instagoat

Bloody hell. Even Electronic Arts is more progressive and sensible than half the people on this board. This is not primarily about "wut is real" but acknowledging that half the potential playerbase does not have nuts. There are women playing this game, they are being left out. Making different stamina models is bollocks because without credible data it would just end up as a massive dog-chasing-own-tail argument. Both run the same stamina model, end of story. Women ending up in frontline infantry would end up there for a reason, and even in men there would be wildly disparaging performance "stats". This is not and should not implemented also! BI stated that the reason for not having female character models ingame was a decision made because of time and resource restraints. Models are not the point here, I think, but the voice work. The amount of recording material necessary is massive, but still I think that it would be well worth the effort to include at least four female voices at some point (US English, UK English, Altian English and Farsi.). The Iranians also only have three voices and faces total so far, so that balances. All that is necessary is to provide representation. Edit: Also I am rash. I apologize.... Standing by my point though.

Even modern high-pressure hydraulics cannot turn the turret at such speeds. SPAAGs can, but their turrets are not heavily armored and full with heavy ammunition (mostly electronics.). Rotation speed for the Leopard 2 and M1 appear to be 9 seconds for a full rotation: still 3 seconds slower than the tanks ingame currently can. Try Reyhards Tanks to see how the T-72 and T-55 perform: they do not use hand-wheels, tanks have not done that since mid-way through WW-2. They use either powerful electric motors (in lighter vehicles) or hydraulic pressure. Another problem seems to be misconfigged armor. The 120mm APFSDS goes straight through the sides of two Kumas and damages a third in the row. Side armor on this version of the Leopard 2 is just as strong as the frontal armor. Also, hitting the reinforced plate or the non-reinforced plate on the side of the T-100 makes no difference in protection. Why is this? Pictures below of triple-kuma-kill (This was tested with the pre-bootcamp version.)

Tanks easily get stuck on such obstacles in real life. The walls should have some destruction model, though, so it's not -as- easy. The bigger problem I see is the bad damage model. It is bad. For a good one, one should look at war thunder (free to play, I might add) where they model internal components additionally to internal penetration of the rounds. All we get is massive explosions taking out entire villages. Problems specifically that I see: AI unable to reverse with tanks: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=16717 The internal hitpoint system, no crew damage, bad sounds (not impact sounds, no impact sounds inside the vehicle, etc.). Very inconsistent AI spotting is another problem. They are especially bad at ranges above 500 meters. You can drive a truck across their field of vision and not be spotted rather too often: I could understand that if you use a civvie vehicle, but it is -hard- to misidentify an ifrit at any range. The turret rotation speeds of the tanks are also much to fast, so the AI constantly overshoots and is just really bad at getting a bead on target. Turret rotation speed should be at around 10 seconds for 360° (I found 9 seconds cited for the leopard in some places). Right now they swing around at almost double that speed, which is hard to manage for the AI and also makes them react much too quickly. No defensive systems against missiles, and the armor simulation is made pointless by the hitpoint system. Even if you don't penetrate, you can kill pretty much any vehicle in a certain amount of hits because of some sort of splash damage? I tested with both HEAT and APFSDS against all tanks, but not very exactly. (Used the trace script to see if hits penetrated.) I love tanks, but right now I'm pretty much only playing war thunder because the Arma 3 tanks suffer from AI and simulation shortcomings.

Wow. The 3L Lupo was indeed sold in Europe, but the reason it failed was because it was horrendously expensive. Also, it rarely reached the advertised low levels of fuel consumption because they were so dependent on driver habit. Nikola Tesla's "free energy" is bullshit, and this pseudo-mystical hogwash really tarnishes the reputation of an otherwise brilliant scientist. Essential oils from mariuana, uh, no. Just, no. This is not science. The Water powered car is a myth, much like Rossi's E-Cat. And man, the rest. No. I Don't really know what to say about all this. The biofuel one is marginally credible, but you can burn anything in the right engine (multi-fuel engines in tanks can even burn vegetable oil in a pinch.). All the rest is not suppressed, it's turned out to be bull and discarded.

"If it looks at you, it's probably seen you. And just because it looks the other way doesn't mean it hasn't." "Stay where the water flows." "Tanks are 75 % Psychology and 25 % Danger. Once you run out of AT, they are 95 % Danger and 5 % hope that the driver rolls it over on its back." "Concealment, Cover, Not being spotted. Increases survivability in that order." "Keep track of your ammunition. A well contained situation quickly becomes unhinged once you realize that all your "fresh" reloads only contain two or three rounds apiece." "Combat is teamwork: It gives the enemy somebody else but you to shoot at." "Artillery does not know friend or foe: it only knows worthwhile Targets." A couple out of my brain-box.

Thermal performance is weather and daytime dependent. Under certain circumstances, contrast becomes so bad that you can either see terrain or hot objects, but not both at the same time. It has problems like that irl too, though, so it's not really a problem. I just wonder if the performance of the simulation is analogous to real life. For example, on a hot summers day, the ground temperature and temperature of vehicles should be identical, shouldn't it?

You shoot during respiratory pause at the very bottom of your breathing cycle.

Nobody is ever satisfied, eh... This update is fantastic. The problem is the time it will take for the marksman DLC to arrive, which will hopefully include all gunplay mechanics (resting, sway control, etc) that this new update necessitated. Up until then, adapt and overcome.

