Suggestion-list for the final arma patch

[wamingo 1]

8. while shooting from the corner of building, you hit that building, not the target you're aiming: video. it happens also while in prone position - if target is lower, bullets hits the ground not the target (especially frustrating when shooting AT launchers).

This is not necessarily a bug. The crosshair aims at where your ironsight aims, not where the barrel of the gun aims. The bullet exits from the barrel and your gun is in your right side. So there's a big difference. Try doing what you just did on this video, but before you shoot, switch to ironsight and you'll see the gun is basicly shooting straight into the wall.

edit: unncessary extra removed...

[gL33k 0]

- make the wheeled vehicle faster on grass.

[gL33k 0]

Being realistic, with the near release of ArmA2

BIS, Please fix at least these 2, Very annoying errors.

1. AI unable to cross most bridges (Grrrr!.

i second that , strongly .

[xxbbcc 6]

It'd be nice to see the buggy muzzleflash issue fixed:

Image

Notice that the UAZ is already destoryed, yet, after reload, the muzzleflash shows up on the machinegun.

[Dwarden 1125]

1)

little bonus to server list screen, add indicator of server in 'locked' mode (not password lock)

it's no good to discover this after you try to join

2)

bigger chance of AA missiles to miss airplane (esp when evasive manuevres done)

3)

missile lock / incoming missile warning for Airplanes and helicopters

4)

auto/manual countermeasures for airplanes and helicopters (MP compatible) against IR guided missiles and radar guided

5)

automatic warning and smoke countermeasure for vehicles when laser taged and radar locked

6)

fix bridge crossing AI

7)

fix grenade launcher jeeps and APC 'push back'

[Heatseeker 0]

^^

While i agree with all that i also believe that implementing new features thru patches will most likely result in introducing new bugs, wich will have to be patched...

Here is another small 1.09b bug... "30Rnd_556x45_Stanag" kills units with a single foot shot .

I think we should have a "clean" list of small bugs present in 1.09b .

[mr.g-c 6]

1. Tweak tank-hit zones a bit - since 1.09beta i need 3 RPG7V shots to disable a M1A2 from top (shouldn't the top of the turret be the weakest point?)

2. When a chopper has a engine failure and its gliding smoothly to the ground with its remaining speed, don't let it explode so often. I mean around patch 1.05 i remember that for example crews of Kamovs and Cobras had a bigger chance to survie such crashes and won't explode every time they have contact with the ground - thats ridiculous currently.

3. When tank got damage which was big enough to disable it, randomized a crew member could die inside the tank or at least heavy wounded (if survived)

4. (my Favorite) don't let rockets from RPGs and AT4 explode in air after certain distance. This is so unrealistic... instead they should fly until they hit the ground - but should loose much of its penetration power if the fly-path was long.

[straubinger82 3]

Yes of course, i agree to the 4th point a post above....

I saw a Video of a OFP-Mod i cannot name (i forgot it), in this you could see the AA-Guns work like FLAKS in WW2!

So perhaps there could be a switch between this "bug" to a "feature" somewhere else?

Just an Idea...

(sry 4 my english)

[kuIoodporny 45]

Let's begin.

EDIT: It IS my personal WISHLIST. But I think that many players would agree to these wishes.

1. M4[A1] M203 without ACOG, separate M4[A1]GL_ACG class for current ones.

2. Bridge crossing, improved pathfinding

3. Performance/quality models switch for static objects like foliage.

4. No sniping with MG's, especially DShKM.

5. 2A42 firing modes - low and high ROF, like M134.

6. Wider use of soundBurst=0    (2A42, G36, AZP85...)

7. Multibarreled weapon support! (SDP Vehicles )

8. Radio protocol needs to be reworked and enhanced, words like "thirteen", "thirty", "hundred", - to be added to group management. "Contact!" - isn't it group leaders' common 6th sense known since OFP? Also - do three men group need to communicate via groupRadio while keeping 4 meters distance? Is that war? Or maybe Warsaw Pact's "combat" manoeuvres? Let player report his position, and introduce some point-and-click action command interface (so AI will open the door that player wants to be opened, rearm at / bury exact dead soldier etc.)

