iratus
-
Content Count
146 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
-
Medals
-
-
Warzone aid organizations would not use cluster ammunition obviously, but they might have to deal with it anyways. The main problem with cluster ammunition is that they tend to produce a lot more duds that also are smaler (and therefor less easy spottable) than conventional ammo. Areas that have been bombarded with cluster ammo bear the same sort of problems than areas that have been mined. Humanitarian institutions/organizations often deal with cleaning up such areas.
-
Google Maps has streetview for the island. But the resemblance is not as big as Altis <-> Lemnos or Chernarus <-> it's RL location, since Malden 2035 is scaled down quite a bit compared to the RL island. Still, the team did a really good job in making a realistical feeling mediterran island wirh Malden 2035! And despite it shares a lot of assets with Altis and Stratis it still has the feel of a different place.
-
These are the same observations I made too. 20mm Cannons seem to be verry good at damaging/destroying planes and helicopters, but I had considerable problems when engaging ground targets. Infantry is hard to hit in combat situations because the 20mm ammo has a small effective explosion radius, so there is only a small area of effect. As for light vehicles: Those Ifrits I shot at in my tests actually took little damage even from the Black Wasps cannon. Some lost a wheel or two and two of them (engaged by the Black Wasp II) had their engine knocked out, but most of them would still be operable in some fashion. I had no crew in them, so I can't tell if they would have been taken out - but I doupt it. A couple of months ago I tried to destroy a Zamak ammo truck with the Buzzard's 20mm twin cannon during a mission and had problems. We switched to other ammunition to make sure it's been destroyed. I don't know how well 20mm ammo does IRL. Maybe it's realistic that it is not overly effective against MRAPs. But it feels somewhat weak, especially against targets such as trucks who are not armoured.
-
Ah, okey. So we should probably do some vanilla testing. Depending on my lazynes I might do some strafing runs today Edit: So I did some limited testing fooling around* in the editor. My findings are surprising to me: I found it generally easier to hit with the slower Buzzard. The Black Wasp's 20mm gun was more effective on Ifrits than with the Buzzard's Twin Cannons. I actually had the feeling of getting better hits at the Ifrits with the Buzzars, but they resulted in less damage. Damage vs. Infantry (I used CSAT VR Entities) was significantly better on the Buzzards Twin Cannons than on the 20mm Gun of the Black Wasp II. This could have to do with the slower approach and better hits however. All in all the Effects where somewhat weak, with the exception of the Buzzards Twin Cannon vs. Infantry. Disclaimer: To 'test' this I actually flew attack runs on static and well visible Targets. The accuracy was therefor dependent on my crappy pilot skills. Shots on Target, engagement range and other factors where not verry consistent, the results of this thest are relatively inaccurate because of this. A more controlled testing environment would be necessary to get propperly compareable results. I decided to post my results anyways, maybe they are still of some value.
-
Weaker than the Buzzards Gun? Wow!
-
It's a 20mm cannon right? Those are all kinda whimpy against vehicles and Infantry (especially well protected CSAT troops). The splash radius is kind of small and the direct hit damage leaves a lot to be desired. The Buzzards external twin-cannon and even the Blackfoots turret cannon have the same problems.
-
Are you running any mods? If so try playing the scenario without mods loaded (I have a special preset in the launcher that loads no mods just for occasions like this).
