Arma guns just don't feel right.....?

[Arma guns just don't feel right.....?]

the way 7.62mm is modeled in Arma is actually less effective than 5.56mm if you are using an AK47.

The way PKM and SVD kill with mostly one hit anywhere makes me doubt your claims. The game doesn't have an AK-47, only 74 which is 5.45.

DOH My mistake it is a 74.

[Arma guns just don't feel right.....?]

Biggest observation from current world conflicts is that 5.56mm doesn't tend to stop a person in their tracks as much as a 7.62mm round.(regardless of ammo type) People tend to get up and carry on fighting unless they are hit by a head shot. So 1 or 2 rounds with 5.56mm in Arma should allow the enemy to continue fighting unless its near the vital organs or headshot. 7.62mm should be different as it has much more stopping power, the way 7.62mm is modeled in Arma is actually less effective than 5.56mm if you are using an AK47. The Barret and other .50cal weapons also need some adjustment on their effect, the M107 should remove body parts when it hits them and in the case of long range shots such as 2miles it would in effect split the body in half due to the trajectory . Hopefully Arma2 might have an improved human damage model as it would be quite cool to add a bit more gore to the game.

[reloading and changing weapons in Arma]

Reloading while running should be possible(hell even Mark Walhberg can do it in the movie Shooter) same with changing weapon but there should be added variables to the equation such as carrying ammo in a pack and carrying weapons on your back or inside a pack. If you look at Hidden & Dangerous 2 you have the option of placing items in specific locations for use and if such a thing is modeled in Arma perhaps a slightly closer look at it might give it that edge in Arma2. eg unslinging a LAW might not require the player to stop although he will have to stop running if it is carried inside his pack(like in Bravo 2 zero). Could also go further into detail of the weapon by having stoppages as well like in Americas Army and those in most weapons can be done whilst running.

[Couple of bad things]

There was a decent harrier in Chuck Yeager's fighters anthology.  That game had a bunch of cool features...  It don't think it was fully combat oriented, though.  It was more of a showcase, with the option of fighting- and the fighting was mostly air to air, IIRC.

Don't worry there is a Harrier sim on the horizon.

Jet thunder

[Couple of bad things]

BTW balance can mean two totally different things. With balance you can either mean that each weapon (or whatever) has a complement on both sides (M16 = AK74 etc) or that you balance things to be similar to the real things: M16 and AK74 have different, but balanced values (same "measure", calculated for the same system of armor/health/hit/etc values), so that you don't have an uber M16 or AK74...

The best way is to base it on actual data rather than making them all the same for each side. Every weapon and vehicle has its pros and cons there is always a similar type of weapon or vehicle in both the east and west. There are at times though where one particular weapon type may only be available for one side in such cases you could do a similar unique weapon for the other side.

[Couple of bad things]

the m107, according to some reports i read by snipers in iraq, is apparently a mobile, semi automatic m2, with a scope on. Hitting anything man sized above 1000m requires alot of luck. 2500m range is probably against bigger targets.

Yeah I've wondered myself since I read about BORs which looks like a cool high tech gadget for snipers.

Barret BORS

[Couple of bad things]

Don't confuse mods with addons.

Mod is basically a pack of addons, so the only thing you need to look for is server running the same mod.

Of course, if someone makes a rifle pack and calls it a mod that's another story...

I think addons that add to Arma vehicles/weapons with more detail would rock. Maybe Arma2 might build on the current weapons and make some of them closer to the real deal than they are at the moment.

[Couple of bad things]

Let's not forget what?  Please read my post before replying to me, or please make it clear who or what you are specifically replying to.  Thanks.  Specifically in my post, 'you' means the pilot, and 'someone else' means anyone with an LTD.  Out of everything that I have heard, read, and scene dealing with LTDs, the common practice is to guide them all the way to their target.  No doubt they can try to figure out where they are and where their target was.  But I don't think that in practice you can call them Fire and Forget by any measure.  This is specifically what I was arguing.

