Sniper bullets have unrealistically low aerodynamic drag

[chortles 263]

Whereas I'd promptly remark that BF3 doesn't simulate killflash devices. :lol:

[PN11A 2]

We shouldnt promote realism to the point where it becomes annoying. However weapons should just be true to life, round count ballistics adjustments and etc. Being a Sniper is an annoying job it should be annoying in game also. It takes a certain type of person to want to get wet muddy and do a^2+b^2=c^2.

[lucable 10]

True, but some people enjoy being a sniper. It is not all annoying in the end. It's just like ArmA, it's not for everybody.

[PN11A 2]

True, but some people enjoy being a sniper. It is not all annoying in the end. It's just like ArmA, it's not for everybody.

Trust me, I know people who dig that whole thing I tease him about having texas tower syndrome. Anyway right now its not fun because I can just put rounds on target in A3 without any difficulty.

[Alwarren 2767]

This step away from real data has been done on purpose for gameplay sake - AI snipers weren't able to shoot at distances longer than 800 meters reliably, they didn't take zeroing that far into account. This would make player extremely overpowered at distances around a kilometre, where player is safe and still deadly with the rifle thanks to better zeroing skills. And nobody wants AI just sitting like ducks and waiting to be shot :icon_twisted:

Pardon my ignorance, but why not teach the AI to use zeroing instead of bending reality?

[Smurf 12]

Pardon my ignorance, but why not teach the AI to use zeroing instead of bending reality?

Or diferent configs for humans and AI, as the infamous AK burst.

[-Gews- 1]

Pardon my ignorance, but why not teach the AI to use zeroing instead of bending reality?

Mm hmm, in ArmA2 AI snipers would never take 1000m shots and it didn't affect my gameplay. Even then it was easy to get them to shoot at those distances by changing weapon config and mission editing...

[Alwarren 2767]

Mm hmm, in ArmA2 AI snipers would never take 1000m shots and it didn't affect my gameplay. Even then it was easy to get them to shoot at those distances by changing weapon config and mission editing...

That wasn't my point. I wondered if you wanted to make it possible for an AI sniper to engage at 1000 meters, then why not teach him how to use zeroing instead of "tweaking" the bullet's air friction.

I mean, I like the idea of AI snipers taking long shots. I once played a mission where a sniper team was supposedly covering you but never fired. I just have my doubts that unrealistic ballistics, especially if they also apply to human players, are the solution.

[.kju 3245]

The flip side is that its now even easier to hit targets as human, right?

[max power 21]

I get the feeling that the thread was created because the sentiment is that's a bad thing.

[.kju 3245]

It is a bad thing. Just trying to make clear what the "AI fix" is causing.

[eymerich 11]

This step away from real data has been done on purpose for gameplay sake - AI snipers weren't able to shoot at distances longer than 800 meters reliably, they didn't take zeroing that far into account. This would make player extremely overpowered at distances around a kilometre, where player is safe and still deadly with the rifle thanks to better zeroing skills. And nobody wants AI just sitting like ducks and waiting to be shot :icon_twisted:

With all the due respect for the dev's choice, in my opinion this betray the feeling of a simulation.

Otherwise, i fear that Arma could be beetwen a simulation and and arcade shooter: neither the first, nor the second.

Regards

[4 IN 1 0]

With all the due respect for the dev's choice, in my opinion this betray the feeling of a simulation.

Otherwise, i fear that Arma could be beetwen a simulation and and arcade shooter: neither the first, nor the second.

Regards

One example is TOH, when asked why hardcore FM is still a bit too off realistic the answer we get is that AI don't know how to fly them, and that actually pissed some simmer off.

[chortles 263]

One example is TOH, when asked why hardcore FM is still a bit too off realistic the answer we get is that AI don't know how to fly them, and that actually pissed some simmer off.

I vaguely recall a dev taking a position that was essentially "what we can implement will be limited by what we can get the AI to do" in the case of Arma 3; that was the reported reason for the lack of 'true' underground in Arma 3/Real Virtuality 4, that they couldn't get Arma 3 AI to handle underground even though VBS2 AI (on the RV2 or RV3 engines) had already been capable of doing so.

Do you have a link to that simmer's post, by any chance?

