dslyecxi

If you look at the latest ArmA shots, the BIS ACOG sights seem to be much more accurate than what was seen in various OFP mods. I don't know if it's perfectly calibrated/scaled in ArmA, but it sure looks close.

Good lord, man. You have NOTHING to base your wild assumptions on. Freeaim is now an option, that's all. That's all. Stop freaking out over something so simple. If you want freeaim, keep it enabled, and play on servers that require it to be on. Problem solved. Stop acting like the sky is falling based on a minor thing that has NOTHING TO DO with vection-based aiming.

Stop. Seriously. This is completely and utterly baseless, you have no reason to assume anything like that is in ArmA. I cannot believe... I really just cannot believe that ANYONE would assume that because FREEAIM is a toggleable option, that suddenly the ENTIRE WEAPON SYSTEM works DRASTICALLY different from OFP. It's insane. Please stop talking about it.

From what we've seen thus far, it's either closed or open. If you're jogging, it's open, if you're standing still, it's closed. I don't think the reticule thingy is going to have an increased spread the faster you're moving.

Half the people in this thread don't seem to understand the different phrases they're throwing around in here. "Vection-based aiming" is talking about how the bullet originates from the muzzle of the gun, not the player's eyeballs. Thus, when you're running around and the gun's swaying side to side, it will realistically hit where the weapon is pointed, which isn't at the center of the screen. "Freeaim" is where the weapon has an area it can move around freely within, like what you see in Flashpoint and Red Orchestra. It has been stated that this is an option in Armed Assault. The crosshairs now apparently no longer show you an indication of where the weapon is aiming (which was very unrealistic anyway, they're just supposed to be general guides as to where you're pointing the weapon, not an exact, updated-by-the-split-second laser pointer showing where you muzzle is aimed), but instead expands once you start moving. This in NO WAY should suggest that ArmA uses a "cone-fire" aiming mechanism. It boggles the mind that someone would come to such a conclusion when the more logical, and simple, explanation is one that has a basis in REALISM. Given the choice between BIS making a realistic and an unrealistic move when it comes to weapon aiming, why in the hell would you automatically assume not just an unrealistic move but also a REGRESSION from the original OFP? In short, stop spazzing out over stupid stuff. There's no reason to think that ArmA will be regressing from Flashpoint in any way, I don't know why some of you have so little faith in BIS.

Oh, right. I'm going to rely on the mod community to add something that, to this day, has not shown up in OFP. Sorry, but no thanks. I'd much rather see BIS do it themselves, and do it right, from the start. And I do believe I understand exactly what I'm talking about when it comes to how to fire AT weapons from various stances....

I can't speak specifically for the RPG family of weapons, but the US M136 AT-4 can be fired from a prone position. All you have to do is ensure that you're at an off-angle to it, such that your legs aren't in the backblast area. I agree with you completely on the other points. The AT weapon movement model in OFP was clumsy at best.

Ah. Learn something new every day.

Perhaps someone who knows the language could write a transcript for us, or even a basic summary?

Dinger, Will you or any other of the attendees do a writeup on Linda, or any of the other things that occured on the 21st? The info we got from the Saturday session was fantastic, but as of yet I haven't seen anything about the Sunday stuff. I would be interested in reading about Command Engine 2, your mortar system, and certainly everything BIS talked about.

I'm not sure I understand you here. You do realize that the AT-4 is a shoulder-fired, single-shot, individual weapon, right? They may have gotten some details of it wrong, but it IS something that a single soldier can use.

You mean you want the scope to be scratched when looking through it? Have you ever looked through a weapon optic in your life? Or any kind of magnified optic, for that matter?

I very much look forward to seeing those mortars. I was expecting this. Without a big push towards getting them in from the community, I didn't really think they'd decide it was an important thing for this game. I do expect to see it in Game2, however, and I intend to discuss it with BIS in some capacity between now and the release of that game. Good luck to those who make an attempt.. it's definitely a worthy cause. Thanks for taking the time to write that up, Dinger. It's appreciated.

