instagoat

An easter egg version of this that's actually an airsoft gun and has a really overly exagerrated thumb over bore magpul style grip would be cool. And then have it only unlock on April 1st. Loving this, especially with the new weapons switching, I am really tempted to get into runnin and gunnin again.

Why not test it. Put some units down, take the different weapons at combat ranges and shoot to see what happens. Especially now with the arsenal integration, this kind of test is easy to do. You can even test armor/Helmet/clothes combinations otherwise nto available very easily. But in my experience, the performance difference between MX and Katiba is effectively nil. And the slight armor benefit CSAT gets really only helps against the lighter calibers, long distance FN-2000 shots or pistol rounds. The LMG situation is the only thing where CSAT has a real advantage, they are the only ones with a squad level support weapon that has a large battle rifle caliber round. The MK200 the AAF gets is a brilliant weapon, though, and if used correctly it should level the advantage from 200 meters in. The Units are fairly well balanced, performance wise I think. For vehicles that's maybe a different story, but correctly using your vehicles can make a T-55 cut a T-100 to ribbons even if 1 on 1, the T-100 should win every time.

With the lynx I think it is more of a forward assist drill. Pull the bolt back, let it close, then push on the charging handle to make sure the bolt is securely in battery. The default manual of arms with M4s includes this too, as far as I can remember. Put in the magazin, push the bolt release/pull back and release the bolt, tap the forward assist to make sure the bolt is in battery. Riding the bolt home would mean the operator is deliberately holding the bolt back as it attempts to move forward.

Have you tried playing tanks? Not small 10 minute battles, but 1 hour plus ops. It's not fun. I'll compare A3 to the only Tank Sim I regularily play anymore, and have played recently, SABOW. A3 Tank Simulation, Driving physics: No ground resistance modelling, combined with an extremely twitchy driving model. Tanks reach extremely high speeds extremely quickly, spin around at extreme rates, and even in the slowest tank (Slammer by default) movement is so quick that a measured approach to anything is impossible. Vehicles feel as if they are made of cardboard and are driven by jet engines. SABOW: Tank simulation, Driving physics: Very detailed modelling of ground resistance as well as advanced ground condition modelling (Wet vs dry ground, track slippage and blockage, things like that.) combined with a very well done driving model. Tanks feel extremely heavy and sluggish, like they have weight behind them. Slowest movement speeds are slower than walking pace, allowing very conscious and deliberate placing of your vehicle: no unintentional running over walls and into houses. A3 Tank Simulation, AI movement: Only three movement speeds combined with different speeds dependent on tanks performance make faster tanks (T-100 or RHS T-80) a pain in the backside to move and fight with, especially when restricting self to first person and without human crew. No ability to chain waypoints and assign complex movement schemes necessitates painful micromanagement. AI has zero sense of how to use a tank in a fight, they just drive around at breakneck speed missing every shot upon contact until they either flip over, accidentially kill all enemies or (more likely) get shot by infantry ATGM. AI does not use cover, does not use smoke or any other concealment, and does not know any tactical movements aside from "Drive fast and shoot faster". SABOW Tank Simulation, AI movement: 5 graduated movement speeds on top of orders for different tactical movement types (use cover, find overwatch spot in low cover, use concealment, lay smoke, etc) make the moving and shooting part, despite the much more complex gunnery and command simulation more easily accomplished than in Arma. Enemy AI also tries to use concealment, cover and movement deliberately instead of blindly charging around the battlefield. In one campaign I regularily had iraqi T-55s turn up in my rear after they snuck through a patch of woods and through a ditch while holding fire (with no input required from me, the enemy AI did this on their own!) until they were within half a kilometer, right inside my platoons flank. This happened twice in the same campaign, in the same spot, until I wisened up to that location. A3 also suffers from bad behind-armor damage simulation, which results in every vehicle exploding instead of (which happens most of the time in real life and in SABOW) the hit just killing/injuring the crew, disabling vital parts and at most causing an internal fire that makes the vehicle slowly burn up. Catastrophic explosions only happen rarely in SABOW, and only if ready ammunition or a fuel tank is directly hit. Add to that A3s quirky physics engine with the flying tanks and the twitching and being flung into space backwards at 1000 kph and you'll see that not that many people bothering with tanks is understandable. I do a lot, but I do not enjoy it much and prefer to go to SABOW if I want a proper tank battle. A3 does infantry much better. Vehicles are candy, but not cake.

Hello guuuys, I have a question. Especially with the most recent AI overhauls, AI tends to like to move around a lot. This is problematic, especially when making defensive missions where the AI are placed in prepared, covered positions. Instead of remaining in them and using the meticulously planned ambush position to best effect, they instead leave the position and start racing around (and are shot up much more quickly as a result). Waypoint type does not seem to matter, they leave the position once they spot an enemy no matter what. The type of vehicle also does not matter. Independent cover selection by the AI is extremely bad for vehicles in defense, so I am looking for a workaround for this. Any Ideas? I have thought about using disableAI, but that is something I'd rather not use because once taking hits, I want the AI to move. As waypoints don't seem to work, and I do not know how to script, I am out of Ideas myself. Any help is appreciated. Cheers Instagoat

Then they will not be able to move to vacate their position when taking effective fire. I am basically asking if there is any way to make the current system behave like I want it to without hacks. Make a vehicle stay in its dugout until taking direct hits, and not before. Right now they start moving the moment they spot the enemy.

