dreday
-
Content Count
360 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by dreday
-
-
My concern is this and I hinted at it in my last post but didn't explain it well. Thinking of what really goes on in the game, think back to the times you've been hit. Now lets assume they add a 200% hit bonus to all aspects of the tropps damage model, it would make no differance. Why? because the AI will fire 2 or 3 sniper shots to kill you instead of 1. And they will do it so rapidly it will make no differance how much armour you have. Remember back to all the times you've been killed, for me at least theres many times where I recive a barrage of accurate fire instead of the lone sniper shot.Adv,
Good point.  However, there  is a simple and brute solution to fix the AI sniper fire problem.  It has been posted to this forum a million times over.  There is also a more elegant solution that involves updating the config.cpp.  Both of them will work, so this issue should not really hinder the much needed implementation of body armour.
Peace,
DreDay
-
Shadow,
Great job on the Naval Infantry units. They look about as authentic as you can get without modifying the actual 3d model. If I can suggest just one improvement, it would be to give them a more realistic looking armored vest - maybe a 6b5 like you guys made for the GRU and Motor Rifle troops in the OFP. I think that can be accomplished with a re-skin, hopefully that's not too much of a hassle.
Peace,
DreDay
-
When can we expect a release of this great VDV units ?
@Shadow
I think Yours is better
@plasman
but your crewman guys are awesome too
Both are Shadow's work. I only did the configs.
Release date ? Not this week I guess.
Btw VDV no longer use BMD-1, but BMD-3 and 4 instead.
Here are some pictures of the BMD-3
I don't think that this is supposed to be a "realism mode" per say, otherwise VDV should not have BRDMs either. However, for the sake of accuracy - BMD-1 is by far the most numerous armored vehicle in service with the VDV today. It is followed by the BMD-2. There are no more than a few dozen of BMD-3/4s that are operational right now.
Also, please note that your pictures show the different versions of BMP-3, not BMD.
Peace,
DreDay
-
I can hold a heavy sniper rifle I have right now, slowly advance foward and still keep the aim decently smooth compared to this game where it skips all over the place. And I'm a skinny bastard!
Heavier weapons tend to be more stable then the lighter ones (provided that they are equally balanced), so I am not sure if this is such a good example.
Besides, the real question is whether your aim would be just as smooth and steady in the real battle conditions after having sprinted for 200 meters and having your buddies mowed down by the machine gun fire, while some enemy grunt is aiming at you 50 meters away... I bet not!
Peace,
DreDay
-
So the idea of hitting a tank is to hit it once, and run away? Why? First of all you will give away your position (he will know what side you hit him on). 2nd, you will give him enough time get in safty or start heating up the area. Even if you manage to survive that, you still need to take the tank out which will be very hard since he knows where to look.The "idea" is that OFP/ArmA are so popular with us because they force the players to use realistic tactics in order to survive. Firing off 1 RPG and then running for your life is precisely how things work in the real world. I see no need to re-invent the wheel here.
Peace,
DreDay
-
To whoever it was talking about zeroing weapons, i agree with the points made regarding tank sights, but under no circumstances (unless we've been given total control of both attitude controls on the scopes to zero them in ourselves) should a rifle bullet ever go left or right of the target. Sure, it may drop short or over shoot, which is why the focus is there on the M21 as you say.Wind.
This could also be the cased by standing (laying) on the surface that is not perfectly flat (a slope). Â Then again, I don't have a game myself, so for all I know it might very well be a bug...
Peace,
DreDay
-
Anyone notice in that video that the enemy appear to be on 'careless'? They are patrolling in single file through the centre of that village. The player's team are in plain sight. When no.2 opens up on his first target, there is no return fire - all rounds fired are from the US. 2 proceeds to fire with impunity at the various targets in front of him, and even manages to get a grenade thrown without reply (any fire you see come past him are tracers from the soldier to his rear, on the left of the player). Further into the video, through the gap in the fence, you notice the rest of the enemy unit STILL patrolling with their weapons in a safe position and walking as if nothing has happened - who are promptly cut down by the player's squad. I strongly suspect that video was set up to showcase the movements of the player's AI against a soft target, and does not demonstrate how the enemy AI would react against such a threat.I agree. Apparently the skill settings of the US squad were higher than that of the enemy. It is only logical to assume that the OPFOR units on higher skill levels are capable of the same actions that were performed by the US unit in that video.
Peace,
DreDay
-
Thats odd considering you can loop with helicopters...or atleast with the more agile attack helicopters.More agile ones yes, but not Mi-8/17 (or Mi-24 for that matter)...
