Second

Can this be issue with that head shot + collosion detection-issue (should be fixed in next version)? Aren't aimpoint zeroed to 400-500 meters (like ironsights) and in 200 meters bullet is at its highest point -> it hits head (if aimed to belly or chest) -> collosion detection kinda deflects bullet from hitting head (so it misses)? I don't know for sure, but it crossed to my mind... Try aim to it's legs at 200 meters -> bullet hits belly or groin (ouch!

Here you go. Here's the clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKhMOfaYwvE There's 40 mm grenade, .50 BMG, some SMAW also. Yeah. Cinder block are bad. Here's another clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0UdI1No82A

AK74 use 5.45 here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....search= Seems that it's russian ammo-box, not chinese... I've heard about some new chinese 5.45... But my memory is bad nowdays (and it is good excuse too )

Dunno about the 5.56mm but I carry in the squalid junk- room that is my memory the fact that British L2A2 7.62mm ball rounds (nb. "ball", not "armour piercing") for the SLR and GPMG (ie. much the same as the ammo used in the M240) would completely penetrate about 40 inches of stacked pine boards, or c. 2 inches of concrete, or c. 8 inches of cinder block at 200m. Penetration in fact, and possibly surprisingly, increased with range up to a limit, although I cannot off-hand remember what the optimum was; I seem to remember that it was 300m or so (but i may be mistaken in that last bit). I once saw a GPMG demolish a brick wall in a demo, and there were also occasions when 7.62mm ball rounds fired from SLRs went right through houses in N. Ireland (in and out through two brick walls). There's video in youtube (i don't remeber was USMC involved, if someone is intersted looking for it) about bulletpenetrations: 7.62NATO, 5.56NATO, 7.62x39, 9x19 + many others were shot to "house" which had different materials in wall, brick etc... 5.56 was lousy: it didn't penetrate even a brick. 7.62x39 penetrated brick and other materials with ease. 7.62NATO was a killer, better than 7.62x39. In that test there was only wall which had brick, cinder blocks etc... rest of walls were thin woodplates... And If i remeber correctly all those bullets were standart "ball" bullets (no AP etc...) 5.45 penetrates wood better than 5.56... Chinese video i once saw. I didn't understand language, but results were clear: something about 20-30% more wood plates penetrated. But what was that 5.45 which chinese shot... Somekind new chinese bullet? I don't know about PKM's and Dragunov's 7.62x54R (if name went right). Maybe it is bit better than 7.62NATO, i don't bother to check it's stats, but i'm not sure is it so in ArmA? Oh well soon someone models volframs and russian's newest AP-rounds to ArmA. Oh joy...

I'm confused EDIT: Or then not... Are we having filthy pirates in here. Har-har Are there some differences with local versions? (mine is german) I qualified M16 in 1.02 and in 1.05 all shots hitting the targets and aprox time between shots was 2.3 seconds (yes i looked at watch before and after shooting). With bad luck i missed 2 or 3 shots out of 30. Just today i was practising hitting in sideways running targets. Results were good: to 150 meters hitting procent was almost 70, and to 300 meters about 10%. That was with both M16 and AK74. Yes M16 ironsights are bad (from my point of view)... I'm used to shoot with much thicker pole (don't know the official eglish name, but that pole in frontsights). If i'd had RK-62's sights (FDFmod) and bullet, hittingprosent would be much better in moving targets.

Some essential stuff might be breaking running animation to smaller bits. I'm not sure, but i think that this is reason why engage usually doesn't work as it should: AIs run past cover as they should stop to the cover. Might this be because of (too long) Animation has to be finished? It's okay for player that he has to finish that long animation, but AI is different: if it doesn't know that it has to halt 4-5 steps before cover, then I'm fine with (forexample) idea that AI could just switch his running animation to standing animation instantly. Funny thing but i didn't never-ever thought that animations would have such effect on AIs abilities... But when thinking about it, it's logical indeed.

Arma is great so /signed ps. Nights are indeed beatiful: Thunder, fog, muzzleflashes... yum-yum

I've started to use 'stealth' in almost everykind of combat-situations. Thay atleast try to keep themselves down. I've written this note (different language thou) and attached it to my monitor for editing missions: 1. If defender is weak and it can't fight back the attacker, then go ahead and put attacker to 'combat'-mode, it's (only) bit better than 'aware' or 'safe'... 2. If defender has capacity to fight back, put attacker to 'stealth'-mode: they last bit longer (keep mostly prone) and they see better. Difference is BIG! Task which they fail misarebly in combat mode, can turn out to be easy-deal in stealth mode... I could understand better if they would use human-wave in 'combat'-mode, but they are not. It was me who said that they seem to stand in buildings better than in outdoors... But i'm not sure, haven't tested much as i favor wilderness.

