My Fing ID
-
Content Count
81 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by My Fing ID
-
-
I like the rag doll; really feels like I've taken down the enemy. My only complaint with it is how they drop their weapon; it simply detaches from the model and falls. The biggest things I'd like to see though are:
1) Injuries that take people out of the fight. Lets face it no matter how many times I shoot your foot you're probably not going to die. My go unconscious, but one thing that I find a constant annoyance is that it seems the second the enemy is out of action they're always dead. It was one of the things I really appreciated with Swat 3.
2) Another thing I really appreciated with Swat 3 was bullet holes being placed where you shot the enemy. We see them on buildings and such, but the enemy always gets the same blood effects regardless of where you hit them. I could see a standard blood effect for things like grenades though.
3) Of course explosives bring me to dismemberment.
While I won't hold my breath for any of these changes I did like that a casualty system was put into Arma II. It seemed a bit ridged and odd (I remember hitting enemies with a burst from a machinegun and they'd just flip into casualty mode) but it was an interesting addition. That flip to casualty mode gives me a thought too; give each limb and trunk shots different animations. Also be nice if the casualties went to find cover so their buddies or they themselves could bandage up. As is I see the enemy bandage in the open all the time (I know, alpha :) ).
All in all though absolutely cannot wait for the full Arma III experience. This just keeps getting better and better, and no matter how much I may bitch about unrealistic missions, I will constantly recommend this series to anyone who's interested in a realistic war game. So many great experiences.
Also someone said something about flipping death animations and then going ragdoll, I dunno. If you're running and you're hit in the head you're going down exactly as you were when you got shot. No weird animation, you're just going to drop. Also bullets aren't going to push someone around, they just don't have the mass. That said injury animations, I'd say yes. Someone gets shot in the chest and grabs at that spot, AI then says 'find cover' and that's what it does. I'd even be down for the weapon flying out of a soldiers hands in the case of explosions and such. Then again if you have it attached properly it's not going anywhere (well short of gear ripping but really how far do we want to go?).
-
Haven't tried the new recoil yet. I admit there could be some fixes to automatic weapons fire maybe, like an AK on full auto standing. However from my personal experience, like the above said if you are braced correctly an M4/M16 will fall right back on target after you fire. Seriously it's like a half second or something and you're back to basically where you were. Even standing with my AK it's pretty much right back on when fired single fire. With the M249 and M240B in the prone I could lay a 5-7 round burst and be on target. They don't jump much when you're on the ground which is pretty well simulated in this game. Hell 1 round with the 240B at 800 meters is actually really accurate, especially with that scope (can't remember the name but it's the big fat one that's in AO). Anyways I hope they didn't fuck it up because with the way I was playing things seemed pretty on.
BTW Zarcowi, however you spell that, the terrorist in Iraq that got shot is the only guy I've seen shoot a 249 standing and have any real accuracy. I tried it once and I was floating up real quick. Army doesn't really train for that kind of thing (or burst from M16/m4 oddly enough).
-
Well, the workaround that my brother and I use for this is that we map the "Thrust (Analog)" binding to the throttle axis' desired + direction, and we leave the "Brake (Analog)" binding mapped to a button. At least for the equipment we use (we have these old Thrustmaster Top Gun Fox 2 Pro USB joysticks that just have worked well enough for the less serious simulations that we haven't gotten anything newer yet), this seems to make the helicopters' collective control fly and feel basically the same as in any other helo sim I've messed with (Microsoft FS, Longbow 2, etc.).BTW, I seem to be one of those weird guys who likes to map the throttle forward direction to increase thrust with fixed-wing aircraft but likes to map the throttle back direction to increase collective pitch with rotary-wing aircraft; though I'm a fixed-wing guy in real life and haven't ever actually flown rotary-wing other than in simulation, it just feels more like pulling up on the collective to me to pull back (if you just go through the motion sitting in your chair, you'll notice that both involve pulling your left elbow rearward).
On another side note, I've found the bane of flying helicopters in practically every program I've tried other than Longbow 2 (and IIRC Enemy Engaged: Comanche vs. Hokum) is the lack of a "Force Trim" button and a "Hover Hold" mode.