That doesn't explain why this also happens on perfectly flat surfaces and usually only when turning the tank. I suspect there is an underlying fundamental problem with how the game does tracked vehicles. It's never worked right, I still remember the squatting tanks in OFP, or the vaulting Tanks in Arma, on top of general problems whenever vehicles meet obstacles. I suspect we'll have to deal with it at this point.

There were a couple of broken ones that were unintentionally bulletproof. Maybe they got bugged up again or the previous fix didn't work as intended. That was applied way prior to christmas, though, I think... At any rate, that does not look correct.

The problem persists even after cleaning up and redownloading the beta. One common thing appears to be that the fps breakdowns begin after about 10 minutes of play for the first time and after that reappear very quickly. They also seem to be connected to firing weapons, but I cannot confirm that as of now because I think I had one massive fps breakdown yesterday where I was only driving around on the Island in a car. This is a pretty bad problem right now. Maybe there is a common thread between all our occurances? I would suggest trying to run the game vanilla, for everybody who has the problem, and seeing under which circumstances you can reproduce it. I am going to do one or two more runs tonight and see if I can find anything.

I've verified my files and uninstalled dev branch yesterday, and I'll reinstall it today to see what happens. Hopefully the problem will be gone.

Mods aren't the problem. I run the game without mods, and the error persists. Inside the game, after a while it slows down. 5 - 2 fps, no matter (!!!) the graphics settings or where the character is looking.

Anybody else experience massive fps breakdowns recently? Game slows to 1 - 2 fps, but doesn't crash, especially when entering missions through Eden editor.

You did not read my post

I am unsure about her intepretation of the gender issue being part of the whole "upholding the magic" Idea that she proposes. The arguments for and against female character models focusing on supposed realism are moot, because there are so many extreme examples on both sides of the spectrum (Female death battalions in the Russian Army in 1917 vs all male, gay formations during the classical greek era for example.) that you can't find a for or against. Plus, female soldiers integrated into frontline units still have to prove themselves in western armies (Though I would argue they in general already have, ever since the beginning of time.). The Idea is inclusion to me, mostly. 50% of the human species is female, and that alone should be enough of a reason to add at least one female character per race into the game. Even IF females weren't part of current armies frontline troops and no females at all would play Arma. Her take on the immersion thing is interesting too. However, I find her extremely optimistic about the general openness of the community. We had veritable shitstorms before over X or Y being unrealistic, with whole scores of A2 players declaring they wouldn't touch/mod the game anymore. Though I think, one reason why interface/radio and realism mods dominate in this iteration of Arma is exactly that conflict: all groups want A3 to be the best game they desire. It can't be, so modders step in to serve the need. The Idea of "Orientalization" is kind of derivative, though, mirroring a kind of general anti-imperialist language you get from academic sources rather often. It made me realize how well at demonizing the enemy the game is, because from second 1 you do not care about shooting up the AAF. (While CSAT is midly scary) On the other hand, CSAT does not come across as terrifically evil. In fact, they are technologically superior at this point, and seem to really have gotten their shit together. And their support of the AAF mirrors the way many governments have handled aligned/puppet government actions. See Russia in Crimea, the US in Georgia/Afghanistan in the 80s, the SU in Vietnam, etc. And the shit-talking is mirroring what happens in real life. Also, compared to OFP:RR, A3 is really tame about the dehumanization. Neat work in general, but kinda soft on the hard data. The interpretation of the whole gamergate debacle also is mildly annoying, but I can ignore that for the perspective she gives on the clan culture.

I'm a quarter of the way in, pretty interesting. If anything, this will be worth something in the future simply for the fact that it records a snippet of our culture and the culture of A3 clans in particular, and an analysis of it. This is worth something simply because she took the time to think about the game, about the community and the problems and positives that we have. I'll download this and read it later, and then come back and hope I can still keep up with the conversation in here. I have so damn little time these days :(

I'd be completely against that. We already have at least -four- mods that provide at least a dozen (some more) M4 and M16 variants -each-. I have like 30 M4s and M16s in my list already, and the quality of the CUP models could be improvied by better textures alone to a point. RHS also has M16A2 and A3 models, so it'd be potentially a go too. CUP probably has better reloading animations because as far as I know they are also carrying over those that toadie made. Those are also used for RHS. The weapons are there, and even if they do look a bit dated, they would not look out of place with the stuff DeltaHawk is making. And if, if somebody cared enough they could revamp the textures and hand them into CUP.

