Marksmen DLC wanted changes

[blu3sman 11]

Obviously the right thing would be to get rid of airFriction and implement real world drag models like in Advanced Ballistics. Thats what I hope for in DLC. But it won't happen.

[SPC.Spets 21]

what happened with the ballistic wind deflection thing?

[gibonez 18]

what happened with the ballistic wind deflection thing?

Was that ever in the works ?

If it was maybe there is still some hope they can sneak it into the final dlc, in the livestream they talked about 1 or 2 features they wanted to sneak in if time permits.

[Spartan0536 189]

Ok so here is how this works as far as default goes....

Airfriction values need to be set per velocity, if they are not, then you inherently add more/less drag than should be required. Now Ruthbergs mod fixes all the issues with BIS ballistics, this is 100% true, his modeling is superb and his ballistics tables are almost identical to mine (not in game, in RL, as in the data we share). Now Ruthbergs mod has 1 fatal flaw, and is due to its own success.... it absolutely kills server FPS especially when multiple automatic weapons are being discharged. This is due to the immense amount of code that is required to be calculated, this is why I work on BIS ballistics. Between Ruthberg and myself we have the ArmA III community well covered with ballistics, he has more options as he wrote is own code to manipulate ballistics in game, where as I am reliant on BIS to edit their code structure. As for hit, its not necessary to have it aliased at all, I do it in my work to ensure calculated accuracy, however the 4 critical things would be initspeed, airfriction, audiblefire, and visiblefire.

You can even test this out using SMA's testing mission which incorporates ballistic tracing and basic ballistic data at range such as velocity and hit, all you need to do is use a real range card to determine if there is too much or too little drag, just remember that using BIS ballistics there will be at least 3-5% deviation at long ranges.

[UltimateBawb 1]

Here's a question you should always ask before creating anything: why? Is there really a reason to calculate ballistics so precisely? You're talking about minuscule ballistic differences at the cost of non-minuscule performance differences (as well as development time). It seems to me that such "accurate" ballistics are a fool's errand.

[Spartan0536 189]

Here's a question you should always ask before creating anything: why? Is there really a reason to calculate ballistics so precisely? You're talking about minuscule ballistic differences at the cost of non-minuscule performance differences (as well as development time). It seems to me that such "accurate" ballistics are a fool's errand.

Acutually BIS's default ballistics are WAY THE HELL OFF, in fact their 5.56x45mm ball ammo is a joke, of course many "arm chair" generals would say that is accurate but it is not in reality. The performance differences between my 5.56x45mm values are theirs are worlds apart. Also with that same thought process you would have to ask why so many people would make more guns for ArmA III that would use default ballistics, which is exactly what they did prior to my work and later Ruthberg's. In effect all you would get is a shiny new model with no performance difference, with my ballistics code or Ruthbergs you get significantly different performance, don't believe me, test it out in game, again I will point you to SMA's test range mission.

[das attorney 858]

Acutually BIS's default ballistics are WAY THE HELL OFF, in fact their 5.56x45mm ball ammo is a joke, of course many "arm chair" generals would say that is accurate but it is not in reality. The performance differences between my 5.56x45mm values are theirs are worlds apart.

Hi,

Could you give some figures if okay as for someone not well versed in modding the in-game ballistics, I don't know what I'm looking for if I did a test.

If say I picked 5.56 x 45 mm and tested vanilla vs your modded configs, what are you saying in terms of % age true to life accuracy (like are BIS figures 10% variance, whereas yours are 2% for example).

I understand you have worked hard on your mod, but to someone like me, I can't make a decision based on "way the hell off" and "joke". I'd like it if you could quantify those sorts of statements please. I read through this thread and saw that you said your figures are about 3-5% accurate to real life figures but that was the only figure I could see from this thread.

I'm not saying all this stuff to trap you or try and catch you out, but genuinely interested in ballistics and want to know how much more accurate your figures are than BIS figures seeing as you are the one saying their figures are not correct (or way off).

I agree, ideally it would be nice if someone from BIS would comment if there was any possibility of them revisiting their ballistic code or perhaps explaining why they would/could not, but I doubt they would comment on it. Maybe something for the feedback tracker.

Slightly offtopic, but have you ever looked at the old 31stMEU Replacement Reticles from back in Arma 1/2?

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=6817

Different principle but (changing reticle to get expected results rather than path of bullet) but worth a look maybe to someone interested in this sort of stuff.

[Spartan0536 189]

Hi,

Could you give some figures if okay as for someone not well versed in modding the in-game ballistics, I don't know what I'm looking for if I did a test.

