General Discussion (dev branch)

[instagoat 133]

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?149636-Development-Branch-Changelog&p=2889086&viewfull=1#post2889086 <- the very last lines lead me to believe that the next setting will be a fictional south american country during the 1960s.

My faith is firm!

[insumsnoy 4]

I think it just means he is off to San Francisco for GDC 2015 next week.

[Jackal326 1173]

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?149636-Development-Branch-Changelog&p=2889086&viewfull=1#post2889086 <- the very last lines lead me to believe that the next setting will be a fictional south american country during the 1960s.

My faith is firm!

You mean "Read: preparing for an epic voyage to the New World."?

Because I think thats just a play on DnA being Dutch, and him going to San Francisco for the GDC...But you know, I'm up for some wild speculation too, I mean, who isn't?

[instagoat 133]

I think it just means he is off to San Francisco for GDC 2015 next week.

Don't spoil my faith, nonbeliever!

You mean "Read: preparing for an epic voyage to the New World."?

Because I think thats just a play on DnA being Dutch, and him going to San Francisco for the GDC...But you know, I'm up for some wild speculation too, I mean, who isn't?

Yeah, that.

I'm just hoping for something completely different this time. Some semi temperate south american terrain would be great, maybe landlocked like Chernarus was too. But this time with procedurally generated terrain around that actually has trees.

As for the 60s setting, there was so much cool gear around in South America during that time that's not been in the games yet. FALs, AR-15s, Kalashnikovs, WW2 surplus, AMX-13s and Kürassiers, modified Shermans, Chaffees, as well as russian gear, etc, etc.

It would just be great. Some of that equipment can also be used as insurgency gear in modern settings, so it combines nicely.

[Jackal326 1173]

I'm just hoping for something completely different this time. Some semi temperate south american terrain would be great, maybe landlocked like Chernarus was too. But this time with procedurally generated terrain around that actually has trees.

Chernarus had a coastline, do you mean Takistan?

[enex 11]

I noticed that GMG turret has flashes when it fires grenades.To my knowledge (look up mk19 footage) it only emits

smoke, no flashes because it fires grenades not bullets.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

You guys are so awesome. Almost everything I have proposed (dispersion, initspeed etc.) in this thread, you guys have implemented, even when ingame difference is less than marginal :)

Some people say BI does not listen to feedback. I say they are wrong. BI clearly listens. We now have weapon stabilization, sound overhaul and all kinds of things the community has asked for.

Edit:- NVM I misunderstood the changelog.

Edited February 27, 2015 by da12thMonkey

[Brisse 78]

I think you misunderstood. They did not change the way you input those numbers. They just tweaked the values of the vanilla weapons and used somewhat realistic values. They probably did some research on how accurate each weapon system actually is.

Unless of course it means you can do it with an operator like dispersion="MOA 2"; like you can do degrees to radians conversions with the rad operator in a model.cfg e.g. angle1="rad 81";. That would be superb.

Maybe they did. I don't know, but what I do know is that you can still input data in radians, as it's always been done.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Yea I realised that after, since using MOA as the input units instead of radians instead of just the basis for calculation would have completely buggered the ingame results with existing weapons instead of just making a "less than marginal" difference.

Initially thought I read it under the "Engine" changes which usually indicates a change in the core mechanics of how things are calculated, instead of it just being a "Data" change like it actually is - hence my confusion about that the change actually meant.

[Brisse 78]

Changed: New reticle for SOS scope

Looks like developers replaced the reticle for both LRPS and SOS. I assume it was only intended for SOS? The old mil-dot reticle is not present in any scope now. I miss it, and I want it back in at least one of the scopes :)

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Question that's been bothering me in the back of my head. In terms of Bipods and such... Will there be an additional spot for this in the attachments GUI? Because as of right now, it'd mean that we would have to trade one attachment for the other, which isn't realistic. Many of the guns have full rail systems, and can accommodate all available attachments, such as the Laser, Bipods, Suppressor, and scope. But it wouldn't be ideal to force the choice of say, Bipod over a laser sight, or scope or the likes.

Thoughts?

[supercereal4 29]

Fixed: Attempt to fix discrepancies between VR entities and their soldiers counterparts

What does this mean? When I first read this I thought that the VR entities would have the same hitpoints as regular soldiers, but when I loaded up the VR Arsenal, I was proven wrong. Right now an unarmored VR entity in the VR Arsenal can survive 3-4 point blank headshots from a 9mm, and 1 from a 6.5mm. This is vastly different from "regular" soldiers, who can't survive a point blank headshot from a 6.5mm even when they're wearing a helmet. So I must ask, why do the VR entities have such high hitpoints? It creates some confusion when I'm trying to test the power of weapons in the VR Arsenal and I can't get a good representation of the weapons' power because the VR entity and regular soldier hitpoints differ greatly.

[Healbeam 10]

Question that's been bothering me in the back of my head. In terms of Bipods and such... Will there be an additional spot for this in the attachments GUI? Because as of right now, it'd mean that we would have to trade one attachment for the other, which isn't realistic. Many of the guns have full rail systems, and can accommodate all available attachments, such as the Laser, Bipods, Suppressor, and scope. But it wouldn't be ideal to force the choice of say, Bipod over a laser sight, or scope or the likes.

Thoughts?

