roshnak

Only medics can do full heals. FAKs only restore health up to a certain percentage. Although I believe they remove negative effects which is probably not ideal. As for permanent damage, we are getting into not fun territory here. For one thing, you have to remember that the game isn't always played in multiplayer. In a singleplayer environment, if I get hurt so bad that I am permanently crippled, I'm just going to load, because I might as well be dead. Also, you can't permanently remove the player's ability to aim and fire his or her weapon, especially not in singleplayer. What good is a player who can't effectively engage the enemy in a war game? Just to be clear, it's not the effects themselves that I take issue with, but their permanence. EDIT: Yeah, but medics should be allowed to fully heal you. Like I said, if you are going to permanently cripple the player, you may as well kill them, because that is effectively what you are doing.

They should be. I think I remember setting the AI's damage to -1 causing them to be less accurate in OFP. I kind of liked America's Army's system of more activity causing you to bleed faster.

I don't think you really do. Shot placement should be important, as it is in the real world (definitely not to the degree that is in the real world, though). The problem is, there aren't that many negative consequences for being shot right now. You either die or you don't. Can you even lose your legs anymore? I don't think being shot in the arms affects your aim anymore. Even if those things were still in the game, though, it wouldn't really be enough. A bleeding system would be nice to have at the very least. The other thing is, ballistic plates don't cover your entire torso, and kevlar isn't going to stop a 5.56 at closer ranges, so armor overall is pretty overpowered right now.

They are almost exactly the same...

I really can't think of a reason you wouldn't get better performance with faster RAM. Quicker access, etc. But yeah, more RAM isn't going to help you out because Arma won't use it, which is honestly pretty unacceptable at this point.

Is there a reason you are using spectator instead of camera? Yeah, AI hearing has always been weird and really needs to be looked at.

Yeah, but the AI was even worse about insta-murdering you the second you came around a corner.

This is not really a reply to what I was saying. I made a huge post on the last page detailing why Arma isn't and can't really be a true simulation. What I wanted to know was why so many people want so badly to label this game a simulation instead of just calling it a pretty realistic game. Especially since I'm not clear what exactly Arma is supposed to be simulating.

No they can't because that's not what a simulation is. Why is everyone so obsessed with the idea that Arma is a simulation, anyway?

As far as bullet damage to humans go, it's pretty much impossible to make a truly accurate simulation in a game of this scale. The human body is pretty complicated. People have been shot 5 or 6 times in the torso and survived, while others have been shot once in the thigh and bled out in minutes, while others have been shot many times in the thigh and not bled out at all. What we can have is a fairly accurate approximation of the expected results of shooting someone in different locations. Oddly enough, this has never been a strong point of the Arma series. Location based damage has been pretty minimal, and the results of being shot by different weapons have been strange, to say the least. I would personally like to see a more defined location based damage model. I think it would be pretty reasonable to have separate effects for upper and lower arms and legs and even upper and lower torso. As for whether Arma is a sim, the word simulation seems to be used pretty loosely in this particular genre, and really seems to just mean "realistic." Simulations usually deal with accurately representing systems and machines, i.e. flight sims, driving sims, etc. What would Arma be simulating? People? That seems like a pretty tall order, and definitely not something that the game seems to be trying to do. It's not attempting to simulate weapon or vehicle systems to any degree. I see the term "milsim" thrown around a lot and, while there are some groups that seem interested in simulating the experience of being in the military (to a degree), it's certainly not something the game has ever tried to do. Besides, there are groups that like to pretend they are in the military in almost every multiplayer military shooter. What Arma does seem to do, is offer a more realistic gameplay style than other shooters, as well as a massive world and more opportunity for choice.

There are a couple of super classy comments in this thread. Anyway, the model looks great, but I feel like the skin has a bit too much specular, the shine on her arm and leg in the beach screenshot kind of makes it look like she's made of plastic.