9. Raining inside buildings, disappearing Earth (try HALO in Evolution at night - what happens? ROFL), night rainbows o.O

10. Groups divided into rank-based teams, sharing informations by team leaders (encountered enemy, team has done its order, or went under fire, suffered losses etc.) so group leader will only have to give strategical orders (flank enemy, but take care of yourself without giving me 200 expected reports about it! without losing the ability to manage each and every soldier. Make player feel like commander, not a 60 people's common brain :|

11. More individual AI, so fellow soldier would engage all enemies encountered "by the way". Also increase soldier turning speed (together with movement inertia). Maybe make AI more independent from the radio protocol.

12. Quicker animation transitions, ability to avoid getting killed while reloading. We're at war, not at the shooting range! Wake up & hurry, soldier! Current animations were probably made with kind support of drunk WWII veterans. Shouldn't soldiers sometimes move sideways while in "Danger" mode, instead of stopping every 20 cm in Porto (chessmaster simulation)? BTW. Allowing player to start moving in half of weapon switching animation would be fair enough IMHO.

13. Engine out horn and warning light in cockpit for aircrafts (helis and planes), incoming missile alert, turrets for planes

14. Disable mouse autocentering in vehicles - OFP gives you more dynamical control over them! Also enable pointing cursor there.

15. Put some fuel stations in northern Sahrani - where from do they get fuel for their buses  

16. SLA & RACS should use the same facepack!!! Now it looks like SLA communist forces are also the racist ones!

17. Medics not first to fight, as it usually happens now  

18. Damage textures.

19. Farewell to Ocean of Acid A.D. 2001.

20. Better visibility for lights in nights without NVG! Also adjust NVG HDR effect, it's too sensitive now.

21. M2A2 (USA), BTR-80, Su-25K, MiG-21-93 (SLA), Mirage (RACS). Su-34's are almost useless (and yea, they fit T72's PERFECTLY). Are they multirole aircrafts or maybe Russian jet flight school's machines?    EDIT: Mk-82's for A-10 and Harrier, FAB-250's and KAB-500's for OPFOR planes...

22. Ka-50 ejection and improved flight model (coaxial rotor helicopter)

23. M136 - sound and backblast. RPG-7 - backblast.

24. Tracers that don't appear for each bullet.

25. Hardcode tank fire control systems like NonWonderDog's. AI actually uses very precise ballistics computer. EDIT: CCIP for iron bombs is welcome. EDIT2: It's not meant to be super-accurate-lifelike-simulation, just simple ballistic computer as it is known for over 60 years.

26. 1.09 recoils are too simple, 1.08 are laggy. Let's find something between

27. Rate of fire: simply stick to real ones. And maybe fix reloadTime dependancy on FPS.

Missed something?  

I just want You guys in BIS to conquer Codemasters  

[Heatseeker 0]

Wright ..

A small sugestion, the island intro cutscenes are almost as bad as the campaign ones, on the other hand the DEMO's south sahrani has a rather nice and smooth intro cutscene. *Hint hint* .

[funkee 0]

LoL, nice post zGuba! you defeated me with your 27 points, compare to poor 23 in my bug list . congrats man, well done . with all our fixes it would be the best game ever . PS. masz moze gg? to poklikamy. moj nr. 2105324. pozdro.

[-Puma- 2]

i want new layouts for weapons

[SpaceReverend 0]

Better sounds make a better gaming experience. With FDF_sounds it sounds almost real. I get chills on my spine every time chopper fly over me, it really sounds like it should be.

[twisted 128]

as accurate and realistic recoils and handling as possible for each and every weapon - i don't want fake easy or fake hard or false balancing just as real as possible on a computer.

PLEASE. get weapon experts to give you the info and feedback to get it spot on - in a combat simulator this is so important...

this includes getting the aimprecision accurate and realistic (this is how much the gun keeps drifting due to gravity and your muscles holding it in position and the value should be greater than it is now and should increase when under heavy fire or tired)

also bullet drop accurate as possible (like nonwonderdog started doing) for all calibers.

real ROFs for all weapons.

[ArmaVidz 0]

I won't ask for new units or new features. Just please, fix the gameplay hindering bugs.

Perhaps the original thread starter should summerize all the posts into the first post...

