Arma feedback thread - based on 1.09

[Col. Faulkner 0]

Reinstalled ArmA because of the patch, the CWR stuff and in

anticipation of one of the new WW2 mods.

With the patch the game is more robust than before (before,

the game frequently crashed on start-up and I regularly had

to restart because of problems with the sound). I am very

pleased that this seems to have been fixed now. There is

also a slight, but welcome, performance increase in places

(although my PC is not a high-end model).

However, there are no discernible AI improvements, as

promised. They still do the same idiotic and suicidal things

all the time.

The attempt at tweaking the behaviour of guns has added

a whole new set of "realism issues".

Roll on ArmA II.

[andersson 285]

i did fired an ak47, and also a 7.62 modified hunting rifle. and they both had a punch.

.....

Someone already mentioned this, so i'll just underline it: The ak47 now is less powerful than the m4s - this is wrong.

Sure you dont mix up AK74 and AK47?

SLA use AK74 which is 5.45. I never fired a 5.45 but alot 7.62, but based from my 5.56 experience I guess there is a big difference in punch between 5.45 and 7.62.

[dslyecxi 23]

(all sorts of things)

There is a lot more to proper weapon simulation than just the ArmA-style recoil system. For it to be a truly accurate representation of how real weapons behave in the hands of a skilled shooter, it will require a bit more work. I have hope that ArmA II will address this - for ArmA1, I am fairly happy with the current 1.09 recoils but I would like to see them address things like having different recoil strength in different stances (too much stability is currently present when standing and crouched). Maybe bump up the overall recoil a bit as well. I don't know what to expect from MG recoil fixes - it has been mentioned a lot in the past, but as far as I can tell there is no system to allow for accurate and proper machinegun recoils, so I don't hold much hope for that in ArmA1.

There are quite a few other recoil- and weapons-related features that need to be implemented or tweaked for ArmAII to get it to sim-level weapons behavior, but, again... I don't think it's realistic to expect them to show up in ArmA1.

You would do well to come across a wee bit less strongly, OKO. You make it sound like you believe these changes herald the end of the world. Not only are you overreacting to changes in a beta, you're doing so in a very narrow-focused fashion. Vehicle survivability is improved because in previous iterations of the game (and in OFP), armored vehicles were complete and total deathtraps. Ideally there would be a robust damage model for infantry and vehicles to account for this and make for an even great overall system, but guess what? That's not how things are, so some compromises have to be made.

We had a scenario develop in a recent MP session where an enemy player shot one of our team's BMPs in the tracks. This did the following:

1) Destroyed that track, damaged the track on the other side. Total mobility kill.

2) Heavily damaged our hull

3) Wounded every person inside of the vehicle to the point that some could not stand

4) Disabled the turret

The gameplay resulting from that is infinitely better than "instant catastrophic and complete vehicle destruction" and is much closer in line with reality. I would much rather play a game that errs on the side of good gameplay than falls into the "too severe to the point of unreality", like ArmA 1.08's damage models.

Also, look at Strykers. They're another good case for improved vehicle survivability. I could post some anecdotes here of cases where those vehicles have taken incredible hits without losing crew members. The same is NOT true in ArmA 1.08 and prior. So, please - understand that a lot of this is closer to reality than you think. Combat against armored vehicles is not nearly as cut-and-dried simple as "AT-4 = win".

[MehMan 0]

However, there are no discernible AI improvements, as

promised. They still do the same idiotic and suicidal things

all the time.

Oh AI improvements. Blah, SP missions rely heavily on scripting and head busting from the creator to get a very good effect and behaviour from the AI. You can't get them to act like you want with a simple waypoint, it requires a bit of fiddling. But once you do, it's worth all the work.

[Heatseeker 0]

(all sorts of things)

There is a lot more to proper weapon simulation than just the ArmA-style recoil system. For it to be a truly accurate representation of how real weapons behave in the hands of a skilled shooter, it will require a bit more work. I have hope that ArmA II will address this - for ArmA1, I am fairly happy with the current 1.09 recoils but I would like to see them address things like having different recoil strength in different stances (too much stability is currently present when standing and crouched). Maybe bump up the overall recoil a bit as well. I don't know what to expect from MG recoil fixes - it has been mentioned a lot in the past, but as far as I can tell there is no system to allow for accurate and proper machinegun recoils, so I don't hold much hope for that in ArmA1.

There are quite a few other recoil- and weapons-related features that need to be implemented or tweaked for ArmAII to get it to sim-level weapons behavior, but, again... I don't think it's realistic to expect them to show up in ArmA1.

You would do well to come across a wee bit less strongly, OKO. You make it sound like you believe these changes herald the end of the world. Not only are you overreacting to changes in a beta, you're doing so in a very narrow-focused fashion. Vehicle survivability is improved because in previous iterations of the game (and in OFP), armored vehicles were complete and total deathtraps. Ideally there would be a robust damage model for infantry and vehicles to account for this and make for an even great overall system, but guess what? That's not how things are, so some compromises have to be made.

