the character models

[thrush213 0]

i recently found this opfe screenshot:

[ig]http://media.teamxbox.com/games/ss/574/1118061794.jpg[/img]>100kb

and i was wondering, is that the interceptor armor? so are the guys from armed assault going to be wearing interceptor armors? i noticed there's these bars on the beck of this armor, but in other ofpe and armed assault shots it's a smooth back.

[Placebo 29]

Please don't hotlink images greater than 100kb.

[-kelet0r 0]

i think it has been stated that body armour will not be included ingame

[thrush213 0]

oh. so are those just vests that offer no protection? and that shot i provided. i'm pretty sure that's an interceptor body armor. so that'sonly for ofp elite?

[max power 21]

That vest is a load bearing harness. I'm not sure if it's a plate carrier or not.. But that is just the game model. Whether or not the entity is described as having some kind of abstract armour-like properties in the code is not apparent in how the model looks. Skeletor says that it won't be included, so chances are that it makes no difference in how many hits you can take.

[Placebo 29]

Off the top of my head I don't recall the exact name of the armour in Opf:Elite and that used in ArmA, but obviously Opf:Elite was set in the early 80's and ArmA has a modern setting.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Off the top of my head I don't recall the exact name of the armour in Opf:Elite and that used in ArmA, but obviously Opf:Elite was set in the early 80's and ArmA has a modern setting.

Does this meen that you can assign special properties of armor on the soldier?

[Placebo 29]

It means that Elite was set in the mid 80's and ArmA is set in modern times, no more, no less, but nice try to squeeze out more info

Maybe you can save the question for when it's ArmA.dk's turn for an interview

[-kelet0r 0]

Quote[/b] ]It means that Elite was set in the mid 80's and ArmA is set in modern times

don't know what to make of that

after all Cold War NATO battle groups wore flak jackets on exercise and modern soldiers often wear no armour at all....

I'll go under the assumption for the moment that there will be body armour ingame seeing as I would love to see it in Armed Assault

[Randy 0]

I really don't see why it shouldn't be in the game. Hell apart from your weapon, it'd be the most vital thing you could have.

[dmakatra 1]

Quote[/b] ]It means that Elite was set in the mid 80's and ArmA is set in modern times

don't know what to make of that

after all Cold War NATO battle groups wore flak jackets on exercise and modern soldiers often wear no armour at all....

I'll go under the assumption for the moment that there will be body armour ingame seeing as I would love to see it in Armed Assault

The question was about Interceptor Body Armour, which didn't exist during the 1980's (it's rather new). So no, the soldier on that pic, hopefully unless BIS made some misstake, doesn't have IBA.

[-kelet0r 0]

On the other hand - i'm not sure what good it will do seeing as assault rifle weapons can still defeat all known body armour, maybe not on the first shot but on the second or third

they still are only capable of stopping low calibre and pistol rounds

so while they increase the chance of saving your life in combat somewhat, in Armed Assault, it will still be a case of 1-2 bullets and you are critically injured and unable to fight/dead as opposed to just being dead in OpF

I fail to see how that will affect gameplay at all - the result is still the same

the only reason I can see them including it is because body armour makes soldiers look cool and because it is a sim after all

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

It means that Elite was set in the mid 80's and ArmA is set in modern times, no more, no less, but nice try to squeeze out more info

Maybe you can save the question for when it's ArmA.dk's turn for an interview

Ive got more than 10 questions allready... And keep getting in more

[thrush213 0]

yeah, i was just curious about the superficial application of armor. not actually coding them into the game.

and since ofp:e is set in the 80's without the interceptor armor. it's a tad weird to see that screenshot of something so similar.

here's a comparison:

http://media.teamxbox.com/games/ss/574/1118061794.jpg

http://www.paracletearmor.com/Images....k02.jpg

i wonder what that armor is then, which is featured in the xbox shot

[AdmiralKarlDonuts 0]

Either way, they'd better get the armor thing straightened out because I've seen shots of modern ArmAs guys with LC-2 suspenders over a modern plate carrier like this:

http://ofp.gamepark.cz/news/pics3/ArmA_Progress_07.jpg

I can't get a decent read on exactly what time period AA is set in because of the random grab-bag of gear they've slapped on the soldiers in the screenies we've seen. LC-2 + random plate carrier = bad. IBA + MOLLE gear = good.