[dm 9]

4. (my Favorite) don't let rockets from RPGs and AT4 explode in air after certain distance. This is so unrealistic... instead they should fly until they hit the ground - but should loose much of its penetration power if the fly-path was long.

This is ridiculous...

Not only do most rockets have a timeout detonator (especially the RPG, which on most models will self destruct after ~900m flight) they are NOT kinetic penetrators. How fast they are travelling when they impact has nothing to do with how effective their penetration is.

This (and many many other suggestions) are prime examples of why developers shouldnt listen to their audience.

[kuIoodporny 45]

LoL, nice post zGuba! you defeated me with your 27 points, compare to poor 23 in my bug list . congrats man, well done . with all our fixes it would be the best game ever . PS. masz moze gg? to poklikamy. moj nr. 2105324. pozdro.

Yeah, but don't You think that most of Your bug list should be "contributed" to Evolution creators? [is it BIS mission?]

Well, what I wrote is rather wish list than bug list

Oh, I forgot one - please add the abillity to easily unflip bikes and bicycles

dobra :P

[mr.g-c 6]

Quote[/b] ]This (and many many other suggestions) are prime examples of why developers shouldnt listen to their audience.

Why are you so negative? Is it forbidden these days to make a mistake... unbelievable... somehow and very sadly i think that you are not the only one in this forum who react on posts like this - do you feel personally attacked because you are working on a ballistic mod/addon and obviously knowing such things better?

BTT:

Quote[/b] ]NOT kinetic penetrators. How fast they are travelling when they impact has nothing to do with how effective their penetration is.

Yes you are right with that, checked this and they are HEAT ammo mostly, but still i couldn't find any proofs for the self-destruction after certain distance, could you please point me/us to some data-sheets or else?

Best Regards, Christian

[Heatseeker 0]

I dont think it really matters if the rocket falls or self detonates after 900M, its effective range is 200/500M depending on grenade.

Fired ammunition's limited existence is the reason we dont have real arty, its one those things we shouldnt be expecting at this time.

If you consider the reloadable AT4's, missing backblasts, grenade fuses (they only arm after a certain distance), etc its not such a big deal..

[dm 9]

Quote[/b] ]This (and many many other suggestions) are prime examples of why developers shouldnt listen to their audience.

Why are you so negative? Is it forbidden these days to make a mistake... unbelievable... somehow and very sadly i think that you are not the only one in this forum who react on posts like this - do you feel personally attacked because you are working on a ballistic mod/addon and obviously knowing such things better?

The problem is not making the mistake, the problem is the frequency with which those mistakes are made. Add into the equation the number of people who believe it is BI's duty to pander to their every whim (no matter how incorrect/stupid) and you soon get a very very big mess.

And actually, it has nothing to do with what I do, it has everything to do with how I percieve the "community" (because of what I do). Contrary to popular belief, I don't consider myself any better than anyone else, but having been on the recieveing end of these endless streams of "requests" (demands) I can tell you its never EVER a good idea to listen to 90% of them.

The problem is, as is made so abundantly clear in this thread, that the audience wants everything, and they want it yesterday. This thread higlights that, in that it was started with the intention to list the issues caused by 1.09, but oh so quickly (the 6th post no less) it turns into a general "I WANT THIS" thread. Hell, you only have to look at the 2 locked HWM threads, that were spammed to death with both "omg why isnt it released yet" and "you should make this variant" posts, to see that the "community" can not restrain its self when it comes to being able to request things. It used to happen in OFP too, which is why I see it in the way I do - page after page of mostly useless spam.

BTT:

Quote[/b] ]NOT kinetic penetrators. How fast they are travelling when they impact has nothing to do with how effective their penetration is.

Yes you are right with that, checked this and they are HEAT ammo mostly, but still i couldn't find any proofs for the self-destruction after certain distance, could you please point me/us to some data-sheets or else?

If you'd checked wikipedia, which you were already on, you'd have found Wikipedia RPG-7 page, there is also the more reliable sources like GlobalSecurity.org (although, like fas.org, their info can be out of date).

Yes, some rockets dont have self detonators, but most do.

