A.C.E. Advanced Combat Environment Mod 2

[Smurf 12]

Thanks for the kindness for answer. :)

About the mower, yeah, was joking. But I hate to lay flat on the ground and be unable to see anything. Thats makes MGs and Snipers near to useless when covering fire from a great distance.

But I forgot we will be able to deploy weapons again.. Oh, all those stone walls... will be great for ambushes \o/.

A question about it, we won´t see any animation as the weapon deploy right? Unfolded bipod or another placement for the hand of the soldier... (engine limitation I guess..)

[migkillertwo 10]

one more thing that ACE2 needs, more realistic optical sights. In real life, the aiming reticles on aimpoints and eotech sights are projected onto the target, so they move just as the gun moves. ACE managed to do that for the M14s which were upgraded to SOPMODs which had optical and reflex sights, but obviously not all guns had those. So I thought that was a really cool tool for combat simulation.

[Inkompetent 0]

one more thing that ACE2 needs, more realistic optical sights. In real life, the aiming reticles on aimpoints and eotech sights are projected onto the target, so they move just as the gun moves. ACE managed to do that for the M14s which were upgraded to SOPMODs which had optical and reflex sights, but obviously not all guns had those. So I thought that was a really cool tool for combat simulation.

There is no satisfying solution to this because of engine limitations. All ways attemped this far (that I am aware of) bugs out with graphical artifacts of one kind or another for fairly many players. One solution works on a machine, but the other doesn't, and vice versa for another player.

[DaSquade 0]

pufu is correct about the attacheble and swapping of scopes. In rl this isn't done afaik at least not with most scope. But indeed still a mayor engine limitation atm. Something not only would benefite players in kitting their own weapon, but from a modelers point of view and sourcing/addon packs it would even be a better thing...

Silencers/suppressors on the other hand would be more realistic and especially for sniper riffles i think it is very common they attach/detach it. It is possible, but has some negative points afak.

About the realistic holo's on aimpoint/eotech. Indeed gives for some (was it nvidia or ati users that had the bug?). Might be nice if we could get more detailed info why some cards have the bug and some don't. Maybe the newer generation cards don't have the alpha bug anymore....(still on a GTX8800 here).

[akd42 10]

Silencers/suppressors on the other hand would be more realistic and especially for sniper riffles i think it is very common they attach/detach it. It is possible, but has some negative points afak.

Only negative of attaching and detaching a suppressor, especially a QD (quick detach) suppressor is potential for a shift in zero (i.e. your rifle was shooting one MOA groups at point of aim before, and is now shooting one MOA groups high and to left of point of aim. So snipers would probably be the least likely to take them on and off with any frequency. However, some newer designs largely eliminate zero shift.

[seba1976 98]

I don't think it would serve any practical purpose (gameplay wise, that is). But if it would be only for practical purposes (closing the range of the engagement, for instance) you can always carry a different weapon "on back" with the already implemented features of ACE. If someone needs a more diverse system though, it can be implemented through a change of the primary weapon on the fly. It wouldn't probably look pretty ;), but it would supply the need for attaching/detaching scopes and suppressors. I guess something very similar to the "weapon on back" feature could be implemented relatively easily to provide the illusion of configuring some weapons.

[akd42 10]

The only "scope" I would want to see attach/detach during the course of a mission would be either some form of night vision device mounted in addition to the primary optic, or a flip magnifier for an Aimpoint or EOTech sight.

[seba1976 98]

The only "scope" I would want to see attach/detach during the course of a mission would be either some form of night vision device mounted in addition to the primary optic, or a flip magnifier for an Aimpoint or EOTech sight.

Well... I pretty often find myself in a situation where I need to carry a magnification scope like the ACOG for most of the mission, and then the combat range changes to less than 100 mts. and the rifle with the ACOG turns mostly useless. So I've became very used to the "weapon on back" feature of ACE, and I always carry something with an Aimpoint or plain iron sights to cope with that. I hope they keep that feature and only built upon it.

[scubaman3D 0]

or you can use the CQB sights on some of the ACOGs

[Flarmapoint 2 10]

any updates, sickboy ?

[guiltyspark 10]

please ...... we need this in the game!

it will open up so many possibilities for amphibious warfare!

[manzilla 1]

any updates, sickboy ?

