General Discussion (dev branch)

[xxgetbuck123 945]

Arma 3s accelerated combat means that Jets are way too fast paced for guns to be of any real use in Air to Air.

 

1) Cannons usually have very low damage output thus no one really uses them. 

 

2) The minimum engagement distance for ASRAAMs is pretty much gun range anyway so there is no real point wasting gun ammo when you can just wait for the perfect missile shot. 

 

3) The manoeuvrability of ASRAAMs means that in dogfighting you can sling a missile at like 80 degrees bore sight from point blank and hit 50% of the time, thus the need for guns is negated once again. 

 

When you compared DCS dogfighting (of which yes they're 2 completely different games), you get this

 

1) DCS Cannons have very high damage output thus they're usually a prime weapon choice in dogfighting. 

 

2) The minimum engagement range of the ASRAAMs is still quite larger or right on the edge of the gun lock range (which is still a quite a distance), meaning while dogfighting you only really resort to missiles if you have a perfect shot or the area of engagement gets too large. 

 

3) The manoeuvrability of the missiles is high, as they are IRL, but they cannot do what they do in Arma, thus pilots usually save their missiles for the perfect shot or they just use the old reliable gun. 

[scavenjer 112]

19 minutes ago, xxgetbuck123 said:

Arma 3s accelerated combat means that Jets are way too fast paced for guns to be of any real use in Air to Air.

 

1) Cannons usually have very low damage output thus no one really uses them. 

 

2) The minimum engagement distance for ASRAAMs is pretty much gun range anyway so there is no real point wasting gun ammo when you can just wait for the perfect missile shot. 

 

3) The manoeuvrability of ASRAAMs means that in dogfighting you can sling a missile at like 80 degrees bore sight from point blank and hit 50% of the time, thus the need for guns is negated once again. 

 

When you compared DCS dogfighting (of which yes they're 2 completely different games), you get this

 

1) DCS Cannons have very high damage output thus they're usually a prime weapon choice in dogfighting. 

 

2) The minimum engagement range of the ASRAAMs is still quite larger or right on the edge of the gun lock range (which is still a quite a distance), meaning while dogfighting you only really resort to missiles if you have a perfect shot or the area of engagement gets too large. 

 

3) The manoeuvrability of the missiles is high, as they are IRL, but they cannot do what they do in Arma, thus pilots usually save their missiles for the perfect shot or they just use the old reliable gun. 

Yes, both of you that understand the core issues :).

I don't mind arma having its own special balance and implementing complex things as airbursts etc would need to be part of a DLC.

 

If only jets were a little bit more susceptible to cannon fire, you don't have to make cannon fire itself better.

 

Also I fully agree with the short range missile thing, honestly all A2A missiles should have a minium range of atleast 1KM, I've seen plenty of missiles curve through the air in less space than a car can turn.

 

I know desync is something very little can be done about but it would help if this was taken into account so that PvP combat doesn't end up being random and frustrating.

 

The devs have already made good steps in the right direction and I think more are to come if only we, the players, provide feedback.

[lex__1 422]

When will the assault take place at https://feedback.bistudio.com/
and the tasks will receive a priority vision or a dump of these questions will receive the order of things and terms of performance of tasks? Read the comments - "Hello. Thank you for the report, we ill have a look at" in the problems of four years ago, frustrating.

 

[D_Donskoy 50]

On 13.12.2017 at 2:13 AM, D_Donskoy said:

Still to BI.

Still a wish: civilian traffic module, warfare module and ... aaa ACM module and ... aaa  dynamic ambient life on all islands (with animals, peoples, traffics, air traffics, water traffic, etc.).

Why I still ask this - because all islands is beautiful they are super - 100 km2, but... empty!

Thank. 

O... and this - very cool!!!

 

Still a wish.

[Rhyder_Morra 74]

Vehicle interiors amazing, but i think its better to add additional monitor for gunner and move turret info to it

[nkenny 1057]

@oukej

Will the CROWS turrents on the MRAPs also see some accuracy tweaks? They've always struck me as too accurate. Sometimes to the detriment of good gameplay.

 

-k

[scavenjer 112]

3 minutes ago, nkenny said:

@oukej

Will the CROWS turrents on the MRAPs also see some accuracy tweaks? They've always struck me as too accurate. Sometimes to the detriment of good gameplay.

 

-k

AFAIK they've already been corrected, you can no longer snipe with them.

[scavenjer 112]

Another example of jets taking more damage then they should:

 

[R3vo 2654]

On dev the function viewer seems to use a undefined stringtable entry

Quote

STR_A3_RscFunctionsViewer_btnRecompileSelected

 

[Beagle 684]

1 hour ago, scavenjer said:

Another example of jets taking more damage then they should:

 

No fire solution and 900m zeroing... you simply did not hit it. PS: How is that cheat with the black boxes for far away aicraft working?

[scavenjer 112]

1 minute ago, Beagle said:

No fire solution and 900m zeroing... you simply did not hit it. PS: How is that cheat with the black boxes for far away aicraft working?

What are you smoking?

First off, that's not me.

Secondly, you can clearly see the hit.

Thirdly, black boxes cheat???

[Beagle 684]

2 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

What are you smoking?

First off, that's not me.

Secondly, you can clearly see the hit.

