iratus
-
Content Count
146 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
-
Medals
-
Everything posted by iratus
-
AA/AT Titans, what are they now?
iratus replied to silentghoust's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Well I was not sure and had to dl Devbranch to verify it... it's corrected now. -
AA/AT Titans, what are they now?
iratus replied to silentghoust's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
I wish BIS would not call all the missiles "Titan", it's really confusing because there seem to be several different types of Titan missiles: Man portable anti-tank missiles, using IR or SACLOS (Titan MPRL compact) Man portable anti-air missiles, using IR (Titan MPRL) Tank mounted anti-tank missiles, using IR or SACLOS (on BTR-K Kamysh & AFV-4 Gorgon). Those are different from those that the Titan MPRL compact uses, as they are way bigger. Tank mounted anti-air missiles, now using radar using IR (on ZSU-39 Tigris & IFV-6a Cheetah). Again, those are different from those that the Titan MPRL uses, as they are bigger and use radar instead of ir since 1.69. 230 mm Titan Missiles, unguided rockets (on M5 Sandstorm MLRS) <-- Yes, those are named "Titan" as well! Those ARMEX-Engineers really could have been a bit more creative while naming their missile systems AA Tanks obviously get a 360° radar, wich can be set to active or inactive (still receiving signals from actvie radar sources). A mission builder can also link up different sensor platforms so that they send and/or receive sensor data from/to the other systems of their side. E.g. you could have two Cheetahs and a F-181 all sharing their sensor data. -
It works for me when I set its emmission control to active. If it is stand alone it might have to do with its rather narrow radar cone.
-
I personaly hold the unpopular opinion that having tank interiors is overrated. How would you use them? And how often? I remember having them in OFP. Some of them in the drivers seat where kind of useful because you could look a bit more to the sides. Still visibility was verry limited due to the small size on screen, so I (and all the people I played with) mostly stuck to the mailbox-slot view. Same goes for the commanders perspective as far as I remember. The gunners view was completely useles, since you could not see anything. Arma3 vehicles might have MFDs for the gunner, but are you really going to look at a small PiP render with lower viewdistance & framerate instead of using the optics-view? Sure, they would have advantages and they would be cool. It would give drivers something to look at while being parked in a hull-down position for 30 minutes, or we could debate wethever or not the interiors are modelled correctly to how they look in reality (y'all know that's what's going to happen ). It probably won't take more than 2 replies before someone says something including "immersion", and since that is somewhat subjective, I'm not going to argue with that. All I'm saying is if I was to decide what's in the tank DLC, Tank interiors would be pretty low on the priority list. Well "waste of resources" is a bit harsh. If BIS is going to make decent tank interiors for all the tanks, I won't complain (well... maybe a little bit). But in the end of it all, that's a lot of work for (IMO) not a lot of benefit. I'd rather have them put that effort into other things.
-
Well I mainly have a problem with planes trying to hit parachutes with their guns (and probably AA vehicles too - have not tested that). I would be okay with infantry attacking parachutes, so maybe there is a way to tell the AI "it's not worth firing 30mm rounds at a single infantryman"?
