Enemy Accuracy way to good.

[ebud 18]

Hi all

@ No Use For A Name

Any chance you can give us a repeatable mission to prove your claims?

Kind Regards walker

Walker don't be so coy, you know as well as anyone that you cannot replicate situations like he mentioned because it will never ever happen the same way twice.

"Move along, nothing to see here."

The AI has spider sense and you know it. I've seen the AI vid where the user spawns around then then back to the AI view to "see" what they see and are being ordered to do, but that vid only addresses a portion of the issue. I'd like to see that test done again in a more cluttered environment... at night even.

I've had countless situations happen the same way as "No Use For A Name" I'm not making it up or exaggerating. It's not a showstopper, but it's been there from day1. The AI may not "cheat" as much as people might think but the one shot PK headshots at 200m though a keyhole, through a hedge still happen more than you want to admit.

Edit: Also I'd like to see that same vid/mission done at distances under 200 meters in less than open spaces. An AAR playback would be perfect for this :(

Edited June 12, 2009 by Ebud

[Hell_Toupee 0]

Put a tank in the editor then yourself in a tank 1 km or more even directly behind it, as soon as mission starts enemy tank turns and fires on you

[ryan80 10]

i notice enemy can shoot you through buildings and walls .

even through the fog.

quite frustrating at times, when you can't even spot them and they are shooting at you.

Edited June 12, 2009 by ryan80

[walker 0]

Hi Ebud

My Bias

I readily admit I am a reality and difficulty fan-boy. Games like COD takes me a couple of days to complete and the MP communities are tragic. So I do not want to see ArmA dumbed down to that level and passionately fight against such. By all means add a recruit level to reduce difficulty for new guys but do not screw up the core values of ArmA based on hear say evidence.

Many Myths have come into existence in ArmA because people find it hard, and as you know I have on occasions played my part in busting them and refining what real problems exist.

Witness statements and the odd one off video without a repeatable mission are not proof.

So far all the repeatable proof in this thread has been from those who have busted the Myths.

The need for scientific proof

We both know that to show a "bug" or as in this case an argument for a change in the degree of difficulty because someone argues it is unrealistic, you need to have something repeatable.

As someone pointed out, in this thread I think, in real life there are skilled individuals who make amazing shots yes even with the venerable old AK47 and even people who just get lucky that day.

The same statisical situation has to apply in ArmA II.

If there is a statistically significant number here, it should be repeatable. If the case you argue is that soldiers in the field would make that shot 1 in 100 times and not 1 in 10, then do the experiment. And provide the readily available accuracy requirements for riflemen proficiency. If it takes you too much time produce statistical data then produce the experiment any way; and let the mass of other ArmA players who are very interested in this gather the statistical data using that repeatable experiment.

In this particular case the evidence can be gathered programatically using the AI, without even a player being present. This particular data can be gathered using event handlers. And indeed the experiment is probably one that can be run at speed thousands of times an hour.

I do not yet have ArmA II, but as you know at The Chain of Command, which is a trading name of Applied Gnosis Group LLC, we did masses of research to test things like this before we produced anything.

As I continue to say do the experiment, get the proof.

With all due respect walker

Edited June 12, 2009 by walker

[twisted 128]

i have had just the opposite of what has been reported here. In badlands mission was able to sneak up on a machinegunner in a UAZ and shoot him from behind.

on the manhattan mission

when attacking the enemy main camp i flanked them in an LAV. jumped out. rpg'd the tank. then hopped back in the lav and rode round the back of them and wiped out half the guys who were looking in every direction except where i had now come around.

in badlands again

when taking the 3rd town. i was getting chewed up badly time and time again by the armored vehicles. so i tried going a new route and moving around the a few house to get a better position. then i stupidly opened fire with the one-shot rpg and missed. Only then did the armored vehicle see me and open fire. I managed to run to the other side of the house but got taken out by another AI who was coming in from the other direction.

if an AI knows where i am it is usually because i give my position away by being too loud or being spotted. And if a AI sees me and is firing, i can often avoid their fire by going behind cover and then running in a different direction - the AI tracks where they think i will be going and so if i go around the cover in a new direction they don't spot me immediately.