We had a scenario develop in a recent MP session where an enemy player shot one of our team's BMPs in the tracks. This did the following:

1) Destroyed that track, damaged the track on the other side. Total mobility kill.

2) Heavily damaged our hull

3) Wounded every person inside of the vehicle to the point that some could not stand

4) Disabled the turret

The gameplay resulting from that is infinitely better than "instant catastrophic and complete vehicle destruction" and is much closer in line with reality. I would much rather play a game that errs on the side of good gameplay than falls into the "too severe to the point of unreality", like ArmA 1.08's damage models.

Also, look at Strykers. They're another good case for improved vehicle survivability. I could post some anecdotes here of cases where those vehicles have taken incredible hits without losing crew members. The same is NOT true in ArmA 1.08 and prior. So, please - understand that a lot of this is closer to reality than you think. Combat against armored vehicles is not nearly as cut-and-dried simple as "AT-4 = win".

QFT.

Vehicle survivability always bugged me since rocket launchers were/are way too effective at extreme long ranges and the damage model of vehicles is too simple.

For the recoils... combined with the a.i. tweaks, new fire rates, dispersion, smoother animation and mouse handling 1.09 is much better than any previous version, hands down.

I dont think the new recoil makes mid-long range shooting much easier but close combat and mout plays better (imo).

[BraTTy 0]

I find the AI slightly better/harder now it seems.

[LtCmdrBoon 0]

yesterday i spent a good half hour in the mission editor/previews just to check stuff out and its nice.

A couple of points (everything else now I like, good job on 1.09)

1) I didn't see mentioned support for 4GB RAM (I know 1.08 just threw a sickie, so I pulled out 2GB just to play, kinda annoying to swap about though). Can anyone clear this up if its been sorted.

2) VoIP - Sometimes you can talk with ppl, then sometimes the same person can't hear you but everyone else can, then visa-versa, then out of the blue it works again.

Other than that I like it lots

I didn't think that the fog was a problem (with 8800) i thought it was just gradual as the distance increased, but with 1.09 I can say anyone who has a 8800 won't be disappointed to see this patch released final if that's what your holding out for.

[[aps]gnat 28]

I think the AI are better too ..........

I remember something very early on in ArmAs life that frame rate effects AI performance ?

The higher the frame rate, the better the AI performance so it was said .... maybe thats why some see it, some dont.

.... makes some sense to me, more CPU time to deal with proper decision making.

[Heatseeker 0]

Gnat @ Dec. 28 2007,01:15)]I think the AI are better too ..........

I remember something very early on in ArmAs life that frame rate effects AI performance ?

The higher the frame rate, the better the AI performance so it was said .... maybe thats why some see it, some dont.

.... makes some sense to me, more CPU time to deal with proper decision making.

I think the a.i. is less uber, in a good way. Its nice to be shot at without dying all the time, actually experienced some firefights that lasted more than 2 seconds.

But they have trouble finding the enemy position by sound. Before they could pinpoint my exac location and now its like they dont even know from what direction they are being shot at.

[PuFu 4591]

ty andersson, that was indeed an ak74, 5.45 rounds. yes, there is a bit of a difference in terms of kinetic energy. still, tho i have never fired an 5.56 round, seems to have greater punch. (that's why the 6.8 round was developed for the US weapons).

For me it is important in a PvP match to see who has the skills and who doesn't. It's way to easy to shoot the weapons now, exactly because of recoils. even tho i like that the sights are not bouncing all over my screen.

Once again, why isn't BIS using the Q11 recoils and rates of fire???

BUT i like the fact that armored vehicles are less vulnerable to AT rounds. The AA rockets should have been tweaked for less acuracy tho. Way to easy to lock on and take out a chopper no matter what maneuvers it does. A chopper is still a death trap.

[xxbbcc 6]

I, too, like the new recoils - finally there is a chance to actually hit something with the guns. Some recoils are indeed a bit on the easy side, but if I have to choose between 1.08 and 1.09, I'd vote for 1.09 two hands down. Before 1.09, I used Q1184's recoils, those were very good and I might switch to those if 1.09 gets released as it is and he releases a new version.

[twisted 127]

WarWolf @ Dec. 27 2007,18:36)]Recoil: I think some would call it a "feature", not a bug - but I agree that the recoil is now _very_ wrong on most weapons - MG recoil _downwards_ for instance - but even the normal rifles have very little recoil now - this is way too "easy" now IMO, nobody can fire those rifles with the arcadish amount of recoil in RL.  TBO I far preferred the recoils _as they were_ as to me they made sense.

