Dangerous effects

[Freshman 0]

Did you ever think about what would happen to you if you get into a choppers tail rotor? Wouldn't be very healthy I think

Or what about lying right to a machinegun punching bursts of .50 shells into your face. Details like this may add a big load of atmosphere to the game.

BI already said they implement something like your sight is blurred after gazing into the sun so i think effects like this are possible.

What do you think about it?

[Daniel 0]

Would add a lot of shock value to the experience. Maybe something more convincing could be included for Game 2.

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Something for Game 2, I'm afraid.

[frederf 0]

How about hot jet blast from the back of a AT weapon like a AT4? Or even from the back of an A-10. I do like the shrapnel attached to secondary explosions from dead tanks in WGL mod.

[Trueman 0]

Did you ever think about what would happen to you if you get into a choppers tail rotor? Wouldn't be very healthy I think

Jeees yea or what if u take a dump and ur team m8 is stepping in. Thats not healty aswell.

Or u running out of toiletpaper huh....think about it man.

[Commando84 0]

i don't think the at backblast would be to much to ask for, but maybe the chopper tail rotor and other rotor effects maybe a bit to much to ask for to be included to armA

I like the fx in call of duty 2 though when you have been indirectly hit by a grenade but noit killed, like the vision is a bit blurry and you got a strange sound in your ears and stuff

makes aiming a bit hard too do.

Would be useful if ya could throw stuff like rocks and bottles and magazines like yuou throw hand grenades only that the stuff you throw shouldn't always explode. Say if you are in a big house and a m8 says im running low on m4 mags, then you maybe have a few extras then you look at his direction and throw him two mags from the weapon your holdining in your hands in the direction your aim is at

i think that would be a very useful and cool thing to do rather than run up to the friend and then do the drop magazines on ground action and stuff

[sirex 0]

these details would be very cool :-)

back blasts from launchers really should be in there somewhere. or at least, a visable trail behind the tube/rocket.

throwing mags might be a bit tricky, but it would be alot better than dropping them on the floor so maybe it'd be worth it, it also enhances the team aspect.

its like some games, when you run sideways and prone (and roll) your actual screen rolls. in other games, its just an animation. it'd be quite cool to roll out from cover and set up your rifle rather than shuffle your butt out :-p

it'd also be good if you went to a diffrent pocket each time to pull a magazine out, rather than the "never ending pocket of monkey island" way. :-)

[sniper pilot 36]

....I like the fx in call of duty 2 though when you have been indirectly hit by a grenade but noit killed, like the vision is a bit blurry and you got a strange sound in your ears and stuff

makes aiming a bit hard too do....

AKA Shell Shock... Yeah just dont make it like BF2's man that gets real annoying on low end computers.

[codarl 1]

I have thought more about "hazard areas" for vehicles. modellers could define an area (3D) on a model that IF (condition is met), does (what's said in a script).

the conditions could be made in normal OFP scripting language (IF engine is on, IF fired, or far more complex conditions. same for the what it does (setvelocity for jet engines, setdamage for backclast, etc)

...but that's going to be for Game2 methinks

[deanosbeano 0]

or it could be already here on a hard drive.:)

something i had in mind ,but dropped it until arma

[Freshman 0]

So it is actually possible.

Well... maybe 30 or 40l less blood and it would be cool

[Stendac 0]

Well, there was that part in the video of the single player demo sent to previewers where the soldier moved to close to the burning tank and it said something like "Ouch! The fire is hot!". Remember?

So it is possible that BI is trying to include some of those things that you want in ArmA.

[stegman 3]

Well, there was that part in the video of the single player demo sent to previewers where the soldier moved to close to the burning tank and it said something like "Ouch! The fire is hot!".  Remember?

So it is possible that BI is trying to include some of those things that you want in ArmA.

ECP enables such things, give it a try. You can get hurt by burning tanks, or AT back blast. You even get hurt due to blood loss, and can die from it, untill you get to a medic.

[VISTREL 0]

I don't think any of dangerous effects will be implemented. BIS are busy taking care of existing features.

[Freshman 0]

Quote[/b] ]ECP enables such things, give it a try.  You can get hurt by burning tanks, or AT back blast.  You even get hurt due to blood loss, and can die from it, untill you get to a medic.

Yeah it's really great. I played OFP with ECP 0.8234235 or whatever the version is only for a long time. But then came WGL

Would be great if someone would merge the realism of WGL and the effects and the perfect finish of ECP.

Take away some engine limitations and i'm happy

Before i forget... of course the Weapons from the Quality of SJB, LSR and RHS; Vehikles from CBT and Helos from Our Weapons

[Second 0]

Backblast would require that you can take a quick look behind you, and report that you are going to shoot. ECP with backblast was stupid as nobody of AI cared if you held launcher on your shoulder, they might ran behind you, or you ran behind man with launcher as he didn't shout warning.

[frederf 0]

If you are firing an AT weapon (or the AI is) there's a big angry tank around. You've got no business running around

[Second 0]

But still AI does that! And player may need to find better cover from tank and find it fast. Tanks isn't angry when it haven't spotted enemy. I would find cover fast, before launcher is fired, because after that the tank is pissed off! some kind shout "Firing!" or "Fire!" so that i could attleast kiss the ground to get little protection from backblast.

I'd run for cover (depending of situation of course, but generaly) as tank in OFP is blind before it gets shot at. After it receives a rocket to it's armorplates it turns out to be "superspotter" and launcherguy turns in to small lumps of meat.

[Commando84 0]

a tip to take out armor is to have more than one At soldier, or to be the one that does the job, firing at the gun/ turret to disable it and then move in for the kill

[meyamoti 0]

This is probably incorrect but I assume modern tanks these days would have some kind of screen to display what parts have taken damage in wording or visual,thus giving an ideal location of where the shot came from,its pretty impossible to spot somethin you can't see or know is there,until it hits you,then the hunt beigns.

[chipper 0]

If there is a back-blast effect (a dangerous one) then if you fire into the sky looking to kill a chopper or something the back-blast should hurt you because it's hitting the ground right behind you and then in effect burning your ass!

In somolia 1993 the skinnies built little trenches so they could fire up at the choppers and the back blast would go into their holes/trenches.

I should be dead or serverly injured firing like this. Because of back blast melting me.

But giving a path for the back blast below you solves the problem of shooting into the air at angle like this

[sirex 0]

without deformable terrain that's taking it too far, imho.

[dmakatra 1]

without deformable terrain that's taking it too far, imho.

Not at all. That should learn people (like me for instance ) not to take down choppers with AT-guns.

[simulacra 0]

Nope, the backblast doesn't contain all that much thermal energy, when I fired live AT4's in the army you could feel the cloth on your legs ripple pretty violently and feel some mild heating in the legs when shooting, but nothing that really burns and sets things on fire.

But it speaks for itself that you shouldn't fire AT-rockets at flying targets, they're constructed for horisontal firing, for airborne targets you use stingers and other self propelling rockets, AT-weapons are more or less a projectile being shot out of a tube...

[Freshman 0]

See the AT4 is constructed for urban use so they made the backblast as low as possible. But if you have a look at a Stinger it looks a bit different. It puts out lot of fire at the back and so do many other self propelled weapons