instagoat

Will this work for towing vehicles too, potentially? Armor vehicle recovery and stuff like that would be nice too have.

If you are a company, you would be stupid not to offer such an option. And if people buy stuff without testing, their fault, not the company's. Especially when BI clearly stated how the system works: so people should make the informed decision to buy before testing. And if they didn't inform themselves, again, their problem. So I don't understand the chiding.

The campaign doesn't differ for the player, you just need to manage your loadout better. In the mission where you attack the outpost, I ditched my pack and most of my ammo to get at the mortar. One box of ammo for the LMG, two pistol mags and two handgrenades: no problem. The AI's spotting ability is alright, and you can always dial them down if they're not to your taste. On my side, they are not overly deadly, and not a non-threat. If you don't want to get shot, get into cover. At larger distances, the AI is also woefully inaccurate now: they -are- affected by the new stamina system. Additionally, the game does not simulate suppression effects right now, and if it does, I do not notice them at all. Learn to manage your stamina. Soldiers do not run everywhere in real life, they walk, or at best jog. And if you watch combat footage, everybody is wheezing all the time once the moving and shooting starts. There is footage from Crimea of Fighters ditching their Vests and Packs altogether to evacuate wounded, to be able to move unimpeded, quicker and for larger distances. The US Army went from the IOTV full plated vest with four plates and soft armor (front and sides, plus groin and neck protectors, as well shoulder protectors in some cases) to a two plate light plate carrier so soldiers could actually move around. Stamina is far less punishing in this game than it is in real life. Just sit for a moment and get your breath back. And if you're not getting it back, you're overloaded.

Why should the fatigue system be optional... Finally they do something about the rambo gameplay and it's wrong again. There is a reason why everybody nowadays rides around in helicopters and trucks. Manage your stamina, learn to shoot with the new system. It's not hard. Soon we will be getting shooting from vehicles. But I bet somebody will find something wrong with that too. Sheesh.

If I had the option, I would take a de-militarized T-54 please.

Internal damage handling, damage handling of explosives as well as advanced warheads is woefully inadequate. Another thing that's very wonky is the tank track physics, and the sounds. The AI is also not acting very convincingly with the tanks. Sometimes they see through walls, and other times they fail to identify a clearly visible enemy in a field 800 meters away even if they are shooting rockets at them. Advanced sim is all nice and dandy, but first the basics of armor penetration, and post penetration terminal ballistics handling (crew and tank module damage and injury) would be more sensibly implemented.

I think the Arma lore is so fragmented that it'd be more difficult to tie together than the whole of the MGS canon. Personally, I would favor a reboot with Arma 4, going back to the middle of the cold war, roundabout the 1960s. With a small south american conflict with CIA and USSR supporting both sides, overshadowed by the larger events (cuba crisis, or going back to earlier dates, bay of pigs invasion.). And I mean, whole reboot. Take the world history, and fit in a string of coherent events. Maybe revisit the Nogova Island republics with a new campaign, similarily good characters, and a common thread to tie everything together from the outset. I haven't finished east wind yet, so idk if the story gets better/more coherent, but a certain occurrence in the prologue bootcamp campaign and the presence of the tempest "device" thing (which I have not looked at yet, so please, no more screenshots or hints or anything. I've also not even been in the biodomes yet because I want to find out why they're there via the campaign. And even if they're not in there, please don't tell me.) makes me suspect something out of a 1950s pulp science fiction short novel. I dunno if a reboot would be a good Idea, though, because mostly I think about it since I would like to see an early cold war arma next. You'd have to retcon that into the canon.

The UAV is not a copy of the Arma 2 one. OA had the VBS-2 Predator Drone, and the XH-6 series is from Take on Helicopters, not Arrowhead. New A3 Assets meanwhile include: All Uniforms, All Vests, Headgear and Weapons. Slammer, Kumak and T-100, BTR-K. Hunter, Ifrit, Strider, Pickup and all Civvie Vehicles. RAH-66, Hamok. The Mora is heavily redesigned from the BAF equipped one. Additionally, all new Island with assets to go along with, even if some environmental assets were recycled. A3 has a ton more new content than any other Arma release so far.