-
Jets - Sensor overhaul (Radars, IRs, Lazors, PGMs)
iratus replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
The throwable IR strobes do not show up on the sensors MFD. I tried all three faction variants and they all seem to behave in the same way. I was able to see them blinking in NV (alltough they could do with a more prominent effect as they are sometimes hard to see) and I was able to "lock on" LGBs. The only IR strobe that shows up in the sensors MFD is the one placed in the editor that came with Zeus. As for locking on LGBs: That's a bit weird, sometimes I get the target lock chevrons, sometimes not and the square flickers a bit permanently. -
I like the fact the xH-9 series of helicopters does not have MHDs and sensors, because it makes it stand out. It fits its role and theme IMO. But I am also a believer that not always having all the fancy toys makes them even fancier if it happens for you to have them
-
Proper MP View Distance Implementation
iratus replied to twistking's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Honestly I'm kinda okay with how it is now (everyone being forced to use the same settings, but script commands being able to change that). Viewdistances mainly become a problem when neither the server admin nor the mission designer thought about setting it propperly and you end up with something mission breaking like having to fly a plane witht the default viewdistance of 1600m. Or if people use computers with vastly different specs and the admin/mission designer sets viewDistance/objectViewDistance to somethig ridiculously high (people will blame "crappy arma-engine" if they suddenly only have 10 FPS because the server set objectDrawDistance to 9000m). This might have to do with me not playing much on public servers. If I was making missions for pubby servers, I might use some sort of script allowing players to change it in mission for for performance reasons, but still set a reasonable default value.. But in my eyes selecting a propper and reasonable setting for viewDistance and objectViewDistance is part of good mission design. That's why I would appreciate the possibility to set default values in Eden editor. -
During my tests of the new damage model (in other words: getting shot down repeatedly) I noticed that AI planes like to shoot at parachutes with their guns. I'm pretty sure this is against the geneva conventions :)
-
AFAIK the reasoning behind not giving unguided weapons to the pilot is AI controlled helicopters would waste ammo by the pilot and the gunner firing at the same target. And the reasoning behind not having "manual fire" as an option during multiplayer is not wanting players to be able to take away actions from other players. Therefor I see two solutions: A: Implement an option for the gunner to allow the pilot to take over weapons similar to the way a pilot can allow a co-pilot to take over controlls (preferably on a per weapon basis). or B: Let mission designers (or pylon setting scriptcommands) define weapon control in the dynamic loadout system. It could be done per pylon with alternate weaons existing, e.g. DAR and DAR (pilot controlled). Or there could be a flag that is unchecked per default, and if checked gives control of all unguided munitions to the pilot (with a tooltip explaining that it should not be checked for AI controlled vehicles).
-
Proper MP View Distance Implementation
iratus replied to twistking's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Yeah thats fun, especially on public servers :P But eingagement range is a different animal. Viewdistance becomes less a problem if everybody has a objectViewDistance > max. engagement range. When it is shorter than that it becomes problematic. Imagine the following example: Players A and B are both commanding a MBT (engagement range 4000m). A has set his objectViewDistance to 2000m, whereas B has set his to 3000m. A takes a stealthy, camouflaged overwatch position over a valley and observes it carefully. B drives up on a hill on the opposite side of the valley, about 2500m from A's position (skylining his Tank) and begins to scan the area. After about 5 minutes of searching, B finds A, his gunner takes aim and hits A with his first shot. The players in A's tank probably feel cheated by now, since they still can't see B even if they observed the shot comming in. -
It might be a bit late, but can we get the custom waypoint (the shift-click on the map) to show up like a waypoint in the hud? If we do MP missions with CAS, we often radio coordinates to the pilot and the custom WP comes in handy for this.
-
Proper MP View Distance Implementation
iratus replied to twistking's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Viewdistances in MP... As I understand it works somewhat like this: The viewDistance and objectViewDistance in MP are dictated by what the host/server uses (unless it's later changed, see below) On a dedicated server this usually means a viewDistance of ~1600m, since this is the default setting and usually noone bothers to change it on a dedicated server A mission designer can change it, if they are using the setViewDistance and setObjectViewDistance commands, for example in the init.sqf. Both those commands have to be executed on every client, since they are executed locally only. As far as I know those frameworks use those commands as well. Since both setViewDistance and setObjectViewDistance commands are executed locally, it is actually possible to set viewdistances different for different players. E.g. if (player == Pilot1) then { setViewDistance 12000; setObjectViewDistance 4000; } else { setViewDistance 3000; setObjectViewDistance 2000; }; If the player (init gets executed on every machine) is playing the unit named Pilot1 then he'll get the high wievdistance, otherwise he will be limited. The reason to force the servers settings upon players is probably fairness and balancing. In the example above, the pilot will be able to see (and aim at) any enemy (AI or player) at a distance of 4000m, whereas the other players will be limited to 2000m. They can get shot from an enemy they can't even see. Also the AI will engage enemies (including the plane Pilot1 is flying in) at a maximum distance of 2000m, since they are limited by the viewdistance of the computer they are local on (usually the server). Nevertheless improving this would be a good thing. Maybe let us set mission default values in the eden editor and define limits in wich players are allowed to set their preferred settings. -
I tried this, but could not get it to work. Probably because I did it wrong . I believe I used tab. The screens are most likely (or should I say hopefully?) just not finished/ready atm. They seem to not work in most UI-Sizes.
