Emryse

Hey there, quickdagger! First of = thanks for all you do! Next, question on the reticles. I'm running a 21:9 monitor, and so on many reticles, the 2d reticle pattern "repeats" on either side as cut of sections of the actual full reticle in the screen's center, if that makes any sense. Is there a way to fix that? Otherwise - thanks for the help calibrating view to that screen size! Cheers!

Ruthberg - I just want to say "thank you so much" for your dedication to develop this, which, has literally breathed life back into a game I otherwise was shelving for a while. I've never had this much fun virtually shooting long distance. It's as real life as I've ever encountered. Job well done!!!

Upfront Disclaimer: I've searched Google, BI Forums in various channels, and used the "Check If Already Posted" feature to attempt avoiding duplication of another thread. No joy - so I'm posting here. I'm looking for a cool c130 gunship script to test as I learn that allows for using the gunship guns, etc, etc. The script made by LurchiDerLurch aka "LDL" (see here: http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=10136) is by far the most polished-looking setup available. I took a stab at trying to bring it into Arma3 this morning, and everything seemed to work fine in terms of placing the files and various code into the mission, description, and init SQFs. When I preview, the commands show up in my scroll wheel menu, and when I select to start the ac130, the script starts. But then, that's where the breaking starts to happen. Basically, after a fade out, initializing the sounds (very cool sounds, btw), a series of errors occurs, finally leading to a message "continue script?" and bringing me back to my 1st Person View. If I click continue, the screen "blinks", but no other change. So - I could really use some help if anyone is interested or knows how to look through and port this. I'm a total beginner with a week under my belt, so this is over my competency. Appreciate it, Emryse

Hey there all, I've been doing a few hours worth of searching for some very clear, specific, and example-provisioned case to answer this question. Context: I'm making a multiplayer mission where the following code is placed into any playable unit's initialization field: this addAction[""<t color='#FC0000'>Request Greyhound Strike Package</t>"",""launchMissile.sqf"",[this, missilestart,""M_Scalpel_AT"",200]]; null = [this, 3000, true, 6] execVM ""JWC_CASFS\addAction.sqf""; this addweapon ""Laserdesignator""; Works great, until the player dies. Then - when they respawn, there's no code in the init field for them. Could someone please assist in explaining how to properly event handle this situation, and show what the proper code structure / syntax for this would be? I would surely appreciate it! Thanks, Emryse P.S.: Even better - is there a way I can create code that drives every playable unit to have my init field code populated from get-go, so that I don't have to place it in the init field of a specific playable unit in the first place?

Guys, thanks so much for the help - I wish I could say I've had success. Unfortunately, I've not been able to make either of these work. 1. I followed your instructions verbatim. Using the combo of a script.sqf with the exact copy/paste code, plus adding the additional code to the init.sqf did not auto-populate that code into each playable unit. 2.) I created a file called: "respawn.sqf". In it, I place the following code: player addAction[""<t color='#FC0000'>Request Greyhound Strike Package</t>"",""launchMissile.sqf"",[this, missilestart,""M_Scalpel_AT"",200]]; null = [player, 3000, true, 6] execVM ""JWC_CASFS\addAction.sqf""; player addweapon ""Laserdesignator""; In the init.sqf, I added the following code: player addEventHandler ["respawn", {null=[] execVM "respawn.sqf"}] Here's the funny thing: with this - when I exported / tried in multiplayer, upon respawn, these options did not appear as menu items in my new guy, but when I walked over to my old dead guy, the options then appeared as if they were attached to him. Wierd. I guess I shouldn't be trusted with this stuff... Maybe just to be clear about what I'm trying to do: I have a number of scripts that I want to have available for every playable unit to use at all times, whether initial spawn or respawn throughout game. These are: - a laser missile guided strike : that's this code: player addAction[""<t color='#FC0000'>Request Greyhound Strike Package</t>"",""launchMissile.sqf"",[this, missilestart,""M_Scalpel_AT"",200]]; - Close Air Support : that's this code: null = [player, 3000, true, 6] execVM ""JWC_CASFS\addAction.sqf""; - Naval Gun Ship support - SATCOM support (a script that lets you look top-down like a satellite view - the BIS Virtual Arsenal with complete and total access to everything Here's my init.sqf file as it currently sits: /// VIRTUAL ARSENAL TIE TO SUPPLY CRATE TYPE START /// { _x allowDamage false; _x addAction ["<t color='#ff1111'>BIS Arsenal</t>", {["Open",true] spawn BIS_fnc_arsenal}]; } forEach nearestObjects [getpos player,["B_supplyCrate_F"],15000]; /// VIRTUAL ARSENAL END /// /// SATCOM START /// _variable = [] execVM "pxs_satcom_a3\init_satellite.sqf"; sleep 0.2; //action [player, true] call PXS_switcher; /// SATCOM END /// /// LAUNCHMISSILE LIMIT NUMBER OF USES START /// misActive = false; ASnumMIS = 6; //number of times missile can be called misSupLimit = ""; ASMIS = 0; exit1 = false; /// LAUNCHMISSILE END /// /// CAS START /// [] execVM "JWC_CASFS\initCAS.sqf"; /// CAS END /// /// NGS STARTS HERE /// [] execVM "NGS\init.sqf"; [] call compile preprocessFile "NGS\func.sqf"; if (isNil "theVariable") then {theVariable = false; publicvariable "theVariable";}; /// NGS ENDS HERE /// /// ADD PLAYER INIT VALUES AFTER RESPAWN /// player addEventHandler ["respawn", {null=[] execVM "respawn.sqf"}] /// END/// null=[]execVM "script.sqf"; }foreach playableUnits Here's my description.ext: //RESPAWN respawn = "BASE"; respawndelay = "3"; //SATCOM #include "pxs_satcom_a3\init_interface.hpp" //LAUNCHMISSILE //JWC_CAS #include "JWC_CASFS\casDefine.hpp" #include "JWC_CASFS\casMenu.hpp" class CfgSounds { class cantDo { name="cantDo"; sound[]={"JWC_CASFS\cantDo.ogg",1.0,1.0}; titles[]={}; }; }; //NGS #include "NGS\defines.hpp" #include "NGS\dialogs.hpp" ---------- Post added at 14:48 ---------- Previous post was at 14:45 ---------- I should add that, with the above files as I currently have them set up, and if I place this code this addAction[""<t color='#FC0000'>Request Greyhound Strike Package</t>"",""launchMissile.sqf"",[this, missilestart,""M_Scalpel_AT"",200]]; null = [this, 3000, true, 6] execVM ""JWC_CASFS\addAction.sqf""; this addweapon ""Laserdesignator""; in the init value of the player unit, it all works, the first time I load up the map. But on respawn, none of it works anymore, other than the BIS Virtual Arsenal. ---------- Post added at 14:49 ---------- Previous post was at 14:48 ---------- Another note; and maybe this is the struggle for all editors - I'm trying to figure out the right order of script and place in these files, so that one script doesn't break or write over another. That gets really hard - seems unpredictable what's going to happen sometimes.