I play arma2 on regular difficulty with custom AI skill (both opfor and blufor set to about 0.8 skill) and custom precision (set about 0.4 for both).

[walker 0]

i notice enemy can shoot you through buildings and walls .

even through the fog.

quite frustrating at times, when you can't even spot them and they are shooting at you.

Hi Ryan

As was pointed out here

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=73139&page=24

Bullets go through walls.

Have you considered that perhanps the AI are shooting at you because you were making a lot of noise and they have identified you in previous encounter, at a guess you shot at them and then ran away into the fog?

Also wish to remind people of this.

Hi all

Just to remind everyone of the difference between: Cover and Concealment.

Cover is something that stops bullets. Cover often also can mean concealment but not always, you may be covered inside M1A1 but you re not concealed, everyone knows precisely where you are.

Concealment does not stop bullets.

NB You are not concealed by the fact you are behind something!

This is the lesson you learn after many games with your parent or guardian of peekaboo behind the blankie! After much merriment and mirth one day you realise that the adult is in fact behind the blankie; at this point the merriment becomes less and the joke appears lame much to the distress of all concerned.

Following on from this the excuse of: I ran behind the tree/bush/house(insert object) and the AI still new where I was, so it must be cheating; is equally lame.

Shooting, making a noise, (and that includes direct speak), such as rustling in the bushes, or stomping your boots around, moving about and sky lining your head to take a peak when in the AI's or players arc of view, or trying to be stealthy with the telegraph poll of an AT weapon on your back; all bust concealment.

Concealment does not magically reappear because you want it to.

An extra note on the cover and concealment value of trees.

A foot wide tree is not cover or concealment. Trees that develop arms and shoulders draw attention to them selves. While a well camouflaged rucksack sticking out of the side might be confused for an outgrowth, if still; moving growths are unusual. Trees with AT weapons sticking jauntily out of them will almost certainly draw strange looks followed by a bullet.

Any tree less than 2 feet wide offers little cover and no concealment for the average human. Average human shoulders are between 16 inches and 26 inches wide, very fit people or those with a large frame, or playing sports or engaged in activities that require lots of upper body strength; can and do exceed this considerably. Soldiers may well fall in to the latter category.

Consider the circle to be a tree trunk in cross section: If a foot of wood will stop some bullets there is 4 inches of the width of 1 foot wide tree in cross section that is about 1 foot thick. At the edges it is zero inches thick. So out of its twelve inches 8 inches offer zero to very little cover. Since we already know humans can be more than two feet wide we must accept the fact that a foot wide tree is not and never will be cover.

Corners of walls are also not true cover. At its apex a corner offers zero cover. After this it offers a maximum of the square root of the 2n^2 inches of cover where n is the distance in inches you body is back from apex. Ah the joys of Pythagoras.

I point these things out because there are some new guys here who have playing other games where they negatively train you into thinking such objects offer cover. This is incorrect and can result in short games for the aforesaid miss trained individuals.

The situation with this negative training as a result of playing silly games like COD4 CS etc. is that I have even seen people "Taking cover" I kid you not, behind a 4 inch wide post and, I kid you not, peeking out from behind it.

All New guys please reassess the situation when we meet in MP I do not want to spend hours of game play dragging or carrying you bloody ass from one medic to the next.

The ground is your friend

The best cover is the ground, preferably mountains thick of it.

Crawling is good.

Laying down reduces your total target area to 26 inches by 8 inches in cross section, with a 6 by 8 inch oval in the centre that is your head bobbing up and down.

I can not emphasise this enough crawling is good

Caught by a sniper in the open (because you are a numpty)

When caught in the open by a sniper, running away is not a good option, if you are running away the sniper is firing at your back every minute you run.

