Shooting out of a car/truck?

[dslyecxi 23]

The video walker posted looked like it was exactly how it was in ArmA1, but I guess it could be the AI gunner doing the "pseudo-stabilization." I don't have ArmA2 so I was basing my comments off of video evidence.

The video is of attachTo, though, not a normal game vehicle. Whether an attachTo'd turret can be set to not stabilize is a different issue. It could be a matter of changing the config of the turret, or it could be deeper than that.

[frederf 0]

Yeah I see that it's an attachTo'd static gun on the back of a truck. But since non-stabilized is the default behavior shouldn't the gun move with the base? The stabilization shouldn't have anything to do with the attachTo feature.

Are all turrets non-stabilized in ArmA2 or are there some that area (LAV-25?)?

[dslyecxi 23]

But since non-stabilized is the default behavior shouldn't the gun move with the base? The stabilization shouldn't have anything to do with the attachTo feature.

If the turrets were not configured that way, due to the expectation of them never moving, they would exhibit the behavior you see in that video. Thus, it may just be a change in a config that's necessary to 'fix' that. As to the assumption that 'non-stabilized is the default behavior' - that's just that, an assumption. It could easily be the other way.

Are all turrets non-stabilized in ArmA2 or are there some that area (LAV-25?)?

Turrets that should be stabilized, are. LAV-25 should be, same with M1, etc. AAV isn't, HMMWV isn't. etc etc.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Now, I don't know much about tanks. If I ever get into one, it is usually only to drive it to the guy who (thinks he) can use it properly. Some posts indicate dismay that the tanks commander turret now moves together with the gunners turret. In Arma1 it moves independantly. Meaning the commanders job was a lot easier.

Is the current implementation the correct one, realistically speaking?

[frederf 0]

Only on about half of the M1 models is remote .50cal operation even possible, the current M1A2 not being one of them unless it has the urban upgrade kit, TUSK. The others are the plain "stick your neck out" variety. The commander's .50cal is not even on axis with the main turret. This is something VBS2 got correct while ArmA1 fudged the model so the main turret and the commander's turret shared axes.

I'm pretty sure the M1A1's CWS for the .50cal isn't stabilized and is tied to the turret. I'm not sure about the future variants that are going to mount something very similar to the Styker's RWS.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Ok, so I will assume that the new 'non shared axis' system is the correct one. This makes commanding all that much difficult. I sort of want it this way, so that 'proper crews' with some experience can better utilize the tanks, instead of newcommers completely lacking the communications skills needed to succeed. "The tougher the toys (compared to infantry work), the more difficult (if realistic) they become, and the more practice is needed to fully utilize them".

Thx.

And yes, I usually play as infantry :)

[frederf 0]

The non-shared axis is for VBS or VBS2. As far as I know ArmA2 does not support off-axis turrets on turrets which is separate from stabilization.

BIS made a big todo about how their new tanks were a lot better than the old ones in terms of targetting and whatnot. As for commanding, I think it's all just training and communication for real Commander-Gunner interaction. I do not believe there are any special visual video-game like cues for getting the gunner to look over there. Personally I like the armor crews need training and the proper tactics or they end up as target practice.

[diveplane 0]

some one made a script already fro shooting out the helis

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=5894

[PFC Magician 10]

I thinck be better shoot from motorbikes and only sidearms,

driver shoot only when stop,

back seat shooter keep gun up when aim front, only shoot sides and can shoot moving,

that make usefull motorbikes, and sidearms (like rh smg)

[MavericK96 0]

That was kind of a ridiculous thread necro...

Anyway, they had this in VBS2 and it would have been nice in OA, but I don't think we'll see it. I really hope it makes it to ArmA3 though... *nudges devs* Eh? Ehhhh? :D

[kylania 568]

Shooting from vehicles has been mentioned as a "we'd like to have" by the A3 devs.

[ajax420 0]

I think they keep things like shooting from vehicles and walking in the loading ramp of a C-130 and jumping out the back in flight and walking around the bed of a truck and firing from there as a selling point for the VBS series. You can replace a tire in VBS too. There's allot of things implemented into VBS that we will probably never see in the Arma series. (Aside from the efforts of modders, and the openness of the arma engine)

They have two products and one must be better than the other or the Real Military customers of BIS would just go by Arma2 and train with it.