Hey kylania et al, this is a fantastic script and I've enjoyed playing with it so far. Right now, I see that I have two options to activate this script: PLAYER LASER DESIGNATOR by assigning the line this way: _primaryTarget = laserTarget (_this select 1); OR UAV LASER DESIGNATOR by assigning the line this way: _primaryTarget = laserTarget (getConnectedUav player); Both of these options work, but how can I make this so that I can have the _primaryTarget = either the player OR UAV designator? In other words, the script fires off if I assign one of the two expressions, but I want the script two work if either of the two expressions are present. I hope I'm explaining this well. For context, I am using this via scroll menu addaction activation. I'd try the radio route, but can't figure out how to do that. Thanks for the help, Emryse

This is a port that BI needs to consider for inclusion into the standard game. I can't imagine why 4-tube NVs or even a different NV system altogether didn't make it into a futuristic ArmaIII world... looks great and hope these start getting used.

I understand BI is working on an update to marksmanship in a coming DLC, so I will offer my contribution to their effort and the community. I want to say that I know what I’m talking about, and everything I’m going to lay out is from personal and real-world experience, not some BS Hollywood movie, BS video game, or BS hearsay and mythology. I say this not to brag, but to be taken seriously. VERY CLEAR UP FRONT: I do not want this to turn into a “wish list†without well documented explanations. I’m trying to set the tone and example with my following post. This thread is intended to help BI developers and community modders better understand the dynamics of extreme long range precision marksmanship and aspects that will improve the marksmanship element of the game, and offer community input/guidance to that end. Any additional posts that further the aim of the marksmanship mod being realistic, enjoyable, effective are much appreciated. I'm also going to be clear in a.) what I wish would be changed, b.) justification of proof for the change, and c.) explanation of why this is a good change to make, and finally d.) any helpful feedback as to how the change might be implemented. I hope this 4-stage approach is helpful in giving the community and BI real ways to address marksmanship in ArmA. Without further ado… 1. Weapon/aim sway while prone and looking through scope. SUGGESTION: Weapon/aim sway needs to be dramatically reduced, and build up to no motion at all (after a few seconds) unless the user inputs view/aim or body movement. REASON: When shooting from a prone supported position (as is the case with use of scoped sniper rifles at extreme long ranges greater than 1000 meters), a constant natural figure 8 sway such as when crouched or standing is not realistic and does not happen in real life to trained marksmen when prone. EXPLANATION WHY: There are a number of reasons why this is true: a.) Prone marksman engaging targets at +1000 meters always build a fully-supported position for their rifle. This means that they rest the rifle on: a. A front support (bipod, tripod, bag, earth, object, etc.) b. A rear support (monopod, bean bag, object, etc.) b.) Because the rifle is supported both in the front and rear, it comes to a state of rest. The marksman controls the point of aim of the rifle by changing the position of the front or rear platform, thus changing the state of rest so that the aim is on target. c.) Prone marksman behind a fully-supported rifle do not “hold†the rifle. They minimize all body contact to the rifle, so that only the following touches: a. Shoulder is square to the stock to address recoil and bore axis shift. b. Finger is positioned to apply even, uniform input to the trigger. Besides these two points of contact, the marksman eliminates all other contact with the weapon system. This is precisely to prevent natural body movements like breathing, heart beats, surprise, etc., from introducing unwanted aim shift (bore axis shift) to the weapon system. This is how snipers get confirmed kills at upwards of 1800-2400 meters. HELPFUL FEEDBACK TO MAKE CHANGE: Suggest making this change of reducing weapon/aim sway to zero (no motion) only if the following two conditions apply: 1.) The marksman is prone & rested (no physical exhaustion effect). 2.) The marksman is using a bipod or the weapon is resting on an object with a “weapon rest support†ability triggered (I hope that’s coming back too). If these conditions are met, reduce aim sway over 3-5 seconds down to no movement. If the user moves their body or shifts their point of aim through mouse/keyboard input, introduce some slight wiggle or jitter that again reduces down to no movement over 3-5 seconds. This video illustrates well the realistic movement aim shifts through a high-powered scope. (guy in this video attached his camera + spotting scope to the weapon system so you could get a feel for what it looks like – only thing missing is the reticle, but the view jitter / motion is accurate; excellent marksman can reduce motion jitter further than this…)2. Overhaul weapon reticle design for long range precision scopes. SUGGESTION(s): a. Keep reticle as “First Focal Plane†FFP, meaning that no matter what zoom setting the scope is at, measurement tensions and sub-tensions remain same. Google FFP to learn more. (It may be this way already, but doesn’t matter since crosshairs are arcade-ish.) b. Reduce line width of reticle crosshairs, tensions, and sub-tensions. REASON: Current crosshairs are too thick, and obscure the target at extreme long range. EXPLANATION WHY: This is unrealistic and no self-respecting marksman would ever use such a reticle. You can Google easily any number of videos that show how thin a reticle actually is when set to its lowest magnification or in fixed power. Also, good reticles don’t have big thick black bars, or big round tension marks, as is current in the game. Most use either thin and thinner “hashes†or, if they use circles or diamonds, they are “holed†in the middle, so that if you place your tension on the target, you can see the target “through†the tension. (Tension/sub-tension refers to the markings along the reticle to indicate measurements. In mils, the tensions usually represent one mil, and the sub-tensions usually represent .5 of a mil.) c. Make reticle tensions/sub-tensions measure in mils (mill radians). REASON: Mils are metric, divisible by 10, and are most accurate / easy way to convert meter range into correct firing solution. EXPLANATION WHY: Mils also allow for much finer adjustments to dialing or hold-off, allowing for higher first-shot or repeat shot hits. Mils can also be used accurately with meters for range estimation, so a marksman could accurately estimate range even if he does not have a range finder or laser designator. HELPFUL FEEDBACK TO MAKE CHANGE: Here are the best ones currently available on the market. These links include dimensions, specs, etc. Hope this helps: - HORUS H58 (https://horusvision.wordpress.com/tag/horus-reticle/) - Gen 2 XR (http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2009/09/new-5-25x56mm-tactical-scope-from-premier-reticles/) - SWFA SS HD 10x42 (http://www.opticstalk.com/uploads/12846/ss10x42hd.jpg) NOTE: I understand you may not be able to use these exact reticles due to TM and patents, but you can modify them by `15%, change the name, change the look slightly, and you are absolutely in the clear. Just obey the rules of FFP, mil/mil (reticle and dial turrets on scope both measure in mils), and good useful design (.5 and 1 mil hashes, no big thick bulky lines, range estimation features, hold-off features), and you’ll be fine. 3. Change scope dialing adjustment system. SUGGESTION(s): a. Change scope dialing adjustments from meters to mill radians. b. Add windage correction (horizontal) as well as the current elevation (verticle). c. Allow user to “set zero†at a particular meter range. (E.g., I want my rifle to be zeroed at 50, 100, or 200 meters.) Then from there, the user uses scope turret adjustments (in mils) and hold-off corrections (on the scope reticle) to make the shot. d. Create a range card (DOPE “Data Observed from Previous Engagementsâ€) that indicates amount of required clicks in mils to achieve correct distance in meters, given the zero that user has set. (E.g., on my 7.62, under normal conditions, my rifle is zeroed at 100 meters. So if I want to shoot a target at 300 meters, I need to dial up about 1.4 mils, or 14 clicks on the elevation turret.) REASON: Everything should be in mils and meters. This makes firing solution calcs and distance measuring easiest. It is now the real world standard as well. MOA is dying as standard, as it is less precise, more difficult to work with in terms of calcs and math, etc. To make the art of determining the correct firing solution for a long range shot realistic. Furthermore, the current adjustment of only 100 meters per click is not nearly precise enough. My personal DOPE card has data for adjustments in ever 10 meters. (E.g., 200, 210, 220,… 560, 570,… 990, 1000, 1010, - all the way out to max effective range.) EXPLANATION WHY: Simply dialing up the distance in meters to match the target distance is so Battlefield 4 – completely unrealistic and arcade-like at best. This is a realism simulator. Additional benefits are it enables higher precision for good shooters who know what they’re doing, and increases the enjoyment/reward of calculating and executing a great long distance shot. Finally, the point of long range marksmanship is to hit exactly where you shoot, the very first shot, and make extremely rapid (1-5 second) follow up shots that are on target. In the real world, this translates to being able to hit an apple at 800-1000m on the first shot (cold bore, as they say). Often, you may not have time for follow up shots (for many reasons). HELPFUL FEEDBACK TO MAKE CHANGE: I would be more than happy to help with this. There are also some online ballistics calculators that can easily generate a meters/mils range table, in increments of 10 meters, to show the correct input to scope elevation. Even though my rifle is zeroed at 100 meters, my range table shows mil corrections from 50 meters up to 1300 meters (for my 7.62). The high-end guns in ArmA should have data tables from 50 meters up to 2400 meters, and yes – in increments of 10 meters. This isn’t hard – just needs to be something you open like your watch or clock or map, and scroll to find the right solution. I can provide some other helpful suggestions on templates for wind correction and angle correction as well, or any other kind of correction you’d be willing to implement in the game. Here are links to some of the very best scopes available today, to use for understanding the concepts long range shooters care about in how to improve the overall long range precision scope feature of the game: - http://www.valdada.com/scopes/tactical-scopes/4-28x50-40mm-recon-tactical-ffp-mil-mil-xtreme-x1-illum-reticle - https://www.snipercentral.com/premier525.phtml - http://www.opticstalk.com/review-swfa-ss-315x42-at-13-sniper-challenge_topic38917.html To conclude, I hope this is helpful, I hope to see some of these changes made, and I thank you for the wonderful game that you’ve built and your pursuit for a better experience. Please don't hesitate to PM me if you'd like any further assistance in helping you interpret and understand how to implement long range precision rifle features that make sense in the game. I'm very much happy to help.

MordeaniisChaos, thanks so much for your response and helping me clarify some of the points. Agreed it would be awesome if there was a way to show bullet wake. FYI for everyone so far, and to further support the demonstration of dual-supported precision shooting from prone, here's a video demonstrating the concept. This gal nails a bottle of water at 951 yards. Quite impressive. For those who may be impatient, skip to around 5 minutes to see the way she's positioned. Also, a little bit later, video shows her actually shooting. Notice the minimal contact with rifle system. Also - this video has an excellent shot of the bullet wake, and slows it down a ton so you can see it well. Very cool. Thanks again to everyone who's contributed so far.

