instagoat

http://www.military-today.com/apc/cv90_armadillo.htm <- Robert Hammer found this one to match pretty well, and it looks quite similar. Other suggestion is that it´s a hybrid Puma/Marder

Nope, I mean the make. The Panther is a Namer (Israeli IFV based on the Merkava). I just can´t Identify what vehicle the BTR-K is based on.

What kinda Vehicle is the BTR-K? I´ve never seen that thing before, but daaaaamn it looks mean...

Just wanted to note this, the new dev version has added new sights for the SMG's. When using the extension pbo from the last version of the optics, these new sights do not work anymore (They´re Identical to the normal versions, apart from zeroing, so I don´t mind much since I do not use the SMG's a lot anyways. Just wanted to note this.) I think the inflexible config setup is fouling things up, isn´t it? Has there been any feedback on the ticket by a dev?

These guns are fantastic, I especially love the properly done AFG version. Much better feeling and looking than the way too short BI AFG on the MX's. I´m enjoying these tremendously, thanks a lot to the creators! :>

Looking around in general is broken now. Run forward and use any of the numpad keys to look around: you will spin incontrollably. When you use alt+mouse to look, once you release the alt key your character will spin in the opposite direction you looked, which is extremely disorientating. Is this on the feedback tracker already?

Granted, I am coming off as a bit anal here, however, it´s just the inconsistency that bugs me a bit. The AMV originally had the CITV modelled, however, since there are tons of pictures of the Merkava with and without a gun on top, I am actually beginning to think we will see multiple variants with or without a Commander? I´d be rather happy if someone from BI could tell us what's going on here. Is this just a temporary "beta" AMV, or is this THE AMV and the Strider will also have its Commander removed, or what?

Why not model a version without a turret then. The polish AMVs do not have turrets, and instead mount only driver and commander, and give the commander a Stryker style RCWS. If they build a turret, at least go all the way and not mount a castrated version. The actual layout of the turret is apparently as follows: The Turret at an exhibition. Note position of the Coax gun port above and left side of the main cannon, as well as the Gunner's optics mounted where in our version the coax is located. It also sports a CITV on top of the turret. My Rivet-counting labelled OMG ERRYTHANGS WRONG picture. I´d at least like to see the CITV come back, and enhanced Commander's features for the final game. We also need some sort of defensive system, and smoke dispensers, at the least. This, or remove the turret and replace it with an RCWS.

Oh look, it´s this argument again. I repeat. The assets don't matter unless the gameplay supports them. A tank is a tank, and a gun is a gun. If the game had 80s assets, it would still play in an identical manner, apart from the magic AT launchers. Otherwise, it would be -identical- to what it is now, with the future assets. Or what else are you complaining about? That you can move now without feeling like you´re a sedated cow with its pants full of bricks? Or that you can aim now like it´s 2006, and not 1999 anymore? Or that you can suddenly throw grenades in a way that makes them useable? Or that every surface now has penetration, including bodies? Or that we now have a decent Inventory system? I know the game has tons of problems. But I do not understand why people focus on what's ultimately visual superficialities if core features are still lacking. Your 1985 M60 won´t be better than our 2035 modded Merkava because Armour simulation, Fire Control Systems, Commander Features and Sound simulation will be the lackluster same. Heck, you could model a 1945 tank and a 2035 one with the features in the game now and there would be no gameplay difference apart from the fact that the new one will have thermals and magic instant rangefinding (but incremental zeroing and/or magic autozeroing via right click lock). All of these are GAMEPLAY and GAME ENGINE problems. Who cares about the assets if even the core features are turning out to remain problematic?

Because Arma is not a Helicopter simulator. There are some universally missing features, such as proper HUD's, Laser Rangefinding, Targeting systems, etc, but details like switchable MFDs or Advanced startup or throwing tracks on tanks or whatever is just rivet counting.

Shooting competitions E-Sports would be great. Why does everybody assume CS style adversarials. Arma can do -much- more. Also, no game ever was designed for E-sports. I do not understand what everyone has against the suggestion of having Arma E-Sports.

Opfor Uniform on a technological basis should do this already, but doesn´t. What also doesn´t seem to be modelled is ground temperature: I´ve seen some pictures of TI taken in the desert, where the entire picture was basically white. So, even at points where the Ti should be useless due to atmospheric and ground/target temperature contrast problems, people remain perfectly visible. Furthermore, we have no Idea how the TI affects the AI. I find it kinda hard to balance things in a mission if you don´t even know what your assets do.

Commander set of controls needs to be expanded, anyway. For example, turret override and turret pointing by the commander, gun override for the commander, as well as better observation capability than the gunner, etc. For example, irl, most modern tanks have an override for the turret on the commanders control stick. He pushes, and the tank locks the gunner out and automatically points the main gun exactly where the commander is looking with his CITV (and then he can either tell the gunner to fire, or fire himself using the trigger override). That ability is lacking completely in Arma. http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11275 made a ticket asking for such controls.

The two man Patria does not even have a turret, if anything it will have an RCWS like the Stryker. The Stryker MGS, however, DOES have a three man crew (unless you´re playing Operation Arrowhead.... heh). It makes no sense not to have three crewmembers. If this is an AI problem, then will we also see two man MBT's?

