General Discussion (dev branch)

[bullhorn 18]

Well, you have answered it yourself. ARMA3 is not trying to be realistic and is marketed towards a more casual crowd than the days of OFP, so what do you expect?

Maybe they keep the goodies for VBS3.

[enex 11]

Well, you have answered it yourself. ARMA3 is not trying to be realistic and is marketed towards a more casual crowd than the days of OFP, so what do you expect?

Maybe they keep the goodies for VBS3.

Take this to forum not on dev branch.OFFTOPIC

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

In terms of penetration, I just remembered that the fact ballistics only go through objects like walls and such. Shoot an in armored man with APDS, that bullet does not go through him, as it should. Neither does 7.72, or 5.56. Penetration should actually go through people, but it doesn't. I hope they come up with something like this for Marksman. To test this go to the V-Arsenal, and spawn with GM6.

[St. Jimmy 272]

In terms of penetration, I just remembered that the fact ballistics only go through objects like walls and such. Shoot an in armored man with APDS, that bullet does not go through him, as it should. Neither does 7.72, or 5.56. Penetration should actually go through people, but it doesn't. I hope they come up with something like this for Marksman. To test this go to the V-Arsenal, and spawn with GM6.

And talking about penetration I've noticed that I or AI actually hit many times on guns like launchers if you shoot from side and back and rifles if you shoot in front. First I wonder do bullets get totally absorbed by guns and second how well those guns would even operate after being hit by bullet up close or from far? There are multiple times me or AI have been saved from bullets by guns and then they work even though they'd likely be cheese after those hits :D

[Brisse 78]

Oh really? I used to get realistic penetration when testing this long ago. They have been changing config parameters for body armor every now and then. Maybe that has something to do with it.

I would not expect anything but the 12.7 APDS to penetrate front plate + body + back plate though. With 5.56 you should have a major problem trying to just scratch someone through body armor. It should be very effective on soft target's though. Body armor is not well simulated though. I believe the way it works is that it only slows down projectiles by a certain percentage, no matter what the projectile is, or how much energy it has.

---------- Post added at 14:50 ---------- Previous post was at 14:48 ----------

And talking about penetration I've noticed that I or AI actually hit many times on guns like launchers if you shoot from side and back and rifles if you shoot in front. First I wonder do bullets get totally absorbed by guns and second how well those guns would even operate after being hit by bullet up close or from far? There are multiple times me or AI have been saved from bullets by guns and then they work even though they'd likely be cheese after those hits :D

Yes, this is a problem. Guns are mostly thin sheet metal or plastic. Only a few smal internal parts have the potential to really stop a projectile. This is why I always use penetration material "plastic" when I make addon weapons. The vanilla weapons use the one called "metal" which might sound reasonable, but does not give the desired result ingame.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

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.

Heck, I don't think it's even that many of us who are discussing it are necessarily considering a balls-to-the-wall realistic simulation of ballistics. :D

It's as you say later: we'd kind of unanimously like some ability to factor in both the ammunition and the weapon when it comes to determining ballistics. Minimally for the sake of adding a new dimension to infantry gameplay in terms of choosing equipment, mission planning, teamplay etc. whilst being somewhat realistic.

I think deep down all of us do appreciate the fact that altering initspeed in the weapon does in a finite way, cover the latter part of that puzzle, and we recognise that the initial thinking behind that change could be a step towards something we all want

That's why we're so passionate about the potential it could have if done right.

It's just that we can see obvious problems with the proposed method when it comes integrating it alongside something that forms the other part of that same puzzle, and is an already existing gameplay features of the game's ballistics model: player's choice of ammunition.

That's why we're so eager to see if there's anything we can do to make BIS look at reworking it in a way that achieves what they want to do, while maximising the potential that the community sees in the end result.

Fundamentally I think everyone who has commented just wants a ballistics model where choice of weapon and choice of ammunition together, determine the final muzzle velocity. There are differences of opinion on the most logical way of determining that final outcome and naturally everyone has their preferences for an idealised solution and the extent to which that solution is ideal. But so long as the core factors are there working together I think most of us can make do - I mean since when has configuring anything for this game been a 100% satisfying process anyway? :D

[Sniperwolf572 758]

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:

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.