I'm not talking about getting in a "bench shooting type position". The dual-supported prone position is a tactical position, and can be employed any time the prone position is available for use. To be clear, from the start of this thread, we're not talking bench rest shooting. Going prone for shooting and building a solid shooting position is absolutely feasible if you've trained and come prepared with the right gear. Building a stable shooting position from prone does not take a tremendous amount of effort. If you have a bipod or pack for your front rest, and a portable rear support (monopod, "spike", bean back, sand-sock), you are good to go, and can get in prone position quite quickly. And if a marksman doesn't have the time to set up in that position, then that's a dynamic of the engagement / environment / timing - both in the game and real life, the shooter or leader decides how to employ marksman capability. In other words, we need to separate the context of "when" shooting prone is appropriate and "how" to appropriately shoot in the prone. So far, my advice has outlined three distinct prone shooting "positions" that could be coded into the game: 1.) Prone - dual supported. This uses the three conditional statements I've already specified, requires 10-20 seconds to build. Disadvantages of this position: takes time to build, very narrow aim tracking without need to rebuild position Advantages of this position: no aim shift, least possible bore-axis shift, breathing / body inputs negated 2.) Prone - single front supported (bi-pod or rest of some kind). This would use two of the three conditional statements specified above. Requires much less time to build (2-10 seconds). Disadvantages of this position: slight aim shift due to less stability and body factors (breathing, etc.), increased bore axis shift due to less stability Advantages of this position: more rapid engagement of target, increased aim tracking without need to adjust position 3.) Prone - no rest support. Requires virtually no time to build position. Disadvantages of this position: Most aim shift, most bore-axis shift, least stability Advantages of this position: most rapid engagement of target, most aim tracking potential with fluid position adjustments With this approach, people could have the choice. I think the rear support should be either a gun attachment or a carry item. For the carry item, you could have to "scroll select" deploying it, and it could drop it on the ground. Then, so long as you remain in your prone position when you dropped it, the build up of the position would commence. If you moved, then you'd have to "scroll select" build position again. If you get up to leave, you need to "scroll select pick up" the rear support object off the ground. I'm all about making the process of shooting dual supported be as realistic as in real life as possible - and I think it absolutely can be done. I am just surprised by the amount of feedback saying it can't. I have first-hand experience doing it, so I know it can. While it's true that some bipods are not equal to others, and certain rifle systems are different than others, the reality is that the military infantry deals with a lot of factors that they can't effectively control like special ops folks can. Loading the bipod is done because usually the structure of the bipod isn't quality enough to produce consistent results otherwise. Also, where the bipod is positioned, and how well the rifle chasis is put together have an effect on the barrel harmonics, which in turn dictates the consistency of the bore axis shift due to barrel whip as the gun is fired. Gatordev you prob know this, so I'm stating it for others who may be interested. My point is that in a dual supported prone position, even with loading pressure on the bipod, the gun "rests" on the supports, and the supports coupled with proper "minimal body contact" and "square placement of stock behind shoulder" will result in negating of body effects such as breathing and heartbeat to inconsequential inputs. The caliber of the rifle really doesn't matter. Driving the rifle using these concepts does. I certainly don't - and I'm glad for your contribution and inputs. I can only speak from my training and experience, as you and others have. This gives BIS the ability to make the best choices for the game. The holding or slightly controlled delay of breathing used to be much more universal. Modern training I've seen and my own experience has taught that the marksman is much more likely to forget to properly breathe, or focus on proper breathing and forget to do something else important. Simply ignoring the issue of breathing altogether, and breathing naturally and calmly, has resulted, for many folks myself included, with optimal results. But of course, there's something to be said for shooting comfortable too. So sometimes when it gets personal, great shooters do unconventional things. It's all about the results. When it comes to breathing, I'll be happy as long as BIS doesn't introduce some BS "push a button to hold breathe, slowing down time, sharpening the senses, and increasing zoom while stabalizing shot"... oh wait. :cool:

I'm trying to be very clear about when breathing *should not* affect reticle motion. IF you are in a fully proper prone position, and, IF you have both a proper front and proper rear support upon which the rifle rests, and, IF you are minimizing your contact with the rifle system to simply positioning your shoulder square behind the rifle, and the minimal amount of your hand needed to engage the trigger, THEN breathing/heartbeat should absolutely not be an issue. This is just a proven fact. If you're trying to achieve a rock-solid prone dual support shooting position and you're finding your breathing is still affecting your point of aim - then you're doing it wrong, and need to rebuild your position properly. Now - if you're not in the prone position. If you're using more of your body to control some portion of the gun (i.e., your non-trigger hand to hold some part of the rifle system. Then, breathing could and will absolutely play a role. I'm just trying to be very clear about some effective conditions that BIS can apply to provide the rule-based triggering for a very stable, extreme long range marksman prone rock-solid shooting position. I'm all for having other positions (like sitting cross-legged with sling support), or shooting from a kneeling or standing position against a barricade or rest surface, or shooting with front support but not rear support. In those cases - breathe away. Even then - the appropriate approach that has been concurred upon now by most modern marksman professionals is to continue normal, even breathing patterns, and take shots in some consistent interval familiar and effective for you. In that case, for these situations I agree with BIS already teased position that they're going to re-doctor the current sway patterns to be a bit more realistic. That should work.

