Second

I said this in some other thread also, but here it goes again: AT-mines in ArmA are trackmines (altough acting like "bottomhitting" mine). They clearly have place in middle of mine where fuze is set. "Bottomhitting" mine would be capable of taking out MBTs and IFVs. Trackmines just immobilize. BRDM and such for sure turn out to be dead twisted metal, but generally speaking tracked vehicles would just get immobilized, with more or less severe damages to tracks and trackwheels. When speaking about MBTs i've been told that damage caused by about 9.5 kg trackmine (about 9 kg of TNT) is repairable in 30 minutes, no need to transport MBT away and only crew is needed to fix damages. In ArmA i would say that both trackmine-types are about 7-8... So basically they deal about same amount of damage (if they use TNT as explosive). then again what if those mine had additional charges under them (engineers are such smart guys): 20 kg of additional TNT + trackmine's TNT...

Yes, it's truly nice spice and even realistic feature, but it overshoots badly sometimes when it shouldn't: It's not funny when crack-level airborne-units or mountain para-militia on some assault, which success bases on speed, starts to do that. If vehicles would be kept under fire for some time (it's clearly doesn't shoot back, so it's determed to be eliminated) or to complete destruction (to make sure that it won't get repaired and used again) depending of unit's behaviour, skill-level, speedmode or combatmode. My problem is also that i like to play with low shooting accuracy and high spotting values, so one HMMWW can easily require thusands of bullets from long distances.

Most thing i hate in ArmA vehicles is that AI ALLWAYS empties their magazines to empty trucks, hummers and such. Just today i was test playing one of my missions and whole company's advance halted because two deserted damaged vehicles, company killed enemy personel in 5 minutes and after that they spent nice 15 minutes to take out one hummer and one truck!!! They wasted all their ammos to those things and when they felt safe (and light) again they ran agains couple of stryker squads and that was end of story, no RPGs for vehicles and no ammos for infantry Static vehicles and cars are great things, not because of their combat efficency but because of reason that AI tries to destory them from distance, even if they are damaged beyond use. Try to punch thru second line of defence or defeat counterattack, when guys are scavenging handgrenades from the dead (take the enemy rifle you dump! and they have magazine or two left and some squads are (still) putting holes to howitzers, MGs, cars or what-ever-not-demolished-yet. I think too that vehicles blows up too easily. There should be better (random) change to bail out and run for life. This has bothered AI from OFP's times. Squad with IFV is killer but when vehicle gets hit half of disembarked squad gets wiped out by default.

Here's some data from http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm following M855's (5.56) line and it seems that ArmA has it pretty much same trajectory. At 550 meters my rough calculations (converting inches to centimeters with not very precise values) tells pretty much same drop, i ended up to about 130 cm. At 300 meters... Seems to be pretty much same also. I don't see reason to tweak these values: I wouldn't notice any difference or wouldn't care.

If BMP is part of infantry group it get's lots more info from infantry than it would get in "only vehicles"-group. As infantry spots better. That is kinda sad as it make squads with APCs very effective. But to me it's not too big issue: APCs goes off with big BANG killing half of their squad mean times. So it's sword with two blades. I can agree with this, although mostly i was using IR-optics from 80's (quality of picture isn't good when comparing to newer stuff, color pattern was red-black and zoom level might have been more limited than these days). In military exercises it was hard to spot human targets as they act acordingly (trying to stay hidden). But our terrain favors infantry with average 50-100 meters viewdistances, so infantry literally lives in forest or atleast they have plenty of visual cover always at hand. We saw only "enemy" vehicles when operating with ATGMs, infentry never. But once from 500 meters we were able see friendly squad of men in modern snowsnuits against snow (temprature was mild -20 celsius) with ordiary optics as they were unloading tents and such from APC, but thru IR we didn't see them (because of snowsuit, long distance), only shape of APC was visible.

Or then his just fed up (this isn't the first movement and animation thread... More like 100)... Like me I mean don't people now days have patency to learn themselves or wait, atleast it seems so... And sometimes i hope that humanpopulation would finally die. Or atleast some parts of it.

It worked in earlier versions, but i think that it doesn't work in my 1.05 anymore... Enter or space confirmed the selection earlier.

