iratus
-
Content Count
146 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
-
Medals
-
Posts posted by iratus
-
-
22 hours ago, Rich_R said:I was hoping this had pics of the real island comparing to the game version, along the lines of this classic thread;
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.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, AV8R_Six said:I noted the guns effects in Air to Air combat and thought that it might be do the the increased damage model and progressive accumulation damage before destruction. My friends were reporting that air to ground straitening on troops in the open and light ground vehicles seem to have no effect, but I'll go back to them and tell them they are just bad shots!
AV
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, AV8R_Six said:@iratus
Yep, but this was on Wasteland and there may be AI power/strength considerations!
AV8R
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 testingfooling 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.
-
1
-
2 minutes ago, AV8R_Six said:Afirm...but even in the Buzzard, I get more kills with Guns then with the new NATO fighter.
Weaker than the Buzzards Gun? Wow!
-
2 hours ago, AV8R_Six said:I am still getting feedback from teammates that the F/A-181 Black Wasp II Gun is ineffective against ground troops and vehicles. It's confirmed splashes in close proximity with no damage to the AI. Anyone else noticing anything NERF with this aircraft?
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.
-
On 4.6.2017 at 9:03 AM, JerryAtricks said:Can't Even Play It
It loads up, but in the first mission inside the carrier staring at the officer, I can't move. I can turn my head, I can zoom, I can practically use all other controls except move. The character won't move. After about a minute the mission fails and the same thing happens when it restarts. I've since uninstalled and reinstalled Arma3 but the same thing happens. Any ideas what could be causing this? What would I need to post here to trouble shoot this?
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).
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, twistking said:The max of 5km might also only apply to fixed wing. Rotar wing, should be shorter. I did not to scientific testing, but i am quite sure, that a DAGR from a hovering rotary wing near sea level, has range of more than 5km.
I know, it might be a future "DAGR 2035", but having exaggerated ranges on weapons, while most players have lower view distances seems a bit weird...
I would argue, that high range ARMA weapons should never have higher ranges than their RL counterpart, and lower ranges, if if in doubt (for example if you can't model the min-max dicrepancies better balance towards the min range than the max range).
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
-
8 hours ago, Bruno Morais said:I'm having problems, many times the vehicles do not appear on the radar, even though I'm sure they're in the range of radar, air and ground vehicles (I tested it in the editor)
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).
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, jerminhu said:What sensors does each type jet use and what are their specs (e.g. FoV and detection range)?
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.
-
2
-
-
On 18.5.2017 at 7:59 AM, pettka said:We have considered adding dynamic loadouts system even during the mission, but we have hit several limitations. The primary lies in the way we found similar systems are being used - it varies a lot and we won't be able to deliver a system encompassing them all. There would always be people not satisfied with our approach no matter what we do. That lead us to a decision to provide support for modders to do system however they like using a handful of scripting commands we provide. We hope that people providing constructive feedback to the lack of said system would be able to show us the way they would like it to be developed. That allows us to take some time and see what is actually requested, we may eventually devise our own system that would make more sense that if we just half-blindly created something hoping for the best.
*** 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.
-
3
-
On 19.5.2017 at 6:14 AM, Joe98 said:I looked in the editor and cannot locate the aircraft carrier. Where do I find it?
.
Just type in "freedom" in the asset-search-window.
-
On 25.5.2017 at 5:00 PM, Callsign said:I think BIS could alleviate some of the flack they will inevitably always get by grounding how much hype the community manages to winds itself up with by limiting expectations. Surprises are great, but people's imaginations can go wild in the silence.
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
SpoilerOne or the other long-time Arma3 player might now come up and state that someone once talked about BIS wanting to have underground structures - and he would be correct. They later stated that it did not work out and they had to drop the feature. Nevertheless they said "we are working on it", so some people got exited and then felt betrayed. I think BIS has indeed learned a lot from those mistakes - and that's exactly the reason why they are not tellingt too much now. They most likely can't be sure for all the features they want to do to actually make it into the game.
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.
-
2
-
-
On 17.5.2017 at 2:08 PM, sasha013 said:Maybe this DLC would see the return of A2's High Command?
High Command is still in there. Look in the editor under Systems (F5) > Other
-
2 hours ago, Gopher_nz said:Actually - it does work but in a very weird way - by pressing \
The quirks are as follows:
Using scopes in first person - press \ - player view pans down and then back up - scope provides a static view of the distance
Laser designator - press \ - player takes out rifle and then puts it back - designator provides static view of distance.
Neither provide dynamic distance reading as they used to.
This screams of broken animation similar to heal self or repair vehicle rather than an intentional change.
That is indeed weird, but I cannot confirm it on my end. Sounds more like a double-binding of keys than a animation problem to me, since lasing does not trigger any animations.