Thanks for explanation

Yes this is the bottom line. You have served 6 years, and played OFP for 3 years... How long have you played ArmA? Let's look at ours aiming accuracy when year has passed... I'm not as good shooter in combat situation in ArmA as in that training mission, or in OFP or as good shooter as i was in army (infantry, 1 year + plenty of reservist years training on my free time), but i'm getting better and better day by day just like in OFP and just like in army... Universal rule seems to be that accuracy of shooting degreases when death is present... And in ArmA death usually is present. Shame that there no such thing as suppression present in ArmA, but i more likely take bit more realistic unaccuracy than bit less realistic sniperaccuracy, because there's no such thing as suppression in ArmA... Anyways i think that i've made my point clear... Most part here seems to be thinking that weapons are too unaccurate, so maybe BIS should do something about it. I'm fine with changing the values, as i'm fine with current values. EDIT: Oh and i needed only about 2 seconds to adjust weapon, confirm "sightpicture" and shoot (in that training mission). I just can't find a reason that ArmA's weapons would be harder to handle than in IRL... They are handled bit differently (yeah right! ) but i just feel that ArmA's way natrual. I don't know reason for it, but from first moment it felt right way... Maybe i sucked with rifle IRL

I'm copying what i said earlier: Weapons is quite accurate so it is player doing things wrong (or using pistol or AK-74u). And oh now i remeber why my shot missed the targets once: missed shots were because of (by-accident) i switched burst on... So i'm not fanboy i just handle marksmanship in ArmA To Col. Faulkner Basics of shooting haven't changed from times of muskets, it seems. My all soldier's manuals gathered (earned, stealed, bought etc...) from years 1980-2003 says the same thing: "The rifle must point naturally at the target without physical effort"

That is strange... It seems that some individual guy just decides that he doesn't want to hold his fire, no matter how many times he's been ordered to hold fire (usually at that time i organize temporary execution squad and no last wishes granted). Is this some new feature not finished yet? like: you-never-can-know-who-is-the-loose-gun-of-your-group.

I was trying to say than player's character highly likely is fearing for his life, which usually doesn't have positive impact to shooting accuracy... Well to be honest i have to admit that it was stupid point to even start with. So i'm throwing it overboard. To weapons accuracy then: Did you gualified in riflerange with M16 in training mission? I completed it with all every shot hitting target couple of times (maybe average was 1 or 2 misses, i don't remeber), so i don't think that weapon, M16, itself is unaccurate. AK-74 and M4, by my experience in ArmA, are bit more unaccurate. Now: From where does that unaccuracy of shooting come from, if not from weapon (as that training mission example tried to point out)... ArmA kinda simulates mistakes done by shooter if he doesn't do necessary preparations or let those preparations last too long (right mouse button). So i'm fine, no, i love ArmA's aiming system and weapon accuracy as they are not sniperM16 or sniperAK from OFP.

Were you tired? Were you afraid? ArmA is about battle, not about shootingrange or peacetime training. Infact i can score hits relatively easy in ArmA ... It just requires some things to be done. I'd dare to say that you just don't handle ArmA's way of marksmanship. They don't need to be fixed (pistols are from ass IRL ), they require just that player does something to gain accuracy. One hint: release that right mouse button sometimes... Actually you should use it only just before you fire your weapon. Otherwise you'll start to loose eye focus, makes gun "heavier" etc... Something other (not to Bravo 6): Why right mouse button is hamppering players dexterity to turn weapon? Because character tries to gain bodyposition that makes shooting as accurate as possible... usually it's "heavy" to turn weapons at that point... Why: Because body is base of gun, you don't turn the gun but you turn the body (and gun turns with it). That is base of marksmanship, awfully many things in marksmanship starts and ends to body and how optimal is it's position.

