Jump to content

Recommended Posts

People complain about rotors not flexing, and meanwhile basic features like ballistics are so off, I can't penetrate the thinnest wall there is with a HEAT/HE tank shell ... :o

Just kidding.

But joke aside, we need some fine tuning on the tank shell ballistics.

HEAT and HE should not explode by striking a bush or even only some leaves.

In fact, we finally need a penetration value for HEAT and HE shells.

Before people start bitching:

Exactly those HE rounds the Arma 3 Leo 2 and Merkava use come with a feature in real life, where the crew can program the shell to either explode on contact, oe explode a certain time after impact.

Which means, these shells are made to be effective against targets behind cover and in buildings and are currently in use.

They are able to penetrate massive concrete walls and detonate inside the building.

HEAT needs a bit of penetration, too, since that's the purpose of HEAT.

Penetrate armor and shower the people inside with molten metal.

And last but not least, AP tank shells need a small area damage - to simulate the shrapnel (metal, rock, brick, concrete, etc.) that necessarily will be accelerated around the place if such a 10kg depleted uranium penetrator rod impacts into sonething solid beside you or punching through a concrete wall right beside you at nearly 1500 m/s.

Currently, you can fire exactly that 10kg rod at 1500 m/s into a wall right beside some soldiers head and he won't move a single muscle.

Oh and I almost forgot.

While talking about ballistics .. please guys. The 30mm HE shells are way too weak. I mean the area damage.

Currently, you need to hit as close as <1m to do any damage at all to infantry.

Usually, you need multiple hits as close as 0.5 - 1m to kill infantry.

Only direct hits will kill instantly.

That is not realistic for a modern 30mm HE round.

Same goes for the 20mm and in case you guys consider tweaking those, please don't forget to adapt the 40mm HE to that.

Not that important, but yea, the 30mm Gatling of the Wipeout isn't anywhere close to the firepower of its real life counterpart.

Considering affected area and damage to armored vehicles.

At least MRAPs, but also APCs should recieve significant damage by those rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be cool if there was a config value were we could set the amount of penetration required (RHAe) to detonate a explosive shell. Many modern HEAT shells are designed to detonate only after significant penetration in hard materials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Merlin should have rotor flex as well (without having tested it). The rotors of merlin and littlebird also flex into the direction where you push your cyclic.

This is because both helicopters are ported from Take on Helicopters, where Bohemia spend a bit more love on helicopters.

Here is an example.

http://www.aviastar.org/foto/eurocopter_ec-155_1.jpg

Look at how the main rotor while spinning is kinda upwards, at an angle, like a dish. For example, when the rotor is not moving, gravity has it downwards, like so.

The MH-9 is, and Mohawk, as you said, are the only Helicopter with proper models at different states. The others are just flat, and doesn't look good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We really need a tweak for the ballistics of the higher caliber projectiles, especially tank shells.

I mean, these are basic, core features and mechanisms of a military simulator.

If those core mechanism are aren't right, then all the fancy stuff around isn't worth anything.

These core mechanism have to get more realistic.

It's kind of sad. It really feels like vehicles and vehicle armament are treated as orphan.

I mean, we got all that detailed diving stuff, that uber fancy helicopter flight model, complex and detailed small arms ballistics, tons of different infantry weapons.

But the 20-125mm armament ballistics and core mechanism are way off, or lack very basic features.

So come on guys, vehicles need love, too ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But joke aside, we need some fine tuning on the tank shell ballistics.

HEAT and HE should not explode by striking a bush or even only some leaves.

ticket already exists

Unfortunately "acknowledged" means nothing anymore, since all feature requests get auto-acknowleged

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems that today's patch broke drawIcon using centre-aligned text.

http://i.imgur.com/7GKbEj3.png (954 kB)

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=24009

The issue I'm seeing with drawIcon is that BIS changed the default alignment. My icons always drew like this:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=382589870 (Notice there's the icon and then my name)

Now here's how it looks as of 1.44 (no code changes since I played last night on 1.42):

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=438528111

This change should be reverted as there's no reason it should have been changed in the first place. Now every mission using drawIcon will have to go back, find all uses of it and add 3 parameters (because text align is the last optional parameter).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... did anyone else notice the Gorgon and Strider exhibit weird behavior in water at times, in contrast to the Marshall and Marid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue I'm seeing with drawIcon is that BIS changed the default alignment. My icons always drew like this:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=382589870 (Notice there's the icon and then my name)

Now here's how it looks as of 1.44 (no code changes since I played last night on 1.42):

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=438528111

This change should be reverted as there's no reason it should have been changed in the first place. Now every mission using drawIcon will have to go back, find all uses of it and add 3 parameters (because text align is the last optional parameter).

Hi there. Thanks for the report in the first place. I will explain what has happened:

We have fixed the text align for drawIcon3D and set it to "align to center" to prevent change of the default behavior (as for drawIcon3D text was previously always aligned to center). As result the default text align of drawIcon changed to center as well. I have checked with our programmers if there is any connection and there is. I reported the issue. The fix should be very simple.