Also there is no
"magic"dynamic distance reading anymore, the range gets only measured when you lase (and the number stays on so you can read it out anytime later). This is how real laserrangefinders work in my experience.2 hours ago, Gopher_nz said:Would be good if someone could point me in the direction of where it says that these sort of changes were intentionally made - my searches proved fruitless unfortunately.
Read here:
32 minutes ago, Gopher_nz said:And no distance measuring in armored vehicles, like tanks.
There is! And even better, we now have a firecontrol-system in most vehicles doing the ballistics for us! It uses the same key as the other rangefinders use. It then calculates the range and even relative movement of the target vehicle (well, within certain limits) and adjusts the guns. Read more about it here:
-
1
-
-
On 19.5.2017 at 8:53 PM, sasha013 said:@sammael has a point.
My money's on Medivac, medical and everything to do with Military Medics. Maybe they'll even bring the 'drag downed soldier' back from Arma 2.
Yeah, carrying wounded people is a thing I'm hoping for. Also some more civilian clothes would be appreciated.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, PistFlyBoy said:Are you talking about jets or helicopters?
It came up because of jets (they are the fastest vehicle, so it's most obvious there), but as soon as it came up tthere where people requesting it to go away for all vehicles (including cars).
Since the devs are working on a new sollution, we might end up with a better system overal.
I want to add that I personally never had a problem with the dynamic FOV, but I'm also not really missing it. So: neutral stance on the topic.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, PistFlyBoy said:[boiling down to "I want speed dependent FOV back!"]
When Jets DLC came to devbranch a lot of players startet to complain about the speed dependent FOV and wanted to get rid of. Voices defending the system where rare.
Since BIS Devs atually do take their time to sift through all our endless complaining in search for valuable feedback, they did see this and changed it accordingly. Well, you can't make everyone happy...
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, froggyluv said:Im not tryna be a wiseass but am genuinely curious why people seem to think Tanks dont need interiors while cars, planes, helos etc do? I just dont get it why wouldnt you want to see the insides of the vehicle your in??
I think they won't get much use. You can control your car/plane/helicopter from it's interior with no restrictions --> they get used a lot. You would however not be able to see much from your gunner, commander or driver position in a tank. Sure, there are viewports, but I remember rarely using them in OFP: With interior view you've got 3 small viewports showing what you want to look at (the suroundings of your vehicle), but about 85% of the screen is taken up by things you rarely look at or do not need to look at at all. Back in the day most players I know used the letterbox view almost exlusively. This is even more the case for the commander and gunner which have powerful optics (and in the case of the gunner don't have viewblocks).
Yes BIS could use PiP panels. But a full screen view of the optics beats a PiP wich you have to look at in your vehicles interior any day, even if said PiP would have the same framerate, viewdistance and anti-aliasing.
It is not about "not wanting to see the interiors". If there are modelers who literaly have nohing better to do, then go for it! But making interiors for all the tanks in the game is a lot of work, I doupt there are enough idle modelers sitting around to just do that.
-
6 hours ago, shadow69th said:this will do it in client side, I'm asking about removing it from mission side thing!
AFAIK you can't remove it with mission-settings/scripts. It is intended to give the player the ability to use the pannels even if they are not bound to a key. One can choose if they want to bind pannels to a key or use the action menue.
It would probably take some sort of UI mod to remove this functionality.
-
2 hours ago, pils said:I'm currently downloading the dev branch ... please tell me the Praetorian C (Phalanx CIWS) is now able to intercept projectiles!
Unfortunately it is not.
2 hours ago, pils said:Devs please. the main purpose of that weapon system is to intercept projectiles.
I'm pretty sure you guys know it was designed to intercept anti-ship-missiles (at least the slower, older ones), any kind of ATGM, any kind of artillery shell or artillery rocket, mortars, bombs (at least if they are being dropped in a few kilometers distance so the system has enough time to react).
There is even quite a chance it might be able to intercept fast missiles like the Kh-25MP (
), at least one at a time, probably not two in a salvo.
But anyway, at least the ATGMs, bombs, artillery and mortar interception is a must have feature. It would be an amazing addition to the game ... and without it, the static carrier is pretty much doomed right away.
I doupt anything like that will be in Jets DLC as it would most likely require a engine update and extensive testing would be necessary for sure. If it was planned, it should have been on devbuild since weeks.
But don't loose all hope! maybe active countermeasures is something planned for Tanks DLC and they can update the Praetorian C then.
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, jeroen_not said:So I created a new arsenal system for a custom mission(Antistasi) and i am from the Netherlands as well. So one of the members asked "Are you working on project orange" and i send him pic.
Now it makes sense: It's a DLC designed for all the folks who are complaining that they can't see the enemy!
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, froggyluv said:Apparently low tech weaponry like RPG's and what not are better for up close urban type armor encounters.
Definetly! Titan AT launchers are great at medium to long ranges, but quite unwieldy in short range engagements. And imo this is how it should be
-
4
-
Orange DLC (wild) SPECULATIONS !!!
in ARMA 3 - DLC
Posted
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.