Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

4 IN 1

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    4638

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by 4 IN 1

  1. Posted

    Right and i agree.

    In the case of a realistic flight model and AI - simply let AI use a more simple flight model which they CAN handle.

    Same goes for our issue here with the wrong config values for sniper bullets.

    Teach AI how to realistically spot and engage over long ranges and if not, who cares?

    Personally i dont expect the AI to attack over such ranges at all - as it was never the case in ArmA1 or 2, despite we had long range rifle made by BIS or the community.

    Agreed, but I too also starts to think that not actually fixing a problem have becoming some sort of norms.

    I vaguely recall a dev taking a position that was essentially "what we can implement will be limited by what we can get the AI to do" in the case of Arma 3; that was the reported reason for the lack of 'true' underground in Arma 3/Real Virtuality 4, that they couldn't get Arma 3 AI to handle underground even though VBS2 AI (on the RV2 or RV3 engines) had already been capable of doing so.

    Do you have a link to that simmer's post, by any chance?

    Unfortunately no, it was some dude engaged in a private conversation.

  2. Posted

    I think its still Real time immersive though reading the article.

    sounds similar to VBS2 trainage use for fires ,crowd control etc , unless your reffereing to the stricty battlefield scenario element (dismounted soldier) has abandonded ?

    Quite possibility yes, RV is know for being good for battlefield stuff but not so much for in door stuff, while it seems to be the opposite for CE.

  3. Posted

    With all the due respect for the dev's choice, in my opinion this betray the feeling of a simulation.

    Otherwise, i fear that Arma could be beetwen a simulation and and arcade shooter: neither the first, nor the second.

    Regards

    One example is TOH, when asked why hardcore FM is still a bit too off realistic the answer we get is that AI don't know how to fly them, and that actually pissed some simmer off.

  5. Posted · Edited by 4 IN 1

    The main problem as I see it is very simply - there is no initial 1-0 list of command options. You select unit(s) and are then presented with a list of contextual commands, but there is no hint of the others. How are new (and some old) players supposed to know of these ingame? Finding the info is one thing (I guess it will be in the manual somewhere) but having the info at hand in game is what's needed.

    (I'm of the opinion that an ingame GUI could also be implemented, augmenting (not replacing) the current 1-0 method. Simple hold down a hotkey to use, final selection executes the command, releasing the hotkey cancels it.)

    That exactly what the menu problem lies, thanks for further explaining it .

    They actually thinking about cutting back didn't they

    Oh well, things just turn from bad into shit. FPDR

  6. Posted

    Why would you want to control 20+ people from the squad interface anyway?

    Reason A: BECAUSE YOU CAN

    Reason B: You have that much assets at your disposal, yet instead of further exploit its functionality by creating a system that allows you to managing all these assets, you want to limit your assets down to a level where changes is not needed, then I will have to ask you a question: Why bother to remove the units limits in the first place? If you want to go back to OFP era where you can only control 12 unit, thats your thing, but having making progress only to step back because of something that you can actually fix given enough effort, time and resource, is something that being a human shouldn't do.

  7. Posted

    Squad command and control interface is about the oldest part in the series, and it haven't been much change much since the very beginning, apart from allowing many more units within a squad, and that context sensitive menu.

    And right now, TBH, it is a real big fucking mess.

    Allow me to explain:

    One of the problem happening is that having units more then 2 pages is starting to become a pain in the ass:

    If you are going to have 4 full fire team assigned into 4 colour team plus a core command squad(team white, thats you) you will have a squad size of 4+4+4+4+4=20 units at minimum,

    and if you want to have a enhanced fire team setup you will add another 5 soldier into the list, not to mention that if you want to do other set up and the pages will start building up very fast,

    not nice at all because once you have spend a long time managing the team, assigning them into fire team, you will still have to spend equal amount of time crawling through all the pages to find the unit you want,

    that is the exact opposite of having to setup fire team in the first place.

    One of the idea to correct this problem is to take concept from high command interface from ARMA 2 and bring that sort of control down into standard command interface,

    by sorting team assigned units into 1 single icon, highlighting individual unit ability(like AT/AA/machine gun/medic) with small icon or letters besides the team icon, and control it like a single unit,

    while develop some kind of mechanism(like double tap F-keys) to "unfold" the team icon to allow selecting individual unit inside.

    The second problem is, for some reason, developers seems to think that having context sensitive menu completely cover over the old menu to be a good idea,

    while someone seems to think that it is the be-all-end-all solution, in reality the only thing it did is to confuse players, old and new,

    either by not allowing them to know that it is there in the first place, or ignore the fact that sometimes you will forgot which key to push to do certain things, counter intuitive at it best.

    This is also a much harder problem to solve given most of the old commands are tie into AI mechanic, and the fact that some people just don't like things get change, even if it is a bad things that NEEDS to be change.

    P.S: I am on my way to get a FAA A&P mechanic licenses next year and therefore do not have too much time to further explore more ideas, so please, THINK before saying anything like "OH there is no problem you sucks",

    there is problem, and that is why many people prefer not to use AI at all, its just not enjoyable for many people.

  9. Posted · Edited by 4 IN 1

    Well, bolt action is a completely different thing, also I personally like to ride the bolt quickly to observe the point of impact to make correction easier.

    Another thing is that while I like the idea of having the point of aim off target, having the muzzle stay up is simply unrealistic,.(Unless you can rewrite the laws of physics)

  10. Posted

    The two problem I have with the current magazine management system is that magazine in gear menu do not show its current ammo count , and that the system don't simulate tactical reload 100% correctly, I do also like a system that allows non magazine loaded ammo (e.g. boxed ammo or clipped ammo) in backpack to be allowed to replenish magazines, not that it is absolutely needed though.