If you are not desperate you don't need to do anything, the text will start to align correctly with the new exe. If you want to fix it quickly, you will need to search for all occurrence of drawIcon command and add the optional text align param there.

Hope it helps. Sorry for the troubles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi there. Thanks for the report in the first place. I will explain what has happened:

We have fixed the text align for drawIcon3D and set it to "align to center" to prevent change of the default behavior (as for drawIcon3D text was previously always aligned to center). As result the default text align of drawIcon changed to center as well. I have checked with our programmers if there is any connection and there is. I reported the issue. The fix should be very simple.

If you are not desperate you don't need to do anything, the text will start to align correctly with the new exe. If you want to fix it quickly, you will need to search for all occurrence of drawIcon command and add the optional text align param there.

Hope it helps. Sorry for the troubles.

Thanks for the explanation. I only had 6 calls to drawIcon throughout my code, so it didn't take long for me to fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi there. Thanks for the report in the first place. I will explain what has happened:

We have fixed the text align for drawIcon3D and set it to "align to center" to prevent change of the default behavior (as for drawIcon3D text was previously always aligned to center). As result the default text align of drawIcon changed to center as well. I have checked with our programmers if there is any connection and there is. I reported the issue. The fix should be very simple.

If you are not desperate you don't need to do anything, the text will start to align correctly with the new exe. If you want to fix it quickly, you will need to search for all occurrence of drawIcon command and add the optional text align param there.

Hope it helps. Sorry for the troubles.

Hey, Warkonaut, could you please look at drawIcon3D align again, it doesn't look like it has been fixed entirely: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=23700

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We really need a tweak for the ballistics of the higher caliber projectiles, especially tank shells.

I mean, these are basic, core features and mechanisms of a military simulator.

If those core mechanism are aren't right, then all the fancy stuff around isn't worth anything.

These core mechanism have to get more realistic.

It's kind of sad. It really feels like vehicles and vehicle armament are treated as orphan.

I mean, we got all that detailed diving stuff, that uber fancy helicopter flight model, complex and detailed small arms ballistics, tons of different infantry weapons.

But the 20-125mm armament ballistics and core mechanism are way off, or lack very basic features.

So come on guys, vehicles need love, too ;)

Specify? I know that they shouldn't explode from bushes, but what else is wrong with them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Specify? I know that they shouldn't explode from bushes, but what else is wrong with them?

As said in my posting before that one.

But joke aside, we need some fine tuning on the tank shell ballistics.

HEAT and HE should not explode by striking a bush or even only some leaves.

In fact, we finally need a penetration value for HEAT and HE shells.

Before people start bitching:

Exactly those HE rounds the Arma 3 Leo 2 and Merkava use come with a feature in real life, where the crew can program the shell to either explode on contact, oe explode a certain time after impact.

Which means, these shells are made to be effective against targets behind cover and in buildings and are currently in use.

They are able to penetrate massive concrete walls and detonate inside the building.

HEAT needs a bit of penetration, too, since that's the purpose of HEAT.

Penetrate armor and shower the people inside with molten metal.

And last but not least, AP tank shells need a small area damage - to simulate the shrapnel (metal, rock, brick, concrete, etc.) that necessarily will be accelerated around the place if such a 10kg depleted uranium penetrator rod impacts into sonething solid beside you or punching through a concrete wall right beside you at nearly 1500 m/s.

Currently, you can fire exactly that 10kg rod at 1500 m/s into a wall right beside some soldiers head and he won't move a single muscle.

Oh and I almost forgot.

While talking about ballistics .. please guys. The 30mm HE shells are way too weak. I mean the area damage.

Currently, you need to hit as close as <1m to do any damage at all to infantry.

Usually, you need multiple hits as close as 0.5 - 1m to kill infantry.

Only direct hits will kill instantly.

That is not realistic for a modern 30mm HE round.

Same goes for the 20mm and in case you guys consider tweaking those, please don't forget to adapt the 40mm HE to that.

Not that important, but yea, the 30mm Gatling of the Wipeout isn't anywhere close to the firepower of its real life counterpart.

Considering affected area and damage to armored vehicles.

At least MRAPs, but also APCs should recieve significant damage by those rounds.

That is the actual real life HE-T shell for the Leopard 2 (Kuma): http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Tuesday14105ewert.pdf

And here the US counterpart: http://www.gd-ots.com/download/120mm%20IM%20HE-T.pdf

(Although, the German fact-sheet claims the German round is actually in service in case of the US Marine Corps.)

Of course, Israel will use one of these for their Merkava (Slammer), since it actually has the exact same 120mm cannon.

(I have no info about the Russian 125mm HE shell, but I'm pretty sure the Russians have HE rounds with similar properties and features available.)