Yay we got a live one lately and he's all over the forum with it. Bless his heart. ;) :D hehe

Attachable/detachable suppressors would be a damn nice addition. Scopes, sights no practical reason to do it really. I never did it unless it was absolutely necessary for every reason other then doing it in the red zone. I don't know, maybe some do it but it seems a little foolish to me. Just bring a secondary if needed.

[scubaman3D 0]

the day that BIS gives us a function to check the remaining # of rounds in a mag (like VBS2 has) is the day we'll make an attachment system like the one you're describing.

---------- Post added at 01:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 AM ----------

please ...... we need this in the game!

it will open up so many possibilities for amphibious warfare!

Just checked...the EFV isn't scheduled to enter service until 2015 (if it dosn't get the ax before then). Hell - MULE, NLOS Cannon, FireScout, and many more of the FCS programs will be in service before then. This dosn't exactly fit within the scope of ACE.

[Maddmatt 1]

the day that BIS gives us a function to check the remaining # of rounds in a mag (like VBS2 has) is the day we'll make an attachment system like the one you're describing.

And to set the number of rounds :(

There is a way to check the number of rounds in the current mag and also some stuff can be done with setvehicleammo but it leaves exploits.

[Eagle911 10]

So would there be a possibility of naval warfare?

And also say, destroyers providing support via artillery

[LJF 0]

Will tanks/armored vehicles be balanced better than currently?

I just had an M1A2 TUSK taken out by 2 Vodniks (BPPUs), which is kind of ridiculous. BMP3s appear to be the most powerful armored vehicle in the game too ...

I suppose armour penetration simulation isn't possible but maybe there is another way to make an Abrams/T-90 as powerful as in real life.

[Apocal 10]

I suppose armour penetration simulation isn't possible but maybe there is another way to make an Abrams/T-90 as powerful as in real life.

I wonder if there is a way to attachTo an invisible object onto the tank's front armor with "allowDamage false" set and another script added to projectiles that can penetrate (which should be a damned short list) that removes the indestructable object and applies damage as normal?

[mcpxxl 2]

@Count rounds

Like Lester posted so often ...

In Arma should for every "get" param also have his counterpart as "set"

Don´t know the right param but it should like

get rounds --> set rounds

get fuel --> set fuel

and so on

[LJF 0]

I wonder if there is a way to attachTo an invisible object onto the tank's front armor with "allowDamage false" set and another script added to projectiles that can penetrate (which should be a damned short list) that removes the indestructable object and applies damage as normal?

So if you were able to do that would it then be possible to have it so that certain rounds wouldn't penetrate or cause damage? 40mm grenades for instance wouldn't be able to destroy the hull of an M1A2 TUSK? Would it be possible to calculate angle of impact too? That would be incredible.

[Tozmeister 0]

Beagle posted this in another thread :-

Fixe the damned typo in vehicle .cfg

the bmp3 has a value of damageResistance = 0.014030;

while the t90 has a value of damageResistance = 0.003890;

This makes the T90 vulnerable to small arms fire.

T72 shares this problem.

So, would a simple re-balance of damageResistance values be included in ACE2?

[rasdenfasden 12]

There is no satisfying solution to this because of engine limitations. All ways attemped this far (that I am aware of) bugs out with graphical artifacts of one kind or another for fairly many players. One solution works on a machine, but the other doesn't, and vice versa for another player.

Wouldn't simply turning off the reticule completely when you're not in sight view fix it for everyone?

[Inkompetent 0]

Wouldn't simply turning off the reticule completely when you're not in sight view fix it for everyone?

Nopes. It wouldn't. The times you saw the reticle instead of the usual crosshairs was a bug of one of the implementations. The designs were so that there either was a transparent plane before the optics with the crosshair on it, or a transparent cone with the crosshair inside of it, both extended some distance in front of the weapon to create a fake parallax effect.

The bug with the plane was that the crosshair sometimes got visible even when you weren't looking through the optics, and the bug with the cone was odd graphical artifacts extending from the sights, mainly when seated inside vehicles.

Without support for parallax textures that can be set to draw something faaar away there is no 'un-buggy' way to create said sights as far as I know.

[Eagle911 10]

So would there be a possibility of naval warfare?

And also say, destroyers providing support via artillery

Bump.

[manzilla 1]

Sorry, answer moved to his other thread.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Manzilla

[SaBrE_UK 0]

Inkompetent, no doubt you've seen it but:

-vcZs2AZWqc

I guess it is still buggy for some?