The maximum gross weight for a harrier to take off at sea level at 32 degrees celsius is 8000 kg.  The harrier, pilot and fuel weigh 6,300.  5 gbu12's weigh 1100 kgs.  The Sniper LTD weighs 200 kg.    The gau12 Equalizer weighs 220 kgs, and its 300 rounds of ammunition weighs  around another 65 kg.  

So, 8000 - (6300 + 1100 + 200 + 220 + 65) =  115 kg.  

On a cooler day at S/L, it maybe could.  At higher elevations, certainly not.  On warmer days?  Again, certainly not.  At this load out, assuming Sahrani is a hot place, it could probably lift off vertically at night but not during the day in the summer time.  In bad weather, in the middle of a high pressure system, maybe it could.  The point is that it could not always do it so it's up to the designers to figure out what they want to do about that.  Lifting off vertically with all kinds of stores on there is likely a lot more rare than a straight forward STO, so it's not out of left field to automate the harrier to reflect that.

I didn't do anything for the Air to Air loadout, likely it would be lighter, but let's not forget that those 600 gallons of extra fuel at 6 lbs per gallon is nothing to sneeze at either!

No the pilot can guide his own LGBs was my point, if it fogs over he can still drop them using the aircrafts radar which should already have the tgt coordinates in the steerpoint in which case hes got the option of dropping them like a normal iron bomb. You don't necessarily need a laser to paint straight away either the laser only lights up in the last 3-5 seconds before impact. In aircraft such as the jaguar or A4 buddy lasing is necessary since the launching aircrafts designator isn't on a ball turret so the aircraft will lose sight of the tgt when it overflys the tgt and thats why they need a 2nd aircraft. While an AV8B can do it all without requiring a 2nd aircraft or person on the ground. As for vertical take off there are a few things I overlooked on Arma such as the addition of drop tanks and also the initial data I saw for the Harrier gave it better VTOL weight than some other sites. Even so the aircraft can still land and take off vertically and IRL they almost always land vertically on carriers. So its not good to be unable to carry out vertical landings or takeoffs. Hopefully someday someone will create a decent Harrier sim with these features as the Harrier is a cool aircraft. BTW there is probably a few configurations that allow the carriage of weapons such as rocket pods etc.

[Couple of bad things]

@SUBS17

found different take-off weights for AV-8B:  

Maximum Vertical Take-Off Weight: 9,400kg

Maximum Take-Off Weight: 14,000kg

Maximum Payload: 5,300kg

@Vultar

read such sentences as advertisement even other games call themselves as "most realistic", "best and true simulation" etc.

Yeah I've found a few sites that have different values for its performance weights range 3000kg(not likely) to 1000kg. The other problem is the different variants and engine types. Either way it is possible to carry slightly less fuel but more weapons and inflight refuel.

Operating weight empty including pilot and used fuel:

AV8B 6336kg

GRMk7 7050kg

TAV8B 6451kg

Maximum fuel:

Internal 3,519 kg

Internal and external 7,180 kg

Maximum external stores

Pegasus 11-61 6,003 kg

Pegasus 11-21/Mk 105 4,899 kg

Maximum useful load (include fuel, stores, weapons, ammunition and water injection for engine)

Vertical takeoff Approximately 3,062, kg

STO More than 7,710 kg

Max take off weight

Rolling 14000kg

Vertical 9415kg

Maximum Vertical Takeoff Weight (pounds)

20,752 RADAR

20,752 NIGHT ATTACK

19,185 DAY ATTACK

Maximum Short Takeoff Weight (pounds)

32,000 RADAR

32,000 NIGHT ATTACK

31,000 DAY ATTACK

Theres some video here of some AV8Bs doing vertical takeoff with a few bombs on board here.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.c....6736708

Heres some footage from the Sniper pod of GBUs being dropped note the flashing L indicates that the laser designator is firing.(this is how it should look if it were in a proper Harrier sim)

http://vids.myspace.com/index.c....0684588

6 x GBU12s = 2178kgs

4 x Aim9X = 335.6kgs + 2 x drop tanks

[Couple of bad things]

IMO Battlefield simulation is helicopter/Soldier/tank/jet fighter sim all rolled into one. eg all of the above.