Makes sense in a way, not much sound is made, but visual "noise" is there (thrower and/or grenade or smokecloud in smokegrenades) although it's handled by gamemechanism same way than when firing a rifle.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">100011101010101100011010101.....(Few thousands 1s and 0s).... 101010100100101 I don't have very much experience with binary, but isn't that pretty much what AI sees? I quess i don't like to see that for too long: Gives headache.

That i would like to get too. Our rifle's hole is bit too tight, well moving target to 50 meters was piece of cake but that was in shooting range, with predictable target. I had Airsoft Famas and it had three different hole sizes, small, medium and HUGE. Although with experience and short shooting ranges (usually less than 50 meters/yards) it was better to learn to shoot and aim along barrel line, or use flashlight attached to barrel because those ways were faster. Aiming was good only in situations where opponent wasn't aware that someone was aiming him or target was pinned down, so there wasn't hurry. Infact i was considering to remove sights totaly and replacing it with simple aiming rail, for airsoft-ranges that would have been good choice.

Isn't skill-level for that I don't know does skilllevel affect to endurance but it (endurance) is adjustable by scriptcommands... Although about it's effects i'm not so sure: seems that they have effect or then not... I dunno for sure. There's about eight or ten different skill-trade that can be scaled by scriptcommands, but like i said iäm not sure how, or do, they work.

ArmA shines in two areas when comparing to OFP... Outlooks and scripting commands. Still there are few commands which i would have liked to see (LOS-check forexample) but current new commands are like heaven, expacely those which can tweak AI's behaviour. So much new posibilities and old ways are easier to do now. And i'm just mere beginner, what more advanced people are going to do with FSM-editor? ArmA ends up being game that has AI which can't be challenged by any other game in near future

Then again people are forgetting that peep hole darkens sightpicture and it darkens it alot. For my airsoftguns i've made my own opensights because of that reason. Luckily our rifle has opensights for darker conditions... And i think that HK-products has too. And forexample creator of AK himself doesn't like peep sights (mentioned that when discussing about finnish RK), one reason for that is that moving target is harder to hit with that, and i agree. But this comes to personal taste and what someone has got used to as much as "sientific" accuracy.

I've been hating AI's performace in defence in both OFP and ArmA... So i started to upgrade it: First builded better take cover method, but i wasn't happy about it: AI could take cover behind hill -> no LOS to killzone which is bad thing for overall defence performance -> under work Then started to build script that calculates soldier's LOS (terrain's form not objects) to killzone and if they don't have LOS they search better spot where they can see it. They have secondry positions calculated with same method if enemy flanks them. Should make this also to staticvehicles... This script also can be used to pop-up and shoot&scoot manuvers (which are underwork) Next i moved to script that clears killzone from cover -> enemy gets plain open if it's movement route goes from there... Well can't remove objects, so some spots can turn out to be even better cover than before "clearing". Fortifications are still under thinking, but they are somewhat doable, just should find objects that allow defender to be in cover but still see to killzone, as usually case is that attacker sees fortified defender earlier -> defender dies. Platoon and company co-operation. Counterattacks, patrols, flanks' observationposts -> Under work if ever finished. This is the thing why i love ArmA: if something is flawed just fix it and learn new stuff + refresh olds while doing so

"accurate" discovery program said: "AK-47 is machine gun because it's fireselector has first auto and then single mode"

AK47 clone Finish RK.62. And like i said in earlier post, it doesn't matter what rifle i would have been issued, as long as i know how to use it to gain best results (wouldn't trade my wartime rifle to M16 as i don't have anykind experience with that) and as long as i can (and hopefully will) control my nerves in possible combatsituation aka become coldblooded killer.

Yes, this is funny thing. How good MOA can rifle gain... When in combat situation only thing that matters is that is shooter coldblooded killer or not. Mostly he is not and so he points and sprays if conditions are somewhat hostile: he shoots accurately if target is harmless, fleeing forexample, but if target shoots back then it's powder burning time Following lessons of history: shooting distance needs to be less than 100 meters to gain good possibility to kill enemy. I've heard that about 90% of casualities produced by small arms fire shootingdistance is less than 100 meters (This statement might consern only ironsights and not optics, i'm not sure). Beyond that smallarms are just slowing enemy down so that artillery/mortars/CAS can finish it or enemy desides that this not worth of a risk and pulls back.

