weapon levels

[twisted 128]

ArmA is out and people have some real interesting mods planned.

I think the potential of ArmA for mods with the updated graphics and opther engine elements seems amazing.

but, one thing in OFP that always sorta freaked me out was how many (but not all) mod makers go for the looks of a weapon and guess-timate the weapon handling. the weapons look great but they all fired differently which meant that it was confusing which one to take.

It would be really good if there was a central element of 'real' values that mod makers could reference to make sure their weapon performed properly.

of course mod makers do not need to do this, but it would be a very good thing for players like me to know that 'that new m82A1 sniper rfile performs realistically compared to other ArmA weapons' which means it fits the whole simulation aspect.

In a nutshell its a way for new weapons/ vehicles/ armour and more to 'fit' the simulation properly.

so my questions are...

is something like this planned? JAM4? or WGL?

Are there ArmA players (people with a real military background of course) who actually know enough about firearm handling who can provide the educated and knowledgable input needed to get a truly realistic standard for mod makers to be able to reference?

or would this be a big pain in the arse and fail because everyone just wants to do their own thing?

if something like this starts now then it'll make choosing a new weapon or mod from a mod maker much easier. and it could make mod maker slives easier in knowing that they can concentrate on the crafting of the add on backed by the community.

[hellfish6 7]

G85 is going to make a JAM for ARMA.

[wolfbite 8]

Shouldnt a cav's and aces be sorted out.... so we dont get things like a tiger tank wich can take 20 shots from a t-90 and then kill it? jus so that we get as many balanced addons as possible... but then i guess its allwys up to the modder

[feersum.endjinn 6]

At the moment it seems not too many addon makers are going to go with JAM in ArmA since main problem why JAM was invented originally was to solve magazine incompatibility between weapons. Now with cfgMagazines, such problem doesn't exist anymore.

Instead of making things more complicated than they should be, I'd rather see addon makers base damage values on existing ArmA ammo classes or use existing cfgAmmo and cfgMagazines classes when applicable (30Rnd_556x45_Stanag, 30Rnd_545x39_AK etc). When it comes to small arms, default values are just fine - it was tanks is where biggest balance problems between addons were and JAM never solved that problem (nor it really can).

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Shouldnt a cav's and aces be sorted out.... so we dont get things like a tiger tank wich can take 20 shots from a t-90 and then kill it?  jus so that we get as many balanced addons as possible... but then i guess its allwys up to the modder

Also taken up by G85 I believe, hopefully we'll have some standardization for addon makers by the time they've kicked into full gear.

[twisted 128]

G85 seem set to give ArmA modding scene a massive boost. such a great collection of know add on creators from OFP.

thanks for the replies.

[ebud 18]

For fun I edited the weapons pbo to give the weapons HD dispersion based on the corresponding jam data and it makes playing the campaign soooo much better.

[marcusm_uk 0]

Any news on the JAM project? I think this could be the most wanted addon right now.

Marcus

[HoboWithAK 0]

There were two HUGE flaws with JAM that I hope will be fixed in ArmA.

First of all, you can't take a G3 magazine and fit it in a FAL. Or take a FAL metric magazine and use it in an imperial receiver, even though they are both capable of firing 7.62x51. I hated that.

The second is, all the values for each round are the same regardless of what they are fired out of. I could take a STANAG in JAM and fire rounds out of an 11" carbine and then use the same magazine and load it into an 20" M16A2, and the values stay the same. This is not the case in real life. There are so many variables (barrel length, rifling, twist rate, etc.) that contribute to the actual physics of the projectile.

[ThePredator 0]

Problem is: The ammo has the data, not the rifle.

Therefore any rifle will shoot with the same v0 (and damage) based on the ammunition specifications.

[Abbe 0]

Don't really see the problem with taking a g36 mag and not be able to use it in a FAL, in real life you couldn't either...you'd be spending time unload the magazine and then reload it to the new magazine. If this is to be used there should be a *long* penalty time...

/Abbe

[Jackal326 1181]

Well, its my understanding that in ArmA you could use the 20 or 30 rounds STANAG magazines in, say for example and M16A4 addon, and give it whatever dispersion values you want (as the weapon contains the values, rather than the ammo which was the case in the OFP). I may be wrong though, but I know its the case for values such as firing sound (which can be defined per weapon - e.g. a few of the weapons such as the M16s in my weapons pack use the STANAG magazines from ArmA but have a different firing sound to the core M16 etc).

[marcusm_uk 0]

All in all it made OFP a better experience to me, I hope the standard comes back. No addon is perfect but I would say that OFP without JAM would be unthinkable for me.

Marcus

[Col. Faulkner 0]

Well, its my understanding that in ArmA you could use the 20 or 30 rounds STANAG magazines in, say for example and M16A4 addon, and give it whatever dispersion values you want (as the weapon contains the values, rather than the ammo which was the case in the OFP). I may be wrong though, but I know its the case for values such as firing sound (which can be defined per weapon - e.g. a few of the weapons such as the M16s in my weapons pack use the STANAG magazines from ArmA but have a different firing sound to the core M16 etc).

From what I can make out, looking at the config.bin in the

weapons.pbo; things like dispersion and range are attributes

of the weapons, while "hitting power" and velocity still seem

to be attributes of the ammunition.

I also hope that any JAM for ArmA will model the real life

compatibility of different magazine and weapon types.

I don't know how you'd realistically implement the idea of

stripping ammo out of battlefield pickups and recharging your

own mags with the rounds.

[HoboWithAK 0]

From what I can make out, looking at the config.bin in the

weapons.pbo; things like dispersion and range are attributes

of the weapons, while "hitting power" and velocity still seem

to be attributes of the ammunition.

As long as that is true, JAM can never be realistically modelled after real-life interactions between the ammo and firearm. ArmA should have incorporated these features into the game, realistically, in the first place.

[raedor 8]

As HF said, G85 took JAM over and we're currently reworking it to fit ArmA (for configs we don't need the new tools...).