Edit: Like Heatseeker said, not only is this request a bit silly, but in the scheme of things its rather unimportant considering how many other things there are that should be fixed before it. Which, again, is why 99% of this sort of input is useless.

[Maddmatt 1]

Fired ammunition's limited existence is the reason we dont have real arty, its one those things we shouldnt be expecting at this time.

I don't think so . Don't you remember the Chain of Command Artillery for OFP?

The lifetime of a bullet/shell/whatever is set in the config. It can be increased when needed, such as for an artilley addon for example.

And as for these so called "Bug lists" that have been posted here. Those are just ridiculous. Those are not bug lists - they are your own personal wishlists, hell, some of those points are not even bugs at all. I doubt the developers are going to even consider those lists, it would be a waste of their time.

DM is right. We have some examples of why developers shouldn't/don't listen to everyone

Note: Not referring to all buglists, just a couple wishlists. Some people do know how to report bugs

[kuIoodporny 45]

Edit: Like Heatseeker said, not only is this request a bit silly, but in the scheme of things its rather unimportant considering how many other things there are that should be fixed before it. Which, again, is why 99% of this sort of input is useless.

So currently there's amount of 0.71 useful posts in this thread  

edit: hm, made mistake xD let's count all the wishlists...

Fired ammunition's limited existence is the reason we dont have real arty, its one those things we shouldnt be expecting at this time.

I don't think so . Don't you remember the Chain of Command Artillery for OFP?

The lifetime of a bullet/shell/whatever is set in the config. It can be increased when needed, such as for an artilley addon for example.

I think that BIS knows it

And as for these so called "Bug lists" that have been posted here. Those are just ridiculous. Those are not bug lists - they are your own personal wishlists, hell, some of those points are not even bugs at all. I doubt the developers are going to even consider those lists, it would be a waste of their time.

DM is right. We have some examples of why developers shouldn't/don't listen to everyone

Topic of this thread is SUGGESTION-LIST.

So hack off whiners  

Quote[/b] ]Note: Not referring to all buglists, just a couple wishlists. Some people do know how to report bugs

I think that wishlists are OK, BIS workers do think IMHO

[dm 9]

Topic of this thread is SUGGESTION-LIST.

So hack off whiners

Actually, if yo even bothered to read the first paragraph of the first post in this thread, the idea was:

Quote[/b] ]i thought we could start this thread and suggest some minor tweaks/changes based on the actual 1.09 beta, to be incorporated into the final patch.

So to paraphrase

Quote[/b] ]So hack off wishlisters

(That and this thread was made under false pretences over the misinterpretation of the word "final", so generally speaking, its rather silly anyway)

[NoRailgunner 0]

Agreed. Many ppl don't take care of vanilla ArmA 1.08 "vs." vanilla ArmA betapatch 1.09. Some of them even don't read those changelogs. Therefore such things are turning quickly into wishfest. Who knows how soon we get the "final arma patch"?

[kuIoodporny 45]

Topic of this thread is SUGGESTION-LIST.

So hack off whiners  

Actually, if yo even bothered to read the first paragraph of the first post in this thread, the idea was:

Quote[/b] ]i thought we could start this thread and suggest some minor tweaks/changes based on the actual 1.09 beta, to be incorporated into the final patch.

So to paraphrase

Quote[/b] ]So hack off wishlisters  

(That and this thread was made under false pretences over the misinterpretation of the word "final", so generally speaking, its rather silly anyway)

I didn't wanted to be offending. I've read this before posting I'm literate person    (even with my poor English skills)

However, the topic evolved in the way it evolved, so I've posted my thoughts and doubts about my sci-fi ArmA vision here, not next non-beta patch at all :P

1.09 is just a progress. I've suggested some ways of letting players choose between 1.08 beauty and 1.09 performance, and what I think about weapon recoils.

In addition, static MG's should have stronger recoil and static grenadelaunchers should have weaker that's all

Agreed. Many ppl don't take care of vanilla ArmA 1.08 "vs." vanilla ArmA betapatch 1.09. Some of them even don't read those changelogs. Therefore such things are turning quickly into wishfest. Who knows how soon we get the "final arma patch"?

Exactly, but why not doing this? It mainly shows that people need a topic like this to express themselves :P