If say I picked 5.56 x 45 mm and tested vanilla vs your modded configs, what are you saying in terms of % age true to life accuracy (like are BIS figures 10% variance, whereas yours are 2% for example).

I understand you have worked hard on your mod, but to someone like me, I can't make a decision based on "way the hell off" and "joke". I'd like it if you could quantify those sorts of statements please. I read through this thread and saw that you said your figures are about 3-5% accurate to real life figures but that was the only figure I could see from this thread.

I'm not saying all this stuff to trap you or try and catch you out, but genuinely interested in ballistics and want to know how much more accurate your figures are than BIS figures seeing as you are the one saying their figures are not correct (or way off).

I agree, ideally it would be nice if someone from BIS would comment if there was any possibility of them revisiting their ballistic code or perhaps explaining why they would/could not, but I doubt they would comment on it. Maybe something for the feedback tracker.

Slightly offtopic, but have you ever looked at the old 31stMEU Replacement Reticles from back in Arma 1/2?

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=6817

Different principle but (changing reticle to get expected results rather than path of bullet) but worth a look maybe to someone interested in this sort of stuff.

Its hard to say, their AirFriciton values seem to indicate the performance near that of the old M193 round used back in Vietnam by US troops, however the damage profile suggests that its that of an M855 (not the A1 EPR), its like a bad hybrid of the two. As for 7.62x51mm it grossly overpenetrates if they were attempting to use the M80A1 EPR round, but my M80A1 EPR is not 100% factual as getting all that data has gotten me some very curious looks from the US Army's Picatinny Arsenal after I gave them a call. Now BIS also makes the VBS system that the US military uses for digital training, so perhaps their 7.62x51mm penetration is actually correctly based, the issue there is most of what is in ArmA III is not in line with what is used today. Now in the defense of BIS, their ArmA series is based in an alternate timeline from our own so this gives them the freedom to make up certain values (to a reasonable extent) and call them "realistic". The only reason I compare my ballistics with theirs is that some people are just not happy with BIS values and some people do not care for the alternate timeline stuff that BIS does, they want whats right here, right now.

[roberthammer 582]

Main issue is with the unfinished and ridiculous A3 body armor which makes those custom ammo based on real data behave weak or not realistic at all

[enex 11]

Bohemia interactive (Arma3) and Bohemia Interactive simulation (VBS) got nothing to do with each other (except name)

[DancZer 65]

Does anybody know that are they planning to add option in the VA to change weapon textures? Same as for the vehicles will.

[gibonez 18]

Main issue is with the unfinished and ridiculous A3 body armor which makes those custom ammo based on real data behave weak or not realistic at all

I am amazed that the game has been out for so long and the damage model has not been finished.

[almanzo 144]

I wan't map tools!

[silentghoust 132]

Honestly I'm just happy they are putting new weapons in the game. The more assets the better for Arma 3 I say. My only real question is, will they adjust the default load outs for the AI? I would be sad if I had hand adjust my AI units every time I wanted them to use a DLC weapon.

[miketim 20]

If they adjust the default loadouts for AI that means that anyone who doesnt have the DLC cant play as those units. So that would be a problem.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

They already stated they have Marksman DLC specific characters if i'm not mistaken. It makes sense to add DLC units with a DLC, else what the point in the DLC? I could see them adding these units along side vanilla ones, for example, it would be Marksman, but beside the vanilla Marksman, they could have Marksman (MK-1 EMR) [insert DLC Icon Here], for example.

[Spartan0536 189]

Bohemia interactive (Arma3) and Bohemia Interactive simulation (VBS) got nothing to do with each other (except name)

Its not about comparing the engines or the development, its about their resources to which they have the ability to use their data that goes into the military simulator and transpose it into the ArmA series.

[chortles 263]

*sigh* The entire point of enex's statement was that no, no it's not their data.

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

They already stated they have Marksman DLC specific characters if i'm not mistaken. It makes sense to add DLC units with a DLC, else what the point in the DLC? I could see them adding these units along side vanilla ones, for example, it would be Marksman, but beside the vanilla Marksman, they could have Marksman (MK-1 EMR) [insert DLC Icon Here], for example.

When Zipper was setting up the small script for the firefight, he briefly moused over the player revealing a unit named "Sharpshooter".

[Spartan0536 189]

*sigh* The entire point of enex's statement was that no, no it's not their data.