[Randy 0]

On the other hand - i'm not sure what good it will do seeing as assault rifle weapons can still defeat all known body armour, maybe not on the first shot but on the second or third

they still are only capable of stopping low calibre and pistol rounds

so while they increase the chance of saving your life in combat somewhat, in Armed Assault, it will still be a case of 1-2 bullets and you are critically injured and unable to fight/dead as opposed to just being dead in OpF

I fail to see how that will affect gameplay at all - the result is still the same

the only reason I can see them including it is because body armour makes soldiers look cool and because it is a sim after all

Not entirely true, Dragonskin body armor withstands multiple muzzle velocity AP assault rifle hits with minimum trauma to the wearer. If ARMA is in a modern setting, body armor could play a huge role.

Think about it, its often one bullet that hits you and kills you in OFP, while the others zoom past, nevertheless, mission failed. Body armor improves your chances drastically. 50% body coverage? That cuts your chances of death and injury in half, if the enemy actually manage to hit you.

More often than not a soldier will aim for centre mass, in fact thats how they're all trained, all over the world. Therefore you could quiet safely apply these chance statistics.

In summary: Half the lives of your men who would otherwise be dead would be saved if wearing good armor. Body armor is to be taken very seriously, if realism is to be catered for.

[max power 21]

yeah, i was just curious about the superficial application of armor. not actually coding them into the game.

and since ofp:e is set in the 80's without the interceptor armor. it's a tad weird to see that screenshot of something so similar.

here's a comparison:

http://media.teamxbox.com/games/ss/574/1118061794.jpg

http://www.paracletearmor.com/Images....k02.jpg

i wonder what that armor is then, which is featured in the xbox shot

The similarity is mainly the load bearing straps. You can attach modular components to those things. It's like having body armour and a tactical vest all in one. The body armour itself would be the material that's behind it, in the plate pouches. Depending on the system, and I don't know much about specific systems, you could have a certain kind of plate in any vest that it would fit into.

[-kelet0r 0]

On the other hand - i'm not sure what good it will do seeing as assault rifle weapons can still defeat all known body armour, maybe not on the first shot but on the second or third

they still are only capable of stopping low calibre and pistol rounds

so while they increase the chance of saving your life in combat somewhat, in Armed Assault, it will still be a case of 1-2 bullets and you are critically injured and unable to fight/dead as opposed to just being dead in OpF

I fail to see how that will affect gameplay at all - the result is still the same

the only reason I can see them including it is because body armour makes soldiers look cool and because it is a sim after all

Not entirely true, Dragonskin body armor withstands multiple muzzle velocity AP assault rifle hits with minimum trauma to the wearer. If ARMA is in a modern setting, body armor could play a huge role.

Think about it, its often one bullet that hits you and kills you in OFP, while the others zoom past, nevertheless, mission failed. Body armor improves your chances drastically. 50% body coverage? That cuts your chances of death and injury in half, if the enemy actually manage to hit you.

More often than not a soldier will aim for centre mass, in fact thats how they're all trained, all over the world. Therefore you could quiet safely apply these chance statistics.

In summary: Half the lives of your men who would otherwise be dead would be saved if wearing good armor. Body armor is to be taken very seriously, if realism is to be catered for.

i've read the marketing blurb

besides no army uses that armour yet if ever and I seriously doubt its ability to withstand multiple full metal jacket assault rifle rounds - it might stop one and leave your ribs crushed and your heart and lungs bruised killing you more slowly but stop 2 or more? Not a change

so yes I agree it may increase your longetivity ingame somewhat but not by much

[hellfish6 7]

Interceptor body armor does indeed protect against 7.62mm rounds from AKMs fairly reliably when fired from beyond 100m.