[Couple of bad things]

ArmA Version: 1.08 Armed Assault

Problem #1:

It's about the Javelin AT Missile Launcher. I've got a problem 'cause in one mission of Armed Assault I can use it but it is only in this one mission and I can't find it in map editor... Is it my bug or Somebody else got same problem?

Also it doesn't shoot too good... if I aim higher the aimer shows 'Lock on' but it always miss... I have to aim (only) directly on target, but it isn't a True Javalin then...

Problem #2:

M107 anti-material rifle... it's max range of shot is about 2500m , rane of PERFECT shot 1000m, so why ArmA's Barrett got half of it? it can shoot max on 1000m and perfect shot is on 500m... it's really disgusting. Also... why I cant neutralize BMP2 on few shots? The BMP armor is like 10mm - easy to break for barrett... I am looking foward for some fix...

Problem #3:

AV-8 Harrier. As we all know, harrier is a VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing) Aircraft. So... why does it need more than 80km/h to take off? It should start like a helicopter...

(Yes, I done the automatic swing).

And why the bombs GBU-12 PAVEWAY need a Scout with laser to search for targets? Those bombs are kind of 'FAF' bombs (Fire and Forget), they can be guided from aircraft.

I strongly please BIS or even good AddOn makers(good? here masters are needed...) to repair those 'I could say BUGs', otherwise the ArmA can't say that it is the most realistic battlefield simulation...

#1.  There is a certain minimum range to the javelin.  I'm not sure what that is IRL, but if you find the missiles are missing, it's because you're in too close.

#2.  Ballistics and other things are simplified in ArmA.  For a more realistic shooting experience, try NoWonderDog's realistic ballistics mod.  It's compatible gmj's sight adjustment script.  I have hit a target at 2.5 km with those mods active before, but it's difficult and the bullet drop has to be seen to be believed.  The bullets look as if they rain out of the sky vertically, and you can shoot 3 times before the first bullet gets anywhere near the target.

#3.  The Harrier is not capable (IRL) of taking off vertically with a full warload.  The short takeoff that BIS has it doing is accurate for a loaded up harrier.  Since ArmA hasn't any capability to calculate the weight of the aircraft's stores, the ground effect, and other factors that contribute to the ability of an aircraft taking or landing vertically, I'm not too upset about their STOVL comprimize.

While those paveway bombs can by guided from an aircraft with a laser target designator, they are not fire and forget.  Fire and forget munitions employ their own way of tracking targets- either by using active or passive sensors.  Those paveway bombs look for certain frequencies and patters of laser light only, and you or someone else must guide them to their target the whole way.

If the bomb loses sight of the laser its still going to land somewhere and explode the laser fine tunes its trajectory to hit an exact point. Lets not forget that the Harrier can guide its own LGBs it doesn't need anyone else to do this if it is fitted with a Sniper Pod.laser fires for only 3-5 seconds prior to impact for the F-16. If there is fog the laser won't work anyway since the tgt will be obscured and the optical sight in the pod will be unable to locate the tgt. Thats the only reason I think the pilot would opt for a CCRP delivery. Essentially the bombs need to be dropped for a reason in which case the pilot uses the tgts grid coordinates which is still quite accurate. As I stated earlier the loads that the Harrier uses in Arma are light enough to allow a vertical take-off the main reason that STOL take-offs are mainly used isn't just to do with the weapons load but mainly fuel consumption. The Harrier uses up alot of fuel for a vertical take-off compared to a STOL take-off. Although the loads on both Harrier configurations might appear heavy they are in fact not heavy enough to prevent a vertical take-off for a real Harrier. Especially the Harrier with the A/A missiles which are extremely light compared to LGBs. Those LGBs are also the lighter version of the GBU family so even with 6 of them it'll still be able to take off vertically. If you don't believe me simply use google for the AV8Bs performance and lookup the max takeoff weight for the stores for an AV8B(ref my earlier post) now google the weights for the GBUs and Aim9X.

