mm from a handgun is enough to penetrate flesh or 2" thick wood over 200m, so why do people care about this so much?

Because guys in arma love realistic things? also thx for reminding me that the a3 body armor simulation is still unfinished

[Brisse 78]

BullHorn, for the majority of players, it is not a concern. Those who are involved in this discussion, including me, are addon makers who make weapon addons, and desire full control over the performance of the weapons. When studying the ballistics in detail, for example target shooting at a range using ballistic charts and such tools, the shortcomings of the current system becomes very clear. Only the most hardcore realism fanatics will notice though. The level of realism where you could use real ballistic charts to make a pinpoint precision long range shot is appealing to some. The game is not that realistic though.

It's not about penetration by the way. That's a very different topic. This is about the internal and external ballistics, I.E, the projectile speed and trajectory, and how it is affected by having different cartridges or barrel lengths in similiar firearms, like MX and MXC.