[rangerpl 13]

I think they keep things like shooting from vehicles and walking in the loading ramp of a C-130 and jumping out the back in flight and walking around the bed of a truck and firing from there as a selling point for the VBS series. You can replace a tire in VBS too. There's allot of things implemented into VBS that we will probably never see in the Arma series. (Aside from the efforts of modders, and the openness of the arma engine)

They have two products and one must be better than the other or the Real Military customers of BIS would just go by Arma2 and train with it.

No, because the TOS of ArmA2 explicitly forbids the use of the game for military training purposes.

[ajax420 0]

I'm just saying they have to differentiate the two products.

[Black Russian 10]

So if the running around in vehicles and shooting out of it works in VBS2, which I have never played/seen, why can't this feature be integrated in Arma 2 OA too.

Never mind at least I hope it is in Arma 3 because otherwise it would be ridiculous if it really would already work.

[rangerpl 13]

I'm just saying they have to differentiate the two products.

But BIS has been nice to us and never took features away to increase profits. I don't think it would be fair or correct to assume that they do this to increase VBS2 sales.

Also remember that a VBS2 license costs a lot more than an ArmA2 license. The cost, if I'm not mistaken, is into the hundreds of dollars since it's a commercial application. You can't possibly be saying that the US military pays hundreds more for VBS2 just because you can shoot out of vehicles.

I can't be sure but this might have been confirmed for A3.

[MavericK96 0]

I think they keep things like shooting from vehicles and walking in the loading ramp of a C-130 and jumping out the back in flight and walking around the bed of a truck and firing from there as a selling point for the VBS series. You can replace a tire in VBS too..

You can replace tires in ACE. Problem with the shooting from vehicles thing is that clearly it's a lot more complex than that or else someone would have made a mod for it already. The main issue I see is that once you enter a vehicle you become like this locked-down part of the vehicle, though you can still move your head around so I don't see why you couldn't just rotate your torso around with the weapon in your hand. Moving around inside a plane or something would also be difficult to implement because of lag issues and hopping around, but it should still be possible.

I don't think implementing shooting from vehicles would be particularly difficult (seeing as it's already been done, so the framework seems to be there).

[CarlGustaffa 4]

How does moving in vehicle behave in VBS when lag is introduced?

[PFC Magician 10]

in online game,shoot from vehicles needed mg or cannon because must shoot from large distance,shoot close to enemy means blow in pieces, why ppl wanna shoot from vehicles? choppers and offroad have mg and and shoot 300bullets to kill one enemy, what supose to do with a rifle?kill a friendly when road fast?

[MavericK96 0]

Well, the idea is that say you're in a non-armed Humvee with no doors, for instance. You see hostiles over to the right and/or you get engaged. It would be nice to lay down some suppressing fire while exiting the vehicle. Currently you get engaged and half the time you will get shot while trying to get out.

There are many other scenarios, but I think the main thing is that it's already been implemented in VBS, and since ArmA is based on that it shouldn't be a huge stretch to implement it. If not in OA, then in ArmA 3.

[kireta21 13]

why ppl wanna shoot from vehicles? choppers and offroad have mg and and shoot 300bullets to kill one enemy, what supose to do with a rifle?

For things like that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWGvY-8qLW0

[dm 9]

already been implemented VBS, and since ArmA is based on that

Wrong.

I think you'll find it is the other way around.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I think it's a little bit of each. Arma got proper FLIR technology from VBS, VBS got SCAR from Arma. It's a happy little family and like to share things :p

[metalcraze 290]

VBS got SCAR from reality.

Feature wise of course VBS gets the best features and only years later we get them in ArmA - otherwise military contractors wouldn't pay crazy money for games.

[MavericK96 0]

only years later we get them in ArmA - otherwise military contractors wouldn't pay crazy money for games.

Actually they pay crazy money for VBS because ArmA is prohibited from military use by the EULA. ;)