-
Jets - Sensor overhaul (Radars, IRs, Lazors, PGMs)
iratus replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
According to this DAGR have a maxium engagement range of 5000 m: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Sensors Most of the weapons tend to have significantly shorter ranges than their real-live counterparts/inspirations. EG: ASRAAM in Arma: 6'000m <--> AIM-132 ASRAAM: 15'000m* BIM-9X in Arma: 5'000m <--> AIM-9X Sidewinder: 16'000m* Macer in Arma: 6'000m <--> AGM-65 Maverick: 16'000m effective* Scalpel in Arma 6'000m <--> AGM-114 Hellfire: 8'000m* *: according to wikipedia.de -
Jets - Sensor overhaul (Radars, IRs, Lazors, PGMs)
iratus replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Being in range alone is not always suficent. Some targets have lower radar visibility than others, e.g. the stealth variants of the Shikra and Black Wasp II are "harder" to tetect than their non-stealth counterparts, so you have to be closer to them before you can spot them. Or another example: a CH-67 Huron will be visible from further away than a small MH-9 Hummingbird. Then there is the background: Targets have higher visibility if there's sky behind them instead of ground (better contrast). And if you can't see anything, make sure the radar is actually turned on (radar is off per default).- 957 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- electronic warfare
- radar
- (and 8 more)
-
Jets - Sensor overhaul (Radars, IRs, Lazors, PGMs)
iratus replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Tere is a work in progress list here: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Sensors -
I have to admit this was not a feature I thought necessary (even tho I used rangefinders IRL), since it does not introduce any clever choices/tactics for the player. Instead of "aim, then read range" it's now "aim, press a button, then read range". In my eyes it was a immersion thing, which is subjective to a certain degree. I could somewhat understand people wanting it, but for me it just added an additional button one has to map on their allready cluttered keyboard. I was never against it, but to me it appeared kinda unnecessary. But since I have it now, I find it more convenient than the old method, especially for far-away targets. It prevents the situation where you have to hold your shaky aim ontop of the target while also reading the distance . Now you just press the button at the moment the target is in sight and the nuber stays, so you can read it easily. Also the argument of not having a discrepancy between hand-held rangefingers and those used in FCS makes sense imo.
-
Somehow I was thinking it would become part of the virtual garage. That way a function similar to the virual arsenal function could be implemented. A player could walk up to a object that has the script attached. The script would look for stationary objects close by that can be viewed in virtual garage and give the player the option to go to Garage-mode and change ... well everything one can chance in the virtual garage + weapon loadouts where possible.
-
*** WARNING! Unpopular opinion ahead! *** I think the approach chosen by BIS is the best one for several reasons: The approach leaves absolute control about what ammunition is aviable in the hands of the mission designer. This is a must, as the aviability of weapons, equipment and ordnance is a mayor factor in mission balance and therefore in "making the mission fun/engaging". People who do not build missions themselves probably dislike this approach, because they think they will not benefit from the new system since they can't use it themselves. Be assured you will benefit from it! Mission designers will happily use the system to build more interesting missions, using new and varied loadouts. They also like to use scripts... Scripts: Some people may think "BIS is just lazy, so they outsource it to moders.". But this approach is in my eyes the better one for us, the players: It gives us more options that are better suited for the gameplay we want. The Arma community has a wide and diverse variety of playing styles - from casual KotH to hardcore uber-realistic Milsiming. Whatever BIS would have made, people would have complained about it in some way (just look here in the forums ). This approach allows everybody to have their tailor-made solution: We can have hardcore milsim variants that only allow you to have realistic loadouts and where someone has to stand next to the plane for 10 minutes to "load" the missiles, we can have systems where you pay some sort of money to get ammo, or systems that allow you to load whatever you want in mere secounds. (Also it did not take long for the first loadout scripts to pop up. Grumpy Old Man's basic aircraft loadout menu for example is great). I am aware that there are missions out there that don't think much about loadouts and such and where a automatically applied standard system would give the players a way to "fix it". But - as with many other problems - that's not a problem with Arma's systems, it's rather a problem with bad and/or lazy mission design. And that is a completely different topic.
-
Just type in "freedom" in the asset-search-window.
-
I think the community also could learn not to hype themselves up to mars. Remember when this pic was first posted pre-alpha? "UDERGROUND STRUCTURES CONFIRMED!!!!!!" the community shouted, because one can see two (familiar looking) Bunker-entrages at the hill on the right - despite the fact we allready knew these things from Takistan. But we wanted underground structures, so we saw them as "confirmed" even tho there are no underground structures visible at all. (self inflicted) dissapointment and outcry followed. Just sayin If I had to guess it's probably a humanitarian mission, maybe related to "natural" disasters (I blame CSAT) and helping the civilian population to deal with it. Mechanics-wise my bets would be on the ability to drag and carry wounded soldiers similar to what Arma 2's medic module made possible. A more advanced medic system (alike what e.g. ACE3 provides) is imo out of scope for the base game.