This is true. now the m240 or pkm has way too little recoil when standing - it's almost laser gun full auto.

realism in recoils should be the only criteria.  and one of the big things to get right.

i do prefer the recoils 'snappiness' now but....

Have you guys ever shot a assault-rifle in real life?

If not, please be quiet instantly and stop complaining.

I believe the recoils are very good now and MUCH MORE REALISTIC than before.

Honestly i only shot a M16A2-type and a AK74M-type during holidays in USA some years ago, but i think i am able to tell you that the recoil of these weapons are in real-life like nothing, at least the M16 has no real recoil which could bring you out of the target with your ironsight.

So it is not "too easy" now - it simply was to unrealistic-hard recoils before 1.09.

Other Issue in 1.09 beta:

I can't enable Hardware-Accelerated sound anymore.

Also EAX seems to be enabled now by default - do i need it for good localization of direct-talks from somebody else? I ask this because it cost some Frames

i don't think you can hold a pkm standing up to your eye and shoot it full auto and easy control like the new recoils allow?

and where did i say anything about not wanting realistic?

[PuFu 4591]

I, too, like the new recoils - finally there is a chance to actually hit something with the guns. Some recoils are indeed a bit on the easy side, but if I have to choose between 1.08 and 1.09, I'd vote for 1.09 two hands down. Before 1.09, I used Q1184's recoils, those were very good and I might switch to those if 1.09 gets released as it is and he releases a new version.

I had no problems shooting and hitting in the 1.08 and i still don't have. This is my point. There has to be some sort of difficulty level here.

And besides i don't want an addon doing this for me. i want it in default game. On some servers, KH included, there are only a few addons/mods allowed, like tracers, sound mods and alike, mainly because of hacks and because we try to deny any addons that might give a player any sort of advantage over the others.

[icehollow 0]

I think what BIS misunderstood about the recoil in 1.08 was that the recoil itself was fine, it was good, it was the randomness of it kicking down or to the side that wasn't good, I've never fired a gun that has kicked up then down and taken 5 seconds to return to where I was aiming it.

The new recoil in 1.09 is perfect, all they need to do now is turn the actual recoil itself up , none of this dancing crap that was in 1.08 and earlier versions.

[Heatseeker 0]

Been checking out the rocket launchers and im afraid i dont see many changes, they are still sniper weapons and their effectiveness and acuracy is the same 50 or 500+ meters away.

There is no thrill or challenge in taking out an armoured vehicle because you dont need to sneak into a realistic range or setup an ambush, if its in sight you just kill it.

1 RPG/M136 kills a stryker or M113, the BMP doesnt blow up with a single hit but is disabled anyway...

[kuIoodporny 45]

fuelConsumption...

[dmitri 0]

Been checking out the rocket launchers and im afraid i dont see many changes, they are still sniper weapons and their effectiveness and acuracy is the same 50 or 500+ meters away.

There is no thrill or challenge in taking out an armoured vehicle because you dont need to sneak into a realistic range or setup an ambush, if its in sight you just kill it.

Quoted for effect.

I second this 100%.

Surely this would be easy for BIS to implement? Why not simply "remove" the rocket after a certain distance..increase the drop, whatever. Just Fix it.

Armoured vehicles are sitting ducks at certain ranges, how can it scan every bush in a 1km radius?

Play any coop online. If there's armour to be destroyed, all players know to choose a position just within viewdistance range. This needs changing, regardless of the expected complaints from certain players.

As much a gameplay concern as one of realism. A M1A1 being unable to approach even 2 RPG soldiers is plain wrong and ruins the use of the armoured vehicles.

[wamingo 1]

Gnat @ Dec. 28 2007,02:15)]The higher the frame rate, the better the AI performance so it was said

Having done some game and ai programming, I think what you say is pure speculation. It's not impossible but highly unlikely.

It would be like having the day time run at the speed of your framerate, think about how desynced everyone would be in MP.

To make games run in equal fashion all decisions are made based on time.

[KeyCat 131]

Been testing out the AI's new hearing/detection for a couple of hours using the same procedure as in 1.08.

1.09 Beta is moving in the right direction. The bug where the AI could pinpoint your exact location every time you fired a (non SD) weapon after spotting you once seems to be fixed  

Within ~50-100 m the AI are still very good at getting your exact position every time you fire with their ears alone but at longer ranges ~150+ m they are less likely to. In my test I use the "nearTargets" command, since I don't know how ArmA works internally there may be (and probably are) more things to it but all in all it's been improved over how it is in 1.08 and every improvement is great - keep it up BIS!

However, I still think there are some related AI hearing/detection issues that needs to be looked into and this one probably explains why you always becomes a "bullet magnet" to the AI the second you fire an AT round (always hated that and it makes using an AT/RPG almost a sucidal act unless you can step back behind solid cover within 500 mS or less).

