nkenny

@mmm Interesting. I did not delve into the dark arts that is the skill settings of Arma3. Instead I wanted to run a baseline of sorts were ostensibly identical weapons were compared in similar situations. Repeating the experiment with the AI skill set to 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 1.0 would perhaps yield interesting data. To respond to some of your questions and input. 1. Suppression dramatically decreases the effective accuracy of the soldier. Follow the references for more numbers. In regards to automatic rifles vs marksman rifles. I ran some tests where I compared a standing AKM shooter to a standing machine gunner. While I did not perform a full experiment, the general trend was that standing at 100-200 meters, assault rifles are more effective. Machine guns will consistently overshoot the target. Of course, this is a white room experiment, and not a duel environment with cover, concealment and multiple stances. I will agree to your other assessment. My limited tests with marksman rifles show that these, particularly paired with optics, are very deadly. 2. The effect of weapon optics on AI is considerable. An MX rifle equipped with a HAMR optic is nearly twice as efficient as a bare bones rifle (Source). As I'm not sat before an Arma capable computer at the moment, I can't point you to the config values. But I do recall there are different shooting (or recoil?) patterns for optics. Let me get back to you on that. 3. I have not checked the stances! It is a very interesting area. Still this is easy to do within the testing suite. It is my belief that weapon resting and bipod use are not considered for AI. But the prone stance in particular is. I did run some tests at 300 meters, unrecorded, but stopped because the RHS AKM was simply unable to score more than a single hit. Setting the unit to prone resulted in two hits. Repeating the test across a wider range of distances and stances is next on my todo list.

I would just like to add my voice to the choir. Where JSRS has gone through many design visions, I feel that the latest one is the best yet. The clear distinctions of distance and weapon type. Add to this widely ranging support for mods. Beautiful. -k

Congrats on the release Diwako! -k

@Chairborne @NeoArmageddon Just for the records and the powers that might be. I was poking fun at the apparent inconsistency. I find NeoArmageddon's explanation very fair. And in any case the changes are sensible. If anything it brings the CUP content more in line with ACE2 for Arma2-- which was a wonderful standard. The seeming lack of organisational principle does offer a challenge. The tension is well illustrated in Damian90's explication on tank variants. In short: Should CUP attempt to model modern day units and gear OR should CUP attempt to model Arma2's 2009 predictions and particular idiosyncrasies. That question is not for me to settle. Indeed, NeoArmageddon's pragmatical approach is a solution. I am in any case thankful for the vast amount of work that goes into providing this content. -k

According to the same logic, shouldn't US ARMY be equipped with the SCAR L? Is there a selection principle at work? - k

Dear Bohemia developers, This is a wonderful inclusion. I love you to death for it. That said. Simple olive drab textures for some few AAF and CSAT assets would radically multiply the potential scenarios mission makers working within the confines of vanilla Arma3 could create. At practically zero cost and effort. Kind regards, Devoted fan

also: @magnetar I wonder if this issue was resolved. We have in nopryl.no been struggling with a similar experience. Before I register a GitHub entry, I wonder if there is some easy self-evident fix. The problem has been difficult to pin down. Generally our sessions run between 25-35 players. Our server is quite good with a decent connection (hosted and built privately). Every time we think we found it, ACRE functions flawlessly. Generally breakdown of communications occurs at around the 30-40 minute mark of the mission, though hardly consistently. We have long suspected it is somehow related to respawning, but even that fails to consistently cause issues. It affects all classes of radios. Though helicopters are sometimes suggested as a common denominator (then again helis are in Arma rather prone to crashing). To give a brief description: The problem appears as one unit suddenly fails to hear radio signals from others. Frequently, that units transmissions are heard by others. This sometimes causes as a ring-around-the-roasies hilarity where X can speak to Y but only listen to Z, who in turn can listen to Y-- but not hear from X. In any case. We kinda lucked out last Tuesday and got the event on Twitch and got server logs and I am also in the process of collecting RPTs from players. Like I said: before I went through he effort of a GitHub entry-- I wanted to ask here first. -k

Seem to have the same problem with RHS AH-64Ds and AH.1Zs

Cool finds. These targets would be superbly useful if they didn't block bullets and were super visible/threatening. A vehicle sized one that attracted vehicle munitions would be very useful as well, eg,. putting a vehicle target on a building to have AI destroy it with cannon and rockets. -k