Thirdly, black boxes cheat???

All I can see it flares and the effects of rockets. I don't smoke at all.

[scavenjer 112]

1 minute ago, Beagle said:

All I can see it flares and the effects of rockets. I don't smoke at all.

Look again, when he fires, just up and right of the cockpit you can see sparks.

Those "black boxes" are blue boxes that indicate friendly jets (KoTH).

 

[Beagle 684]

17 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

Look again, when he fires, just up and right of the cockpit you can see sparks.

Those "black boxes" are blue boxes that indicate friendly jets (KoTH).

 

An even peripheral hit of a MBT-52 disingrates an Neophon from any range. You can check that yourself in the Editor. If any mission has altered damage values and other things, and  that not the problem auf vanilla ArmA III.

[scavenjer 112]

39 minutes ago, Beagle said:

An even peripheral hit of a MBT-52 disingrates an Neophon from any range. You can check that yourself in the Editor. If any mission has altered damage values and other things, and  that not the problem auf vanilla ArmA III.

Yes, it used to, but since Jets DLC they changed the HP and thus it's possible to hit but not kill with 1 shot.

NOT altered by KoTH

[oukej 2910]

Sabot round. Probably went through some noncritical part or ricocheted without loosing any energy thus without dealing any real damage. It's a damage modelling issue. We're aware of it.

[scavenjer 112]

Just now, oukej said:

Sabot round. Probably went through some noncritical part without loosing any energy thus without dealing any real damage. It's a damage modelling issue. We're aware of it.

Ah, good to know!

Could there also be an issue with the planes having too thick armour? We regularly see 20,30,35mm HE shells "bouncing" off the planes.

 

Or is that due to the ricochet angles?

 

I'll try to gather evidence and post it on the feedback site.

[Beagle 684]

4 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

Ah, good to know!

Could there also be an issue with the planes having too thick armour? We regularly see 20,30,35mm HE shells "bouncing" off the planes.

 

Or is that due to the ricochet angles?

 

I'll try to gather evidence and post it on the feedback site.

No plane has any real armour, the outer skin is always thin metal sheet, mostly aluminium alloy and steel. Ricochets should not happen at all. On the other hand, an AP shell would deal less damage then an explosive one and would only harsm the aircraft if an essential componet is hit. But Modern planes are usualy full of essential componets. Ive read before that Planes take too much cannon fire, but an 120mm main gun hit is too much, albeit I was not able to reproduce that by now.  HE should be more lethal anyway to any soft skinned vehicle.

[oukej 2910]

Just now, scavenjer said:

Ah, good to know!

Could there also be an issue with the planes having too thick armour? We regularly see 20,30,35mm HE shells "bouncing" off the planes.

 

Or is that due to the ricochet angles?

 

I'll try to gather evidence and post it on the feedback site.

The planes (except of Neophron or Wipeout) don't have any actual "armor". It's mainly kinetic rounds and anything that ricochets or penetrates the fuselage too cleanly (without hitting engine, control surf., etc.). Otherwise the idea remains that jets should be glass cannons and should be vulnerable even to small arms fire - they should rely mainly on speed and altitude.

[Beagle 684]

3 minutes ago, oukej said:

The planes (except of Neophron or Wipeout) don't have any actual "armor". It's mainly kinetic rounds and anything that ricochets or penetrates the fuselage too cleanly (without hitting engine, control surf., etc.). Otherwise the idea remains that jets should be glass cannons and should be vulnerable even to small arms fire - they should rely mainly on speed and altitude.

I was under the impression that the low damage effect of AP roudns on soft skinned targets was intended as a way to simulate overpenetration.

[scavenjer 112]

12 minutes ago, oukej said:

The planes (except of Neophron or Wipeout) don't have any actual "armor". It's mainly kinetic rounds and anything that ricochets or penetrates the fuselage too cleanly (without hitting engine, control surf., etc.). Otherwise the idea remains that jets should be glass cannons and should be vulnerable even to small arms fire - they should rely mainly on speed and altitude.

Yeah, I agree.

Though I have to admit that they're being viewed as too "tanky" by the king of the hill community.

And I honestly think they might need some tweaking.

[Beagle 684]

3 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

Yeah, I agree.

Though I have to admit that they're being viewed as too "tanky" by the king of the hill community.

And I honestly think they might need some tweaking.

I think That said "tankiness" is more a problem in regards to shrugging off AA missiles, ad that's an issue in all game modes.

[scavenjer 112]

1 hour ago, Beagle said:

I think That said "tankiness" is more a problem in regards to shrugging off AA missiles, ad that's an issue in all game modes.

Missiles seem to be random but in general cause more control/engine damage than cannons.

Cannons seem to either blow up a vehicle after firing of the vehicle is mostly fine.

[SuicideKing 233]

12 hours ago, Beagle said:

HE should be more lethal anyway to any soft skinned vehicle.

Should be, but I've seen prowlers and helicopters shrug off* HE tank rounds, while exploding from AP.

 

*just lose wheels or suffer non-hull damage.

[R3vo 2654]

Quote

Added: New "pixelPrecision" parameter (0(default AUTO), 1(ON), 2(OFF))

Added: New ctrlSetPixelPrecision script command  

Can we get some more information about those changes? Is pixelPrecision a parameter which needs to be applied to the control?