[Randy 0]

i've read the marketing blurb

besides no army uses that armour yet if ever and I seriously doubt its ability to withstand multiple full metal jacket assault rifle rounds - it might stop one and leave your ribs crushed and your heart and lungs bruised killing you more slowly but stop 2 or more? Not a change

so yes I agree it may increase your longetivity ingame somewhat but not by much

I'm quite convinced of the claims they make myself for 2 reasons:

If they lied about the the armor withstanding multiple ap assault rifle impacts at muzzle velocity and the wearer surviving, they'd be destroyed by lawsuits, mauled by competitors for this flaw.

And the second thing, if several people in the military are willing to critisize their own heirachy in review of dragonskin (a dangerous thing to do) in praise of this armor, then it lends weight to their argument.

Enough of that, I sound like a marketer, but it stands on its own merits.

Either way, if your hit by a bullet whilst wearing body armor, your chances are pretty good, the human body doesn't want to die as it is. Anyone remember that footage of the US soldier being hit in the chest by the sniper in Iraq?

It knocked him backwards, he immediately got up and ran behind the Humvee for cover. That was simply standard issue armor with a ceramic plate insert I think, by no means the best protection available.

[max power 21]

I recently read an article on military.com about the ongoing body armour debacle with the US marines in Iraq. Apparently, they didn't have enough armour to go around, so soldiers had to buy their own out of their own pocket. The US government is now reimbursing them, and has sent a few hundred thousand units of body armour to the marines- but 90% of the marines are refusing to wear the extra 10 lbs on top of the 60-70 lbs of gear they already carry on patrol.

I bet that soldier in the abovementioned video isn't griping about how freaking hot it is in the desert with his plates on!

[Randy 0]

I know body armor isn't going to effect anything in the game as already established, but the most recent slew of screenshots with the even newer models show soldiers with body armor on. Why go to the trouble of modelling the armor if they're just gonna die with the first measly round to the chest?

Or is all this stuff just combat webbing?

[thrush213 0]

I know body armor isn't going to effect anything in the game as already established, but the most recent slew of screenshots with the even newer models show soldiers with body armor on. Why go to the trouble of modelling the armor if they're just gonna die with the first measly round to the chest?

Or is all this stuff just combat webbing?

from the vids i've seen, they don't die from 1 rifle round to the chest.

also, when you go into combat, that's what they'd look like. so they're just keeping the visuals authentic.

[Randy 0]

If it is body armor I'm seeing, it seems pretty senseless for a literally life changing, live saving, possibly career defining piece of equipment to be a visual 'bell and whistle'.

As sure as an M1Abrams will make short work of a T50, a soldier in the latest protective gear will probably live to go home and even fight on (depending on armor) when hes shot in the chest. The kalishnakov wielding militant on the other hand will lose a significant portion of his chest.

My points earlier in this thread sum up the critical role of body armor for any soldier anyway.

It comes down to this: Why bother modelling something which has a huge effect on the life of the soldier and his squad and a great effect tactically, when it's treated simply as a superfluous 'gloss' feature in the game, contrary to all intuitive logic and reason.

It's like seeing a massive heavy machinegun emplacement, fully stocked just screaming to be used to mow down that advancing infantry collumn intent on killing you and the village you defend. But getting to it and discovering it's just a scene filler.

[kernriver 4]

It comes down to this: Why bother modelling something which has a huge effect on the life of the soldier and his squad and a great effect tactically, when it's treated simply as a superfluous 'gloss' feature in the game, contrary to all intuitive logic and reason.

I agree, and i think that BIS wouldn't put that kind of "feature" in the game just to make soldiers look pretty. How great impact will it have on gameplay is left to see, i guess.