[Couple of bad things]

Are you guys kidding or playing ****, if you know what I mean why you ask funny questions? Did I said that ArmA is 100% unrealistic? It is realistic, very realistic, but in some elements I feel dissapointed. Do you all now know what I mean?  

Of all the FPS games out there I regard Arma as the most realistic in terms of the manner of which the game is played. Its far better than any of the others with the exception of VBS series. Some of the aspects such as the weapons and vehicle damage modelling etc sort of lessen its realism a little bit but overall there is no other game as realistic as this. I think if the developers wanted to go down the path of more realism in terms of vehicle/weapon damage effect it would certainly add a fair bit to it. Things such as being able to damage a car engine with a M107 or having a proper human damage model when hit by one would be cool as well. eg a .50 hit on a person at 1.5-2km would result in the person being split in half.

[Couple of bad things]

If you notice the "1.0" version of ArmA had the AV-8B with the self-designating sniper pod and then 5 GBU-12's. In whatever recent patch they removed the pod and made it 6 GBU-12's. They must have removed it because it was silly to have the pod on but have it non-functional.

Also while you can drop GBU's in CCIP, CCRP, DTOS, etc modes as free fall munitions, you'd get a severe wrap on the back of the noggin by your commanding officer for doing so as they cost significantly more than your standard Mk83 dumb bombs.

LGB's are not F&F in that they need a laser on target during the fall of the bomb. Similar to the Hellfire missile (except for the L model) the aircraft still needs to lase the target. The fact that the laser pod may be on the right/left side means that the plane cannot bank any ol' which way but has to keep the line to target within the laser head range of motion.

Other aircraft can also lase for the AV-8B in ArmA as well. There's just no default aircraft with lasers. The mapfact AH-64s work nicely.

The idea of any US military combat jet taking off without any A2A missiles is laughable. It just isn't done. The reason they did only one external store is to fit within the engine's weapon proxy limitation.

============

As for the M107 sight being "smart electronic" either you are mistaken or have seen something I haven't. I'm pretty sure the M107 day sight is a Leupod something-x scope with nothing particularly high tech about it. Perhaps you are thinking of the CheyTac M-200 with it's special ballistics calculator PDA-thingy.

Lasers only required for the last 3-5 seconds before impact and the reason other delivery methods are possible is incase the weather causes problems for the delivery.(So in bad weather you can still do some damage A/G radar on its own can still be quite accurate for CCRP delivery if there is low cloud or fog or the sniper pod malfunctions) You can also LOFT delivery on some types of LGBs this is where you first lock the tgt optically then arm the laser and pull back on the stick when the HUD indicates a TOSS symbol. Once the bomb releases you have to bank in the appropriate direction inorder to continue painting the tgt whilst egressing. Using this method you can release the LGBs 4miles away from the tgt IRL. It would've been better for Arma to have a non-working sniper pod as at least it would have a realistic loadout.

[Couple of bad things]

As for the M107 the problem is in the weapons sight IRL those things carry an electronic sight which takes into account range,wind rotation of earth etc So thats why they are alot more accurate IRL when compared to Armas one since the one in Arma carries a normal scope.

[Couple of bad things]

Problem #3:

AV-8 Harrier. As we all know, harrier is a VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing) Aircraft. So... why does it need more than 80km/h to take off? It should start like a helicopter...

(Yes, I done the automatic swing).

And why the bombs GBU-12 PAVEWAY need a Scout with laser to search for targets? Those bombs are kind of 'FAF' bombs (Fire and Forget), they can be guided from aircraft.

I strongly please BIS or even good AddOn makers(good? here masters are needed...) to repair those 'I could say BUGs', otherwise the ArmA can't say that it is the most realistic battlefield simulation...

I recommend looking up a few facts about certain things before being a smartass:

The harrier cannot take of vertically with a full load. It's a V/STOL aircraft(Vertical/Short takeoff and landing). So that's realistic.

