Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

akd42

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    242

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by akd42

  4. Posted

    Situation is fine as it is. Artillery IS powerful and should not be easy to use 'willy-nilly'.

    No reason to change it just because you find it hard. Practice, practice, practice !

    It is not hard from a game play standpoint, but rather annoying from a interface standpoint. It does not present a game play challenge that is overcome by skill. It presents an input challenge that is determined by input device.

    Real life input for indirect fire weapon is not via mouse (unless of course it is under computer control, in which case azimuth and elevation are automatic). X and Y axis input are discreet. (Or do you fantasize that lowering mouse sensitivity is a skill you acquired through intense practice?)

    This is simply a design limitation, possibly inherent to the game (guns/mortars cannot be leveled on sloped ground). It is not challenging. It simply does not work well under the specific circumstances I indicated (guns/mortars emplaced unrealistically on a slope).

  5. Posted

    Doing an accurate aiming is quite easy and fast if you consider the following things :

    - You don't have to be exactly on the azimuth and elevation with a precision of two decimals. Up to 0.05° of error is not a problem, and I think real artillery often doesn't take care of this tiny deviation.

    - The movement are slower if you're watching in the optic

    - If there is no optic, use the "+" key on the numeric keypad to zoom thus be more precise

    - Decrease your mouse sensitivity in your control options of the game

    I already tried to make a system to adjust the alignment of the piece to the horizon. But the alignment is lost as soon as the player get in gunner.

    You are correct that it is not impossible, it just takes far too much time and tedious mouse movement when artillery is on slope, because X and Y both change simultaneously as you move the controller . Error of 0.5 is likely unless you go very slowly. It would be a little more manageable with input that only changes one axis at a time. But anyways, best solution I think is human fire direction and AI gunners (assuming they won't have issues aiming from minor slopes). Regardless, this addition is truly great.

  7. Posted

    Pardon but how does one enable these? Are they init, sqs..? I am not at all scripting or coding savey so I have no idea but TI2 and TI3 is EXACTLY what I am looking for..

    As for the FLIR, probably but that's not to say they haven't come a long way, have a look around, look at some pictures, watch some videos and see for yourself.

    http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/Arrowhead/ArrowheadVideo1.html here is a great comparison of gulf war era dated FLIR to a more modern FLIR on the Block III AH-64.

    Yeah, and notice how trees are not cold.

  9. Posted

    Not sure if this was present with previous versions, but as of 72418 I'm seeing some very odd behavior with soldiers equipped with the G17 (e.g. KSK team), specifically they are often preferring it to their long guns when they still have plenty of ammo. Just watched an MG36 gunner try to have a firefight with one at 300m. Didn't work out to well.

    In a related issue, if the MG36 gunner happens to choose to actually use his MG36, he will fire it as a long continuous series of single shots, which sounds very odd.

  15. Posted · Edited by W0lle
    Image > 100 kb

    Hi, let me cast some light on the suspicious choices of optics on L85A2. As we don't have that many acquaintances in British Armed Forces, we often had to make compromises (which is also the case of vehicles).

    Regarding the Eotech holosight, we obtained some pictures showing L85A2 with these sights (however, I have to admit the photos might have depicted some unique setups), and we agreed on it as on a good representation for an assault rifle with a collimator sight.

    We chose SUSAT because we simply liked the idea of bringing it to the game. We felt that providing different optics would be refreshing compared to reusing the same ACOG optics again.

    AN/PEQ-2s were used as the default laser pointers in order to save some research and development time. The other types look almost the same to a common user, so we decided to re-use the existing data in this case and focus on something more substantial (like making the obsolete SUSAT optics ;) ).

    While I understand the concerns regarding the DLC's accuracy, I have to say that it is more important for the BAF DLC team to deliver the bug-free product with interesting campaign and missions than a super-accurate addon which would only enrich the mission editor. I am sure the compromises we made in the realism won't harm the experience from the playable content.

    Obviously only minor things, but maybe for a future update you might consider a more accurate depiction of British small arms in 2012, something down these lines:

    http://i28.tinypic.com/2uzcyfl.jpg

  16. Posted

    L86 is being replaced by the L129a1? Are you sure you don't mean the L96, not L86?

    Not necessarily replaced one for one. The L129a1 is one per section where the L86a2 is/was two per section. It's just that the L86 doesn't seem to be used much anymore and the L129a1 is a bit more "future direction." But to be fair, the M110 in the game looks more like a L129a1, so it wouldn't really be anything new. :)

  17. Posted

    Hi guys will the there be special forces or Recce units included in the dlc

    The way described, the units would seem to represent something akin to the 16 Air Assault Brigade Pathfinder Platoon.

    The Pathfinder Pl is an independent unit within 16 Air Asslt Bde.

    It is made up of volunteers from all cap badges across all three

    Services and its role is to provide ISTAR info to the Bde Comd to

    enable 16 Air Asslt Bde ops.

    This means that the Pathfinder Patrols need to be skilled in

    different insertion and patrol skills to enable them to operate at

    long ranges and completely self sufficiently.

    http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?163283-Pathfinder-Platoon-16-Air-Assault-Bde&p=4348619&viewfull=1

  18. Posted

    This is set in 2012 to be more exact. And with full respect, none of us can predict future with total accuracy. However, I will ask BAF team to provide you with more specific feedback why they decided to do it this way.

    Use of ACOG is current and started several years ago. No need to predict the future. Also surprised to see the L86 and not the new L129a1. Hardly ever see the L86 on ops anymore.

  20. Posted

    ;1415725']Have u ever looked trough any scope? Especially ACOG... It is far more realistic even with some "issues" (not only view in scope is zoomed' date=' outside part is zoomed too) we can't fix/overrun (did i use proper word here?). :p[/quote']

    Yes I have. Like I said, it looks better in the sense that you feel the scope is there, but having a black matte is more realistic than having a zoomed and focused peripheral area and a perfectly in focus scope body. If the scope body and areas visible around the scope were very blurry, it would be a step towards realism.

    And I don't know why you say "especially ACOG". Optically, the ACOG is just a 4X scope. The ACOG models that use the BAC simply provide a bright aiming point that your brain superimposes on the visual field of the user. That means when not focused on the scope, you still get an aiming point, but you do not get the magnified view while also having the areas outside the scope in focus. However, the version in the game is truly just a 4x scope. You can use any scope with both eyes open, but your brain cannot focus the image in the scope and out of the scope simultaneously.

  24. Posted

    Silencers/suppressors on the other hand would be more realistic and especially for sniper riffles i think it is very common they attach/detach it. It is possible, but has some negative points afak.

    Only negative of attaching and detaching a suppressor, especially a QD (quick detach) suppressor is potential for a shift in zero (i.e. your rifle was shooting one MOA groups at point of aim before, and is now shooting one MOA groups high and to left of point of aim. So snipers would probably be the least likely to take them on and off with any frequency. However, some newer designs largely eliminate zero shift.

  25. Posted

    Thanks a lot for the answers, I also hope to hear something about the subject from the team behind ACE. Before asking I looked for RL pictures of the marines and most of them had indeed ACOGs. Any ideas about why the Marine Corp prefer ACOGs or plain iron sights while the army goes with the Aimpoint?

    Because every Marine is a rifleman. ;) Seriously, the Marines have always placed a premium on marksmanship, and the ACOG is a precision optic. However, I have never seen anything to suggest that iron sights would be preffered over a CCO outside of training/competition.

×