The only thing common to both is the launch command unit. Which is not handled like in VBS, where it is the weapon that is loaded with a magazine (launch tubes). Instead, the weapons are whole models, which is why the thing has this silly naming thing going on.

Hey, question... Is the strider supposed to be completely invulnerable to AT mines, SLAM mines and other explosives, or is this a bug? I've got two SLAM and one AT mines, one truck triggering all three and not being harmed by them in a little skirmish I am building. I am almost tempted to do a test setup and check the other MRAPs... has the weapons thread got any findings on this recently? At least the AT mine (5+ kgs of high explosive) should throw the truck on its back.

The Game's been out for a long, long while now, and we still get these threads. Really? I'm going to sound mean, but compared to Arma 3, Arma 2 doesn't feel "right", it feels "broken". Weapons with gear baked into them, Uniforms you can't switch, over and over repeating death animations, nonexistent physics and all the bonkers things that go with that (like bouncing tanks, weird helo flight model), nonexistent materials penetration system, bad fatigue system that allows everybody to run around with a thousand magazines, ten rounds for the SMAW, launcher and sniper rifle with no penalty, mouse-lag and mouse smoothing that makes navigating the environment a chore, very basic animation system, etc, etc. As far as the assets go, all of them were made band new for A3 apart from the Kamaz truck and the Greenfor aircraft and Vehicles (Apart from Kuma and Strider). -All- Arma 2 content was -recycled- from assets dating back as far as 2004. How come nobody complained about that then? But now it suddenly matters that the Guns atop some vehicles are the same? Arma 2 was massive quantity, and quality only began creeping in way towards the end of its lifecycle. Arma 3 is striking a balance, and its working out better every day. A2 was never to get shooting from vehicles. Shooting from vics has -def- been announced for A3 now. What about slingloads? We're getting those too. The biggest problem I have with A3 is performance, and that's also one of the main issues that seems to hold some people back from it. Hopefully that can be addressed. However, many of the reasons people put the game down for don't hold much water, if any at all. Also "Guns felt powerful". What. The guns in A2 sound like plastic toys. Listen to the shooting sound of the SCAR again. The problem with A3 is that the sound system corrupts the sounds and that it's not delivering anything new over the previous system. No win, no loss. The sound assets themselves are generally better, even if some are not perfect.

So, when will we see the shooting from vehicles, because that's pretty much the ultimate bomb. At least a teaser video would be super great!

Where are the south american conflicts? A fictional war akin to the 1969 Football War between Honduras and El Salvador would be cooler than all the other settings for a couple of reasons: 1: No Political Powderkeg like Vietnam or Israel. 2: Interesting opportunities for Terrain creation (Anything from large cities to plains to mountains) 3: Interesting choices for combat Vehicles. A few examples for those are: SK-105 Kürassier AMX-30 M551_Sheridan For US Intervention Forces (Paratroopers, used instead of M-60s) Tons of other cool vehicles and weapons used that are not usually depicted, as well as a variety of gear. From Corsairs and Mustangs to Sabres and many, many others 4: Large Range of potential conflict types, from counter insurgency to army level guerilla and conventional warfare, urban and rural alike. 5: Not been done before. I'd like to get away from europe and asia, and see some unique kit for a change.

http://www.sofstudios.com/ Another competitor on the market for tacticool gameplay? Only a lot of marketing claims at the moment and not a whole lot to back it up, it seems. Not even ingame material. Some people working on this apparently were involved in Rainbow Six: Patriots among other games from that genre. I suspect that´s kinda the thing they´re trying for, ghost-recon/rainbow six style gameplay. Can this be a game to steal Arma's market?