Aggression is the best option put some fire on the sniper. If in a squad move toward the sniper in bounds, widen your spacing and makes sure you are suppressing at all times. By widening your line you increase the angle the sniper must lay at to fire upon you this means that for those suppressing the sniper their target gets wider when the sniper attempts to engage those who are running.

If you choose to retreat do so in good order by bounds so that you may suppress the sniper if required, pop smoke. If without smoke, run at a diagonal to the sniper this way you are adding elevation and traverse to the snipers calculations, vary the angle.

Of course I have to ask the question; why the heck were you caught out in the open?

Kind Regards walker

If you have genuine case then make it with a repeatable experiment.

Kind Regards walker

[froggyluv 2135]

Well I don't have the time (or drive) to do any professional testing but for the most part I like the AI responses in Arma2. I've done a lot of shoot and duck tests with sniper rifles, At's, mg's etc... and it really seems to depend on the quality of your cover. The difference between being behind a skinny tree 150m out, or a large rock really matters in how well the Ai can find you.

Really my only gripe is the occasional "man, 1000meters" that at times just doesn't seem possible.

[walker 0]

...Really my only gripe is the occasional "man, 1000meters" that at times just doesn't seem possible.

Hi froggyluv

I know you have made those shots and I know I have.

If we the players can make those shots then some of the AI should be able to aswell.

I think the ego booster mentality of other ego shooter games has a lot to answer for.

It has lead people to think only they are good shots and the AI should not be.

No wonder the Real Virtuality engine is the "De Facto" simulation for the military.

Kind Regards walker

Edited June 12, 2009 by walker

[ebud 18]

Hi Ebud

My Bias

I readily admit I am a reality and difficulty fan-boy. Games like COD takes me a couple of days to complete and the MP communities are tragic. So I do not want to see ArmA dumbed down to that level and passionately fight against such. By all means add a recruit level to reduce difficulty for new guys but do not screw up the core values of ArmA based on hear say evidence.

...

So far all the repeatable proof in this thread has been from those who have busted the Myths.

The need for scientific proof

We both know that to show a "bug" or as in this case an argument for a change in the degree of difficulty because someone argues it is unrealistic, you need to have something repeatable.

...

As I continue to say do the experiment, get the proof.

With all due respect walker

I don't want to argue with you and I don't want the game "dumbed down" I've only been able to play it a little bit and I think overall it is head and shoulders over the last iterations of the engine/game. Also the situation I keep harping about only happend once so far in ARMAII.

I remember busting a myth back when Res. came out and people said the AI could see through the RES bushes so I setup a box of bushes 20mx20m and sat in the middle and had ai patrol around the box. Nothing happened. I posted pics.

Nobody believed it.

If someone could post a link to that test scenario so others could try it and try new ways to test theories then I think this thread would slowly fade away.

[Heatseeker 0]

Hi froggyluv

I know you have made those shots and I know I have.

If we the players can make those shots then some of the AI should be ble to aswell.

I think the ego booster mentality of other ego shooter games has a lot to answer for.

It has lead people to think only they are good shots and the AI should not be.

No wonder the Real Virtuality engine is the "De Facto" simulation for the military.

Kind Regards walker

You should wait untill you play the game before you defend it with such fundamentalist fanaticism Walker. The a.i. never performed realistic combat behaviour neither did they use realistic infantry tactics. Their senses and acuracy are increased to compensate their inefective tactical reactions, in other words.. cheating, yes.

The game as always been too acurate behiond realistic engagement distances anyway.. everyone is a sniper, including AT soldiers.

Arma II is not a simulation, just a large scale, slow paced, military action game.

And this whole debate is pointless, its just a matter of decreasing a.i. precision and skill to a confortable level, say.. 0.5 instead of 1.0?

[twisted 128]

You should wait untill you play the game before you defend it with such fundamentalist fanaticism Walker. The a.i. never performed realistic combat behaviour neither did they use realistic infantry tactics. Their senses and acuracy are increased to compensate their inefective tactical reactions, in other words.. cheating, yes.

