Le++

Well, I did a quick test with an AH-1 vs. T-72 and Shilkas. The results were quite interesting (to me at least, since I more of a mechanized infantry sort of player): AI Cobra pilot with me gunner on Rahmadi island. Ofpor armor at the air strip, with the Cobra at varying distances. * At less than 400 meters 3 T-72s damaged the Cobra quite reliably within 3-5 second, not destroying it outright, but causing it to drop. * Around 600-800 meters was the top range of the T-72s. I managed to get a single T-72 with guns only, while the Cobra only took a couple of hits. At this range Hellfire missiles where launched without too much damage to the Cobra, even against multiple T-72s. * T-72s started firing at around 1000 meters, but at this range their fire was completely ineffective, more suppressive psychologically (to a human pilot/gunner) than anything else. * The Cobra's Hellfires where extremely effective on the flat island from around 3000 meters, against 3 T-72s and 4 Shilkas. The Cobra was ineffectively engaged by the Shilkas at this range, and took no hits. * Shilkas ruled the sky up to around 1100 meters, taking out the Cobra in 1-1.5 seconds (completely destroying in the air). Sound pretty reasonable to me. From a brief search of the Internet I couldn't find the Cobra's survivability information, but the figure of armored against up to 23mm rounds someone posted here sound a bit exaggerated. If anyone has reliable information on that, I'd love to see it. Finally, about the performance of the T-72s HMG - it didn't strike me as too accurate at all. At 800 meters the fire was very scattered, barely hitting the Cobra. Only at under 400 meters did I feel that the fire was accurate. I couldn't find the effective range of the DShKM HMG on the 'net, but the US M2 HMG is stated to have an effective range of around 1800 meters. Since both MG are comparable, I'd say it's not to far fetched for a gunner with magnifying optics firing a 0.5 HMG to hit a target silhouetted against a clear sky (and not such a small one, even with the Cobra's slim body) from 500 meters away, if not more.

I think we have two issues confused here – the effectiveness of MBT's weapons in engaging helicopters and slow and low flying jets and the gunnery skill of the AI. I'm pretty sure everyone is convinced by now that MBT can indeed effectively take down helicopters, either with a 0.5 MG or the main cannon. The 0.5 is probably limited to around 1km, but the main cannon is designed to accurately hit tank sized targets at around 4km. A helicopter hovering within range of the main cannon is as easy to target as a tank. Would a tank crew actually fire on a helicopter? It's probably has more to do with the rules of engagement than actual capability. Now, about the gunnery of the AI – this point has been discussed here quite often (although not for vehicle gunners), and most people here agree that the AI is too accurate. I haven't tested the AI's ability to take out the pilots of helicopters from 800 meters, but it does sound unreasonable. Although the gunner can aim the coax MG with the main FCS, I doubt such precision could be reached, even with a 0.5 MG. And as a general reply to most people here – the tactical use of aircraft and vehicles in ArmA is rarely fully realized. Tanks fight in WWII distances, and aircraft engage targets from 500 meters (this applies to both the AI and most players). A more realistic battle would involve the tanks engaging from up to 3.5-4km, helicopters popping up from behind hills at 3km to fire missiles and jets flying high above the battle field (and since long range SAMs are not available in ArmA yet, they're pretty invincible). As some people have said, if you except to fly within visual range of a HMG and not get shot, you're doing something wrong.

I'm a left-handed shooter, and I've always fired with my left hand. On parade I have to hold the rifle with my right hand, as was said, to keep the company uniform, but when shooting I shoot with my left hand. Spent cartridges hitting your face is a risk, but most rifle don't do that (normally the cartridge is ejected sideways and a little forward, but sometimes it get thrown backwards), and with most new rifles with a right-side ejection port having a brass deflector it's not much of a concern. Also, some rifles (like the Tavor) have a customizable ejection port, so it can be set to eject from the left side for a left handed shooter. About the possibility of putting it in game - I've been fiddling with it a bit, still to no success, so maybe some better modder might come and make it possible.

Looks nice. Out of curiosity, could the view of the sight be fixed, but the range changed via the action menu?

Looking great. The reload looks very well, actually looks like the soldier is removing the empty magazine. Great work!

And in some bigger screens: The M203 leaf sight as viewed through the regular iron-sights: The M203 leaf sight when the firing mode is switched to the M203: Seems to be working The sight is set to 150 meters, but in practice it seems a bit more (hitting a little behind the targets, which are 150 meters away). Modeled pretty well: Using beta patch 1.07, M16A4 + GL

Confirmed. It's the BMD mod messing with the beta patch. I'm running a 505 1.05 version. Patched without error, and aside from the screwy configs (fixed when removing the BMD mod) it works like a charm. A-10 is great, my favorite aircraft

Probably what made you think that is "Notice that the impact is not exactly on the aimpoint". It's actually a good thing, and has nothing to do with Solus's aimpoint, but with ArmA's weapon modeling. When looking through the sights of a weapon, you don't see the exact location of the bullet strike. Instead, the line of the bore and the line of the sights are more or less parallel. This is a bit of a simplified explanation, to show what I meant while describing the picture. A bit more technical on the sights: the sights are aligned with the weapon in a way that the bullet will cross the line of sight twice - one near the weapon and one far. The farther point is often called the zero-range or distance. It means that when firing to that range, the bullet will strike exactly there (ideally, windage and many other factors make it not quite perfect), while shooting farther will result in the bullet striking lower than aimed, and shooting closer will result in the bullet striking higher than aimed. Take a look at this picture: Of course it's quite exaggerated, but I hope it will help you picture it. Note that when firing closer than the first point will result in the bullet striking lower, as in ArmA's weapons, and as shown in the picture I posted. edit: The first version (posted on the first page of this thread) has the aimpoint working fine. Only problems reported are some shadowing and other graphical issues. The best way to see that it's actually working is to free-look while not in sights mode and align you view so that you see the red dot of the aimpoint. Shoot, and you'll see that the aimpoint is working, since the impact will be where the aimpoint red dot is (aside from very close, where as explained it will be slightly lower). Try the same with the original M4 with aimpoint and notice that it doesn't work. Hope this clears your confusion...

