Radic

The recoil in ArmA annoys me - I'm not sure whether it's too great as such or just takes too long to "cycle" - but it's annoying - can anyone tell me what to edit to reduce it - also I'm keen to make alterations to fov values - is all this stuff in the bin.pbo like OFP??

Can you not read Radic? I read it..... now ask me if I give a FUCK!!!! - and BTW - how about YOU actually READ what I said - it's not actually just all pointless vitriol..... can you not SEE what I'm trying to say here?

Have you tried changing the HDRPrecision in your ArmA.cfg file from 8 to 16? Fixed the HDR problems for me. For mouse lag, read topics like these. THIS is a USEFUL post - not FANBOI SHIT like MOST!!! Â Well done old chap - if you're anywhere near Cairns, Qld Australia I will shout you a beer and buy you a meal!!

? - WTF - you CLOWN!!  yes a deliberate INSULT - I don't give a SHIT that the recoil values can easily be edited or a mod exists that has more acceptable values - I simply wanted to say what i thought of the default values - why don't I have the simple right to do that - even when FUCKING INVITED TO DO SO - WITHOUT replys from fanboi fuckheads??? - the topic asks for comments - doesn'r imply it's about troubleshooting or some such  - can you not see the ORWELLIAN double standard being applied here - in this topic of all topics where we SHOULD feel free to air grievances (a USEFUL situation I should really think from the devs - point of view) - any negative comment - and I reiterate that the topic ASKS FOR FUCKING NEGATIVE INPUT!!!!!!!! - is RETALIATED against by FANBOI SHIT!!! I don't give a FUCK what you think - I was asked what disappoints me about the fucking game and I TRIED to address that request.  PLEASE GET A FUCKING MODERATOR IN HERE - PREFERABLY WHO ISN'T A FUCKING ONE EYED FANBOI and sort this MESS OUT!!! Deep breath,..... rational thought - calm voice - what I expect when I read this topic is to see a contiguous listing of people's DISAPPOINTMENTS with the game - I don't want to see fanboi responses - I want to try to get realistic guage of what other CONSUMERS might be feeling about the same product I have just paid nearly $100 for....  - my utopian DREAM is that BIS might also get an idea of what we CONSUMERS / CUSTOMERS / $$ PAYING CUSTOMERS think.... EDIT + PS - mate I am a 130KG fucking PISSED OFF Aussie - if I was toe toe with one of you fanbois I'd LOVE to give you a decent fucking "talking to" - PLEASE just get someone in here to remove the fanboi rubbish and make this topic what it's SUPPOSED to be - ban me forever if you wish - or delete the entire topic but please cut the double standard as I'm afraid I just can't cop it!!!!!!!!!! - and I WILL KEEP going until something is done... most of you fuckers are from former Eastern Block countries aren't you? - maybe it's just that I'm used to actual freedom of expression - not the FUCKING ILLUSION OF IT!!!!!

Quite simply, no. It's a game from the developers of OFP, not the sequel. It even says so on the box. Also what's wrong with the recoil? Seems fine to me. Sequel: -..... erm... you ARE joking,.... right?? Â As the next similar game in the SAME genre and executed in a very SIMILAR fashion I've certainly taken it as implicit that ArmA can be considered BIS's sequel effort in relation to OFP... and evidently I mean sequel in a broad "game-type" sense - not as a literal "our story now continues..." Â Recoil: Â - well fair enough, it's a very subjective issue - but having fired many rifles (tho not M16 or M4 - but I have fired Mini 14 which uses same ammo so i have SOME idea of the kick power of 5.56 NATO - as well btw as 7.62 NATO by virtue of firing SLR) and watched soldiers on TV using those rifles - they are either wildly spraying several shots for each aimed one or they are NOT copping the same recoil effect ArmA gives - which makes it impossible to make more than one aimed shot per 1.5 seconds or so instead of a more realistic IMO figure of nearly two per second. Â My DISAPPOINTMENT is that in OFP this was all addressed and dealt with entirely effectively - I never even thought twice about it - but after about the THIRD shot with an aimpoint M4 in ArmA I was hunting the net to find how to edit the freaking configs!!! BTW the tone of these forums is so very clear here - ie. fanbois do whatever you want and anyone else just get fucked. Oh, and I just looked again at the first post - and CONTRARY to some crap comment made a few posts back about this topic being only for constructive criticism: the title does NOT suggest any requirement to be constructive - and likewise there is no conditional instruction to that effect in the intro post... This topic is for COMPLAINTS - so if you don't like people complaining then PISS OFF and give each other virtual hand jobs on the PRAISE topic!!