The issue in short.... The AI will magically know your exact firing position after you fired your first AT round even if the AI has no LOS possibilities to you and if it's by hearing why does the AI only detect your first AT round?

Below is a link to a simple test mission demonstrating this issue, to reproduce it follow this steps:

1. Stay put and fire an AT round at the red car down in the village to the W. Directly after firing move backwards behind the hill.

2. A few seconds later you will get a message that you are detected by the AI (one AI soldier in safe mode with skill 0.50 is down in the village with his back turned against you and no LOS), he must have eyes in the back combined with X-ray vision to see you firing

The flagpole will indicate the AI's perceived location of you (and he is spot on within cm's).

3. Now move ~30 m to the right behind the hill and just crest the hill again to fire a second AT at the red car and directly move backwards behind the hill.

4. This time the AI will not know/update your exact firing position (same with the 3rd shot)? Just a wild guess here...maybe since the AI changed combat mode and/or stance after the first shot was fired???

Link to test mission:

http://keycat.no-ip.com/files/ArmA_109b_AI_Uber_triangulation.zip

Assuming that the AI is the same when mounted in APC's or tanks but will try that out later.

Hope you will nail this bug as well, making AT/RPG's less "sucidical" when fighting against AI and as others already said, compensate this by making the AT/RPG harder to use at long ranges (i.e less precise).

/KC

[leckig 0]

I know what happened with the missing recoil of most weapons - it was moved to the russian KSVK - its recoil is just giant. It does not compare at all with the m107, but maybe thats the way it is in RL??? It is hard to get any info on KSVK online.

I may be completly wrong, I only run one test and maybe I got something wrong, I dont know ARMA as well as you guys, please double check this, but it seem to me that KSVK is broken, it shoots but it does not do any damage. I was shooting at all kinds of vehicles and nothing happened. Maybe I set them up as friendly? I really dont know what went wrong.

[Sergei_Q 0]

I know what happened with the missing recoil of most weapons - it was moved to the russian KSVK - its recoil is just giant.

Not if you are prone. It shouldn't be a surprise that such a weapon is uncontrollable when unsupported. (Ah, if only you could rest guns on objects...)

But you seem to be right about the other thing - I tried it and KSVK couldn't destroy a bloody Skoda. It could punch its tires and break windows but several clips from it didn't disable it - it still moved! Meanwhile just 5 rounds from M107 set it in flames. Something is wrong.

[Sergei_Q 0]

Been checking out the rocket launchers and im afraid i dont see many changes, they are still sniper weapons and their effectiveness and acuracy is the same 50 or 500+ meters away.

The effectiveness of a HEAT shell does not diminish by range, anyway. They're not kinetic energy warheads.

[Heatseeker 0]

Been checking out the rocket launchers and im afraid i dont see many changes, they are still sniper weapons and their effectiveness and acuracy is the same 50 or 500+ meters away.

The effectiveness of a HEAT shell does not diminish by range, anyway. They're not kinetic energy warheads.

RPG-7

Quote[/b] ]

Effective range: 200-500 meters, depending on the grenade type

Nah, effective range doesnt mean the grenade is acurate up to 500M.

M136

Quote[/b] ]

Effective range: up to 150 meters against moving targets, about 300 meters against stationary targets.

In Arma light armored vehicles are rocket magnets, safest way to travel is onfoot .

[ArMoGaDoN 0]

Well, a couple times now I have been quite close to (within 100m of) an AI that's looking elsewhere and I shot a different AI that IMO was more of an immediate threat. The first AI didn't know where I was (behind a bush).

Just thought: could this be a side-effect of Durg's vegetation fix? Shouldn't SOME hearing be calculated even so? Does it attenuate sound THAT much?

Another thing, re APC and tank survivability - these settings seem better now, but perhaps reality would require them to be even tougher? Would make using them in missions more useful, perhaps, as others have suggested.

Recoil: tried the Q11 recoil fix for 1.09, and it's pretty good - far better than the new default, but if anything still slightly too little recoil I think?

Rifles kick, the new recoils in 1.09 tickle, and Q11's seem to slap but not hit.

There's plenty of rifle-fire examples out there in youtube land from many rifle-fanatics. Most show far more 'kick' than anything I have seen so far in ArmA, I still think that the old 1.08 recoils were closer to 'real' usage and readjustment time.

Shame the AI didnt seem to have the same disadvantage though.

[volkov956 0]

Shooting T72/M1A1 and other tanks with 50 CAL or 12.7 kills them usually in 100 rounds. I have not had time to test to see if they fixed the rear tack bug where u could kill T72 and lower with 30 rounds in the rear sprokect (M16)

Oh ya forgot to say if u hit vehicles they still sometimes get launched like a soccer and fly up or across the map and in alot of cases ignore Hit Detection and fly through buildings