Once I feel comfortable spending the money on it, I'd really like to try flying in ArmA 2/OA and other programs like FSX with a combination of Track IR and Nvidia 3D Vision (or similar technology). The main problems I find in flying helos in ArmA at the moment are the lack of depth perception and not-quite-adequate attitude/horizon indications, especially when I'm trying to land/drop off/pick up in a tight LZ in lots of trees or buildings. If I'm in the cockpit, without depth perception it's hard to get an intuitive sense of how far away those obstructions are; to try to compensate for this, I generally have to switch to 3rd person/external view to get SA, but then I lose my horizon reference and have to guess the position of my nose by from the apparent pitch of the aircraft (the camera tilt is based on the ground and not the aircraft) and seeing what's happening with the speed and altitude readouts. IIRC, in some of the aircraft with weapons, I can use the crosshair to see where the nose is pointing relative to the horizon, but I'm often flying the helos that don't have forward-firing weapons. With 3D depth perception and being able to quickly scan around by just using my head, I could probably do everything almost as well as I would in real life, minus the reduction in peripheral vision.
I'll have to try that out. I've got a X52 that I'm thinking about turning into a 'collective' after DSC a10 comes out (and that wonderfully expensive A10 controller). I saw a video where someone strapped a stick to the throttle and had a keypad at the end, looks like a good deal lol.
-
Haven't tried but I'd guess hit the gun site view and hit N or look on your scroll menu. Cool feature. It was this, PAQ4s, and the Bradley that really sold me on AO.
-
The big problem, atleast with the helicopters, is that they fly like cars. You have to increase the throttle deadzone on your aircraft because it's either up, floating, or down with no inbetween. I really don't like flying in this game, which is a shame because the helicopters are well modeled and work well with the TrackIR. Be nice if they spent a bit on changing the flight engine. A little attention could go a long way. Then again this is mostly a combined arms sim/game, so it's more about what pieces are where than how each piece is controlled.
-
If you don't have Arma2 get both. It's not that much more and you'll get Russian and US Marine units as well as 2 other maps. Oh and more fake country units too which can always be fun to pit against eachother.
-
Right, if you make elevation adjustments you change the zeroing. Some army guys already told me things their instructor teached them which were completely wrong...Just because you're in the army doesn't make you a "pro". A lot of civilians who have years of expierence with firearms know in fact a lot more than the normal army guy...
Yes, you are sighting in your rifle or zeroing it in on a shooting range or elsewhere, but as soon as you touch your optics or IS again you change the zeroing again and you can call it zeroing or "elevation adjustment" or "windage adjustment" depends on what you need. You make these adjustments and the result is a different zero position. So you can call it zeroing or adjustments for windage or elevation.
I don't know why it is that hard to understand, maybe the Army tries so hard on brainwashing the people to killing machines that they just lose their common sense, I don't know, really. :D
I will leave you "pros" alone now. But I'll repeat one last time: It will make no difference if you call Zeroing in ArmA "Adjusting Elevation" or "Zeroing" or "Re-Zeroing".
The post above me spells it out pretty well. Say what you will but in the US Army zero and elevation/range are two entirely different things. Since we're simulating the US Army, getting these terms right should matter. I'll admit I haven't played with guns with civilians, it's always my Army buddies, but I've never heard of adjusting a range control as zeroing a weapon. It's entirely different. Here's the M16/M4 iron sights for example:
OK, so here's what's going on. That top knob is to adjust the rear sight left to right. This is done while zeroing and wouldn't be touched in the field (unless you really wana throw your shots off when the wind goes down). The wheel under that (set to 'z' for zero in the picture) is the range/elevation control. This is not used during zeroing (despite what some idiot tried to tell me) but is used in the field. Rather than use this control the front sight post of the weapon is raised and lowered to make up and down adjustments while zeroing. The 'z' indicates the weapon is set to be zeroed at 25m. Basically it allows you to shoot targets at 25m and be set to hit targets at 300m-800m IIRC. I don't know, I never went past '3' but you'd set the sight to that '8/3' mark (800m/300m) after zeroing so that when you went to the range to qualify you'd hit your targets. If you kept it on 'z' then your shot elevation would be wrong and you'd miss, much like if you had set the control to '4' or '5'.