Betsalel, if you're not already using it (sounds like you're not) - you need to get eliteness 2.12 - this is a fantastic tool that lets you unpbo, create pbo's, debinarise and create binarised files all in one unit. It can be a bit confusing to use - ie. when you select the unbinarise option you get no noticeable response - then you select save as and this will throw up the original name - ie. config.bin - which you then have to manually rename to config.cpp - but it is all pretty intuitive and easily worked out.

I had the same thing happen when I removed a heap of -mod= commands from my shortcut to tryout a specific mod on it's own - when I subsequently put all the -mod= commands back in, the tracers were gone! In the end I reshuffled the order that I was calling the mods and got them back - I had not noted what the original order was and evidently this is significant (I guess other mod's configs can over ride the tracer one or something like that).

Thought I'd put this in on offchance it help people: My system: A64 3700 (754) 1024Mb RAM 7800GS 256 DDR3 AGP I was playing ArmA on generally high settings - post processing, AA and shadows on LOW and vis to 1200 - all with decent framerates (maybe 25 - 30 fairly consistently with no bad dips) - BUT I had bad problems with NVG's view being too dark in some directions and ok in others - HDR precision to 16 didn't even help. In other respects I had no big issues with HDR effects (tho would prefer not to have it at all) but this NVG issue - next to the crap helo FM - was close to being a showstopper for me! Anyway, I've fixed my NVG problems and gained a decent near 10 frames per second increase by setting Resolution_Bpp to 16 in the arma.cfg  - the game looks about the same as before but overall the HDR effect is much less pronounced / obtrusive - this especially helps with NVG view - and the only obvious degradation in visuals is in smoke effects - tho I'm tempted to say the effects actually look more "smokey" rather than slightly cartoony like before.

Not as "across the board" as you'd think - I had issues with FEAR crashing - never had similar probs with any other games or apps to that date - turned out to be an incorrect memory setting - but it only showed up in FEAR.

Ok - I'm gonna start with a request: Â Mr W0lle - I realise you must be a busy person but please do your job - get into this MESS of a thread and weed out all the POINTLESS discussion and FANBOI SPAMMING - I have some very (IMO) legitimate comments to make - many of which will be reiterating no doubt what others before me have said but that's largely the point - in my dreams someone at BIS might do a statistical analysis of this sort of topic and go "OMG! we REALLY need to improve the AI eh?" Â The topic is the topic - it is for expressions of disappointment - as such it is OBVIOUSLY going to contain a fair amount of just dummy spitting - but overall it should serve a purpose - to give an idea of what people do see as negative about the game - I didn't see any mention of becoming targets for fanboi's or having to justify opinions... - I think there are definitely cases where a curt "that is evidently a technical issue - try xyz topic" comment is NEEDED - but the amount of R-U-B-B-I-S-H in here is just shocking!!! - and doesn't say a lot for the quality of moderation BTW.... I tried to do the right thing and read everything before posting but by about page... what? 16 or so I think there's about ONE legitimate post per page vs the rest being FANBOI CRAP so I gave up and just jumped here to the end to put in my observations per the topic title: (feel free to mod out all above - all to follow IS relevant to topic - thankyou) My disappointments: 1. AI is dreadful - poor pathfinding - poor combat savvy etc. 2. Default sound is just awful - addressed more than adequately by addons but surely we could have expected better straight up?. 3. Helicopter flight model - ? - what can I say - Codemasters already did this for BIS in OFP - it was good, it was right, it worked - (sigh,... what more can one say). 4. A small thing but important to me: - bushes not being able to be moved freely thru - was a lovely feature in OFP - I miss it in ArmA. 5. Various oddities that CAN be fixed easily enough by tweaking configs but it's disappointing to have to do such things to make the game engaging and enjoyable: * Excessive recoil. * Player fire dispersion too much. * Enemy AI dispersion not enough. All I can say is that I never had cause to even think about these things in OFP - the general gameplay ballance was just so much better.... Â is ArmA really supposed to be the sequel??? - I'm personally really hanging out to see what OFP2 delivers - but I would be thrilled if BIS could fix the AI and Helicopter FM's in ArmA.

