John Kozak

Counter-example: defending a hill with 5 players while being assaulted by 10 AI. You can't maneuver in such situation. And while "by the book" you are on par with attackers, in fact players will be at disadvantage.

Is it an attempt to insult?

Not really. I agree with the points about AI lacking reaction to fire, but. What you're describing is "teamwork over accuracy" win, and doesn't mean AI is less skilled in shooting than player. On Elite, AI is much more capable in shooting performance than player, but is lacking in other areas - that's why the situation is winnable. What galzohar is talking about, however: is wrong. Making a headshot from 1st try with a Mk20 with ironsights at 400 meters (which is a pretty common situation) is not something a player can achieve :) And if the player will be behaving same as AI, he will lose in every engagement - just because he'll be worse shot than AI. Currently, the player can win only by tactics and tricks. ________________________________________ Back to the topic of sway. While current state of weapon sway may be realistic - I don't possess experimental data to support or refute such point yet - it is certainly annoying for both old players and newcomers. In my opinion, it just makes shooting at distances feel frustrating. While I support "realism over balance" motto, I can't help but note that without other features which are complementing that (bipods, weapon resting, wind affecting the shots, angle-based elevation/windage instead of distance-based) current sway gives too much punishment without a reward. Simple benchmark: hitting a target at 1400 meters is very hard currently because of sway. IRL? well, if you have a CheyTac Intervention with their trademarked ballistic computer, in no-wind environment it will be an easy task. And no, don't tell me about "winds which are always present in real life". In A2OA+ACE, I could have reliably hit a target at such distance, provided a Kestrel and a good spotter. Whatever the justification for it may be provided - current sway just detracts from the fun, in my opinion. This is especially hurting given the BIS's direction to "new player adoption" - which cut out many of other undeniable realism features, but somehow left one of arguable ones.

You have never tried Veteran or Elite difficulty.

Great job with the update. Vehicles fit pretty organic with all the other AAF assets. I like the tank prototype selection. They're only available through scripting at the moment. One of the classnames is "arifle_MXM_black_F" (all are available through config browser)

Set "AA & PP" => "Depth of Field" to zero. It's a known & unfortunate bug.

Yes, please do exactly that.

Night in Negades is a great 2 player mission, for a start. Haven't checked it on dedicated server, though. I've got a feeling most 2-player missions would be created for hosted server, not dedicated.

Put "damage offrd1<0.5" :-)

To call me a troll you'll have to give something more than what you've written so far... For example, listening to what other people say might help. And now I can say for sure you are a troll. Quite a common pattern: drop in some nonsense appeal to emotions ignore what others say, until everyone is angered potray a victim of "evil part of community" call those who try to reason "trolls" attempt to split up the community by suddenly agreeing with somebody repeat Too fat.

Same here. Workshop missions are not visible in MP Does this relate to silencers or weapons in general?

Because this is how it is in real life. Reflex/holo scopes work exactly this way. Sorry, but you're arguing quantity yet fail to understand you've got quality mistake. ORLY? :D ORLY? :D :D Is your nick on the feedback tracker Fri13? I recognize some of the moves here.

But whatever it is, the basic condition still holds: when the bullet leaves the barrel, it flies to where the barrel end is pointing (plus weapon's inherent inaccuracy - several MoA), not 10 degrees off. You're proposing to break the basic simulation truths for some artificial gameplay limitations/rewards - okay, it's fine for a game, but for another sort of game. It's fine for CoD or Battefield or Borderlands, but not for ArmA. You can never perfect it, but why do you think noone can? It was made clear enough to you. Don't propose nonsense and you won't be tired reading responses on it :) Noone says the problem does not exist - it does, indeed. But your way of solving it is invalid - it's like adding auto-aim to "simulate the soldier training".

No, it is not :)

Realism + immersion. Both are sacrificed in your idea. Soldier's skills can be taken into account in other ways without that sacrifice. Randomized recoil is one of them.

This idea is implemented in many arcade shooters, but is not appropriate for a simulator. Reason is simple: in real life, the bullet is flying (roughly) where the aim is pointing. If you have a laser aim on a weapon, it will fly along that laser and not to some point 10 degrees to the side. This is a basic thing expected from a simulator or simulator-themed game. So, no, unfortunately, this doesn't make sense in the context of ArmA. I would not object against a more random recoil pattern, though. Something in line of "current vertical recoil (reduced) + random element". Current recoil is way too uniform - regardless of shooting position or target movement.

Hmm. I was under strong impression I saw it somewhere (30th or 31st of Nov). But now I can't find it anywhere. :j: Apologies. Must have confused it with something else.

What I mean is that in addition to placing the module you'll need to setup a marker where enemy units will spawn and put its name into the module ;) That's all. (at least, according to the video. maybe it's not mandatory) Is 30th of November the full release date or RC1? Can't wait to try.

Following the Audio discussion thread, here's the poll related to that hot question. Feel free to vote and share your opinions.

There are 4 videos the guys have set up to show how it works, recommend watching it. It's a bit more complex than just setting up a base, but just a little bit ;-)

Awesome mod, feels really appropriate to the setting. Great addition for "behind enemy lines" and long range patrols types of missions. Just one small thing: don't you think it should actually have more yaw and roll authority, than pitch? Roll must be easily achievable by changing thrust of left/right engines slightly; yaw control - by changing nacelle angle. Now it has good pitch control and everything else is lacking.

I wasn't referring to your video (I didn't even see it). What I'm telling is that if there is such effect IRL, I'd like to also see it ingame - irrespective to yours or any other video around. 120mm shell was just an example. But I'd suggest to continue the discussion in the separate thread (link in my previous post).

Here's some reference: http://www.makeitlouder.com/Decibel%20Level%20Chart.txt From there: 180 (P) 1 POUND T.N.T. AT 15 FEET -REF.4. 187 (P) 1 TON T.N.T. AT 100 FEET, EXACTLY 186.8 DB -REF.4. So, an artillery shell (which contains 15-25 pounds of HE) falls somewhere inbetween. Assuming that sound pressure level is proportional to the explosive mass (which is not true, but an approximation) and 20 pounds of TNT, we get 193dB at 15 feet, and correspondingly ~180dB at 60 feet ("6 dB per double distance" law, also doesn't actually apply here - but again, it's an approximation). Verification: going from the other side, 1 short ton / 20 pounds = 100 = 20 dB; (187 - 20 + 6) dB = 173 dB at 50 feet - close, given our wide assumptions. 173 dB is pretty much enough to knock out your hearing ;) According to NeuroFunker - you'll be dead, but still have damn good hearing :D

I want the correct gameplay. ArmA 3 a game first, machinima creation tool second. Do you want to just walk away from a 120mm shell that exploded 20 meters from you? EDIT: posted a poll related to the question.

With this in mind, can I kill an enemy who is currently connected to a UAV and use the terminal to control an enemy drone?