I was assuming that you can only use bipods on weapons that already have bipods. I'd be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong.

[Robalo 465]

I think you misunderstood. They did not change the way you input those numbers. They just tweaked the values of the vanilla weapons and used somewhat realistic values. They probably did some research on how accurate each weapon system actually is.

Maybe they did. I don't know, but what I do know is that you can still input data in radians, as it's always been done.

You can write MOA in your configs if you like. Use a macro.

#define __MOA(__X) dispersion = __EVAL(__X * 0.0002909)

class Tavor_base_F: Rifle_Base_F {
	class Single: Mode_SemiAuto {
		__MOA(1.5); //=> dispersion = 0.00043635;
	};
};

On another topic, does anyone know, is the stance modifier key still missing in dev ?

Edited February 27, 2015 by Robalo

[Sniperwolf572 758]

On another topic, does anyone know, is the stance modifier key still missing in dev ?

From what I can tell, it's been split into 4:

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I was assuming that you can only use bipods on weapons that already have bipods. I'd be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong.

No, they've stated that Bipods would be an additional source for support, over regular deployment without bipods or other attachments.

[SilentSpike 84]

No, they've stated that Bipods would be an additional source for support, over regular deployment without bipods or other attachments.

They never said they would be attachments though.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

They never said they would be attachments though.

It seems to be implied:

Currently, Weapon Deployment is not planned to be dependent upon attachments; rather, bipods offer additional handling / stability advantages.

That's the plan. Attachments like bipods help...

^^I take the first quote to mean that you don't have to have a bipod to deploy the weapon, rather than the deploying with a bipod isn't done using attachments. AFAIK this notion of bipod-free deployment (irrespective of whether bipods are inventory slot-based attachments or not) has been confirmed.

Though it is possible that RiE just means weapons modelled with a bipod attachment, rather than what we understand to be attachments within the context of the weapon customisation system.

Edited February 27, 2015 by da12thMonkey

[royaltyinexile 175]

It seems to be implied

To clear up any uncertainty, we approach Deployment in 3 ways: with a (de/attachable) bipod, with a bipod that's (permanently) part of the weapon, and with no bipod at all.

All weapons can be modified, but not all weapons are equally modifiable; i.e., attachment slots (for bipods, suppressors, etc.) are defined by the compatibility of the weapon itself: not all weapons has every slot enabled; not all 'attachments' are necessarily removable.

Hope that helps!

[CaptainObvious 95]

Sounds great!

[vegeta897 13]

Doesn't answer DS6's original question of where in the inventory UI the bipod will go. Whether it shares a space with the flashlight/laser slot (not very ideal), or if it will be a new slot.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Well it confirms that we can make bipods as an de/attachable attachment and they'll be treated as a separate slot in terms of what is allowed in that slot, so that clears some things up. :)

I think we had a fair idea that not all weapons will have all slots enabled because there are already things like the Zafir, M320 and Lynx that don't have an active Muzzle slot (for silencers) and IIRC the Rahim doesn't have a PointerSlot by default (for flashlights, IR lasers etc.), so some weapons not having a bipod slot will be fair enough: PDW2000, MX 3GL, Katiba and other things that don't have space for a 6-o'clock rail attachment for example.

But I think what people like DarkSideSixOfficial were wondering was whether having a attachment slot for de/attachable bipods will be a fourth slot in the inventory, or whether weapons can still only have three attachments (one in each type of slot). i.e whether it's a scenarios such that:

When configuring a weapon with a bipod slot...

1. ... it effectively takes the place of one of the other slots we are used to seeing ingame (whether active or not on a particular weapon) such that if one created a weapon that has to have has a "BipodSlot" and a COWSslot, it can then only have a MuzzleSlot or a PointerSlot, not both.
   
2. ... you can still potentially have a COWSslot, MuzzleSlot and PointerSlot as well, but a player can only attach three items from their inventory to their weapon at any given time and one of the slots must remain empty.
   

If that were the case, I would be kind of curious about what impact that might have on commands like primaryWeaponItems, handgunItems etc. since currently they are all standardised to return an array where indexes are such that 1 = muzzleSlot, 2 = pointerSlot, 3 = cowsSlot, even if the weapon doesn't have the slot enabled by having no items assigned in the compatibleItems[] array or class CompatibleItems - the index just returns a nil value. If it's just a straight up 4th slot I imagine it'd just return an array with 4 indexes, so no problem.

[Robalo 465]

From what I can tell, it's been split into 4:

http://i.imgur.com/w8XZ9EQ.png

Thanks Sniperwolf, just checked myself as I could not believe it.

For the love of ARMA why ?! It's impossible to map mouse button instead of left ctrl to emulate current 1.38 controls. I tried the new scheme, having forced to give up on using thumb mouse button, the result is getting stuck figuring out controls, death and rage.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=22872

[chortles 263]

Funny thing is, I only remember ever using LCtrl+WSAD anyway so that screenshot lines up with what I was already doing...

[Robalo 465]

Funny thing is, I only remember ever using LCtrl+WSAD anyway so that screenshot lines up with what I was already doing...

Lucky you. I use a different key setup since I was a kid (playing games tv loaded from tape cassettes on my hc-90 computer) and could never adapt to the "industry standard" WASD. I use left CRTL for push to talk (teamspeak) and thumb button (mouse #4) for stance adjustment.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Robalo