Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
afp

Fatigue effects

Recommended Posts

Yeah, it needs a revision again, with the standard gear, a rifle, several magazines, few basic items up to 10kg, the character gets tired in few tens of meters.

hmm i tried this standard nato rifleman

I jogged with no ill effects until 250-300m at which point I heard light breathing that gradually increased

No screen darkness and heavy breathing until 500-550m

I would guestimate the standard weight to be 25-35kg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not use the console and enter "getfatigue player" in the watch field. Whenever you press ESC, you will see the current fatigue (ranging from 0 to 1). That way, you can put hard numbers to the fatigue level of your soldier. Lay down some visible way points for him, too, and you can even measure the distance he ran and correlate that to the amount of fatigue it pridcues.

By the way "load player" in a watch field will also give you the current load measurement (again, from 0. to 1). How much "1" actually is isn't clear, but from taking the weight of a mk20 (real life weight 3.5 g), 1.0 is 153 kg (I said 180 once, but that wasn't exact, it rounded too early, i.e. not enough digits after the comma, apologies) So at load 0.5, you are carrying around 75 kg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI:

- how much wieght do soldiers have to carry in Afghanistan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FYI:

- how much wieght do soldiers have to carry in Afghanistan

Freaky hearing the breathing after that short run, sounds exactly like in the game. Seems the fatigue system is spot on in Arma 3 imo.

Edit: wrong vid, the one above it.

Edited by RushHour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Freaky hearing the breathing after that short run, sounds exactly like in the game. Seems the fatigue system is spot on in Arma 3 imo.

I think you've confused the wrong quote :x

He may be breathing a bit deeper that normal but I think sprinting should still be a little farther... maybe 150?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the argument here should be about how realistic or not a feature is. The bottom line is about how well liked or not it is.

Out of 16 players I've personally spoken to about A3 and the franchise in general I can tell you that 15 of them all agreed on these 3 points of interest:

1. Graphics/Lighting is very nice

2. Too much scope sway

3. Too much fatigue

Some of these people I've spoken to are new to the game and never even played A2, and some are long time players like myself...and while realism was of course discussed it really had no bearing on whether or not they liked or enjoyed certain features of the game.

The developers of A3 seem to be taking the core game mechanics (movement & shooting) of a franchise that has been around for more than 12 years and suddenly changing it now. This is apparently going to attract an entirely different type of player I suppose, albeit an even smaller market share than they've had in years passed I would guess.

One thing I know from being around this game for so long is this:

In all these years during OFP/A1/A2 I'm not aware of players asking for the shooting or movement mechanics to be slowed down in any way, shape or form. In fact if anything at all the requests or comments I've seen have been the exact opposite.

Edited by BigShot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you've confused the wrong quote :x

He may be breathing a bit deeper that normal but I think sprinting should still be a little farther... maybe 150?

Oops sorry, yes it´s the other clip i ment.

FYI:

- how much wieght do soldiers have to carry in Afghanistan

Yea i can say i´m not opposed to longer sprinting at all, just that it seems pretty spot on imo.

It´s quite basic physics. You have elite runners maximizing their potential for 100m that are completely done after that, with no gear.

Now imagine placing a soldier with 40kg gear next to the runner and tell him to just pin it for 100m. I garantuee you he would not be able to go full on for 100m, it´s just not happening.

I think some underestimate the much higher energy consumption running requires compared to jogging.

One interesting idea is to figure out the actual speeds of jogging and running in the game.

It comes down to pure realism. How real or fake do you want this particular aspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think the argument here should be about how realistic or not a feature is. The bottom line is about how well liked or not it is.

Well for the core community of Arma realistic IS fun. That's what the game is known for.

Out of 16 players I've personally spoken to about A3 and the franchise in general I can tell you that 15 of them all agreed on these 3 points of interest:

1. Graphics/Lighting is very nice

2. Too much scope sway

3. Too much fatigue

Comrades in Arms have arranged a petition that called BIS, among other things, to implement realistic fatigue and load system. The petition was signed by 67 people who came to know about it by PMs and word of mouth.

...and while realism was of course discussed it really had no bearing on whether or not they liked or enjoyed certain features of the game.

So maybe a game with realistic aspirations is not the game for people who don't feel realism has an effect on their likeness of the game.

The developers of A3 seem to be taking the core game mechanics (movement & shooting) of a franchise that has been around for more than 12 years and suddenly changing it now.

I don't read it this way. I feel that the enhanced fatigue is the correct move towards what Arma was always about.

In all these years during OFP/A1/A2 I'm not aware of players asking for the shooting or movement mechanics to be slowed down in any way, shape or form. In fact if anything at all the requests or comments I've seen have been the exact opposite.

A large part of the above mentioned petition called for more realistic inertia and movement. A lot of people here on the forums called for that as well.

The new fatigue system is a step in the right direction. Thanks for hearing the core community BIS. Keep it up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
..and while realism was of course discussed it really had no bearing on whether or not they liked or enjoyed certain features of the game.