In any case my point, and the point of others, is that zero and range/elevation adjustments mean two entirely different things in the US Army. If I told someone in the field to zero their weapon to 400m they'd ask why I'm having them zero their weapon in the middle of a fire fight. What I need to say is adjust range to 400m. That's going to get them to roll that wheel to '4' and return fire rather than sit there looking dumbfounded and wondering how to zero their rifle to 400m. It's just like how the Army tells people not to call a rifle a gun. They have different meanings. Civilian side you can call anything a gun, or weapon, hell you can call it a rubber duck and it does't matter. However in the Army if you yell back to your squad and say "get that gun up here" you're not looking for rifles or pistols, you're looking for a machine gun. The military teaches people to be very specific on these terms because the last thing you want is miscommunication under pressure.
-
This is all very confusing. Reminds me of back in the Army when some idiot tried to get my to zero my weapon (M4) by changing range (thus raising the rear aperture) rather than the front sight post lol.
Anyways yeah zero is lining up the weapon to hit what you're aiming at and done (constantly) in the rear. Adjusting for range is done in the field. ACOGs don't adjust and the M68 (red dot) is for close quarters. So basically you're not adjusting for range unless you have an MG, sniper rifle, or iron sights. Even then combat usually takes place under 100m IIRC so it doesn't really matter unless you're on over watch, and even then you're likely to be within 300m. In all honestly though it would have been nice if we could actually zero the weapons. Sometimes it feels like my rounds aren't hitting right. I can put a dot on someone, crouch, hold breath, fire, and still miss from around 100m some times. I don't know if nervousness is modeled or something but I feel like I'm more accurate IRL than in game sometimes!
-
I'm tempted to make a troll post but I don't feel like it. The forums would probably be divided anyways because game play would be different. Personally I don't see any problem with passing this game on to console so long as it's not designed for console first. I also doubt the community would go straight to hell.
-
I'd like to see more realism in the campaign. I hear we'll be getting PEQs which is good because IRL we all have them (night vision lasers). Other than more realistic tracer loads and a way to customize weapons in the editor (pick scope/irons, addons, etc) and some AI improvements the biggest thing would be more concentration on vehicles. Be nice if we could laze targets to get range then fire like IRL, full interiors on all vehicles, maybe with trackIR support so you could look around thought that's honestly more flash. Some IR stuff in vehicles, maybe even a scope even though those things are heavy. Scope on the 240B would be nice. With a scope I could hit targets 800m out with one bullet no problem. Areas would shorter grass too, it's a pain being a machine gunner because the damn grass is everywhere. If you can't go prone you can't shoot. Helicopters that don't fly like cars with better collective control so it isn't just descend/hover/ascend, you know, feels more like a helicopter. Editor improvements to make things like assigning artillery and calling in air strikes easier. I'm sure I could find more but still it's pretty good where it's at. I guess if I could just have one it would be the AI, though even there the AI has surprised me. Put Russians on one side of a small town and Marines on the other, put yourself as a civilian on a hill top and you'll see them flank each other and fight for dominance on the town. Usually the side that gets flanked first is toast.
-
Signed, really thought this would have happened by now.
-
I don't get it. You take the most realistic combat game of the year, then ask they take down the realism and add aliens, and finally get mad when people don't agree with you. I mean I understand people aren't going to agree all the time, I wanted more realism and was getting the same kind of responses. Still if you imagine this game as a train track, with realism in the direction it's heading, less realism in the reverse, you're asking to go both backwards and up at the same time. It just doesn't make sense.
Even then the key to this game is its realism right? So lets do a quick experiment. Lets image that the aliens were only 100 years more advanced than us (a stretch but lets say space travel is actually incredibly easy and we're just missing the obvious). Now, lets take that 100 years and apply it to us and see what we come up with. What was happening about 100 years ago, WW1 right? Tanks and air are primitive, no missiles, your average soldier has a bolt action rifle, I mean 1 modern division with unlimited ordinance and air attachments probably would have won the war for either side. It wouldn't even be fun to fight against. You and your line of guys in a muddy trench with a water cooled Vickers and a bunch of bolt action rifles vs a squad calling in A-10s. You'd just be devastated.