The game as always been too acurate behiond realistic engagement distances anyway.. everyone is a sniper, including AT soldiers.

Arma II is not a simulation, just a large scale, slow paced, military action game.

And this whole debate is pointless, its just a matter of decreasing a.i. precision and skill to a confortable level, say.. 0.5 instead of 1.0?

one the otherhad i have played it a shitload and the AI do regularly display flanking behaviour, they engage at greater distances, try and suppress me on occassion and rush to back up their temamates on hearing gun fire.

those are nice reactions to have to deal with from AI. not perfect but a big step from arma and any other game out there.

and i agree with your solution of turning down the AI settings a little.

[dreday 1]

You should wait untill you play the game before you defend it with such fundamentalist fanaticism Walker. The a.i. never performed realistic combat behaviour neither did they use realistic infantry tactics. Their senses and acuracy are increased to compensate their inefective tactical reactions, in other words.. cheating, yes.

The game as always been too acurate behiond realistic engagement distances anyway.. everyone is a sniper, including AT soldiers.

Arma II is not a simulation, just a large scale, slow paced, military action game.

And this whole debate is pointless, its just a matter of decreasing a.i. precision and skill to a confortable level, say.. 0.5 instead of 1.0?

THANK YOU! You really took the words right out of my mouth. Not much to add here. End of discussion...

Peace,

DreDay

[walker 0]

You should wait untill you play the game before you defend it with such fundamentalist fanaticism Walker. The a.i. never performed realistic combat behaviour neither did they use realistic infantry tactics. Their senses and acuracy are increased to compensate their inefective tactical reactions, in other words.. cheating, yes.

The game as always been too acurate behiond realistic engagement distances anyway.. everyone is a sniper, including AT soldiers.

Arma II is not a simulation, just a large scale, slow paced, military action game.

And this whole debate is pointless, its just a matter of decreasing a.i. precision and skill to a confortable level, say.. 0.5 instead of 1.0?

Hi Heatseeker

All I ask is that you show a repeatable experiment to prove your assertions.

Others with an opposing viewpoint to yours have done precisely that.

That is why so many of the "The AI is too uber!" myths have now been busted.

You make your assertions yet you offer no repeatable mission on which to base them.

It is not that I disbelieve the faith you have in your assertions, it is that you have not offered any scientific proof they are true, instead we expected to accept your word. Now you may turn round and say well many others think the same to which the reply is until Columbus most people thought the world was flat; they were wrong.

If what you assert is true you will be able to prove it.

On the matter of making ArmA easy for the New Guys I do not object as long as it is done by adding a lower level difficulty eg. Recruit to the Difficulty settings.

As to increasing dispersion for AI beyond what players have in order to increase length of battles I do not object as long as it is a MOD so that we can turn it off. Heck I play ACE and it has altered dispersion.

Kind Regards walker

Edited June 12, 2009 by walker

[no use for a name 0]

Hi all

@ No Use For A Name

Any chance you can give us a repeatable mission to prove your claims?

Kind Regards walker

this is almost impossible because the AI is so inconsistent. I've tried several times in the editor to replicate and only got them to shoot thru vegetation a few times when 75% of the time they just lay prone staring at me doing nothing (even standing in a wide open field at 50m). The funny thing is that the very first time it was like clockwork...I put the AI in a thick group of bushes, and I put myself next to a row of bushes ~50-60m away, so there's no way I can see him or he can see me. I shoot 5 or 6 rounds and 3 seconds later the AI shoots back with 99% accuracy while I'm prone and moving behind the bushes. Then I try it again without changing anything, and he just lays there like a dumbass. I even ran up to him and got within 10 meters and he didn't even turn my way.