I'm not sure if I actually have scopefix 2.2 working.... - the std aimpoint optic ("red dot") - is it still the same as original default or is it supposed to be the fine detailed red chevron in the screenshots - identified as M16A4??

Coming in here awhile after the original discussion, but for what it's worth: I actually prefer the look of ArmA overall with this mod in place!! There's not only the FPS improvement , but to me the "hedge" effect - ie. along roads - looks better and overall the foliage is actually more dense - overall effect is more realistis "feel" to the game world. Also with the original bushes you can go thru them and hide in them again. Only problem is that hanging bush - if that could be fixed this would be a keeper for me.

Yep - that last value is where the rifle ends up - but it's simply by virtue of the fact that it's the last set of values in the string - I've confirmed that if you knock one or more of the sets of three values to zero (can probably just remove them altogether - haven't tried that), the recoil is shorter and more abrupt - I put another set of 3 zeros after the first three and deleted altogether the three values immediately before the final set and the recoil is much more realistic IMO - tho I'm a wuss and prefer to be able to rapid fire with accuracy so will use my first "soft" set of values. I don't know if there has to be a certain number of 3 value "sets" or if you could simply have a recoil string that's only 3 values in it's entirety - I just played it safe by maintaining the same number of values as original.

Something that bugs the crap outta me in ArmA - and OFP as a matter of fact - is that when you have overall command of a vehicle, your instructions are not simply performed by the driver - instead they're evidently filtered thru the AI. Â I would like to know if it's possible to modify the AI so that drivers simply do EXACTLY as you order WHEN you order it - ie. you press the forward command key and they will immediately go straight ahead - press "fast" and they'll IMMEDIATELY go fast - instruct turn left or right and they'll IMMEDIATELY make the turn. Â This would make it your job to avoid driving into impassable obstacles - but that would not be too difficult IMO and the AI manages to do that pretty well at the moment anyway (drive INTO obstacles I mean) - but with lots of hesitation and BUGGERING ABOUT! Â The benefit would essentially be that you can still effectively drive the vehicle directly while manning a station other than the driver's position - this is evidently the intent of the already existing command system in place - but it's flawed - so my idea I think has great merit. Can anyone point me in the right direction for how / where to edit the AI to make this so??

My modification on just letting the AI drive to the next waypoint or a selected co-ordinate is to periodically just command "forward" then alternate this with respecifying the co-ordinate/waypoint to get him more or less back on track. Maybe another option to compex stuff like the maneouvering commands I described is - after establishing the direct response system I'm after - have an option called "Maneouver Tactical" where the movement commands are still obeyed promptly but "Forward" is actually a snaking path - I could live with that as a way of combat environment driver control in anything from Hummers to MBT's

I agree - it looks like you can have pretty much an indefinite sequence of "events" - each defined as time/offset/deflection - I think the 5 sets is what maybe makes ArmA assault rifles a tad TOO "wobbly"? (the whole recoil lasts too long) hmmmm.....

I agree - I actually want more like the original amount of recoil but happening in a much faster/shorter cycle - need to spend time experimenting (tried turning down what i thought were all the time interval values and eneded up with no recoil at all - so got something wrong) - and I'll watch with interest what you guys come up with. BTW - apologies to all - I was initially using the search function incorrectly - very short list of responses should have tipped me off I had it wrong.