Here's a few more videos showing the jitter vs. sway, to illustrate the point that it's different. I'm not saying necessarily that this is even a good demonstration for how to properly do it - I'm trying to point out the current sway model doesn't accurately portray reality. http://youtu.be/RMWT5wtIRoc (this guy may not now what he's doing - still not a sway, but jitter) (this one shows clearly a very stable position -guy knows what he's doing - long range. Notice how he's minimizing contact with the system, and has the system resting on his supports. He's not driving the system with his body.)Finally, this. It explains it perfectly, way better than I can. Rock steady position building - no movement, no heartbeat, no breathing, no nothing. Skip to about 5 minutes or 6 minutes if you want to get to the point and proof. As to the scope recoil, this is really dependent on a number of factors: - your recoil management ability - the caliber of the weapon - your eye discipline (can you keep your eye from involuntary blinking from the shot concussion) But - bottom line, up even into high calibers, trained marksman absolutely can still see the shot through the scope. In fact, many very good marksman not only can see the shot through the scope, but can see the "wake" of the bullet as it passes through the air, on its way to the target. If you've never seen bullet wake, here's a video of that: Now of course, a spotter is going to have a much better capability to see both the bullet wake or trace, and the impact of the bullet - this is why a spotter is certainly helpful. I think there's some interesting ways that BIS could make the shooter-spotter concept work even with AI as your spotter backup.

Coulum, You may refer to my original post, in which I specified that the enhanced stability and removal of "random motion" should be conditional, with two required conditions triggered: - prone stance - weapons platform support enabled, such as bipod or weapon rest. In all other cases - prone without support, or non-prone stance with support, the current system or a new system with some amount of instability should remain, as you say. ---------- Post added at 16:34 ---------- Previous post was at 16:22 ---------- Ckrauslo, not sure what you're intending to mean by the first part of this; I'm certainly not supplying this info only for you - but I'm glad that you're knowledgeable as well and hope you can make some further contribution to the discussion. As for your point on the heartbeat... Yes, many schools taught this. Many schools also taught to shoot while holding breath. Or to shoot while slightly expelling breath. Many schools also taught that an increase in humidity translates into a drop in bullet impact, all other things being equal. Yes, many schools have taught many things. And many times - they are wrong. The art of long range precision marksmanship has improved dramatically over the past 5 years, even. In that time, modern study of ballistics, rifle system characteristics, weather characteristics, and human interface factors has increased both in scope and depth of knowledge and proven concepts. As another example, even the concept of how / when to clean one's rifle for precision marksmanship has changed, for a number of reasons. My whole point here is that - just because the military or a particular school says something is so, or trains a certain way, doesn't mean they are right. Therefore, my goal is to present accurate information that is modern, up to date with current proven knowledge of advanced precision marksmanship concepts and techniques. In the case of heartbeat management - I simply feel that this concept has been proven through modern real-world study, testing, and application to: a.) have no effect to results for extreme long range distances +1000 meters in the prone position when using modern shooting stability building methods, and b.) have negligible effect on results for precision shooting at distances between 100 and 1000 meters where many factors are negligible anyways... On the other hand, I have seen the heartbeat dynamic factored into many games poorly, in an arcade-like fashion, with no application to realistic methods or results. So... this is why I have offered my opinion that this isn't something we ought to mess with. But - it's just my opinion, and like noses, everyone has one! :-) Anyways - thanks for your feedback.

I'll give you the 1/8th turrets, no doubt, gatordev. But God help you, indeed!