Let me be clear...I'm not saying that they shouldn't be able to shoot at you behind bushes; but they shouldn't be so damn quick to find you and accurate. If I see an AI run behind some bushes, there's no way in hell I know exactly where he's at and just have to spray random spots. They seem to know exactly where you are...when they decide to engage

edit: finally! caught irrefutable proof of 100% accuracy with 0 visibility. I'll post the vids shortly

edit2:lol! my connection is pretty damn slow so it might be a little longer...as in tonight hehe

Edited June 12, 2009 by No Use For A Name

[bloodbomb 12]

I've heard a lot of griping about enemy AI on both OFP and ArmA, having not played ArmA I wouldn't know, but I noticed it in OFP. Telling people they have to do controlled scientific tests to prove that a game feels a bit unbalanced to them is kinda retarded, especially when your own version of a scientific experiment is putting some bushes in front of you and walking an enemy patrol in front and decreeing "myth debunked" immediately.

AI is random, bullets are random, lots of things are random and hard to replicate. What I want to hear is an explanation of this problem by an actual developer, thats if they don't have better things to do than convince people to buy their game...

[walker 0]

Hi No Use For A Name

A video is a great example of your collection of scentific data. It is however more important that you present the mission so that others may also test it.

Videos and witness statements are all well and good but they are not a repeatable experiment and their scientific value is the same as that of the ArmA Bigfoot video.

Just make a copy of your mission available then all who have ArmA II can all check it for them selves.

In reply to BloodBomb

If what you argue is that the AI v Player is unbalanced in a percentage of times that is easily tested. Make a mission where the AI performs the role n times then have human perform it the same number of times.

The nature of peer review

If you want to question an experiment and show it to be flawed, perform the experiment and do so. If you think there is a better experiment make it available. Each person who has placed a repeatable experiment on this forum does so in the full knowledge that others can test their proof. That is the nature of peer review and the scientific method.

Opinion is not fact

If you wish to say the AI is too hard for you; you can attest to that. Then I and others can attest the opposite view. But without a repeatable scientific experiment in the form of a mission that others can download all we have is passionate belief in the form of hot air.

It is only with repeatable experiment that you can prove what you say.

Kind Regards walker

Edited June 13, 2009 by walker

[USSRsniper 0]

Got myself behind a bush, tested it with team switch and player can easily see human shape behind the bush, but still AI does not engage me. Did this 10 times, and the results are the same :eek: AI does not risk its life, it just goes prone and waits for me to show up, however if there are two AI's, one goes prone and other moves to either right or left flank and kills me :( AI is aware that I'm behind a bush but not 100% sure where to fire.

AI is hard in BIS games, especially ArmA 2, but if it wasn't hard I would never play games made by BIS :p

Edited June 13, 2009 by USSRsniper

[no use for a name 0]

Got myself behind a bush, tested it with team switch and player can easily see human shape behind the bush, but still AI does not engage me. Did this 10 times, and the results are the same :eek: AI does not risk its life, it just goes prone and waits for me to show up, however if there are two AI's, one goes prone and other moves to either right or left flank and kills me :( AI is aware that I'm behind a bush but not 100% sure where to fire.

AI is hard in BIS games, especially ArmA 2, but if it wasn't hard I would never play games made by BIS :p

I've seen this too...but it's very inconsistent. Sometimes it seems smart and will flank, hide, etc. Sometimes it's dumb, as in my other comment the guy just laid prone as I ran up to within 10 meters from him; only turning towards me when I shot him. Sometimes it's super-ai, where they shoot thru objects or at insane distance with incredible accuracy that no normal human would be able to do. I've seen all this while testing using the same settings (skill level, rank, position, etc.).

I still think it's pretty good, and a hell of a lot better then most FPS's where they just spawn out of thin air and storm you; but with all this inconsistency it makes it hard to plan missions where sometimes they're dumb as a rock and sometimes you don't even stand a chance. Even when they're all on the same skill level

[Flock 10]

I've seen this too...but it's very inconsistent. Sometimes it seems smart and will flank, hide, etc. Sometimes it's dumb, as in my other comment the guy just laid prone as I ran up to within 10 meters from him; only turning towards me when I shot him. Sometimes it's super-ai, where they shoot thru objects or at insane distance with incredible accuracy that no normal human would be able to do. I've seen all this while testing using the same settings (skill level, rank, position, etc.).