Yes it seems after doing some research that Bohemia Interactive Australia is a spin-off self contained entity from Bohemia Interactive Czech. The names can be quite confusing, however the technology BEHIND VBS 1/2/3 is directly relevant to BI Czech, however that is as far as the direct relationship goes. It would seem that the data used by BI Australia would be garnered of their own accord and means. This to me is disheartening news however it does shed some light into the aspect that BIS (hence forth used under the assumed name of BI Czech) may not have any real ballistic grounds over, say for example, DICE (Digital Illusions CE). While ArmA III's ballistics simulation is much better than anything publicly released by EA/UBISOFT/Activision, I am losing confidence in the authenticity in the realism aspect of the ArmA III developers. This may also directly correlate to my questions being unanswered or incomplete when addressing ballistics issues for calculated and simulated material density and environment variables for ballistics computation.

[galzohar 31]

You guys also need to remember that the performance hits are mostly due to the ballistic calculation being done in a mod that needs to use a lot of tricks to work around the limitations a mod is bound to. Doing the ballistics properly in the engine (C++) is a LOT less performance intensive than having to use sqf and overhead of callExtension.

Overall, BIS is presenting their ballistic changes as the "end all be all solution that will fix things once and for all", but in fact it's really a half-assed solution which really just implements the absolute minimum required for making ballistics that are different for each weapon, and in the end is not anywhere near enough to make them actually correct.

I highly doubt the reason is performance. I also doubt it's such an incredible effort, considering most of the code already exists and adjusting the way the game reads config values just can't be all that complicated. In the end I believe the real reason we aren't getting more appropriate ballistics is the same reason Battlefield and Call of Duty don't get them - The average player just can't tell the difference between real and half-assed ballistics.

[almanzo 144]

Has there been any mention of ballistics at all? Wind speed or proper adjustments and so on? The only feature related they've mentioned in the stream was the weapon resting.

I actually took it for granted that they would add scope adjustments, elevation and wind... If they haven't, I find that to be quite weird.

[chortles 263]

Has there been any mention of ballistics at all? Wind speed or proper adjustments and so on? The only feature related they've mentioned in the stream was the weapon resting.

That's pretty much correct, though to be honest I don't recall BI ever mentioning planning for ballistics changes beyond the initSpeed tweak, only promoting weapon handling changes (resting/deployment/recoil tweaks).

I actually took it for granted

And there's what you did wrong. :p Seriously though, early in the stream (you may have overlooked this) the creative director declared that it was actually the (Designated) Marksmen DLC and not the Snipers DLC, for which my own analogy would be "designed around the EBR, not the M24".

Yes it seems after doing some research that Bohemia Interactive Australia is a spin-off self contained entity from Bohemia Interactive Czech. The names can be quite confusing, however the technology BEHIND VBS 1/2/3 is directly relevant to BI Czech, however that is as far as the direct relationship goes. It would seem that the data used by BI Australia would be garnered of their own accord and means.

I understand that "BI Czech" may have a licensing agreement with what you call BIA (it's Bohemia Interactive Simulations now) but otherwise there's no known technology sharing agreement, I recall the (currently co-)CEO of BISim -- a former Arma community member, by the way -- remarking that the engines had forked a while back... and BISim deals in a world where its clients can put "do not give to BI Czech" clauses into the contracts. Heck, not too long ago some Tiger helicopter features were temporarily Australian-exclusive. Edited March 10, 2015 by Chortles

[Spartan0536 189]

That's pretty much correct, though to be honest I don't recall BI ever mentioning planning for ballistics changes beyond the initSpeed tweak, only promoting weapon handling changes (resting/deployment/recoil tweaks).And there's what you did wrong. :p Seriously though, early in the stream (you may have overlooked this) the creative director declared that it was actually the (Designated) Marksmen DLC and not the Snipers DLC, for which my own analogy would be "designed around the EBR, not the M24".I understand that "BI Czech" may have a licensing agreement with what you call BIA (it's Bohemia Interactive Simulations now) but otherwise there's no known technology sharing agreement, I recall the (currently co-)CEO of BISim -- a former Arma community member, by the way -- remarking that the engines had forked a while back... and BISim deals in a world where its clients can put "do not give to BI Czech" clauses into the contracts. Heck, not too long ago some Tiger helicopter features were temporarily Australian-exclusive.

What I mean to imply was that only the development of the VBS ENGINE was co-developed between BIS/BISim, apart from that the data that is gathered and input are 2 completely different resources and implementations, which is a sad reality.

[Maio 293]

I don't want to limit your discussion channels, but for the sake of order, I will:

http://forums.bistudio.com/forumdisplay.php?186-ARMA-3-DEVELOPMENT-BRANCH

Thank you!