I prefer to play as Vehicle commander, rather than gunner myself.

Also, if you want insurgents, just take soldiers, give them civvie clothes, chestrigs and tac vests, headscarves and turbans and w/e and hand them some AKs from a mod. There´s a reason why we have the new clothing system.

The thing is already too easy.

Use All in Arma. Also, the models are not the problem. The problem is again the core of the engine. No native HUDs for vehicles, no laser rangefinding (instead, magic), no Fire control systems beyond right-click-to-win, magic spacebar reveal, absent proper medical system, etc, etc. Complaining about the art assets is completely missing the point. In fact, the art assets, along with the new movement and animation system are among the best things the game has to offer right now. Maybe focus on gameplay flaws instead.

I´ve had a thought about switching to the launchers, and reloading them here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11075 Any opinions on this? I think that switching on the move is necessary, not just for infantry combat, but also for the competition scenarios like the firing drills. Contrary to what it is like now, switching weapons on the move should be always possible, while trying to reload some weapons on the move should be impossible. For example, it is difficult to reload a belt-fed weapon while moving, I imagine. But you can put it away and pull out your pistol instead, irl.

Happens when you basically take an AR-15 action and then turn it into a bullpup. The selector is where it would be on an M-16. Difference is, the M-16 is not a bullpup. But I guess in Iran "User Interface Design" is an as of yet undiscovered field of engineering expertise.

http://denellandsystems.co.za/infantry_systems/LCT30.html http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3096.html A two man turret, designed to use a specially designed 30mm cannon as described here. It´s not a CTWS, as it is currently called (That is a british weapon.). Incorrectly, the spot currently used for the optic is actually the place where the weapon appears to throw out spent cartridges in reality. Apparently offers single and fully automatic modes, not just fully automatic as modelled. http://www.pmp.co.za/index.php?page=mediumcalibre6 uses these rounds. I am not sure, but apparently this does not fire air burst ammunition. The 40mm CTWS does, however, and if BI elects to use that weapons system on the Marshall, I´d rather like to see that ammo type, since it is General Purpose and not specialised ammunition. At any rate, the turret as described in the above website offers observation devices for both gunner and COMMANDER. The Vehicle should be provided with a Commander, and give the Commander his observation sight. This is especially inconsistent when considering that the Strider -does- have a Commander. Why should the equivalent of the OFP .50 cal Jeep get a Commander with a specialized sight, while the Infantry's most important direct support vehicle will not get one? Also pls add working Laser Rangefinders, BI, the click to win system (as it now turns out to be) is not fun anymore.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11030 I´ve made a ticket asking for clarification about the encumbrance and asking for it to be brought back in case they decided to actually cut it. Would be nice if people could vote on this, and the other critical gameplay features we need (Tank/Helo FCS, AI, Infantry Combat related things.)

The Marshall direly needs the commander with his CITV. I´d be rather annoyed if they decide to cut that out for "balancing" purposes, especially if their balancing as they say is geared towards player vs AI parity, rather than MP parity. MP parity implies that both sides use identical tools, however, that´s for games like counterstrike and team fortress. Why was the AMV-7s Commanders Sight removed?

I think another problem is the fact that just by fiddling with the sliders in the options you can produce wildly deviant results. There should be some sort of basic testing setup (ie, one difficulty only, no changes.) For example I ran my AI tests earlier on veteran difficulty, with unchanged values. Towards the end of the alpha, I modified my config again (did this in Arma 2 too, to get the AI competent again after the AI mods nerfed them (but also gave them essential skills like scavenging AT weapons or suppressing)) and stopped doing the arena tests because any result I´d be getting now wouldn´t be what everyone else would see. Without some sort of guideline as to what settings to use, AI tests become very much diminished in their value. There should be native settings with satisfactory values, but what those are is highly subjective. I would suggest to the BI devs to visit google scholar and try to find some statistics on ammunition expended versus casualties inflicted, and read AARs on top of doing the balancing thing. Flopping about between often very different player feedbacks, some of whom use modified configs and not just the difficulty sliders will not lead to satisfactory results, I think. This isn´t a fine tuning question: there´s something way off in the way the AI handles their weapons right now that needs to be adressed. Too high precision (or way too low depending on manual setting), very erratic precision, reckless use of handgrenades, sniping machinegunners over hold-fire-at-all-times-snipers running around, AT gunners completely dominating the battlefield, AI standing up all the time rather than ducking or going prone, etc. Again, I still have this mild fear that the AI doesn´t just need adjusting, but maybe a wholesale replacement with a brand new, bottom to top, built with lessons learned engine that also does not impact performance the way the current AI does. I think the details in themselves are mild, overall, by their individual impact. But I think what you can´t talk away is the amount of problems that the kind of gameplay the AI has to cope with poses to them.

Yep. Good Idea. Actually I had an Idea for an Armaverse, musically driven, AI heavy, 1st person COD style modern warfare shooter. Except completely without multiplayer, no loading sequences, and a female lead character. How about that?