I don't doubt that, in fact I'm pretty amazed that it works at all since you pretty much have to fill in the whole torso of the model. I was just wondering about the textures only, because even the Arma 2 ones look a bit rough compared to even the more LQ Arma 3 things. They're of 2008 vintage of course, I am only wondering if at some point there'll be some kind of drive for texture improvement, for example after certain main factions are ingame? I am happy either way, especially since these guntrucks above are being experimented with, and new stuff is always pretty great to get. I really have a ton of respect for the work these guys do, I wouldn't have it in me to put in that much work over such a long time.

The US soldiers and Iranians use 6.5 mm for their rifles. And I don't find the TRG or MK20 to be peashooters, you just need to hit someplace where there isn't armour. There's also injury systems in place, the same as in OFP, shots to the leg will make you walk slower or unable to run, shots into the arms will make your aim go really bad, so I don't know what the complaints are about. The only thing that might be worth considering is adding armor piercing ammo that does less damage overall but looses no damage up to a certain level of armor. AP proof body protection is really heavy, so the vests maybe need to be rebalanced as far as their weight is concerned.

If you introduce the Arma units, will you introduce new/improved textures for the vests especially? They look extremely dated, even compared to the arma 2 stuff.

I see. I guess the real world has no bearing on what the definitions in the code are, but strictly all are bullets, ball is a solid shot without filler and shells are all bullets with fillers. So, techically, explosive bullets like the soviet 7.62 marker bullet are shells. But game code wise, how do both classes relate to tracers working/not working? Tank rounds had tracers and have had them for ages, they just turned invisible way before every other round. The tanks also have muzzle flashes, or are those made differently than the ones on rifles and the autocannons?

Anybody else have a problem with tracers not showing up in the past couple of dev branch patches? I just tried the game both without and with mods, and in both cases no gun tracers worked. Not from vehicles or infantry. Especially obvious with the all-tracer MG belts: nothing shows up.

Mods included: RHS, RH Accessoires and Rifles, RH+AarkvardDB Rifles, South East Asia map

'parrently, the US army has finally decided on the new shape of the ACU, as well as a new camouflage pattern. Doesn't look as smooth as multicam, and lacks the vertical elements it seems. No mention of combat shirts in the references I found though. There's two posts here: http://kitup.military.com/2015/06/army-unveils-design-combat-uniform.html http://soldiersystems.net/2015/06/02/us-army-issues-alaract-ocp-transition/ http://soldiersystems.net/2015/06/01/us-army-issues-implementation-details-ocp-transition/ Picture here: http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/7c1aa222362f035081f71b7f357ce264eaf36ca0/c%3D0-94-4192-2462%26r%3Dx1683%26c%3D3200x1680/local/-/media/2015/05/05/GGM/MilitaryTimes/635664268844517993-ARM-ACU-OCP.jpg I suspect making a new model to this spec is too much, as you also stated the timeframe for the models ingame was more around the 2014 era max it also doesn't fit in there, but will you consider possibly making a new uniform model with the new camouflage at some point, possibly using the lightweight carrier? I just think that Red Hammer is the mod that has the greatest prospect at succeeding in an implementation of this new uniform, seeing the ton of talent you have behind you.

"If you put a thousand rounds into the woods and there is no answer, the wood contains no enemies." This is also known as "reconaissance by fire". "The apparent intelligence of AI is inversely proportional to their importance to achieving your objective. Thus, the AI that matters most is the one that exhibits the greatest degree of stupidity." Know your enemies weapons. Against an enemy with a .50 cal there is no point hiding inside a building unless you're one or two walls over from him. Likewise, an enemy with a pistol cannot get you even if you're behind a single barrel of sand. For tanks fighting tanks, only terrain or a whole village is cover, buildings are concealment until he runs out of APFSDS. "The clincher is, is the mod you are running ballistically compatible to the scopes of the other mod you're running." Know your ammo, know your scopes." For mission designers: "No matter how thoroughly tested and break-tested your mission is, somebody will manage to break it. This will always happen in a fashion that is both unexpected and unreproducable."

I used OFP to learn driving back when I was getting my license. Does that count? Arma can theoretically be used for everything VBS can be used for, minus replay function (though you could probably hack something together with coordinate recording or something), which includes stuff like traffic control, arranging garden furniture, planning air spraying operations and coordinating them, firefighting procedures, chess, land navigation, animal observation, tree counting and if you are bored, building stonehenge from tanks. Arma's flexibility enables it to fit into almost every niche, and while it probably does nothing superbly well, it can be decent at it. For example, why not make a nuclear strike style action helicopter game? Or maybe a side scrolling shooter? I would think stuff like that can be made possible, somehow. On the other side, a simulation for managing a refugee camp on the syrian border, where you have to manage water, food, medical supplies, personell, security, pay and fend off bandit attacks and deal with air strikes and such. Arma is everything, so it can be serious, it can also be not serious. All depends on the creator in question.