I still think it's pretty good, and a hell of a lot better then most FPS's where they just spawn out of thin air and storm you; but with all this inconsistency it makes it hard to plan missions where sometimes they're dumb as a rock and sometimes you don't even stand a chance. Even when they're all on the same skill level

If the ai shot you through an object, i would think it's not an error with the ai but more with the objects fire and view geometry.

http://www.bistudio.com/developers-blog/arma2-vegetation-progress-2-9_en.html

Read that if you have not already it explains abit how it works.

Maybe you could list the objects which you were shot through so we could test them from all angles.

About the accuracy, I think that overall, if you put 8 humans on one end of a paddock and 8 ai at the other you would find that the humans can much more consistently ak "snipe" the ai than vice versa.

Atleast that is the result when our lan group gets into similar situations.

I have not had a look at editing in arma2 but from how the ai worked in arma (getting a higher knowsabout value) i would say that the ai does not cheat beyond small things like a group sharing exact last known enemy locations but its not exactly beyond a player group to do the same.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Flock

[ryan80 10]

Hi Ryan

As was pointed out here

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=73139&page=24

Bullets go through walls.

Have you considered that perhanps the AI are shooting at you because you were making a lot of noise and they have identified you in previous encounter, at a guess you shot at them and then ran away into the fog?

Also wish to remind people of this.

If you have genuine case then make it with a repeatable experiment.

Kind Regards walker

well i can say that sometimes they do shoot through buildings and walls on 1st encounter. and sometimes its when they spotted me earlier. but that still does not justify them shooting at me thru the buildings and walls. its like to the them(the AI), the buildings and walls do not exist as they will continue firing even when there is some obstruction infront. so there is no point for us to hide behind a wall or building. do you know what i mean?

as for the fog.

enemy was within the fog some distance infront of me, and me being some distance away out of the fog area was trying to spot them using sniping or binor. but somehow, shot are being fired at me from the fog area.

take note that most of the time this happened on 1st encounter and not 2nd.

[walker 0]

Hi ryan80

As the linked videos show bullets go through walls in reality and soldiers are trained in this. Since ArmA I the simulation has modeled pentration data on structures. ArmA II seems to be more detailed in this. As ArmA is a simulation ArmA AI does what a soldier does in such a situation, they fire at your projected course. This also is what I as a player would do.

It is a percentage shot, one cannot be certain the target is there as it is unsighted but it is reasonable guess that both a soldier and a human player in ArmA would do. So the AI in firing at you behind only a single thickness of wall is doing what a human would do.

Your description of the fog encounter is more intriguing.

As I keep pointing out make a mission in the editor so that both your self and others can test it.

Kind Regards walker

[Sonar 0]

Seriously WTF man.

He explained essentially what the MOA was, the 5% is simple the difference between his round figure and the .18 you had a fit over, its clear as day.

So let me get this right...

I'm wrong! MOA dons't mean Minute of Arc, it means bullet disperion over range. Wow that just destoryed 30 years of competion shooting and a 5 year engineering degree. So the next time someone says that something is out by 4 mins I have to tell them that we can fix the problem by shooting at it.:p

Boy you thought my logic was bad.

ps I dont recall having a fit over anything so you are not going gain anything by misquoting me or him. And its 0.047 not .18

Edited June 13, 2009 by Sonar
Because people keep misquoting me.

[LockDOwn 0]

About cheating AI,

found this vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6mI410K_ZU

I would guess this kind of test that walker have been preaching about

test is flawed. Once you respawned to new location, you were a NEW player to the AI. So they of course were still reacting to last known position. Fire from a building in a city and see how long it takes for them to come straight for the one building you are hiding in.

---------- Post added at 04:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:14 AM ----------

If you blindly believe the statement that "AI cheats and see through all objects", sure. But this statement is wrong in all accounts

I never said they could see through walls did I.