[dmarkwick 261]

I vaguely recall a dev taking a position that was essentially "what we can implement will be limited by what we can get the AI to do" in the case of Arma 3; that was the reported reason for the lack of 'true' underground in Arma 3/Real Virtuality 4, that they couldn't get Arma 3 AI to handle underground even though VBS2 AI (on the RV2 or RV3 engines) had already been capable of doing so.

Do you have a link to that simmer's post, by any chance?

I think the reality is more like: the underground structures exist in VBS2 despite the AI not being able to handle it.

[mordeaniischaos 3]

This step away from real data has been done on purpose for gameplay sake - AI snipers weren't able to shoot at distances longer than 800 meters reliably, they didn't take zeroing that far into account. This would make player extremely overpowered at distances around a kilometre, where player is safe and still deadly with the rifle thanks to better zeroing skills. And nobody wants AI just sitting like ducks and waiting to be shot :icon_twisted:

Then fix the AI, don't change the ballistics. I hope this isn't common practice at BI, but considering the issues with the AI and engine we see every day, I'm starting to worry it might be. "The proper fix would be a bit more challenging so we'll just do it the easy way, and compromise on quality!" This is why ArmA has so many legacy problems. They are never solved then they come up and then 10 years later it's too deep in to fix without reworking the whole damn game.

And considering the AI is a full auto sniper even at the lowest difficulty at the moment, making them less reliable at great ranges sounds okay to me. You also just made it even easier for human players to overcome the biggest blocking point in shooting at range: taking into account elevation and windage. Instead of it being like in ACE2 where the wind makes it damn near impossible to land the same shot twice, you just make it super easy to line up shots. If the player is familiar with sniping, they still destroy enemy AI. Remember, most shots miss at range. Even with optics and training, no one hits with every round, even highly trained, elite snipers miss. The everyday DM with an infantry squad isn't even at that level, and they usually don't have the option to get setup the way for example a scout sniper team would. I don't think I've ever really seen anyone try and have an AI sniper team working on nailing targets past 800m, so I don't see the need for it. 800m is a pretty significant distance. It's the max effective point target range on most modern combat rifles. Make windage and elevation realistic for the player, and they too should have trouble hitting at that range with run of the mill combat rifles. Less so with a precision rifle but even then it shouldn't be an easy shot.

Fix the problem, don't cover it up.

[maturin 12]

And your participation in the hysterical hyperbole parade makes fixing the problem harder.

[mr.g-c 6]

One example is TOH, when asked why hardcore FM is still a bit too off realistic the answer we get is that AI don't know how to fly them, and that actually pissed some simmer off.

Right and i agree.

In the case of a realistic flight model and AI - simply let AI use a more simple flight model which they CAN handle.

Same goes for our issue here with the wrong config values for sniper bullets.

Teach AI how to realistically spot and engage over long ranges and if not, who cares?

Personally i dont expect the AI to attack over such ranges at all - as it was never the case in ArmA1 or 2, despite we had long range rifle made by BIS or the community.

[4 IN 1 0]

Right and i agree.

In the case of a realistic flight model and AI - simply let AI use a more simple flight model which they CAN handle.

Same goes for our issue here with the wrong config values for sniper bullets.

Teach AI how to realistically spot and engage over long ranges and if not, who cares?

Personally i dont expect the AI to attack over such ranges at all - as it was never the case in ArmA1 or 2, despite we had long range rifle made by BIS or the community.

Agreed, but I too also starts to think that not actually fixing a problem have becoming some sort of norms.

I vaguely recall a dev taking a position that was essentially "what we can implement will be limited by what we can get the AI to do" in the case of Arma 3; that was the reported reason for the lack of 'true' underground in Arma 3/Real Virtuality 4, that they couldn't get Arma 3 AI to handle underground even though VBS2 AI (on the RV2 or RV3 engines) had already been capable of doing so.

Do you have a link to that simmer's post, by any chance?

Unfortunately no, it was some dude engaged in a private conversation.

[zooloo75 834]

BIS should hire more SQF scripters :)

[-Gews- 1]

There have been improvements in this way on engine side that made real values usable in game. Could you, please, confirm the fix and close the issue?

I checked and airFriction values for the .408, .50 SLAP and 12.7x108mm APDS have indeed been set to appropriate values.

As a side note, the GM6 Lynx now has an appropriate (far faster) rate of fire as well.