Peace,
DreDay
-
Lovely!...though two things I noticed when looking at the pictures:
1) The VDV sleeve insignia seems too small
2) The seleeve insignia was not worn in combat missions, also not on the KMLK uniform (which was just overalls that were worn on the regular uniform)
Exactly! I was a little disappointed to see RHS repeat the same error that was made by the original BIS crew with regards to the spetsnaz model. The insignias were never worn on KMLK/KZS overall suites.
Peace,
DreDay
-
Not needed? Â Ummm, that would be a real immersion killer if there are windows without glass, or if there are windows with glass, but when I shoot you through it, it doesn't break... Â
Keep in mind that most of the buildings in the combat zones don't have glass in their windows. The glass is either knocked out on purpose (in order to prevent secondary injuries), or accidentally as a result of eplosive shock waves.
IMHO, the lack of glass windows in ArmA should have a minimal effect on game play.
Peace,
DreDay
-
Realise: When firing small arms they do not light up the area like a flare.If anything, the muzzle flash and associated light from shooting LIVE ammo (not blanks) is WAY over done in games.
Exactly! In fact, if not for the tracers, small arms fire would be very difficult to detect at night. That is why a lot of the combat veterans advise against using tracers during the night fighting.
Peace,
DreDay
-
...as was pointed out earlier in the thread a soldiers neck and face are still vulnerable -- in fact without a neck dam most vests act sort of like a bullet funnel and make it (statistically anyway) easy to catch one in the neck.A lot of modern Special Forces and most contemporary CQC/B training paradigm is now making PG (Pelvic Gridle) an alternative primary point of aim -- as this is a wide target (wider/larger then the head), at the center of gravity that follows the targets movement, and has demonstrated statistically to be a more effectively lethal/casual target then head shots with the same caliber ammunition.
Good points. Let's also remember that the bullet penetrator technology is progressing along with the body armor development. The latest generation of rifle rounds such as US 5.56 x 45 mm M995 and Russian 5.45 x 39 mm 7N22 can probably penetrate any standard issue body armor out there. By the time Dragon Skin becomes widely deployed there would probably already be rifle rounds that can penetrate it as well.
It's the same old struggle between the spear and the shield...
Peace,
DreDay
-
This is the current issue body armor worn by U.S. Marines...Are you sure about that? Last time I've checked, US Marines were issued their own version of the Interceptor:
This vest is already present in ArmA; albeit it is worn by the Norh Sahari commies, go figure...
Dragon skin is pretty expensive, I don't think it could ever be issued to every infantry soldier. Some US SOF operators were wearing them, but the Army has issued a regulation prohibiting their use.
Peace,
DreDay
-
What about planes? What about helicopters? None of them target by eye. They got computers and all kinds of shit doing it for them, which is simulated with the radar thingy OFP had in the upper part of the screen. Planes got a inteface where you get a neat square box thats your target. Often you don't see the target when you fire at it. If you want realistic targeting for choppers and planes, don't talk about VD, talk about computer systems. Then you need screens and interfaces and stuff like that, not a VD that lets you see a black dot which may be a tank, or may be a rock...Shall we have VD on 500 km if there is a rocket that can move that distance?
Maddmatt has already pointed out that you need high view distance not just for targeting, but also for flying the planes and helicopters, especially if they are more than 200 meters off the ground. Â
On top of that, most helicopters (including all the helicopters that we will have in ArmA) only use line of sight weapons, so they actually need to see their targets in order lase them. Â Radars are not a part of picture here.
I can appreciate the fact that higher view distance would require a greater use of resources that are already stretched by other components.  I can also understand BIS might not be able to utilize the engine to the point that we can have 5 – 10 km view distance on today’s machine.  What I don’t understand and appreciate is the idea that the higher view distances are not need and that they would not improve game play.
Peace,
DreDay
-
As for tanks and their range of fire of 2-3km, very small percentage  is actualy used to fire at that distance...in some desert,yes, but elsewere it's 100m-1km.What about helicopters? What about planes?
Peace,
DreDay
-
considering You can engage with new MBT gun fired missiles up to 8.5km (i know it was just test but hey it's possible) and already existing russiand and israel systems are 4-5km ...then 5km viewdistance always come handy ... over that it's bonus if your machine handle it ...
Exactly. On top of that, think about the helicopters. With a max distance of 2km they would have no stand-off capability against the ground targets. Shilkas can be deadly accurate at 2km.
Peace,
DreDay
-
same old shite different day .if you gonna review pls be originalwheres the destructable bridge / buildings ?
wheres the crash test/ collision test ?
where is the firing from multiple gun turrets ?
where is the 10 k view distance ?
where is the building interior in town ?
where is the flying in group formation of helis
where is the artilery firing and how to ?
where is the walking in water to see it and what happens ?
where is the scripting using new commands from the wiki ?
where is the JIP on off description ?
where is the fecking game
?where is the etc etc. ?
pls Bis give it to a known stalwart so we can see what it is where buying..
save us from this mike reeds run around in sahrani .