I stated that if they immediately return accurate fire from a sniper at long range.. THAT is a game killer in my opinion.

[max power 21]

Wiki is useless

It just so happens that I have a degree in the area of that article and I can confirm that it is accurate enough for your purposes. A psychiatrist can tell you more information on the management of the disorder.

No you didnt!

I didn't say that the ak74 can shoot 2 moa at 300 meters? Really? Huh. Because, like, when I look back there, I can see quite plainly what I wrote, and I remember explaining where I got that figure. Perhaps you should look again... and maybe work on your memory skills while you work on those other things I suggested.

So dont go quoting stuff at me when you dont even quote yourself correctly.

LOL. Are you fucking shitting me?

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1306613&postcount=153

nowhere have you explained what MOA means. You havnt even said where you pulled the 5% from. So again dont quote me until you can quote yourself. Anyone reading this thread knows I explained MOA not you.

Perhaps you remember the discussion we had about inches per hundreds of yards. Then maybe you can take my figure, find the difference with your figure, then divide the difference by my figure again, then multiply by 100.

Totally relevent, My initial statement was...

It's totally irrelevent. Perhaps while you were takign your huge ass pimpin' degree you might have taken a critical thinking or logic course. You yourself said that the ak47 was much more inaccurate than the AKM. These are essentially identical weapons by your definition, but one is significantly more accurate than the other.

So I brought up the point of it being poorly manufactured as an argument against it's supposed accuracy and compared it to rifles that are of almost identical design. I have maitained that "CommBloc Weapons are in accurate" and I will maintain this stance. As I have said I have used them, and whilst I cannot prove it to you, my "OPINION" is based on experience not something I read on a uncontrolled website.

And you seem not to be able to keep track of a coherent line of thought, nevermind a multipage argument. You consider yourself an expert and you think I should aknowledge your authority when you make a thread on a game website admiring your own 'pwning' skills and inviting arguments? I'll take the external information on websites on experts. Like, I'll listen to the people on the troubleshooting website for ArmA when I'm experiencing problems with ArmA, I'll trust a shooter's club forum over a game forum when I'm looking for my firearms information.

What kind of person does that anyways, makes a thread to glorify his own firearms arguing skills?

I'm wrong! MOA dons't mean Minute of Arc, it means bullet disperion over range. Wow that just destoryed 30 years of competion shooting and a 5 year engineering degree. So the next time someone says that something is out by 4 mins I have to tell them that we can fix the problem by shooting at it.

Perhaps you are having problems with the definition of the word 'means'. You should read more about this word to uncover its vast potential.

Boy you thought my logic was bad.

Looks like you are also having trouble with the definition of the word 'logic'.

ps I dont recall having a fit over anything so you are not going gain anything by misquoting me or him. And its 0.047 not .18

Perhaps you should brush up on your math skills too. Recall we were talking about 4 moa. What is 0.047 * 4? 0.19.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Max Power

[Heatseeker 0]

Hi ryan80

As the linked videos show bullets go through walls in reality and soldiers are trained in this. Since ArmA I the simulation has modeled pentration data on structures. ArmA II seems to be more detailed in this. As ArmA is a simulation ArmA AI does what a soldier does in such a situation, they fire at your projected course. This also is what I as a player would do.

It is a percentage shot, one cannot be certain the target is there as it is unsighted but it is reasonable guess that both a soldier and a human player in ArmA would do. So the AI in firing at you behind only a single thickness of wall is doing what a human would do.

Kind Regards walker

Err.. unless this changed drastically from the previous games the a.i. does not shoot at what they cant "see", they do not blind fire or use supressive fire unless "scripted".

The a.i. isnt capable of blind firing at a wall just because the player's last known position is behind that wall, if they do shoot you thru a wall they know precisely where you are and they will hit you accordingly (deflection thru material might deflect the round).

The a.i. does not shoot in your direction, they shoot at you because they know exactly who you are and where you are.

I've been at it for many years too ;) .