Ugh, stop straw manning people, dude. No one suggested that players would drop their gear in the middle of combat. There is plenty of opportunity in many scenarios to pick your gear before the mission even begins. Maybe I know that this mission calls for a quick strike with high mobility and my team and I decide that we don't want to wear a plate carrier or an assault pack and carry 300 rounds of ammuntition and 4 grenades and instead I opt for an LBV, SMG, 3 magazines and 2 flashbangs. What if I choose that gear on the map screen before the mission ever starts? As for your "soldiers don't jump" comment: This game isn't an army simulator. What if I'm not playing as a regular rifleman with a full combat load? What if I'm playing as a civilian, or a guerrilla fighter, or a downed combat pilot, or what if I'm not playing in a military scenario at all? This game has had plenty of addons and standalone scenarios that do not take place in a military setting, one of which went on to become an official BIS product. Finally, I believe that I offered a fairly reasonable and realistic mechanic for jumping and mantling earlier in this thread. Whether or not it adds enough to gameplay to be worth the trouble of implementing isn't for me to decide, but it certainly wouldn't detract from gameplay, and I think most of us can agree that the current system for navigating vertical obstacles isn't very good. At least half the people who know about the bugtracker, agree with its use as a forum for requesting features, know about that entry, and bother to take the time to register an account and vote on it. We still don't have weapon resting or firing from cargo positions in the 4th game either. It also took until the 4th game before a player's hands moved with the steering wheel or mounted gun they were holding. There are plenty of games that allow jumping and in which jumping around a lot to evade gunfire is not a viable option. Ever play America's Army? Also, you are using the term wrong.EDIT: I know it's a lot of words, but could you please try to read the whole post before you reply? Or even the whole sentence, for that matter.

Yeah, it's pretty cool that you are sticking around to finish up the project, especially being so frustrated with the game (having to constantly restart it every time you make a change probably doesn't help). It can definitely get disappointing when every new game carries over most of the problems of the last one. To be honest, the only time I've even launched Arma 3 recently has been to test out your addon and a few others.

Pretty sure he's saying that's a good thing, not crying foul, since it is realistic behavior.

Um, how would they have cut Arma 3 in favor of DayZ if DayZ had never existed? Did you read the post I was replying to? Yeah, but how is DayZ unoriginal either? Whether or not you like DayZ (I thought it got boring fast) it is undeniably an original idea, and one that spawned several copycats. No kidding. It's shocking how many people are already looking forward to the next game when this one hasn't even been out a year and content is still being added to it. I don't feel like I've got my money's worth out of this one yet, and I didn't even pay full price.

No you can't, at least not in an actual gameplay scenario. It's already been established that changing graphics options has a negligible effect on framerate as long as you are running a decently powerful GPU. Also, your statement about framerate in Arma 2 is backwards: Arma 2 ran at 30 FPS because it was poorly optimized, the fact that it was poorly optimized did not make the 30 FPS that it ran at worse than it would have in any other game running at 30 FPS. And you can prefer quality over framerate if you want, but for many players 30 FPS is unacceptable. It causes eye strain and headaches. Furthermore, it slows down the simulation of the game, since so many things are dependent on framerate. 60 FPS is the target framerate for most developers. What would be the alternative? BIS goes out of business? Wasn't that made by a completely different studio and released by a different publisher? Because if so, then that's a completely different story.

Well it's a good thing we can do that in this game then, right?

What are you even talking about? This statement is absurd and completely unfounded.

You know what else we couldn't do in OFP? Reload while moving.

It's a crappy, dismissive, patronizing response generally delivered by people who would never say something is "too realistic." This community would be a whole lot better if posting any variation of "go back to bf" was a bannable offense. Furthermore, I believe the whole purpose of this thread is to request a less stiff and unreliable way to navigate obstacles. BIS created the engine, they can make anything as smooth or as clunky as they want, given the time and desire to do so. The only way things definitely won't change is if everyone involved decides that they can't, and that things will always be like they are now. Fortunately, that doesn't seem likely, since BIS have already done a ton of work to make the movement feel smoother and more natural. It doesn't seem super unreasonable to think that spacebar (currently bound to a function which is already bound to two other keys) could be a context sensitive jump/mantle key, with jump height or distance and stamina decrease dependent on the weight of a player's gear, and the ability to mantle over small obstacles when next to them. To completely disallow jumping seems like the kind of arbitrary restriction that being unable to reload while moving was, especially given the ability to play a wide range of roles with highly customizable loadouts.

Thanks for sticking with it this long.

Yeah, 3D models aren't usually the kind of thing that needs 3rd party testers.

We'd still need any kind of radar simulation at all

Except being able to move over obstacles higher than your ankle with reasonable speed. Jumping may not be the answer, and it's certainly not the only answer, but something really should be done to allow players to get over waist high fences without stopping dead in their tracks first. The current vault system is just really unpolished and bad. Edit: Squirrel, I think it's almost always better to allow the player to decide when they want to climb over something like that. There's just too much potential for the game making the wrong judgement for you, and pressing or holding a key is a pretty simple way to avoid that problem.

I don't know, depending on how much stamina it takes and how high/far the jump is, it seems reasonable to me. Certainly better than sprinting full speed at a wall that doesn't even reach my knees, only to have to stop dead in my tracks and daintily step over it when I get there.