Beg your pardon, but why play a game series that is, like, infamous for its realism if realism is no issue? You're better off playing BF4 then, because they have very nice graphics and good MP.

In all these years during OFP/A1/A2 I'm not aware of players asking for the shooting or movement mechanics to be slowed down in any way, shape or form. In fact if anything at all the requests or comments I've seen have been the exact opposite.

Oh come on, this is the most spongy form of "argumentation". How about this?

"In all these years during OFP/A1/A2 I am not aware of players asking for the shooting or movement mechanics to be made less realistic in any way, shape or form. In fact, if anything at all the requests or comments I've seen have been the exact opposite"

Works as well, is as easy to back up, and does say the exact same amount as your argument - nothing at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rather listen to this guys breathing after what 30m?

listen to the breathing after crossing a river http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/afghanistan-conflict/troops-under-fire-by-afghan-river/2125355833001/

The Breathing in those videos doesn't seem half as loud as Arma 3 in 1rst Person. Also in the videos they are breathing into microphones, much different (louder) than what the solder actually hears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I start answering your post, since you decided to throw your military background into my face, I guess I'll start by doing the same. I was in the Portuguese Army, Quick Reaction Brigade. I was an Engineer Sapper, the most demanding specialization available right after Infantry and Special Forces.

mate, back in my days in the army (res), we did 5km pack marches up and down hills fully weighed down with up to 40kg on our backs...yeah we panted but we didn't stop.

What exactly entails a pack march in the British Army Reserve? Here it is fast paced walking with backpacks. I can tell you it was more demanding than running with your weapon and light gear (no helmet, no vest, no backpack). And hell yes I panted on those damn hellish pack marches, It was some of the worst exercises we could do. The last one I did last for more than an hour, even the Instructors who were not wearing any backpacks were tired. I can't remember the exact number but it was well above 5km.

Being res, we were no where near the fitness of regular troops, but I can tell you it started to hurt after about 2.5 kms. thats 2.5kms not 100m. As I said, we're simulating battle fit regular infantry who train everyday and practice carrying heavy equipment long distances. Even running 1km at a slow jog should be doable, not 100m.

Are you joking? No one runs with heavy backpacks unless its really necessary (during a retreat or during combat). You dont go from A to B with a backpack and running. Well at least not in my country, maybe Special Forces do but I was never part of those so I can't say.

Lastly, I guess you are too lazy to press F12 and take a simple screenshot. Indeed, you completely missed the point of what I said and went on a rambling about your military experience. I hope you like my rambling too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you joking? No one runs with heavy backpacks unless its really necessary (during a retreat or during combat). You dont go from A to B with a backpack and running. Well at least not in my country, maybe Special Forces do but I was never part of those so I can't say.

A-men! its called dropping your load! Marching speed from A-B with marching load then drop gear to combat load. ofcourse such a advanced logistical manoeuvre is unknown to arma. (barring ace)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way it is now is too harsh and annoying. Fatigue should be very "light" with standard gear, it should appear only when the character is heavy loaded.

Most likely everybody will end up disabling it in most missions just like it was in the first versions added to ACE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read the whole thread so maybe it's been said before but when testing last night I noticed that elevation makes a huge different. Sprinting on flat terrain with standard gear was ~100 m but sprinting up (or down!?) a steep slope was only ~25 m before fatigue kicked in! If this is to short or OK distances for a trained soldier IRL I don't really know...

So you that say it's to harsh did you run on flat or in hilly terrain? At least it's something to think about and IMO it's a great feature the elevation is acounted for since we all know how hard it is to run/walk uphill. Downhill should not be equally hard tho.

/KC

Edited by KeyCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way it is now is too harsh and annoying. Most likely everybody will end up disabling it.

Can it be disabled? I did not know this. How?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MadDog - so would this disable it?

unit enableFatigue disable

More like unit enableFatigue false ;).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MadDog - so would this disable it?

unit enableFatigue disable

enable is boolean - true or false.

simply use the following inside the init of whoever you want to not suffer fatigue -

this enableFatigue false

"this" refers to the unit's name (this is a variable for whatever unit - even if it has no name, but it must be inside the unit's init)

"enableFatigue" is your command

"false" is your boolean; opposite of "True" which would enable fatigue ofc ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"this" refers to the unit's name (this is a variable for whatever unit - even if it has no name, but it must be inside the unit's init)

Actually, this refers to the unit object in case of init fields. Outside of init fields, this is not defined (well, in trigger activation fields and similar, but it refers to the trigger then)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"this" refers to the unit's name (this is a variable for whatever unit - even if it has no name, but it must be inside the unit's init)

Actually, this refers to the unit object in case of init fields. Outside of init fields, this is not defined (well, in trigger activation fields and similar, but it refers to the trigger then)

"this" refers to the unit's name (this is a variable for whatever unit - even if it has no name, but it must be inside the unit's init)

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
Sign in to follow this  

×