While I don't share deanosbeano's attitude and I do very much appreciate people taking their time to review the ArmA press release. I do see where he is coming from. All the reviews that I have read so far have been insufficient. They all sound the same to me: "ArmA is so much better than OFP", yet they fail to focus on any new features. This is dissapointing to say the least.
Peace,
DreDay
-
Unfortunately I don't remember the source of everything I've read
I did read it recently but the article itself may have been older. A quick google search shows up the following:
http://www.asiatradingonline.com/russianhelicopter24.htm
Although it only says "great demand in Russia" and not specifically what I had read about the military itself buying them up. Interestingly according to that site the figure I suggested for the refits was on the high side. They say 500,000 _up to_ 2 million.
Heh, that ATP site looks pretty shady if you ask me. AFAIK, Rosvertol is the onlycompany that is authorized to do direct trades and purchases of Russian helicopters...
Quote[/b] ]I should make it clear that I was saying they _were_ selling the older (read broken) stuff but replacing them with working models on the second hand market. Given how broke they are it makes some sense that they may also be selling the new ones too but still buying cheaper ones back at second hand prices. Without being able to cite the original source I guess you can choose to dismiss all that though
Quite frankly none of it makes sense. No one is going to buy "really broken" stuff from the Russians. Nor is there any significant “second hand market†for Hinds. I really don't want to dismiss what you have written, and I don't doubt for a second that you have read it in some article. However, I seriously doubt the credibility of that article.
Peace,
DreDay
Edit: It has just occurred to me that perhaps that article was talking about the MI-24s that were leased or purchased under some "buy back" provision. In that case, it would certainly make sense.
-
... That's _if_ you can find any, apparently Russia has been buying back many of the functional ones just to maintain their own numbers. This buy up by Russia will drive the price higher than normal.Would you care to provide a source for this statement? All my information indicates that quite the opposite is the case - Russians are selling used MI-24/MI-35 out of their military stocks along with the new ones.
Peace,
DreDay
-
I'm not meaning to create an arguement or anything, I'm just putting forward my opinion. I just, personally, think that draging is a bad idea. Â
Fair enough. We will just have to agree to disagree.
Peace,
DreDay
-
Hmm... I'd like to see a new person leading a squad attempt to take out a group of T80 tanks with that limit in place? They would get rather angry with the amount of retrys. Let alone picking up the peices of your comrades.Are you only capable of thinking in extemes? What if there are no tanks? What if you are supported by a group of M1A1s? What if you have A10s flying CAS for you? What if you manage to use proper tactics and terain masking to sneak up on T80s?
What you are doning with your logic is the opposite of a scientific approach. You determine the outcome and then try to adjust the conditions so that they match the intended outcome. That is a good way to argue, but a very poor way to win an argument.
Peace,
DreDay
-
Yes he would not jump back to his feet. However, if the mission is designed correctly, than there would be a limit on a number of casualties that you can take in order to successfully complete it. Saving that dudes life would allow you to avoid a casualty and thus succeed in a mission/win. The medevacs would come in only when he is in safety.
You seem to be missing the point that this type of a situation presents an interesting and realistic tactical challenge.
Peace,
DreDay
-
Why should I be joking? Its my own opinion. I just think running out into the middle of combat to save someone is just another way to end up dead. It would be like blackhawk down (game) when a medic runs up to a wounded person and that person that done the killing is looking down his sights waiting for that poor medic to come along. Then you get more people killed, them more medics come... kind of reminds me of BF2.Ok so you are talking about the game, which makes me feel much better... But what's that business with squirrels?
Of course the simulation of dragging does not make sense unless there is also a proper simulation of wound effects. But if there was such a simulation, you would have to save the incapacitated solider because the success of your mission would depend on his survival. So yes you will have to run into the open and drag him out while the rest of your squad covers you (don't forget to drop the smoke grandes first). IMHO, the only game that did this well is Full Spectrum Warriror.
Peace,
DreDay
-
For one we haven't seen any of the brand new shiny Super AI yet. I take it that they are working on that one.Thus I rather have them continue tweaking and improving the AI than trying to implement features which I think couldn't be implemented properly in time anyways.I totally agree!
Peace,
DreDay
Children?
in ARMA - GENERAL
Posted
I fully agree with what [APS]Gnat has said above. I can't belive that this thread has grown to four pages. Some of the people of on this board have way too much time on their hands. I only wish that they would spend some of it thinking of the ideas that will trully improve the game play, rather than something that will have 0 effect on it and get the game banned in most countries.
Peace,
DreDay