I dislike the recent changes in the development version. I get what BI are trying to accomplish and think that with a little refinement the system can be made better overall. In its current state there are problems. 1. My main concern is the lack of feedback in the prone position. @joostsidy writes above that it should be a shame if bipods become a type of 'enchantment'. The lack of feedback for entering bipod mode while prone, particularly with no bipod equipped, makes it just such a hidden accuracy enchantment. Adding an animation state to prone+bipod animations (though retaining the new torso-pivot) would be necessary to retain immersion. 2. Removing the ability to deploy weapons without a bipod while prone is a bad idea. To do so would disrupt the consistency of that core weapon interactivity; weapons should always fundamentally handle the same. 3. The concern that deployment is an enchantment is an analysis that could equally apply to the weapon rested state. There is no interface element, beyond a subtle icon change. Personally I would prefer super-sticky deployment (with clearly indicated animation states) to inconspicuous accuracy increases. Player toggled deployment, even if floaty, is preferable to an indistinct and hidden rested state. 4. Query: It seems to me that the weapon deployment for crouched/wall animations has changed? If so it feels smoother and an improvement on vanilla. -k

You are on fire! 4th great map in a row. Or is it five?

Is it possible to replace the default mission loading screen with a custom one? I want to replace the map, loadingbar, time of day, and all that jazz with a simple black screen with some white text on it-- think quote sized. I have already done some searching, but have failed to wrap my head around the problem. https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Loading_Screens https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/140951-dimensions-for-mp-mission-loading-screen-image/ -k

After having played a bit with dynamically attaching Laser Targets to objects (code attached), I wish this interface could be built into the editor and extended. It would be of tremendous benefit for scenario flow and design if we could get some DUMMY TARGETS that would trigger certain scenario behaviour. Better still if these could be dynamically scripted, transformed, moved, and etc., via the usual interfaces. The dummies would be super visible (no stealth) and highly lucrative (target priority) Types: Infantry target -- A dummy object which entices the AI to suppress the location Vehicle target -- A dummy object which attracts AT weapons and cannonfire Artillery target -- Have nearby artillery dynamically find and hammer this location Laser Designator -- Simply making it an object in the editor. The area of use is fairly self explanatory. And even though the effect can be achieved by scripting, this necessitates knowing which AI and vehicles are present. I would like an in-engine solution which is dynamically accessible to scripters and mission designers. Putting down a vehicle target on an occupied building or bunker network would see AI target said location with AT weapons and cannons. Effect would be great. // Add and paint Target for EAST JET // version 1.0 // by nkenny // init _p = (_this select 0) call bis_fnc_position; _r = param [1,200]; // position _p2 = _p getPos [random _r,random 360]; // target _t = "Sign_Sphere100cm_F" createVehicle _p2; _lt = "LaserTargetE" createVehicle (getposatl _t); _lt attachTo [_t, [0, 0, 0]]; // eventhandler _EH = _lt addEventHandler ["IncomingMissile", { if (var_debug) then {systemchat format ["MISSILE: %1",_this];}; [(_this select 0)] spawn {sleep 10; deletevehicle (_this select 0);}; } ]; // debug if (!var_debug) then {_t setObjectTextureGlobal [0, ""];} else {[_t,"Laser Target"] call nk_fnc_DotMarker}; // end true

It came to me that I should, in the manner of the ancients give praise, set aside a moment to offer praise to this mod package. It has after all featured so prominently in the years of Arma 3 gaming. So please forgive this act of necromancy, because the reason is one of good will. It boggles the mind how important Killoch's Mulitnational Pack has been for my community. For since it's release it, alongside CBA, have been the only persistent-- thus longest serving-- instances in nopryl.no's mod milieu. Only with KMNP did the true extension of possible scenarios in Arma3 begin. The modpack came with a generous selection of uniforms and other paraphernalia. Furthermore it delivered with an increasingly consistent quality. Indeed the very straightforward simplicity of its selection only added to the impact the mod has had on the types of scenarios we play. It has never been a mod overloaded with nonessentials. In combination with vanilla assets it permitted endless combinations and expressions. Even today where a veritable plethora of mods extent the envelope of possible scenarios, I find myself returning to KMNP. Only two weeks ago when we played a winter scenario KMNP assets were again in the fore. Only yesterday when we wore Norwegian uniforms the same was true. This is not to say that other content creators have not done important work. Alongside with Killoch's has of course been the development, updating, refining of terrains to fit. But terrains have come and gone. KMNP has remained. The compactness of its size and richness of content is inspirational. Indeed as a creator playing with unit uniform and weapon selections has been the test lab for many a scenario. Countless hours gameplay. Endless hours of development. All compounded by the number of players which have worn these trappings. In fact, here I speak only for myself and our community. I suspect there are others that have enjoyed the same. KMNP has truly been a game changer KMNP has been with us for a long time. I find it difficult to imagine Arma3 without it. There are other mods of grander size and scope, of greater realism or higher resolution, but none have come to match the all-encompassing utility that KMNP has offered. It was at the right time and the right place. It had the right level of quality at just the right weight in megabytes. So thank you Killoch and three cheers for KMNP! -k