I'm happy to provide some more in-depth research on these, but it honestly goes to the global support capabilities that the engine can offer, and how the developers would think through applying global dynamics to individual bullets. If you're in a scenario where there's a lot of bullets flying around, I wonder what it does to engine performance to have so many variables all dependent on highly dynamic elements of a global engine going off at the same time... although - now I'm talking way outside my technical expertise - programming. LOL - I'll stick to the technical research on long range marksmanship features. From the list you supplied, here's my response intitially, and then I may target a few to expound on in subsequent posts. - Coriolis drift; this becomes relevant basically at over 1000 meters. The direction of Coriolis drift depends on the firer's and target's location or latitude on the planet Earth, and the azimuth of firing. The magnitude of the drift depends on the firing and target location, azimuth, and time of flight. - Magnus effect; the spin of the bullet creates a force acting either up or down, perpendicular to the sideways vector of the wind. In the simple case of horizontal wind, and a right hand (clockwise) direction of rotation, the Magnus effect induced pressure differences around the bullet cause a downward (wind from the right) or upward (wind from the left) force viewed from the point of firing to act on the projectile, affecting its point of impact. This is different than windage - it's an additional effect. - bullet spin drift; this is a significant effect that causes the bullet to veer off in the direction of the rotation (clockwise or counterclockwise). This has a significant effect after 1000 meters as well. - temperature; this is a HUGE impact on real-world accuracy. This is more to do with the effect on the entire bullet cartridge load in internal ballistics (the part of the shooting process that occurs between from the point the primer inside the bullet cartridge goes off to the point where the bullet arrives at the end of the barrel and is getter ready to exit the muzzle. What is really key is AMMO temperature. The hotter the temperature of the ammunition at the point of firing the gun, the higher the increase in the muzzle velocity of the bullet. Higher MVs equals a longer trajectory and a change in other external ballistic factors as the bullet travels down range. Smart marksman keep their ammo out in open air, but not in direct sunlight. This allows the ammo temperature to come to the same temperature as the ambient outdoor air. This way, the marksman can use the ambient temperature reading to look up the appropriate temperature MV curve and recognized the correct amount of elevation to dial in to the scope. I'll get into this more in a subsequent post - if anyone asks for it and there's interest from the developer in creating this feature. - heartbeat; not a real feature. Like the myth about holding breath to shoot better, this is a personal preference of the shooter, and does not have a significant effect on the shooting outcome. As I stated in my original post, for extreme long range shooting, let's call that greater than 1500 meters, you are not going to do that unless you're in a very seriously stable shooting position. This means, for the serious marksman, getting into a shooting platform where your rifle system is supported both in the front and rear portions of the rifle chassis. Furthermore, as the marksman engages the rifle system, he minimizes all bodily contact with the rifle to the utmost extent possible. This means, to the extent possible, only the rear of the rifle stock is squared on the shoulder, and only the slightest amount of the hand/finger necessary to engage the trigger. Beyond this, the marksman is controlling the supporting platform, and the platform steers the rifle. The rifle rests completely still on the platform. In this way, all small inputs like breathing, heartbeat, etc., are dampened out to negligible inputs on the rifle system. In any case, what we're really talking about here is bore axis shift, and there are a lot more real world factors that affect bore axis shift. If your breathing or heartbeat are some of them, this just means you have built a poor shooting position, and need to build a better one. I can dig into this more too, if asked. - windage; this is the amount of deflection on the bullet caused by wind. A very real effect, and actually multiple effects, since there may be one wind pattern in one branch or section of the external bullet flight, and then more sections or branches where the wind is behaving differently. Wind is a combination of both direction and speed. There are a number of different types of wind deflection factors, and I can cover those in a separate post. - humidity; this does have an effect on muzzle velocity, how fast the bullet is moving during flight (external ballistics). Basically, the short answer here is that the higher the humidity, the faster the bullet will stay moving. Or, put more precisely, the less quickly that the bullet will slow down. Science shows us that from a density standpoint, the molecular mass of water is less than dry air. You can add up the different molecular masses found in water vs. air and you'll find this to be true. So, in high humidity levels, with more humidity, there is less air density. With less air density, there is less bullet resistance. Less bullet resistance equals higher muzzle velocity preserved, resulting in a longer distance traveled to the bullet. So, if you shoot a bullet in humidity conditions higher than those in which your rifle was zeroed, you will notice - at extreme long range - the impact is higher than normal. Lower than normal humidity equals lower than normal bullet impact. - altitude; this actually is connected to air density. The higher the altitude, the less dense the air, because there is less air on top of the current air layer you're shooting in to weigh down on that layer. Good marksman develop multiple copies of their calculation tables to account for each inch graham change in barometric pressure change for air density (i.e., 28inG, 29, 30, etc.) In certain environments, especially mountainous regions such as featured in ArmA III, (or Afghanistan in real world), if you're on top of a mountain and shooting down at an angle, you are shooting through multiple air density layers due to that change in altitude, so again your bullet in external ballistics has numerous stages or branches in its flight where differing amounts of air density have differing effects on velocity. In this example, shooting down, the resistance to the bullet would increase at a constant rate aligned to the change in altitude, as air continues to get more dense. So, velocity would be increasingly lost. There's some other factors that could be considered too: - bullet velocity translating into impact energy - angle of shooting, as in the example above with air density, if you are shooting at an angle (either up or down) greater than 10 degrees from a horizontal 90 degree plane, you need to account for angle correction. This is because there is a difference between the true line of sight and the horizontal line of flight that the bullet suffers the effect of gravity. It's a triangle straight out of trig, and you need to calc the cosign. Basically, whatever the cosign value is (say it's .92), you multiply that by the true line of sight distance, and that gets you your actual distance the bullet is impacted by gravity. This is the value you would use to reference your chart for elevation adjustment on your scope. In either case, whether shooting at an up or down angle, you actually need less elevation than the true line of sight ranging would suggest. This principle seems to be somewhat working already in the game, but I'm not sure if that was by intent. OK - I think that's enough - looking for more interest from folks and feedback. Basically, the three initial elements that I chose to address in the original post are because I think those stand to gain the most tremendous improvement in the overall realm of marksmanship realism and experience for the DLC. If we could get a bit of feedback from extremely programming-knowledgeable folks or staff on what global factors the engine can use, then we'd be able to prioritize which internal, transition, external, and terminal ballistics effects are worth simulating, and their priority from greatest to least real effect on bullet travel.