  11. Posted

    I don't think this is related to the original issue - the lack of a low-ready state may be a tactical issue but it's not the reason for an auto-lower script. The soldier in your picture uses a long rifle, not a short CQB weapon - the depicted state wouldn't help much in a tight space. (Just to be clear: I'm not against having a low-ready state, I just don't think it's related here.)

    I'm against the game controlling the fighting stance automatically because if it fails it's going to kill the player. I don't want the game to think for me - having the ability to choose a short(er) weapon or having the shortcut key to lower it when needed should be enough.

    I will go as far as to agree with you until auto lowering part, where it should be more of a natural reaction as in real life, and I will go further saying that the problem of the mod is the slight delay between detecting obstruction and trigger the lowering/rasing weapon script, and I will go even further and say that removing collision model of the rifle is cheating IF auto lowering without too much delay is done engine side already.

  15. Posted

    What we really need is someone to do a test where various shooters fire, using rifles of various calibers, with laser sights affixed to each. With a camera recording the path of the laser during each shot, we could find the appropriate range of muzzle deviation during recoil in minutes of angle, how fast the muzzle should realign on target, and how accurately it should do so.

    Assuming such a test could be done, I think the best test subjects would be people who'd been through basic training and qualified with rifles, but not with years and years of experience. After all, shooting in a videogame will always be easier, and players will always compensate by pulling down and correcting with the mouse. Therefore, if you base the recoil on a SEAL with 20 years of experience, expert control of recoil, and then the player corrects with the mouse on top of that, you're back to excessively low recoil and easy long range shooting.

    Also, I meant to add, it's kind of clear what happened with the 6.5mm rifles... BIS attempted to "balance" or compensate for the high capacity magazines by artificially beefing up the recoil. Since it's a fictional weapon and a fictional caliber, one can't really say it's incorrect. Though, if the goal is to emulate 6.5mm Grendel, it's not really in-between the 5.56,, and 7.62 rifles...it's over both.

    Replacing upward only recoil with more sideway sway will not make long range shooting easier, it just make the recoil more natural.

  16. Posted

    Well, some people (including some devs) fear that it will virtually dig your rifle into virtual soil and causing imaginary malfunctions(meaning: something that is totally not modeled in the game)......

    Now lets make it very clear, first off there are ways to make sure the rifle won't dig into dirt, secondly you have to do some very silly things for dirt in barrel to become a significant problem, even a DI system of the AR15 is proved to be much more reliable then popular believes, and thirdly, THIS IS A GAME.

  17. Posted

    In fairness, I'd dare say that about half of that decade was "the Codemaster years" followed by Arma 1 which Maruk in a BI studio article and to VideoGamer.com, thanks to the BI forums member who linked me to them, said was most certainly not a morale-inspiring project...

    I understand, hell I think many people who happens to following since OFP days understand that deep down, it just that it have been so long that all these rough edges still exist is frustrating, I mean, the fact that they were able to fix the red-dots and holo is almost like a miracle for me(must be someone who bother to dig into those huge piles of codes that have been there since very beginning of RV engine to find and fix that)

  21. Posted

    I'd say this is a very huge design and coding overlook on the dev part, like many other things having the problem being discussed even before the game have start developing really kill the mood for many, just look at how it takes almost a decade to fix the red dot sight, and there are just too many things that just get over looked for years.:(

  23. Posted · Edited by 4 IN 1

    Its still up to the dev, If they don't want to change a jack shit it doesn't matter what we said, isn't it?

    Anyways, having the game automatically identify and sort out friend and foe is not the problem, simply locking and cycle through them with tab key and tab key only is the porblem, even forcing everyone to have a crosshair on the target to lock would be better. With that said, remove cycle target function will be a start, with that set it would only left the problem of correctly modeling different behavior for different weapon/system when hitting Tab.

  24. Posted

    Where did I say there should be a long animation and that it should switch to weapon? I said RMB or the lower weapon key should lower the binos so that you could see to move, precisely NOT that you should have to press B to switch to your weapon to be able to see to move :rolleyes:

    So, what you want is just the same thing but operate the other way around where press B you automatically look into the binoculars, but can still be put down when in danger?

  25. Posted · Edited by 4 IN 1

    in most of helicopters you have two trims that fix main rotor in same angle and another is for tail rotor. so basicly 2 autotrims, in real helicoters, so it's realistic

    so i see no reason why we should not have one autotrim button ;)

    I happens to remember that trim is manual unless it is some very expensive and newer models with advance avionics i.e Super Puma and such, which do have auto hover function.

    you don't need to buy any special equipment to fly in toh. equipment like that makes it more authentic. nothing more. if you can't fly for shit you would not flight or shit no matter if you got a set of devices for bunch usd or not.

    it will be also helpful if people who leave a comment about how they think TOH fm handling actually try it first instead of discussing their assumptions on game they never played.

    for now it looks more like a chatter women restroom: "-ah gosh i heard Jennys's friend's stepsister that live in australia met a guy who was so hot! "

    if you have no idea how toh handes - find out before discussing it. thanks.

    Did I said I can't fly in TOH? Never, did I? I just point out that those padels are better for fixed wings. What I did however is modify my padels with a piece of wood, some sticks, screws and hinges to make it more helicopter like.

    As for the rest of the comments, well, grow up.FPDR

×