Is it just me and my computer, or does the rifle tracers option in the difficulty settings do nothing? Im an ArmA veteran but Im having a horrific time using the weapons in ArmA2 (which to be fair I've only just got) because the AI use laser guns (with no discernable tracer to know where they are) to shred me whilst I cant even see bullet impacts to gauge if my shots are landing even remotely close! During one test it was taking full 100 round magazines of the MG36 (which seems very accurate) to knock down even one guy at ~200m, because I couldnt even see most of the ground impacts. Without having a real gun in my hands nor the time (or even view of bullet impacts) for hours of practice with each gun like a real soldier, I have no intuitive feel for the aiming or the bullet ballistics. Tracers in ArmA went a long way to alleviating that (in the same way 3rd-person simulates intuitive feel of your body) without actually making hitting things a certainty. But I could at least understand how I was going wrong then. Now I have no way of even improving accuracy as I cant know how inaccurate I'm being!
It wouldnt even be so bad if ArmA games better simulated suppressive fire; instead, I cant stick my head out because of the improbable enemy precision (though doesnt seem as bad as ArmA; I mind enemy accuracy less when I can at least be roughly as accurate), and the AI tend to ignore incoming bullets, which was a liability in ArmA but a strength now its hard to even hit them stationary and standing up! Firefights barely deserve the name because they're resolved by ultra-precision shooting so quickly.
And before someone makes a snarky comment like "get more skillzor", I played ArmA with rifle iron sights (I liked the peripheral vision), rarely using scopes of any kind like I noticed most people used ;) , and was still a good shot. But im finding ArmA2 an exercise in rifle/MG frustration and futility even at realistic iron sights ranges. Is anyone else finding this, or is my graphics card just being uncooperative?