As title says, you're indeed right that they've got the suppressor bit wring on a couple of key aspects. I have real world experience in this subject both in pistols, small rifle, and large rifle applications. Here's a couple of quick facts: 1.) Suppressors only negate the sound of the gases built up behind the bullet as it leaves the barrel's muzzle. This is the large "boom" that occurs at the rifle, and therefore gives away the location of the shooter. Suppressing the rifle significantly reduces both the volume and tone (frequency? I'm no audio genius), as well as to some extent lessens the dust signature around the immediate ground area of the gun so that the shooter's location is not easily audibly or visually located. 2.) So what other sounds should there be when firing a suppressed gun besides the diminished end of barrel discharge? Well, 3 to be exact: - the cycling of the action, depending on if it's a semi or bolt. - the sound of the bullet's impact on whatever it hits at terminal - the sound of the bullet itself (IF IT'S SUPERSONIC!) 3.) What determines if the bullet is supersonic? - well, as you correctly stated, it's muzzle velocity that determines this (usually any speed greater than 1100 feet per second, but can vary in real world depending on temperature, barometric pressure, and humidity) - also, as you rightly stated, there is a time and place for using both supersonic and subsonic ammunition in a suppressor. Here's the breakdown on that: 4.) Benefits of shooting supersonic ammunition in a suppressor - reduces the recoil slightly, and also reduces the "thump" of the sound wave's concussive force that tends to cause the shooter to involuntarily flinch or blink (bad because if you blink, you'll likely miss where the bullet impacted, or not see the wake of the trajectory of the bullet in the air) - adjusts the muzzle velocity slightly; call it 5-20 feet per second extra, because there is more time where there is some additional buildup of gases still uniformly applying pressure from the rear to the bullet in an internal ballistics setting (but regardless, you are absolutely correct that at the very least, the muzzle velocity of the bullet is not reduced in any way). Excellently made suppressors refer to this as "point-of-impact shift", or "POI shift", and well-designed modern suppressors have design and attachment structures that ensure a consistent point of impact shift, so you always know where your bullet will terminate both with or without the suppressor. - reduces the sound and visual signature of the shooter's immediate area and location - the sonic crack of the bullet is impossible to trace back to the shooter, since it is coming from the bullet itself, and is a constant noise the bullet makes as it travels through the air supersonic, so the only thing it does is cause people to duck and cover, or animals to spook WRAPPING THIS UP - When to use supersonic or subsonic ammo? SUPERSONIC = LONG RANGE ENGAGEMENTS. SO basically, if you're using the 7.62mm caliber or higher and are in a real sniping role where you're engaging targets beyond 400 meters, then you'd want to remain with supersonic ammunition, because: a.) you'll want all of the muzzle velocity you can get, because higher velocity at terminal means greater damage energy, and also higher muzzle velocity means longer engagement distance potential before hitting "transonic zone" (where the damage energy starts reducing dramatically, and where the bullet becomes unstable to the point that the terminal impact becomes inconsistent and unpredictable) SUBSONIC = SHORT RANGE ENGAGEMENTS. If you're in a designated marksman role, where targets will be closer than 400 meters, and you need to eliminate every noise signature possible for stealth purposes, then subsonic is the way to go, because: a.) you'll have enough muzzle velocity to ensure consistent external ballistics performance, terminal impact prediction, and necessary damage energy at terminal impact. b.) with the bullet's supersonic crack eliminated, the only noise the bullet makes is a soft hissing sound (similar to the sound you hear when a baseball or golf ball is traveling by you very fast). This means that if you have enemy targets that are spaced somewhat apart (i.e., one group 50 yards away from another group, or one sentry 30 yards away from another sentry), you've got the chance to takedown the one without alerting the other - provided you get a clean shot, and the bullet doesn't impact other surfaces than a soft target to make a loud impact noises. PROPOSED SOLUTION FOR ARMA: a.) In 2014, let alone in whatever year this game is supposed to be taking place, there should be a suppressor available for every single small arms caliber offered, up to and including the .408, the Lynx, and even the .50 BMG. These are all rounds that, in real life, many companies produce effective suppressors for. There are even suppressors for shotguns nowadays, and it should not be unreasonable to see that in the game. b.) Suppressors should create heat waves that cause mirage. Suppressors get very hot, very quick. As a result, especially through scoped, but still a challenge even with iron sights, the mirage a suppressor produces starts to cause the target to get "wavy", making it difficult to aim after sustained firing. (say, after the first 10 shots). In the real world, we use mirage covers (basically think of it like a beer cuzzie) made of high heat resistant material to transfer heat away and reduce the mirage. c.) We should have the option to have both supersonic and subsonic rounds for every small arms caliber in the game. The key differences in these rounds would be: - muzzle velocity - differences in sound made at barrel's muzzle (there would be 4 different samples for each): 1. supersonic ammo unsuppressed (both loud gun discharge and loud supersonic crack of bullet) 2. supersonic ammo suppressed (quiet gun discharge, but still loud supersonic crack of bullet) 3. subsonic ammo unsuppressed (slightly less loud gun discharge, loud supersonic crack of bullet) 4. subsonic ammo suppressed (very quiet gun discharge, no supersonic crack of bullet) FINALLY, A DISCUSSION ON MUZZLE VELOCITY AND ENERGY FOR DAMAGE AT TERMINAL IMPACT So the key here is that of course, the less muzzle velocity, the less energy, and the less energy, the less damage when the bullet finally hits home. Since gravity drop is a constant, and all other things being equal, then muzzle velocity also dictates how far the bullet can travel before losing so much velocity that its energy at impact doesn't do enough damage, or that it's flight profile becomes unstable so that predicting impact becomes impossible. Maybe the scripting to get all of this right for a ton of bullets that could be potentially flying all over a multiplayer map at the same time is too much to handle for a system with scripting, etc., I don't know. But what I do know is that in the real world, my thinking would be: "how far away does my final firing position (where I take the shot from) need to be from the terminal point of impact (the target I'm shooting at), and how much energy does my bullet need to carry at the terminal point of impact to get the job done?" This would dictate what caliber gun I use, with what kind of bullet. As far as suppressing goes? I NEVER shoot unsuppressed anymore! There is absolutely no reason to not use a suppressor - there are only benefits. OK - I sure hope at least something in here is helpful, and if you're able to enhance your bug thread on the suppressors, great! Take care.

It's unbelievable that in a game such as this I should even have to ask this question - but after scouring the forums, searching internally, Googling externally, I STILL can't find a simple, straightforward, clear, complete answer!!! Will someone with the appropriate experience and knowledge please describe: 1.) During the single player missions, after Cooper is put in charge and we can run around wherever - how do I reload myself and my squad with ammo when we are running low? (I have been all over the bases - both Starforce and El...whatever that town is... and I can't find ammo crates or anything I'm familiar with. Please be very specific. 2.) Same for vehicles - how would I refuel and reload? 3.) Am I stuck with the initial weapons I am assigned? Where can I get different ones? Thanks in advance for a clear and helpful response! EDIT: And I realize I'm probably sounding a bit frustrated - I am! Apologize though - BIS makes some amazing games - they just have some amazingly frustrating minor issues too... appreciate any help.

Appreciate the help guys.