The GBU-12 is a laser guided bomb and as thus needs a laser to guide it to it's destination. The harrier in ArmA doesn't have a laser painter on it and needs somebody else to paint that laser. Once you get a lock you can drop the bombs and fly away.

The GBUs can be delivered in CCIP/CCRP/DTOS(like an iron bomb) mode without using the laser. IRL the aircraft can buddy lase the tgts by using another aircraft to paint the target or paint them itself.

Quote[/b] ]The NA configuration includes: night vision goggle-compatible cockpit controls and displays, a wide-field-of-view HUD, a Navigation Forward Looking Infrared (NAVFLIR) system, a Digital Map Unit (DMU), and an Angle Rate Bombing System (ARBS) with laser spot tracker, which provides first pass day or night target strike capability at low altitude/high speed.

So you don't always necessarily need someone else to paint the tgt for you as you can do it yourself. Harriers also carry the Sniper pod for this. As for the FM well it leaves alot to be desired since you can't manually rotate the nozzles and thrust isn't modeled and IRL yes it can land and takeoff vertically but that depends on its take off weight.

Max weight for stores for vertical takeoff is 3062kg as opposed to 7710kg + using short takeoff weight. An Amraam weighs 157kg And Aim 9x weighs 85kg so the A/A variant modeled on ARMA should be able to takeoff vertically IRL with that loadout.(even if it were carrying AMRAAMs) For that matter a GBU12 weighs 363kg x 4 bombs = 1452kg Which means even the GBU version of the Harrier in Arma would IRL be able to do a vertical takeoff IRL.

The Harrier also doesn't have a realistic loadout. IRL you can carry both Aim9s and GBUs and alot of other weapon types no problem.

[Block certain cheat users]

Is there anyway to check if the server you are connecting too is setup to cheat as I notice on the 3rd Inf server(weapons and vehicles tend to disappear) that people are getting killed for no reason. And its a continuous problem on their server. If it weren't for the cheating in this way it would be quite a good server. If they aren't happy with visitors perhaps they should use a password at least thats what I'd do in their situation.

[Vulcan sound]

There are real life M61 sound files on the internet or you could get zzzspaces sound pack for lockon and try using his sample for the gun. The minigun for the UH60 could also use the same file.

[su-34]

Speaking of KA50s check this out:

Black Shark

[su-34]

in real life, theoretically speaking, any air-to-air missle could lock onto a ground target - BUT usually the surrounding terrain provides so much interference that it generally wouldn't work.

Radar AA missiles rely on AA radar which won't pick up objects on the ground but IR missiles might be able to lock up a ground target if it was hot enough - i wonder if there have been any RL instances of this?

Someone did mention something about this on another forum but there is no mention of it on the internet that can confirm such an incident took place.

[su-34]

Quote[/b] ]The passive infrared homing head supports target lock-on before launch. Guidance to the predicted position is by the proportional navigation method. The missile's combat equipment consists of an active proximity (radar or laser) fuze and impact fuze and a continuous-rod warhead. The engine operates on high-impulse solid propellant and has a high-tensile steel case.

Targetting can be done either with radar lock, passively with the seeker uncaged or passively using the EOS(electro optical sight) which has a limit of 67 degrees off boresight. I'm not sure if EOS is fitted to the SU34 but the R73 missile is designed to be used with it. I don't know if you could lock a ground target with EOS but in order to lock it uncaged you would probably need a decent heat source. Even if you did manage to fire an A/A missile at a ground target the results would be not very good against armour for obvious reasons. BTW the AIM9X has an offboresight capability of 90degrees with JHCMS(AV8B) and the A-10 also can carry Aim 9Ms for self protection of course its limited to the HUD to get a lock with the seeker uncaged. I haven't heard of any A/A missiles being used against ground targets but I have heard of aircraft being taken out by A/G weapons eg the Gulf war an LGB took out an Iraqi helicopter, Vihkrs(KA50) can also be used against aircraft as well.