I guess what I'm saying is if you make it realistic you're most likely going to have to fight against orbital weapons that can strike anywhere, vastly superior night vision, full armor, god only knows what kind of optics and weapons. Our 2025 infantry system is supposed to have missiles that can track people. We're not even talking about robots, which I can almost guarantee 100 years from now will be a mainstay. Hell within 15 years we'll probably start seeing more use of them just like how unmanned drones have exploded in use. Look at how quick then went from observation to weapons platforms. You also have to expect complete game changers just like tanks, air power, rockets, etc have all been.
That or you could make it unrealistic in which case why would you ask to change a game where the realism is its selling factor. I hope you can see what I'm saying, and why what you're saying makes better sense for a different game. You don't goto FASA and ask that the next battle tech be about subs rather than giant robots.
-
That's what this community is about : make things with our own ideas and interests and share them with others. So, implement your ideas in missions and share them with us.I've actually given it thought. The biggest problem is the lack of polish I have. My missions mostly consist of some units defending an area and other group coming though, at usually platoon level. Lots of infantry, minimal armor, and almost no air. There's no briefing, you can't win, no trigger, just units on the ground doing their thing. I suppose if I get my scripting down a bit more and get off my lazy ass and do some briefings I'll upload some.
That's something I'll give to the official missions. That first engagement in that heli mission where you fly over and call in the enemy to engage was really well done. While I'm not trying to get at that level (though I would love to get voices in there), my missions at current are very unpolished.
-
The campaign focuses on tense atmosphere while adjusting reality a bit.It shows how universal ARMA2 engine is - you can create ultra-realistic war simulator or Michael Bay-ish action blockbuster. Only limit is your fantasy (and editing skills, comes to that :)).
... and over and over and over ;)
So you're the guy? Well congratulation on the missions, they are well done and clearly people enjoy them, but they're not what I was expecting. I think you can get the same 'Hollywood' feel and make for a more realistic mission. There are many examples in the current wars in Iraq and Afganistan alone. Marines have been surrounded by the enemy, pinned down over night in a building, Army bases have been overun by taliban, etc. To be honest WWII, Kosovo, Georgia, etc would probably be an even better guides because we're looking at a European nation. I'm sure there are many war stories out there that would make for interesting scenarios.
Then again I'm clearly a minority here, so I guess keep doing what you're doing because you're clearly doing it right. I just figured things would be different, but in all honesty I buy the game for the editor. For me the campaign is just icing on the cake so to speak.
Anyways good luck and despite my complaints you guys make an excellent product and I'm looking forwards to the next release (I really want to get back into a Bradley).
-
Well the helicopter has anti-air rockets iirc so I don't really see why it can't shoot down planes. The reason they are there by helicopter is probably because they wanted to do a stealthy low altitude insertion anyway. Besides, that part of the mission is extremely easy, and realism aside I really don't get how you didn't get past that part. It's as simple as: switch to missiles, lock on, fire. That's it.I didn't get past it because I quit the campaign. After seeing a helicopter sent in to fight air planes, I knew I'd just end up disappointed again when later in the campaign I'd be sent on other ridiculous missions.
-
You realize these missions weren't designed for ACE, right?I understand. That's not the point. After seeing a few error in this run (the movies were really borked as well) I'd have disabled ACE if I wanted to go through the mission. The problem isn't that I can't do it, it's that I'm in a helicopter and I'm being sent to intentionally shoot down airplanes. You don't send a helicopter to kill an airplane anymore than you send an engineer to kill a tank. That's not their job. That's the point I'm trying to make. It ruins the feeling that you're in a realistic combat scenario when you're sent on unrealistic missions.
It's just like the sniper thing I brought up. I have no clue where he is other than the northern half of the city yet I'm supposed to go kill him. Why was I not given a better idea where he was and why didn't the guy tell the tank he's laying in front of to engage the sniper? Hell why didn't the guy in charge send the tank to begin with! Seriously though, first thing I thought when I got that call was "give me grid coordinates" which is exactly what I would have asked if this were a real life scenario. You don't tell an infantry unit there's a sniper somewhere in a few kilometer area and tell them to engage. That's just asking to get people killed.