I question the fact that out of a group of mod makers, nobody was interested in getting the functionality present to enable sight adjustments for weapons that need them. How long would it take to get an answer to the question of adjustable sights? Hmn? How much influence would adjustable sights have on the game? Quite a bit. Mortars, M-203's, M-79's, Mk-19's, AT-4's, sniper rifles, machineguns... pretty much every weapon in the game would be influenced by it, and some of them would go from "Zero-functionality sights" to "Works just like the real thing", which would obviously be more realistic and make the weapons more user-friendly and usable. If you think that this feature isn't important, or that somehow every single question you guys asked over the course of it was infinitely moreso, whatever. You guys had an opportunity to get some really critical questions answered, and while you no doubt did a good job in a lot of respects, there are some important things that you apparently missed. The worst part is that you think that a feature like adjustable sights is "uninteresting".

I meant new pictures.

Could you give us a direct link to any site that has pics or video of the Game2 vegetation stuff?

No kidding. However, I think anyone who has a solid understanding of weapons, and is trying to make a realistic mod, would want the basic feature that allows for such things to be correctly implemented. It carries over to weapons like the Mk-19, AT-4... hell, anything that has an adjustable sight (meaning, basically EVERY weapon) would benefit from having such a feature. The current M-203 implemented in Flashpoint, and every mod I've ever seen, quite frankly sucks. The sights are worthless, totally worthless and absolutely nothing like the real things. But hey, whatever. I guess I can't expect people who've never actually fired one to really grasp the finer points of aiming them, and be disappointed with how they're presently modeled.

I just don't understand how a group of mod makers can't have that as one of the things they want answered. Is the average mod-maker just not that familiar with how the sighting systems for such weapons truly work, and thus don't understand how important it is to model them correctly? Do you guys (meaning, everyone on the forum) realize that M-203 sights allow for a person to acheive EXCELLENT first-shot accuracy at ranges up to 150 meters for a point target, and 350 for an area target? It's not a wild "fire and adjust"-fest, you actually can hit what you want with each shot as long as you can properly estimate ranges. I wish people would ask questions like this when the opportunity arises.

Please, please, please somebody ask BIS at the workship if M-203 sights, AT-4 sights, and other ones can be adjusted for range. Will they work like reality, or will we get the same shitty unrealistic M-203 sights that games have always had (except for Infiltration for UT way back when)?

That's an excellent video to demonstrate the sonic crack with. I'll reference that from now on when people ask about it.

Good lord, a 6724km^2 map for the military version? Wow.

"Zooming" in ironsight mode in most games is done to compensate for the fact that we're viewing the game environment through a relatively low-resolution, relatively small-screen viewport. The FOV zoom that occurs when going into ironsights in Flashpoint is supposed to give you a more accurate view of the sights, and your targets, but not "artificially" zoom you like a scope would, whereas the normal view is trying to give you as big of a field of view as possible since you don't have any peripheral vision to rely on and thus must make do with what the game offers. This should be implemented in future games in some capacity (I'll leave debate over the exact implementation to others), I agree. Technology is progressing to the point where it will be feasible sometime in the not-too-distant future to have this as a standard feature. Decreasing the FOV will continue to be used in these games as long as we're dealing with a relatively low-res, small screens as our only view into the world. It's a compromise, but the end effect is realistic when you get over the "Oh my god, it's magic eye zoom!" misperception that seems to be so common, and start thinking about your actual level of vision and field of view "in reality" and realize that the only way to come close to implementing a similar setup requires such compromises in-game.

Of all the potentially interesting "realistic" features that could be implemented in ArmA or Game2, jamming is very, very low on the "payoff vs invested effort" scale. The amount of time it would take to do the animations alone for each different weapon would be better spent adding any number of other features. How about we worry about getting other features implemented, ones with more positive impacts on gameplay, before we start to ask for things that would only show up rarely and would usually be more of a hassle to deal with than an actual significant gameplay element? As far as the original post goes, the average soldier isn't carrying around a rifle and a sidearm. Thus, training for the average soldier or Marine typically doesn't teach "weapon transition" when you get a FTF. You do immediate action - tap, rack, bang - and if that doesn't work, you find cover and begin remedial action (observe the chamber for a doublefeed, failure to extract, failure to eject [stovepipe], etc, and deal with them accordingly). Like I said... this isn't something we need just yet. There are many other areas of the simulation that could use improvement before time is spent on such a trivial feature.

No, those are Army soldiers. Every soldier aside from the Sahrani forces shown thus far in screenshots has been US Army. The pattern you're seeing is the Army's "new" ACU digital pattern. The Marine MARPAT pattern looks similar, but it comes in either woodland or desert varities, whereas the ACU is a "one pattern fits all" approach.

That's a very nice catch. I wouldn't be surprised to see the doors animated.