[Speed bleeding while turning Fixed-Wing aircraft]

Actually there is already such a sim in development but they are starting with aircraft and then doing the rest later on. A full battlefield sim has huge potential in both the civilian and military applications. Yes it is upto the devs as its their companies sim if they decide to go that direction it would be upto them. Realism can also be scalable as well Arma has quite alot of features that makes it much more realistic than any other FPS yet some of those features can be disabled for players who prefer less realism. As for Arma now the gunships and CAS aircraft could be alot better without being fully modeled as a proper flight sim.

[Speed bleeding while turning Fixed-Wing aircraft]

Fact is the aircrafts performance should be based on its real life performance not guess work(or what you think it should be for that matter). I believe its possible to achieve such a level in either Arma or Arma2 but its up to the devs if they wish to do it. Maybe they should recruit 2 or 3 more groups:

1/ Aircraft devs

2/ Tanks and vehicles devs

3/ Ships and submarines devs.

Unleash the madness

Arma series could have a flight simulator one day they are getting much closer now than any other FPS so far.

[Speed bleeding while turning Fixed-Wing aircraft]

[quote name=Jex =TE=' date='Oct SU34 should be a much greater threat since it can carry the R77 AAM which is an active radar guided missile. As for A/G it doesn't just carry anti-ship missiles but also a much broader range of rockets and bombs which are deadly against ground

Being an avid flight simmer I realise the realistic loadouts of these AC and the R77 would be fired before the Ac got onto the map. As for Bis mastering realistic FPS? I'm not sure about that claim as I'm not accustomed to getting stuck with bino's in hand, unable to pass sideways through doors, stuck animations, innacurate ballisitcs and a host of other unrealistic behaviours. Arma is a great game but I think there's a lot of work that is needed before we approach realism. Saying it's the most realistic sim we have (as i've read on differing forums) means nothing in any real terms if the next most realisitc sim has a banna gun firiing angry lemmings

Those are minor they ain't show stoppers and overall Arma is far better than any other FPS with the exception of VBS.

[Speed bleeding while turning Fixed-Wing aircraft]

I thought the A10 did own everything, alongside every other aircraft where all you have to do to lock a target up is press the TAB key. The only thing preventing quicker destruction is the fact you have to RTB and rearm - other than a next to useless SU34 AI, nothing shoots you down where the AI are concerned if you fly tactically.

Arma cannot handle large draw distances needed for a flight sim, lacks the flight model, doesn't have any avionics and a laughable HUD and targetting system. In fact, the only thing resembling the actual aircraft is the model. The inclusion of AC must therefore be incidental and I doubt we'll see any major change - however the speed bleed and the throttle need addressing. On my throttle, I seem to have two speed settings, full power or nothing. Choppers seem ok with the throttle but planes seem to suffer.

IRL the SU34 should be a much greater threat since it can carry the R77 AAM which is an active radar guided missile. As for A/G it doesn't just carry anti-ship missiles but also a much broader range of rockets and bombs which are deadly against ground targets. The A-10 dosen't really operate in Arma the way it does IRL as we already know its the draw distance etc You never know though since Bis has practically mastered FPS in a quite realistic manner then its possible that they might do something about it in the future. I wouldn't be surprised if they did theres alot of potential there for some decent battlefields if they decide to use the right people as advisors.

[Speed bleeding while turning Fixed-Wing aircraft]

Against real intelligence (players) it's 50/50 that you either stall and crash or get blown away before that happens. In multiplayer I have been unable to lock player controlled targets with the tab key.

Thats a major part of the problem I have with the gunship and aircraft weapons use. There needs to be an MFD with a seeker view for Mavericks where you can lock them manually onto a ground target and then fire. Someone mentioned such a feature did exist for the KA50 but has been since removed in a patch. For the A-10 to be effective it also needs a CCIP sight in the HUD for dropping bombs same for the other 2 aircraft. Some cool features that would make it even more fun to use would be a COH or HOC view which makes the tgts stand out really well and could also be used in the gunships. IMO its better and more challenging to actually have to locate the tgt visually and manually aim than it is to just push the TAB key to cycle tgts that cannot be seen.