In the end the point isn't it's too hard, it's that the scenarios are unrealistic in the first place. If I was interested in continuing believe me I would, but I'm not. That's the entire reason I haven't turned off ACE and shot down those planes. It's not too hard, I just don't want to do it because I know it's just going to just get me into another unrealistic scenario, probably attacking a tank with c4 or some other rubbish. I'm just disappointed that these scenarios weren't made to be at least a little more realistic.
-
The original operation order was to move to Sparta and shoot down the Su25s as they take off. Did you read the briefing at all? Also, it's not exactly hard. I recommend using manual fire and a combination of sidewinders and your cannon. Really easy stuff. In fact, that's the only easy part in the mission. And no, you engage them whenever you can. It's actually easier to destroy them when they're on the ground. 2 Sidewinders each will take them out.A quick forum search would have revealed that EW was not designed with the idea of realism being at the forefront. Instead, it was designed to be Hollywood-esque with great action and suspense. Still, it's not hard at all to shoot down the planes so long as you remain stationary.
Also, if you were to try your hand at mission making you would see how hard it is to fill everyone's needs. Most, like myself, enjoyed EW and enjoyed Harvest Red (up until the Warfare missions, at least). Sure Harvest Red has bugs, but it's still fun to play. My guess is you're rushing into it without reading the briefings or following orders. If you did, then you would have known from the get-go that you have to shoot down the Su25s, not be surprised by it when you reached Sparta.
I don't know if it's because I have the German version or because I was running ACE 2 but there was no briefing. If there was believe me I'd of read it. I just figured that a game made to be a realistic infantry/combined arms sim would also have realistic missions. No one sends a helicopter to attack fighters. It's not an issue of shooting them down, it's that helicopters aren't designed with air to air combat in mind. It's like sending a combat engineer to kill a tank. Sure with the C4 and det-cord they have they could do it, but wouldn't it make more sense to tell the guy with the Javelin to do his job? Why not, instead of having people take down planes, have you take out a few tanks in a staging area? if they really wanted you to take out those planes, why not have you shoot them on the ground, maybe even thrown in some AAA and other flight whose mission it is to take out those AAA? There are ways to make a Hollywood fight without making things over the top.
Yeah, I guess the missions are what they are, but like I said I figured they'd at least try for realism rather than just straight Hollywood. I'm just surprised how many people are all for these kinds of missions, especially from a community the prides itself on realism. Anyways I'll just wait for the next expansion, can't wait to get back into a Bradley. Hopefully they'll do a better model than ACE did, which isn't bad but isn't right. Also be nice to see lasers (night sights and range finders) get some love in the series, but I don't think that's coming any time soon. Still, one of the best games I own.
-
The campaign is the biggest problem I've had with the Arma series. The first one things seemed fine. I'm on a patrol. Oh shit, tank, run to the 113, gtfo. Next mission, I'm holding a town with my fellow soldiers. Hey we're doing good! Then the mission that made me quit the campaign. I'm all alone, and I have to blow up a bridge. Not only do I have to blow up a bridge, I have to blow it up after the enemy has crossed it, trapping them on my side of the river. Then I have to evade all those enemies. So doing that I come to the next objective: Use a HMMWV with a TOW and a few AT-4s to hold off a few tanks and BMPs. What? Why the hell don't I just, oh, say, pull the fuck out! They have tanks, I have a target with an engine! So after that nonsense I quit the campaign and just played my own missions.
Then, Arma2. First mission goes by, I'm pretty happy. Couple of enemy at night, a few civilians mixed in for good measure, some mass graves, sense of being part of a small team behind enemy lines, all good. Then the next mission: Kill a sniper. First, the only thing I know is that he's in the northern half of the city. Check, kill the sniper somewhere in a few Kilometer area north of me. Oh he's by two smoke stacks, well that's gunna help immensely in this industrial area. Can a get a grid square at least? Seriously, real life situation I'm at least going to get a 6 digit grid square. If they want me to kill a sniper, rather than say call in a tank (oh that's coming right up), they need to give more more instructions that "northern half of the city in the industrial sector by some smoke stacks".