Indeed. Actually, the lack of Navid or SPMG static/tripod with the marksman DLC is one of the oddest omission. -k

I really enjoy the new vehicle mounted weapons. If the models are currently in the development stream it would be hot to see static turret versions of some of these weapon. As a scenario designer the ultra modern, sensored .50 Cal and 20mm static weapons are rarely approriate. -k

Henceforth I shall be known as Nostradamus. In other news I am a little disapointed. The Rhino MGS is precisely what I expected, but contrary to what I really feel Bluefor needs. While I am sympathetic to the interesting gameplay offered by highly mobile glass cannons, a faction already bound together with eclectic hardware could do very well with some robust options. The contrast to the T-140 Angara couldn't be greater. Aside from being a T-14 reskin, it's position in gameplay seems to be a better T-100. The command version comes with an autocannon! Imagine instead a T-72 or T-55. Superficially inferior, but in adding outdated assets the quality of modern (2035) equipment would come into sharper contrast. T-55s or T-72s would also enable familiar scenarios-- where a technological superior, though typically outnumbered, faction attempts kinetic persuasion on another nation. Reference: every armed conflict where a G20 member has participated since Korea. I am very happy with the new launchers and armed soft trucks. And I hope BIS continues to add additional texture options. The MBT-52 KUMA reskinned to NATO livery would silence much of my concerns. -k

Very much yes. -k

Crew jumping out of a burning vehicle ought to be suppressed to hell and back. Possibly the best demonstration of a suppressed state is found in RHS flashbang grenades. The flashbang forces the AI into one of a number of animations. Being animation locked for a short duration neatly and clearly demonstrated that the soldier is incapacitated/suppressed. In regards to active suppressive fire. I've been using a system similar, but less clever than shown by @fn_Quiksilver. The change is dramatic. When the AI engaged in periods of (abstract) area fire it shapes the battlefield and emulated the behaviour of human players. Particularly when vehicles engage in more indiscriminate area fire (with their powerful and accurate weapons) the effect is good. An 'attackTarget' command would be very helpful. -k

Really cool! Ought to be part of ACE main branch -k

I think so too. Though quick change seats is pretty convenient when testing.

LAV-25? MUCH EXCITE. -k

Like I wrote elsewhere. I hope we could get a proper tank and tracked IFV for NATO. As is I am expecting some weird turret-less stealth-rocket tank hybrid. *sigh* Being real. Do not underestimate the gameplay benefit of getting older outdated tanks for factions that already have fairly modern solutions. Older tanks have interesting simulations-capabilities and the ebb and flow of capabilities make for interesting assymetric gameplay. A modernised T72 for CSAT would be interesting. T55 or T34 for indep (syndicate like forces) too. To show off how good an ultra-modern MBT really is. It can be nice to have inferior foes to mess around with.

#industry mockup -k

TANKs DLC Hopes and expectations Bohemia has so far been tight lipped about the features that will make their way into the DLC. The only thing I have seen is a promise of vehicle interiors, updated handling characteristics and three new MBTs. Going by the current, rather eclectic selection of vehicles in vanilla ARMA3 my expectations aren't great. The rule of thumb seems to be that CSAT gets the best, most robust and tactically useful assets. See T-100, BTR-K and MSR-3 Marid in contrast to the NATO selection. In fact, pick any category and the trend repeats itself. I am afraid we will see some weird hybrid unmanned rocket-turret tank for NATO with some odd glass-cannon weaknesses. Where the CSAT will earn themselves yet another sleek companion to the T-100. It is obviously too late, but my hopes are in fact not only concerning tanks. I would like to see NATO get a proper MBT like a Abrams, Challenger or Leclerc -- not some weird tall passenger carrying Merkava , without any of the features which makes it such a formidable tank (including a proper 120mm turret). Next I would love to see Bluefor get a proper tracked IFV: Cv90, Puma or similar. Finally, give us a useful spread of alternate textures for all current assets. Simple Olive Drab will do wonderfully. It would increase the types of scenarios where vanilla assets can be used exponentially. Seems to me that CSAT are currently very well spoken for in terms of armoured assets. As are the AAF. Only NATO (ironically a larger conglomerate of armed forces from many nations) are weirdly limited. Thanks for reading