I meant about your suggestion to use the change stance buttons to interrupt reloading. If you are standing and reloading, but need to interrupt it (like in the example I gave), your suggested control will not work properly - you'll have to crouch/prone and than run for cover? I think that a break-animation control would be the best: moving to interrupt is to sensitive; stance change is not that practical (and certainly unrealistic); sprinting (as opposed to simply walking) might be a good idea, since you probably wouldn't need to interrupt a reload unless you are in a dire situation.

For all of you that might want to see Solus's translucent magazine and last-round, . Edit: despite that not-so-great quality, full screen will make the bolt cycle and magazine rounds more visible.Also, as KyleSarnik noted, the cycle is a bit behind the shot. Hopefully his suggested solution will work. BTW, sorry for posting like this, it's just that people keep posting before I can edit my previous posts

What would happen if you were reloading while standing? For example, after finishing an enemy group you do a tactical reload to have a fresh magazine in the rifle. Since no enemy remains you have no need to crouch or prone for the reload. Suddenly a guy next to you drops from sniper fire. What do you do? It's hard to fully simulate a soldier with a mouse, keyboard and a screen. I do believe ArmA has done quite a decent job at making me feel in control of a real soldier, and not some super-human carrying dozens of weapons and still jumping that most FPS present. Of course, some aspects could be polished some more (notably the inventory system, which is by far to rigid), but the overall control is fine. On the specific note of movement control, and going prone after sprinting, I must say I like BIS's solution. Going full flat after a run is rather unrealistic - most often you plan where you want to end up and slow down before-hand. This extra two-three steps before going prone are just that. It takes some practice before you manage to fall where you meant (especially important when bounding overwatch), but now it seems perfectly natural to me. In cases of sudden fire, I try to run for cover - laying flat in the middle of the road has little effect on one's survivability. Anyway, I think this is just a matter of personal preference, so take my post as just that...

Actually, this photo shows it much better:

Not to nitpick, but since you're doing such a great job at this, might as well make it perfect The magazine shouldn't be fully jammed with rounds - the bottom of the magazine holds the spring, which even when fully compressed isn't all that flat. See the first picture of the G36's magazine from world.guns.ru, as opposed to your full magazine: The G36 magazine looks to hold the full 30 rounds (with 15 rounds visible on one side), so it looks like it should be about right. I'll post a picture of a STANAG magazine when I have the chance... edit: here it is: It isn't a transparent magazine with full 30 rounds, but I hope it shows what I was aiming at. On the top 15 5.56 rounds with the round-tray (actually I don't know how it called...) next to them. One the bottom the empty magazine. Also, this picture of a SG 550 20 round magazine from Wikipedia shows the same thing. Hopefully all this helps you in making this wonderful mod better, and inspiring other modders to follow you. And about making the magazines transparent for all ArmA weapons, I think it would be more realistic to set them only to the weapons that can actually accept this magazines (i.e. G36, Steyr AUG etc.).

Great addon and proof of concept. I took some screenshots to demonstrate the new aimpoint. On the left, Solus's aimpoint. Notice that the impact is not exactly on the aimpoint, due to the difference between the barrel "line-of-sight" and the optics light-of-sight (this difference becomes negligible when shooting farther than a few meters). On the right, BIS's M4 aimpoint. Notice that the aimpoint is just a dot in the middle of the aimpoint tube. If the aimpoint was a real one, the dot would not have been visible from the angle of the screenshot, as the point of impact can't be seen through the aimpoint. Take a look at the Freshman took for the Working aimpoint thread for a demonstration of a real reflex sight. Notice that the dot stays aimed at the teddy bear not matter from where you look at the aimpoint.edit: while going through YouTube, I found this nice video of an M4 shooting with a good close up of the bolt moving. It would seem that it should be faster than in the mod.

Problem is that it hard to realistically model a bullet's affect on the body. Other than speed and mass, you need to consider shape (spitzer of a rifle round, as opposed to 9x19 round head), rigidity (armor piercing, regular FMJ or hollow point) and center-of-gravity (like the Russian 5.45 that tumbles after about 10 cm). Also, the amount of damage done to a human by a bullet isn't only the energy is transfers to the body - fragmentation was shown to be a major part of the wounding characteristic of the NATO 5.56. The Russian 5.45 was designed to yaw quickly after hitting flesh, causing a larger wound-cavity (later shown to be less effective than the NATO 5.56, that often fragmented on impact). Other factors to consider are the protection of the target - an unarmored civilian will be stopped by a single handgun round, while a soldier with a grade IV ceramic vest could take several 7.62 rifle rounds in the chest without being more than bruised (and perhaps cracked/broken ribs). Overall, I don't think that we should bother to much with the damage model of the bullets. Your main goal should be avoid taking any hits. I don't think it really matters if you get killed by 2 or 3 5.56 rounds to the chest. A 0.22 handgun aimed at your head will kill you better than a 5.56 M4 aimed at your vest protected chest. Since soldiers aren't tank protected from small arms fire (no vest covers the entire soldier), it doesn't really matter the actual damage of the round - it's pretty easy to suspend you disbelief by getting killed with a handgun from 5 meters away, even though you are wearing a vest, no matter where the bullet hit exactly. Any way, enough renting. Address effective range first, bullet damage later...