Weird. Maybe it's a secret and we're supposed to find it? :V

The only way to make a program non vulnerable is not to install it on a PC and store the disk in a lead box. Recently somebody managed to access systems that were air gapped (ie, not connected to any network.). Btw, you can earn big bucks by finding exploits like that and telling them to the companies. For example, Facebook paid something like 50 K to a person who found a big exploit. Valve rewards similarily, I think.

So, how soon will we see the shooting from vehicles, and will the vanilla vehicles get this feature? This feature is of supreme interest to me and is making me quite giddy. The prospect of two-wheeled drive-by attacks by baseball capped, face-wrapped insurgents wielding UZIs riding pickups is simply too delightful to just dream of.

No, don't change it back. It finally looks good. Especially with the patches in place (which are also right way around now, thanks BI!) it looks great. The model itself has been updated, so you need to make sure you're using the version from this update, and not an old one (where flags are distorted anyways.).

Well, they hinted at something massive involving Asia as far back as the PMC DLC. Maybe this is a research trip?

Because the Lite option is the worse option, frankly. I didn't like the lite content, I still don't, and it is annoying to watch when you don't own the DLC. I'd rather have something like a showroom to test DLCs in, with an option to buy. Possibly connected with the Arsenal.

XM-25 was likely removed because there is no way to simulate it properly without running a huge stack of scripts (TBOC M-25 as an example: ). The Railguns were removed because of community complaints and changes to the story. The tank design would need to be changed, because an electric gun needs some specialized equipment that is not represented on the normal model.It would also need a dedicated damage model to simulate electrical fires, exploding capacitors and the associated electrical arcing. If a railgun tank explodes, it's basically the same as a high-voltage transformer in a power distribution station burning up. There are videos on youtube of this, and it is quite dramatic.

This has probably been said before, but I think it bears saying again for emphasis: ACE is and was built on the expertise of tens of dozens of people over a time of over 10 years, dating back to the FFUR mod as far as I know. You do not simply assemble such a massive, talented and diverse team by magic. Without leadership and dedication, something like ACE won't come around. Additionally, building addons is now much more complex, which is why most mods nowadays do fewer things of higher quality, rather than tons of things.

Will these feature new reload animations also, or use the altered Scorpion reload as they have before?

The grip of the G3 models is a little off, with the hand hovering. I also have the feeling that all guns are a little large in general. The soldiers ingame are 1.80 m, and especially the HK-53 and railed G3s, as well as the FALs look a little beefy. The FAL-Para is visibly smaller (especially noteable on the receiver) than the rest, so the difference in scale between the BI model and the others can be seen there. I also am getting some missing .paa file errors right now, for example for the sanitized magpul M4. Very much enjoying this pack, looking forward to whatever you do next, it's brilliant so far.

The question was whether or not tanks use hand cranks as their primary method of traverse. (I didn't specify this, though, so I apologize if this was a simple misunderstanding.) The presence of backup systems is a given, everything else would be bad engineering, don't you think? As for the armor, I didn't check on the specifics values for the Leopard 2 Revolution, but the physics of the rounds used prohibit overpenetration since the rounds disintegrate once leaving the armor on the inside in the shape of a super hot plasma jet. Depleted Uranium rounds also shatter into burning uranium fragments, but even assuming these are just tungsten penetrators they would not overpenetrate simply because nothing sufficiently hard and fast would reach the opposite side of the tank. I have read about overpenetrations against iraqi tanks during the first gulf war, but I do not think you can compare the armor of a BMP 2 or Asad Babil to that of a Leopard 2 or Merkava. My main contention is how the rounds behave after they penetrated, really. The damage simulation is inadequate, tanks do not blow up like air-gas filled pressure tanks. In fact, the types of results to hits are massive in their variety. HEAT and Shaped Charge behaviour is also not simulated, but both these types of warhead are prevalent especially with missile systems. At some point this would need to be addressed, too, for completeness sake. First though, turret rotation, AI perceptiveness and Damage behavior.