So after getting shot a few times having no clue where the hell this guy is, I finally meet up with the 'suppressed soldiers'. He's so suppresed he can't even be bothered to find cover. He's right in the middle of the road, laying down infront of a tank. First thing that enters my mind, "why is he in the middle of the god damn road". Next thing was, "why didn't he tell the tank to engage the sniper?" Really just killed it for me. I quit the campaign and again went back to doing what I do best, downloading user content and making my own missions.
So Eagle Wing comes out. I figure hell, I'll give them one more shot. Maybe this time they won't waste my time with garbage. To my surprise they didn't, the garbage was right at the start. I flew along, low and slow, suddenly theres a target. My gunner and I engage, good kill. I'm pretty happy. This is looking like it's going to be a fun mission. I finally reach my objective. Leaving aside the Sparta joke (which, IRL, with enough people it's a god damn guarantee someone's going to yell "this is Sparta!"), I found the real joke. Radio picks up. "Hey chopper guy, go shoot down these airplanes while they take off." It's like being a caveman in the Geico commercials, you just can't win. Who in their right mind sends a helicopter to an enemy airfield to shoot down fighters? Maybe I missed something, but last I checked you don't use helicopters to shoot down planes. They're there to protect ground forces. That's why the Army uses them. If they were there to shoot down airplanes, we'd see helicopters made with air to air combat in mind. We don't, because copters don't shoot down airplanes.
Anyways great job with the game. It's fun and almost certainly the most realistic game on the market when it comes to infantry/combined arms (no offense but the driving model isn't great and flying is like flying a responsive brick). Your campaigns though... I mean I know you guys can do some better research than this. I'm sure you can find plenty of epic firefights and try to emulate them. Before you know it you're going to have me using a toothpick to take out a tank.
-
Cool got it running. Great job guys, always nice to see a Bradley.
-
Thanks for the quick responce. Can't wait, you guys did great with the first one.
Edit:
Out of curiosity why the complex installation? Why couldn't folders just be tossed in like most mods?
-
How do you install this? I downloaded a .zip and tossed it in Arma2. Nothing, it crashes and won't load. I tried following some directions but I basicly downloaded garbage that did nothing but show funny screens while I followed a list of what buttons and keys to press. Anyways you guys can get this down to the same installation as any other Arma2 mod or am I just sol? Cool idea though, I liked the first ACE.
-
All I remember is radioman first, machine guns second, then everyone else. You don't want the enemy to call out, you don't want to be suppressed by machine guns, and really if they can't call out and you have them ducking down from your own suppressing fire, they're dead. I suppose it would depend on the country you're fighting and how they organize their forces but if you take out a US officer you're not going to really stop anything. With chain of command being how it is and everyone usually knowing what's going on (what the mission objective is) and the officer is almost a figurehead at that point. US Platoons could go on missions without them and be successful because someone will always take their place, that's how the CoC works. Other countries I don't know.
For the leadership comment above yes that would work, but you'd have to identify leaders and again it's who you're fighting. A US platoon with 3 squads has 11 leaders in 29 people (1PL, 1PS, 3SL, 6TL). Good luck figuring out who they are under fire. This also depends on them not having experienced people ready to take charge, which there almost certainly will be at least 1 per squad. Better to just throw bullets until they duck down then come in for the kill.
-
I prefer English menus because it's all I know, but I'd rather subtitles than a translation with an accent. So Russians speak Russian but with English subtitles and such. I just want to be able to navigate the menus and such, but I don't want people speaking another language to just speak in English with an accent, kinda ruins the immersion.
-
iirc the triggers are seen the same as a joystick axis.
Which should I get to enhance my gameplay?
in ARMA 3 - GENERAL
Posted
1000 times this. The Track IR adds so much depth to a game that uses it. I literally cannot play simulations that don't use it. It's that important. While you're at it you should download Rise of Flight (it's free). Nothing like using the Track IR to find the enemy, keep your eye on him while you get in position, and line up your gunsight all with your head, just like you would IRL. Very immersive. As for using it in Arma on the ground, well it's nice but you already control your view with the mouse so it seems redundant outside of vehicles. That said it is nice to be able to go in one direction and still look around, and in vehicle it's a big help.