I definitely think the AI pathfinding could be improved - but in the meantime I can actually live with the existing pathfinding as in how the drivers find their way to a selected distant crosshair position, map selected co-ordinate or current or next waypoint - my beef is with the direct command system which is a mishmash of your instruction then being ruminated upon for an indeterminate period of time then executed in usually very contrary ways (command forward, vehicle wobbles for a while then spins 90 degrees and charges of in a completely different direction to where "forward" originally was! - IMO it would be a whole lot simpler if - with regard to "Forward", "Fast Forward", "Reverse", "Left" and "Right" commands - the drivers simply did exactly what you've instructed - IMMEDIATELY!! - if you 're pointing at a tree or building then it's your bad. Such an immediate response method would make life a whole lot easier when trying to get from A to B or even in combat whilst trying to man the commander's position or a gunners station. I also think vehicles need a "maneover tactical" command - ie. so that a tank driver can be commanded thus, which would mean he'd keep the tank moving in the combat area while you as commander concentrated on selecting targets or as gunner concentrated on hitting them. That command could even be broken down to "maneouver offensive" - close with the target but keep moving and changing direction, "maneouver combat" - maintain line of sight whilst keeping roughly constant current distance and "maneover defensive" (or "maneover retreat") - get the heck outta dodge - ie. break line of sight + increase distance as rapidly as possible.

HDR at the best of times is not something I'm very fond of - I can understand the significance of it tactically in a game like ArmA - ie. field of view glare etc. - but IMO it's implementation in ArmA is flawed particularly with respect to NVG usage. Anyhow, I found I can turn it off by setting HDRprecision=0 in arma.cfg - but somehow the bastard thing keeps being reactivated - I quit the game and go to the .cfg and sure enough it's back at 8 Anyone know what's causing this??

Okaaay... maybe the search function is different when I use it. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....71dd2f3 The ninth or tenth return of the query "HDR disable" set to 'this month and older' in the threads 'ArmA: General and ArmA: Troubleshooting' gives you a thread where Maruk answers your question succinctly and eloquently on the first page. Â This is the first return in that query that is a good match to the question you asked and would have taken you 30 seconds from the time you made the query to actually reading Maruk's post. In fact, using the search engine is so easy that I made this query for information that I already knew just to verify your claim. Â It took 1/10th the time I took to write this post. You're either unfamiliar with how the search actually works or you're lazy and a liar. Â I suspect the former. Â Read the entire search form once and understand what each of the options means. Â This will take you at most 2 minutes and will allow you to make queries that give you accurate returns. That number is HDR precision, not amount. Â Lower values will just solicit erratic behaviour if it doesn't automatically revert them back to 8 bit by default. Â Higher precision values will give you cleaner and more crisp transitions, less glare, etc. Â Try setting the values to 16 and see if you like that effect. Yep - I hadn't picked up on the timeframe options at the bottom - the very few results my queery threw up SHOULD have been the tipoff I didn't have it right - sorry about that - thanx everyone for all very useful info - at this rate I might eventually have a working game that doesn't make me cringe at the money I've paid for it.....

Haha - found this with a search for "bushes" - looking for exactly the same thing and for the same reason as the original author - I agree with troop - and the system in OFP was great - ie. a great compromise for how IRL you can use bushes for cover (as opposed to protection of course) - being able to run thru them unimpeded I don't think is all that much of a detriment to the game

Thanks Q - I'll try that for ongoing experimentation. For now I've come up with this recoil config that feels nice for me ingame: class cfgRecoils { pistolBase[] = {0,0,0,0.08,0.003,0.02,0.05,-0.003,-0.033,0.05,0,0}; subMachineGunBase[] = {0,0,0,0.06,0.005,0.005,0.05,0,-0.02,0.06,-0.005,0.005,0.05,0,0}; assaultRifleBase[] = {0,0,0,0.03,0.010,0.005,0.05,0,-0.002,0.05,-0.003,0.005,0.03,0,0}; machinegunBase[] = {0,0,0,0.08,0.01,0.04,0.05,-0.003,-0.01,0.2,0,0}; launcherBase[] = {0,0,0,0.2,0,0.05,0.1,0,0}; AK74Recoil[] = {0,0,0,0.03,0.01,0.007,0.07,0,-0.005,0.05,-0.003,0.05,0.05,0,0}; M240Recoil[] = {0,0,0,0.08,0.01,0.05,0.05,-0.003,-0.008,0.2,0,0}; M240RecoilProne[] = {0,0,0,0.1,0.003,0.005,0.05,-0.003,-0.01,0.05,0,0}; M249Recoil[] = {0,0,0,0.07,0.002,0.01,0.035,-0.002,-0.02,0.05,0,0}; M249RecoilProne[] = {0,0,0,0.1,0.003,0.004,0.05,-0.003,-0.008,0.05,0,0}; M4Recoil[] = {0,0,0,0.03,0.01,0.005,0.05,0,-0.002,0.05,-0.003,0.005,0.03,0,0}; PKMRecoil[] = {0,0,0,0.1,0.03,0.04,0.05,-0.03,-0.08,0.05,0,0}; PKMRecoilProne[] = {0,0,0,0.1,0.003,0.005,0.05,-0.003,-0.01,0.05,0,0}; }; I want to carry on with experimenting toward getting greater deflection than this but happening quicker but at the same time I'm actually more interested in playing the game than buggering with this stuff.