I had dual 8800 GTXs and just upgraded to dual 275 GTXs... you know how much of a difference it made in the demo benchmark? 3 stinkin' FPS!!! And I'm still averaging 38 FPS... I'm running a killer, top-of-the-line system, and I can't get more than 38 FPS on avg at 1280x1024??? You know... both Gamestop and Best Buy decided not to carry this game in store... I was going to buy it... but now I'm not so sure... I don't care how cool the features of the game are - if a company can't take the efforts needed to fully and optimally utilize the hardware of today, then I'm going to go play some games that do. It's really sad that ArmA 1 runs better on my rig than ArmA 2 does... it's the same damn engine - if anything, they should have improved the performance HUGELY over ArmA 1 - not the other way around. Oh - and for those who say "just turn SLI off", or "reduce your settings"... I run Far Cry 2 and Crysis at max settings on this rig and get NO LESS than 59 FPS no matter what is going on or how intense the scene... don't insult me by implying that perhaps the problem is with my rig or settings on the game are set too high... this game should FULLY utilize SLI and muchly improve multi-core processing (not just for 2 cores, but for as many as 8 cores, or whatever the case may be) - and BIS should make whatever in-roads / relationships / development necessary jointly with NVIDIA to ensure that this happens (as far as game GPU utilization / optimization and SLI); not make excuses or put the blame all on NVIDIA, who by the way gladly releases updates to their drivers when companies work with them. I just wish that BIS would give a very clear, straight-forward, no-BS, FULL, COMPLETE explanation for exactly what steps have been taken along these lines, how persistent the engagement, and exactly all reasons why this is still a problem, and state exactly their intentions. But I guess that's too much to ask? I'm really sorry about my angst on this... I've been a huge fan of ArmA 1 - I've been looking forward to ArmA 2 for SO long; and I'm just really disappointed with how BIS has handled this whole thing... I don't want to hear (no offense) from just a bunch of other users whose level of experience and competence in these issues are varied - I want to hear from the experts, and hear the truth.

Ok - so does ArmA II use PhysX?

ABSOLUTELY it is input lag!!! First off, let me just post my PC specs. I have an iCore7 2.67 on an ASUS P6T, running 6 gigs DDR3 @1600mhz, with dedicated game Raptor 10k hard drive, and dual 275 GTX in SLI. I previously had dual 8800 GTX in SLI. In BOTH setups, at very high settings, the mouse lag is horrible. When I adjust down to high settings, the mouse lag goes away. Now... I am only running the game at 1280x1024... I ran Far Cry 2 and Crysis at max ultra settings, and could not break below 59 FPS - consistent, no matter how intense the scene. Here in the ArmA II demo, my monster machine is having a hard time translating mouse inputs? Or more appropriately, it's taking that long for the game to call the necessary visuals, motions, etc... to my lightning fast hardware? This is no "intentional" simulation design - what gives?

This is exactly my concern... sigh. I just had a friend of mine report that the game is only using 2 cores, and even setting specific affinities for additional cores adds no increases to FPS, regardless of resolution settings - even with all other settings on lowest possible. I've played the demo on mine, and the benchmark in the demo came out to 31 FPS with all settings very high at 1280 x 1024 with 100% fill rate... not a measurement that really tells anything, but still... I wish reviews would incorporate more of a focus on how well the game is executed from a coding / hardware usage stand-point. There's really not a good excuse with the incredible capabilities of hardware today for us to see the type of comments as above by educated members who have followed the development of this software over time...

You will always get much lower FPS in window than playing in full screen. Really, you should always play high performance games full screen.

No need to apologize - I don't get on this forum to lie to people. By the way, Vista treats the Core i7 as 8 processors, not 4. I don't know where you are getting your intel from that as a general rule, Crysis runs faster on dual cores than quads. Not the case. Also, there is really no need at 1080p for you to run 8xAA. Beyond that, I run on a 19" screen, whereas you clearly must be running it on a larger display, and as such, certainly your FPS would be lower, because your CPU/GPU are drawing more data for display. Here's your proof: http://gizmodo.com/5092059/falcon-northwest-mach-v-fastest-pc-yet-runs-crysis-at-60fps Oh - and there's no game that uses 12 gigs of memory, or even 6 gigs of memory, and Crysis is much more GPU intensive, so my dual 8800GTX are just fine. Then there's no point in me debating this further, because you just simply won't believe. 'Nuff said. In what universe is the 8800GTX a "low end card"? I'm sorry, but in the last 2 years, GPUs have NOT advanced all that much. Stop buying the marketed hype; the 8800 GTX is still more than a formidable card for practically all games out there - and especially so when in pairs, if the game is optimized to harness that potential. The real problem isn't inadequate hardware - but rather sloppy or old coding that developers don't want to scrap in favor of more elegant and advanced coding techniques that would better and more efficiently utilize the hardware. Thanks for that - hopefully at least this time, BIS did not partner to have an NVIDIA advertisement on startup telling me that was the way their game is meant to be played, when clearly no advanced development towards such an end had occurred. Really - it's not a problem; again, I could just be the lucky guy that has a smooth rig for playing the game. Again, 19" native resolution of 1280x1024, at 4xAA on all other maxed settings isn't to hard to believe, given my PC specs. 19" screen native resolution of 1280x1024

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,685770/Armed-Assault-2-Graphics-card-benchmarks-and-visual-quality-compared/Practice/ I'm excited for the game to come out here in the US, but at the very same time disappointed by the mixed reviews it's getting for performance-related issues. I have built and invested in the PC that I have to play games like this, and yet, it doesn't seem that the game is being optimized to utilize my machine. However, I don't want to completely slam the developers yet, until I've tried it out for myself on my own rig. But I will say this: if my machine can't handle this game at high settings, especially considering all BIS really had to do was evolve the engine they already have built and tested on multiple past iterations over the years, then there's really no ultimatum that I can offer at this point because I'll still think in theory they've built a cool product, but I'll just be really unhappy. I really want to believe BIS when they say they've optimized for multi-core CPUs, and improved performance... but I guess we'll just have to see! Oh, and for my PC specs: Core i7 @ 2.67, Monsoon 3 heat sync/fan, 6 Gigs DDR 3 Corsair Dominator @1600 mHz, ASUS P6T Deluxe, dual NVIDIA 8800GTX in SLI, dedicated gaming WD Raptor 10k RPM, TrackIR 4 Pro, Turtle Beach 5.1 headphones, Logitech G15 keyboard / G5 mouse, Vista Ultimate And for comparison: - In Crysis, at least 60FPS on MAX settings in most complex scenes - In Far Cry 2, at least 60FPS on MAX settings in most complex scenes - In ArmA 1, 20 - 50 FPS on high settings in most complex scenes