Yes it truly is ... As it doesn't work the way it should for my script, as script doesn't have name of vehicle... And basicaly it cannot as it has to work with every imaginable situation: Vehicles might be forced to join other groups by situation etc + there might be total of 20 vehicles for one side... Those two earlier do the job... just bit more optimizing. But thanks anyway as this: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">((crew veh) - [driver veh,gunner veh,commander veh]) is something that will be very-very usefull to me.

I agree. Original OFP's AI was killer: Weapons didn't have strong recoil, weapons sway was little and burst was killer. I'm dying much less in ArmA than in vanilla OFP if skill-level is set to same. They are shooting much more in ArmA, in OFP they took their time and usually didn't miss (skill-level higher than ~0-6).

That seems to work too... I made it like this: Oh well... now i have two of them. Both works same way. Here's what i made up:

To my understanding gunner, driver etc. aren't suitable, because it returns everyone was he gunner in vehicle or man out side vehicle in group ... If i type like '?(_man != gunner vehicle): unassignvehicle _man' gunner is still ordered to disembark. I haven't used this much, so it might be that i just doing something wrong. Shuko: Most likely that is the solution... I have to test it. I thank both of you very much.

And they can drive about 80 km/h in every terrain...

Well i've shot with them (And not with joystick! That is some sick stryker-specs) So i kinda know how they act. I haven't seen a single TOW or other wireguided in OFP + mods which acts as it should: They are too lazy to guide, they start to manuver after 400 meters flight... Which is far too long distance. Expacely for TOW which has quite slow gliding speed (comparing to AT-5). So they are almost useless in OFP (i doupt that if modders couldn't do it in OFP it can't be done in ArmA). Give me RPG and i hit targets better with it than with TOW. I far more happier with click-and-lock TOW-missile if it can hit as it should, than with TOW-missile which is guided by my mouse and it can't hit a slowly moving target!

EDIT: Douple

That's most likely true. If It's latest M1A1... SLA has SU-37s so why couldn't USMC have M1A1 (not HA or later version) Just asked as usually when i start to argue with someone who has been trained in armored unit, he usually crushes me with hard based facts. So i try not to poke in their area of expertiece... Ofcourse some times i can't resist temptation and i end-up crushed again. Well anyways your points are true, it is probably too usual that M1A1 ends up disabled after one hit. Then again one point is that if ArmA doesn't have side or back of turret modelled (as Armored Sheep said), then this would be somekind compromice, insuficcent thou.

Good old Soviet quality: They've sold us some truly bad quality shipments. I don't remeber were those made in -84 or -82... SLA has to have the same shipment We had some TOWs too which hit ground... But they usually are already at end of their lifespan, unlike AT-5s which didn't work (if i remeber right).

What parts of frontal side of turret are protected by this amount of protection? I know cases that T-72's has been penetrated with BMP-2s 30mm cannon, when it hits weak parts of frontal turret. The question is which are weakest points in M1A1's frontal turret? And don't forget that latest M1A1's still has (if i remeber correctly) under 600 RHA protection on their frontal hull. Then again some T-72s have most modern russian guns (it's hard to talk about T-72 only as there's massive variety of different models of T-72s: i can't remeber even half of them)... Hell some of them even have 120mm L47 or L55. I don't know which model of T-72 the SLA has, or which model of M1A1-series USMC has in ArmA? Maybe it's HA with something about 600-700 RHA. And then again T-72 in ArmA can't destroy M1A1 with single shot (crew just bails out and so M1A1 becomes disabled)... It takes two shots... Which is too few when we are talking about destroying armor, but maybe not when talking about knocking out armor (when it shouldn't catch fire, only become "broken" or maybe crew just panics and rushes out from tank). D-scythe: Btw... Are you a IRL tanker? Just asking so that i know am i talking to real expert or just to wikipedia "expert". There is big difference between those two.

TOW is effective in ArmA, but it's probability to hit is (or was atleast in 1.02) very-very low. Missile flew (or glided actually) like cracy in 1.02, which usually resulted missile hitting ground before target. now it seems that it's more stabile when flying (or cliding actually), but i haven't tested it's accuracy in 1.05. BEAGLE: By the way... Is it so that the diamond has to be visible? and white box isn't enough (having german manual, i understand only the pictures from it). I'm happy that "hand" guiding isn't present if it like in OFP, as in OFP it wasn't sufficent... Missile reacted and guided too lazy in every ATGM that was used even in mods. AI didn't have problems with it, but i had severe: If target wasn't stationary, i usually didn't hit it... Was the problem with me, or with the game, i don't know.