I fully appreciate the time it takes and never in a million years would I claim "not enough interest". The main case is that changes like this aren't something that's often tackled within a product cycle, and I'm basically trying to point towards what I see is the most optimal way. Others seem to be keen on it too. Besides, the current change did pop out of the blue, maybe not for you since you guys obviously had enough time to set the values for each weapon, but I'm certain for the rest of us it randomly showed up in a dev blog and we all collectively popped the MGS style exclamation marks. :p

Heck, I don't think it's even that many of us who are discussing it are necessarily considering a balls-to-the-wall realistic simulation of ballistics. :D

It's as you say later: we'd kind of unanimously like some ability to factor in both the ammunition and the weapon when it comes to determining ballistics. Minimally for the sake of adding a new dimension to infantry gameplay in terms of choosing equipment, mission planning, teamplay etc. whilst being somewhat realistic.

I think deep down all of us do appreciate the fact that altering initspeed in the weapon does in a finite way, cover the latter part of that puzzle, and we recognise that the initial thinking behind that change could be a step towards something we all want

That's why we're so passionate about the potential it could have if done right.

It's just that we can see obvious problems with the proposed method when it comes integrating it alongside something that forms the other part of that same puzzle, and is an already existing gameplay features of the game's ballistics model: player's choice of ammunition.

That's why we're so eager to see if there's anything we can do to make BIS look at reworking it in a way that achieves what they want to do, while maximising the potential that the community sees in the end result.

Fundamentally I think everyone who has commented just wants a ballistics model where choice of weapon and choice of ammunition together, determine the final muzzle velocity. There are differences of opinion on the most logical way of determining that final outcome and naturally everyone has their preferences for an idealised solution and the extent to which that solution is ideal. But so long as the core factors are there working together I think most of us can make do - I mean since when has configuring anything for this game been a 100% satisfying process anyway? :D

This is a great summary of what's going on here.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Idk man, I do believe your weapon can save your life, as most weapons used in combat today are some kind of metal, or hardened alloy or something like that. The launchers, probably along the same lines... Of course though, operational functionality after hitting a weapon wouldn't matter in Arma. I also tested that usually after the first weapon hit, it doesn't work again. I shot through it and kill the AI. Besides that though, bullets really should go through people with no armor.

[vegeta897 13]

Added: AI rate of fire randomization

I hope this means what it sounds like. No more constant steady pop pop pop all the time?

A note on bullets hitting weapons/launchers... It seems like the only 2 options that wouldn't require a significant amount of work are the current system, bullets hitting and possibly ricocheting, or bullets just going through the weapons completely. Keep in mind the implications of shooting at a target's weapon when they're facing to the left or right in relation to you. I think it looks better to have the weapon impact if I were aiming at the weapon than for the bullet to just pass through and hit nothing. It definitely would be weird if it actually hurt the player. Implementing a weapon damage system would be a large undertaking, and probably something BIS has considered and discarded long ago. Weapons don't even jam as it is, imagine the gameplay implications that have to be designed for if your weapon could simply be destroyed.

[Brisse 78]

Idk man, I do believe your weapon can save your life, as most weapons used in combat today are some kind of metal, or hardened alloy or something like that. The launchers, probably along the same lines... Of course though, operational functionality after hitting a weapon wouldn't matter in Arma. I also tested that usually after the first weapon hit, it doesn't work again. I shot through it and kill the AI. Besides that though, bullets really should go through people with no armor.

The parts that are usually made of "hardened alloy" are internal mechanism like barrel, bolt, bolt carrier, firing pin etc. The receiver, or "frame" of the weapon are mostly polymer today, and older stuff like ak's are made of stamped sheet metal which is in no way bullet proof. Launcher's were traditionally made of some kind of metal, but today they are actually made out of composites, like carbon fibre. Sure, there are still metal parts, but not as much as you would expect.

I think it looks better to have the weapon impact if I were aiming at the weapon than for the bullet to just pass through and hit nothing. It definitely would be weird if it actually hurt the player. Implementing a weapon damage system would be a large undertaking, and probably something BIS has considered and discarded long ago. Weapons don't even jam as it is, imagine the gameplay implications that have to be designed for if your weapon could simply be destroyed.

Thing is, there's already a system where you can define the material of the object, so that the terminal ballistics behave somewhat realistic. When BI do their weapon models, they just press ctrl+a to select the entire model, then they choose penetration material "metal" and applies it to the entire model. Try hitting a small hollow plastic part of the weapon (like the pistol grip on the assault rifles) and it 100% stops the projectile, while the sound effect that is played sounds like you are hitting the armor of a tank or something. If they would use penetration material "plastic" insted, like I do, there is much more reasonable results. It sounds more realistic, the bullet penetrates, looses some velocity and might change direction slightly.

By the way, I have seen weapons that have been hit IRL. In most cases they become just scrap metal and the bullet is still lethal when it comes out the other side.