Jackal326 - Damn!!! - huge thanx for that!!

The recoil is up and to the right because most rifle barrells are rifled in a right-hand twist. The up part is just physics The kick up is influenced by design of muzzle brake - in some instances quite elaborate designs are used to counter rise - and also the stock design has an effect - the two things as I understand it that define an assault rifle are - self loading magazine feed and the stock design that specifically directs recoil straight back rather than upward. The point being that I'm sure the amount of default recoil for these weapons is just too much...... or as I've indicated, maybe it's not the amount, but the sharpness - my config change gives me the impression of actually more, harder recoil but it's faster and the rifle feels like it's in my shoulder now - not suspended a few inches out in space such that it jumps and then sways and wobbles etc.

OK - my method right from scratch was aok - the tools I was using were at fault - I've installed Eliteness and my modified .cpp files now work in the game without chucking up syntax errors. The file to edit is config.bin in weapons.pbo in ArmA/addons - in that config there's a very easy to find section not far from the top: class cfgRecoils { pistolBase[] = {0,0,0,0.08,0.003,0.02,0.05,-0.003,-0.033,0.05,0,0}; subMachineGunBase[] = {0,0,0,0.06,0.005,0.005,0.05,0,-0.02,0.06,-0.005,0.005,0.05,0,0}; assaultRifleBase[] = {0,0,0,0.06,0.01,0.01,0.1,0,-0.02,0.1,-0.01,0.01,0.05,0,0}; machinegunBase[] = {0,0,0,0.08,0.01,0.04,0.05,-0.003,-0.01,0.2,0,0}; launcherBase[] = {0,0,0,0.2,0,0.05,0.1,0,0}; AK74Recoil[] = {0,0,0,0.06,0.01,0.012,0.1,0,-0.02,0.1,-0.01,0.01,0.05,0,0}; M240Recoil[] = {0,0,0,0.08,0.01,0.05,0.05,-0.003,-0.008,0.2,0,0}; M240RecoilProne[] = {0,0,0,0.1,0.003,0.005,0.05,-0.003,-0.01,0.05,0,0}; M249Recoil[] = {0,0,0,0.07,0.002,0.01,0.035,-0.002,-0.02,0.05,0,0}; M249RecoilProne[] = {0,0,0,0.1,0.003,0.004,0.05,-0.003,-0.008,0.05,0,0}; M4Recoil[] = {0,0,0,0.06,0.01,0.01,0.1,0,-0.018,0.1,-0.01,0.01,0.05,0,0}; PKMRecoil[] = {0,0,0,0.1,0.03,0.04,0.05,-0.03,-0.08,0.05,0,0}; PKMRecoilProne[] = {0,0,0,0.1,0.003,0.005,0.05,-0.003,-0.01,0.05,0,0}; }; It's going to be a long process for someone to work out by trial end error what each of those values does - I'll work on it over a period but so far all I did was put the same -0.003 perameter into the assault rifle base, AK74recoil and M4Recoil as in the machinegun configs (originally those values are -0.02, -0.02 and -0.018 respectively) plus I just arbitrarily reduced that first big value in each (4th perameter) down to 0.01 this gives a sharper, less obtrusive recoil that enables reaiming quicker - I actually need to check out exactly what that 4th value does as just the other one might be all that's needed. The other values all must relate to various things like amount of deflection in different directions and resettling (hysteresis if you like) - but as I said, figuring it all out is going to be very time consuming.