-
At the moment it is not possible to place a F/A-181 or Sentinel with its wings folded in the editor. But people are requesting the option to do so. Maybe it'll get implemented :)
-
more feedback for being hit would actually be useful for all vehicles. Getting hit in a APC with something dangerous usually only gives off a muffled *pew*. Players sometime don't even realize they just got hit.
-
Can confirm that, and the non-stealth variant has it too. There are two issues: If the Interface scale is set to small, the last internal pylon is not visible (you can only see 4 internal Pylons) This one holds a GBU-12 per default. There is an additional internal pylon (the mirrored one from the one mentioned in 1.) that does not show up even if the Interface scale is set to normal. Basically the Black Wasp II has 6 internal pylons, holding per default: AMRAAM D AA x1 AMRAAM D AA x1 empty empty GBU-12 LGB x1 (drop down menue not visible when interface scale set to small) GBU-12 LGB x1 (no drop down menue)
-
Over 4k hrs on ArmA II & III and..........
iratus replied to Whatevername's topic in ARMA 3 - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Well... I would say "servers that assume some players play on junk machines" -
If you set the ammunition to 0%, it won't have any ammo for the smoke launcher. It won't get a "magazine" too, so it cannot be rearmed with vehicle ammo boxes or ammo trucks.
-
I know. A lot of people here want it to be a in-game thing wich is changeable on the fly (pun not intended) and I certainly would not oppose this! But BIS probably does not want to add new keybindings and such if not absolutely necessary. This is in the same teritory as having adjustable NVGs and FLIRs: We all want them but we don't get them. And if they add the option to change the colour of the (plane)HUD, the next thing we all are going to shout for will be the option to adjust the brightness of said HUD As I said: I'm not against it being a HUD function of the plane, but I think the chances are higher to get it as a general game function in the options menue. We are allready able to chance all the colours of the game-HUD, optimally it would be just an additional setting there with full colourcustomizability. But I would already be happy with a few predefined options.
-
If it is a feature, not a bug, it's still buggy because if you lase a bush in front of a house the laser ignores not only said bush but also the house and returns the range of the terrain behind the house. The house itself is, if lased directly, rangefindable, if you lase the same wall next to the bush the range of the wall will be returned.
-
I've noticed a problem with trees and bushes: If the rangefinder lases a tree or bush, the returned distance is not that of the tree or bush but that of the ground behind the bush (or ---- in case of sky) as if the bush or tree would not exist. If said tree or bush is in front of a building, the rangefinding laser will ignore that (otherwise rangefindable) building too and still return the distance to the ground (or sky) behind the bush/tree. A easy place to reproduce this is Hill 149 north of Abdera [Altis095206]. Lots of bushes and trees in front of houses. Tested on build 1.69.141143
-
Green-blue colourblindness is a thing right? An option to set the hud colour to different colours would probably help a lot. Could be a config option because a player would set it once (or if hard-core once a mission), so no new keybindings required. Ideally one could choose the colour similar to the inteface colours verry freely, but it probably would help a lot even if there would be just 2 options (green and orange for example)
-
They push stamina to stable to see how "the crowd" reacts to it. Let's face it: On devbranch you only find people that are more involved in the development of Arma and it's systems. Most of those people would have at least a basic understanding of how fatigue worked, thus are not the target demographic of stamina. But to see the effect the popular gamemodes and mods have to turn fatigue/stamina on again. I doupt the makers will do that out of their own accords. Maybe BIS contacted some of them (or player enable fatigue false does not work with stamina).
-
If I remember correctly, the ingame "mass" despite its name does not stand for weight alone. Instead it's more a function of weight and bulkyness. Therefor if a rifle has say 10 times the "mass" of a hand grenade weighing approximately 0.5 kg it does not mean the rifle has to have a weight of 5 kg. That said, I still agree that 1/3rd of your carrying capacity seems like way too much for a gun, even for something big like the MAR-10! In my eyes this is a sign of the new fatigue system being somewhat weak at achieving design goal #1 "Encourages players to consider their loadout". To compensate for this, powerful weapons have to be "nerfed" in some other ways. Don't like it. I'm okay with sniper rifles and machine guns being somewhat bulky, but this seems unreasonable to me. The new inferior stamina system starts to drag down other game systems :mellow:
- 1935 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- branch
- development
- (and 2 more)