Scoring hits to chopper is rather easy with optical sights and tracers, if chopperpilot acts stupidly/or without good intel (not aware of the AAMG) like they usually did in our simulation hardware. Jets on other hand are simply too fast. Usually it's visible and after few seconds it's not visible.

I'm not following this, would you agree that the difference between 'FPS' and 'FPS wargame' is the behaviour of the AI? Behaviour, or lets say basic methods, of AI has big influence on it. Very basic war-thing like defending gets screwed because AI won't act properly, as it doesn't follow anykind military guidelines in defence. In wargame i can expect that dug-in platoon can defeat much bigger enemy if positions are good and enemy can't hit to defender's throat (getting supprise or close enough) and it cannot use massive firepower (artillery etc...) to suppress or even destroy defender. This logic follows main military guidelines, good wargame does this too. In ArmA usually this isn't the thing if each AI isn't set to it's defending position by mission maker (which is pain in the ass btw...). They start to search cover only when enemy is spotted, which is almost always too late. In ArmA defending AI isn't performing any better than attacker. Which is pretty much as wrong as it can be. Only thing that matters is fire-overpower, and usually attacker can consentrate more fire to target as AI performs badly in defence (few guys exposes them selves and gets killed then next guys open fire and gets killed etc... This is what normally happens). I would say that in ArmA AI's attack-things are pretty much fine, but defender-things are lacking almost complitely. If this basic balance is distrubted, then the whole structure becomes distrubted: Is there any point to be defending at all? Is infantry just dead weight? Should we just attach our bayonets and charge?

Once again i made mistake: I played Combat Mission and after that i launched ArmA's mission editor... And soon shutted it down, because i realized (once again) that ArmA is FPS with slight flavor of wargame: FPSs sucks, wargames RULEZ and Firstperson-wargames RULEZZZZZ x 10. I started to tweak script that gives AI routine how to form defencive positions and act like they would have been ordered to defend the spot not just hang around there and running like wild horse... Fired few test-rounds with raw version of script and... (once again) For me Mission making just got a big boost, because now AI actually understands when told, that it needs to defend this spot. Complete wargaming experience feels bit closer again. But there are plenty of things to do still in the path of converting firstperson-semi-wargame to firstperson-wargame. Fortunately it's doable in ArmA.

There's no way to unlock default time acceleration values, atleast i haven't heard anything about it. You can speed up time or skip it at any given moment only by using forexample "radio alpha"-trigger (simple) or script (not so simple). I think that 'skiptime'-command is better for your expetations. Setacctime can't be set to very high values, as mission reliability might suffer greatly.

EDIT: Removed LOOOOOTS of whining about little almost useless tiny feature called bodyarmor.

I don't know, should those AT mines in ArmA represent trackmines, which are designed to break trackwheels and tracks. Should destroy only wheeled lightly armored vehicles, i doupt that Stryker would be destroyed by it. But BRDM for sure. Then there's "bottom hitting" mines that are ment to penetrate bottom or track of vehicle. But i don't know how effectice they eventually are. Complete destruction of vehicle? Might happen or then not, depends of penetration's location. I think that all US, SLA, RACS are using track mines (atleast model look like trackmine and not "bottom hitting" mine)... If my memory serves me well. EDIT: Some trucks do (in 1.05 version) set off mines. But if i remeber right Ural's and 5tonner armed with .50 cal MG didn't set mine off.

You have severe obsession with functions, did you know that (just like my old-and-tested-trick-is-better-than-bag-full-of-new-ones obsession) I'll give them a try... At some point

Basically scripts just monitors area near unit by using two different simple ways: 1. by measuring object's speed and direction (uses 'nearobjects'-command) 2. by searching objects (nearestobject-command) with certain stringnames and in OFP's version checking direction of the object. This is only way, to my knowledge, to make it work in OFP. Script basically has list of stringnames that it needs to spot in given distance of unit to cause suppression. Still i haven't looked those functions, so this is only speculation, but it is said that .SQFs can freeze FPS if they are needed to process frequently unlike .SQSs which sortof fits to overall stress level. Close area of group should be cheched atleast 6-10 times in second to spot fast flying bullets.