[insumsnoy 4]

The game crashes whenever lead vehicle in a convoy detonates a slam mine. I havent had time to try it with other explosives because i have to go to work. I discovered this while making a new mission and it happens every time.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=22386

[metralla 19]

The game crashes whenever lead vehicle in a convoy detonates a slam mine. I havent had time to try it with other explosives because i have to go to work. I discovered this while making a new mission and it happens every time.

Confirmed, I tested it with one explosive charge and also the game crashes, only when you edit a convoy of 2 or more vehicles. :bye:

EXE rev. 128957 (game)

[x3kj 1247]

the fire geometry of weapons does not factor in thin sheet metal. As of now they (vanilla) have all been solid pieces of metal. Most weapons are ~ 2-5 cm thick... you can only penetrate that much metal by large caliber AP bullets, basically acting like a shield. The best stance for protection is if you hold the rifle down, so its infront of your chest. The larger your weapon the bigger your "shield" is.

The material for weapons just should be changed to have less density/more penetrability but same appearance as metal.

[Brisse 78]

Indeed. A new penetration material specific for infantry weapons with fragile metal parts would be nice. Plastic parts should just use the one currently named "plastic" which works fine. The barrel and bolt carrier of the weapon could use the old "metal" penetration material they currently use. Those parts are so small anyway, so the odds for them stopping a projectile is very small.

[james2464 177]

If you click on a mod icon in the main menu, it will redirect you and display this script error: (Dev Branch)

21:09:14 Global namespace not passed during: false
21:09:14 Global namespace not passed during: false
21:09:14 Error in expression <false>
21:09:14   Error position: <false>
21:09:14   Error Local variable in global space
21:09:14 Global namespace not passed during: false
21:09:14 Global namespace not passed during: false
21:09:14 Error in expression <false>
21:09:14   Error position: <false>
21:09:14   Error Local variable in global space
21:09:14 Error loading control config.bin/RscDisplayModLauncher/controls/CA_ValueMods/

Edited January 22, 2015 by James2464

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=22397

Rather serious visual bug I think require some urgent attention. Huron in 1.38 can now fly without rotors! In all seriousness, it is a visual bug and I think if expect people to purchase the helicopter in DLC it requires immediate fix. Many bugs only noticed by those of us who bang away at A3 for awhile. But bugs like these, everyone notice, even beginners and prospective DLC buyers.

1:15

OaIoOD9dFJ8

Edited January 22, 2015 by MDCCLXXVI

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Just a not note on the new rifle picture, it doesn't have a brass deflector on the ejection port.

[roberthammer 582]

Just a not note on the new rifle picture, it doesn't have a brass deflector on the ejection port.

Neither AK or VSS :p

[oldy41 61]

Is it just me or is the right mouse button still messed up with the latest build?

It still opens and closes the menu. I tried to unmap the default binding for closing the menu, but this does not help.

[Mr. Charles 22]

Is it just me or is the right mouse button still messed up with the latest build?

It still opens and closes the menu. I tried to unmap the default binding for closing the menu, but this does not help.

Yup I have the same issue. Quite irritating when the command menu plops up and closes all the time in the left of your field of view.

[2nd ranger 282]

Yeah. You can stop it by unbinding right mouse from 'Back' in the controls, but then you can't use the right mouse for closing the action menu, comms menu, etc.

[oldy41 61]

Yeah. You can stop it by unbinding right mouse from 'Back' in the controls, but then you can't use the right mouse for closing the action menu, comms menu, etc.

Tried to find the 'Back' binding, but I couldn't. Where is it?

[R3vo 2654]

Hey folks,

Great update, but I've just discoverd an issue with the new performance button.

Picture

Is it supposed to look like this? Is there a button to scroll down?

[2nd ranger 282]

Tried to find the 'Back' binding, but I couldn't. Where is it?

Uh... that might have been the problem actually. There was a 'back' bind under the 'Common' category, but it's gone now. It might have been renamed to 'Close Context Menu', unless they were both there before and were conflicting. Anyway, the issue seems to be fixed now.

[Locklear 214]

Rather serious visual bug I think require some urgent attention. Huron in 1.38 can now fly without rotors! In all seriousness, it is a visual bug and I think if expect people to purchase the helicopter in DLC it requires immediate fix. Many bugs only noticed by those of us who bang away at A3 for awhile. But bugs like these, everyone notice, even beginners and prospective DLC buyers.

Thank you for reporting this, we are currently working on a fix, which shall be implemented soon.