As stated in the info-sheets, these HE shells can be programmed to either detonate after a certain distance, on contact, or after penetrating something.

Forget about the air burst in Arma, but at least I want to be able to penetrate walls with the HE shells.

And for HEAT. These rounds are made to penetrate something solid and then shower people, usually inside an armored vehicle, with molten metal. The concept absolutely will also work in case of a common wall. So HEAT shells need a penetration value, too.

Oh and not to forget about the small area damage for APs, as described in the quoted post.

Edited by pils

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As said in my posting before that one.

That is the actual real life HE-T shell for the Leopard 2 (Kuma): http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Tuesday14105ewert.pdf

And here the US counterpart: http://www.gd-ots.com/download/120mm%20IM%20HE-T.pdf

(Although, the German fact-sheet claims the German round is actually in service in case of the US Marine Corps.)

Of course, the Israel will use one of these for their Merkava (Slammer), since it actually has the exact same 120mm cannon.

(I have no info about the Russian 125mm HE shell, but I'm pretty sure the Russians have HE rounds with similar properties and features available.)

As stated in the info-sheets, these HE shells can be programmed to either detonate after a certain distance, on contact, or after penetrating something.

Forget about the air burst in Arma, but at least I want to be able to penetrate walls with the HE shells.

And for HEAT. These rounds are made to penetrate something solid and then shower people, usually inside an armored vehicle, with molten metal. The concept absolutely will also work in case of a common wall. So HEAT shells need a penetration value, too.

Oh and not to forget about the small area damage for APs, as described in the quoted post.

In addition, it seems that HE shells are really weak against infantry groups in open fields. Sometimes infantry survives even a hit at < 1m distance.

Furthermore, if we are already talking about tanks, why don't they use smoke, and their main guns against infantry ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impressed with the End Game thing - But please developers, HIRE Benny and let him make Warfare BE in Arma 3. Its a perfect game mode for beginners as well as veterans with JIP and a interesting way to play. Its whats serverhosters need and keep a good populated server running for months :) Maybe even get a GossamerSolid version

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ cri74: That would require BI to make an offer which Benny would be interested in enough to uproot to the Czech Republic (a de facto job requirement).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was playing around with the Defend Module System yesterday for the first time only to find that its broken and has been for awhile it seems.

Does anyone have any news on its progress ?

Is it ever going to be fixed ?

Seems strange to still have access to the modules when they don't work.

BUMP! No Curator Synchronized error.

Do any Devs have any news on its progress ?

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little bit disappointed that the revive and group manager modules didn't make it into 1.44. Any ETA on those?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Varanon and myself are having a serious issue with the workshop. We publish our missions under the "FHQ" logo and generally have each other entered as contributors. However, a number of my missions do not show up in my own workshop anymore, and likewise, a number of Varanon's mission do not show up in his workshop anymore.

Generally:

  1. All missions show up in at least one workshop
  2. A specific number of missions show up in the contributors workshop but NOT in the authors workshop.
  3. Some missions are visible in both workshops
  4. Publisher displays the correct missions, but is unable to update them

I have done a Google sheet with the missions including links to the workshop pages, marked with the original author and who's workshop they show up in. The red lines are those that are only visible in the contributors workshop.

Ticket on the issue tracker: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=24060

Google sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HY-AqdyHOutBlvF6Klc4CobTo64knOb1iMU4NznMq-w/edit?usp=sharing

Anyone else having similar issues? The issue shows up both in stable branch as well as in Dev.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a little bit disappointed that the revive and group manager modules didn't make it into 1.44. Any ETA on those?
BI declared intent for such functionality (currently via description.ext parameters and a function respectively) to eventually be engine-supported but never mentioned Editor modules as a step along the way to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have they ever think about the idea of switch the weapon while running or walking?? Its a bit ridicullous stop running to take of the handgun :raisebrow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
have they ever think about the idea of switch the weapon while running or walking?? Its a bit ridicullous stop running to take of the handgun :raisebrow:

We should be able to change at walking or tactical pace, but not running or sprinting in my opinion. If one tries to execute the switch at running or sprinting speed, the best solution would be to force tactical speed temporarily during the change.

To make things even more complicated, the primary weapon should probably be carried in a sling hanging on the front of the character (when switching to sidearm) instead of having the character put it on his back. It makes sense to stop to put rifle on your back, so to make a new system that makes sense is probably more complicated than you might think.

As I said, a good fix for this problem is going to be complicated, but might be well worth the effort. I hope they will look into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To make things even more complicated, the primary weapon should probably be carried in a sling hanging on the front of the character (when switching to sidearm) instead of having the character put it on his back. It makes sense to stop to put rifle on your back, so to make a new system that makes sense is probably more complicated than you might think.

As I said, a good fix for this problem is going to be complicated, but might be well worth the effort. I hope they will look into it.

That would require so many animation changes that it is not going to happen unfortunately. Still, i would be happy with a faster change at max tactical speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×