I went back and compared the weapons sway in A3 now to the one in VBS2. And woah, it is equally bad for both, except Arma 3s is smoother and holding breath less effective. Adapt and Overcome. Learn to play the new game. I am super satisfied with the new gunsway mechanics and fatigue, and if you "can't hit anything" you either aren't picking your moments, or you should switch to full auto. There's a reason why those modes were put on guns in the first place. The only bad thing I -can- see is that this update is so far away from the guns DLC, which hopefully will bring the much desired weapons resting and bipod mechanics. Up until then, we'll have to cope. Especially high-mag optics are admittedly difficult to use now. Other than the use of said high magnification optics, it works. Penalty for CQBing heavy weapons is still not high enough, though, I believe.

Apparently, no matter what BI does, it is always wrong. If you don't want to have your character wheezing, move slower or drop your kit. Re: weapons. BI announced the change well beforehand. They even detailed what needed to be changed prior to implementing the fix on dev, and that was a month ago, maybe longer. There have been worse breaks in mods before, and dedicated modders will keep their content up to date with the game. I'd rather have working vanilla content rather than everything being broken. The sound system in general is troublesome, so there will (hopefully) be more changes in the future. For example, the sound bug: is worse in final branch now.For the sprinting, I found that disabling CBA stopped the mission from malfunctioning. Looks like there is a conflict there somewhere.

UKSF-Camo Combat Overalls, with new Velcro and Flag patch made.

I think the fatigue system is alright, the only thing I don't understand right now is how the weapons sway works. Is it supposed to make LMGs worse in CQB? I'm not noticing any changes. As for the fatigue ramp-up, I actually like how it affects you now and how you need to manage your stamina. I actually played some missions by throwing away all gear I didn't need for something I wanted to do: in survive, I had to recover ammo from a damaged truck. I dropped my pack, all my ammo aside from two grenades and two magazines, and then snuck around the enemies, keeping much more mobile for lack of gear to carry. This is what makes the game brilliant with this implementation, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Weapons resting will probably come in some fashion or the other, as has been hinted in the announcement of the marksmens DLC. First, we'll get firing from vehicles, though, which is also super exciting. So, if you don't want to be encumbered, drop that pack.

Classnames are available ingame in the config library in the editor. Little cogwheel in the menu bar. Unit classnames are also indicated in the Editor window.

Only a handful of wrecks look mildly decent now. What is necessary is a dedicated wreck model with randomized hidden selections that add and remove parts to make them look different from each other. To compare a game which does this badly (Arma) against one which does this exceedingly well (Warthunder): Arma 3 Kuma. This is impossible in real life: the turret can't be blown off, the ammo storage has blowout panels on top. The tracks also just magically disappear. Warthunder T-34-57 after being blown up from a direct hit. Note the hole under the radio-man's MG on the front glacis where the round penetrated. All parts that are missing are randomized depending on the type of hit. Sometimes the tanks don't even explode as the crew is knocked out. Sometimes they explode catastrophically blowing the hull into several pieces. From catastrophic hits, hatches and access covers should be blown open or blown away, ERA panels should fall off, HEAT fences should warp and armor plates should shatter. Optics should be blown out of their mountings and tracks wrap around the wheels. Warthunder can do this, with dozens and dozens of vehicles of -very- great detail, why not Arma? Improving damage behaviour should go along with this. The armor penetration simulation is beginning to be decent, but behaviour inside the vehicles is still hit-and-miss, important components aren't modelled (Turret drives, optics, power systems, ammo, fuel, crew) and the constant explosions are inadequate.

Will this problem be addressed sometime? There used to be a ticket, but it seems to be gone now. The problem still exists in the most current beta as well as stable.

Very nice! I especially like that you've included the civvie clothes, even if they don't work well with the vests, at least they add some extra diversity for simulating PMCs and possibly winter-type civilians. As for the cars, I love the drifty slidey behaviour they have, but it's a little too intense right now. Also, some of the vehicles would probably benefit from a better suspension, like the GAZ. The top speeds of some of the cars are also not that great, and up hill they really struggle. The Golf and the Skoda should top out at almost 220 kph ish. Thanks for this cool pack, love it!

It is a battlefield simulator. Or battlespace simulator? idk. It could also be a bee simulator. Or fog simulator. It simulates both, you know. Game definitions are arbitrary, call it what you want. Question is, are you having fun? I am having fun with Arma, most of the time, when it doesn't annoy the hell out of me with the poor soundscape (which also is completely broken right now: There also was a ticket, can't find it right now.) and oftentimes inadequate performance, which affects AI, ballistics additionally to fps.It is gud gaem. If you want super hardcore soldier bicep simulator, or hardcore sitting in a trench for 12 hours and shitting in plastic bags simulator, you probably need to make sure you got a niche on the market cornered first. I am being facetious of course, but making Arma 3 look like less of a simulator than Arma 2 is ridiculous. And modded Arma 3 could be -way- more realistic than VBS. ACE 2 already is (Which is why, in my opinion, the more recent the version, the less fun it was to play.).

I still have the beta smdi and bump-maps with the velcro and the flag instead of the hexagon insignia for the CSAT TCCU, in case anybody is interested.

Any Game fills a niche. Problem with games marketing is that it's basically lowest common denominator shit most of the time: pretty pictures. Even for games that have tremendously good graphics, they sometimes roll out pre-rendered trailers for that extra woo-factor. They don't even pretend to show gameplay anymore, oftentimes. The point of marketing is selling stuff by touching the nerve of the target demographic. If the target demographic is largely touched by this means of marketing, THEY are doing something right. Problem is on the buyers end, ESPECIALLY with games which are not essential to survival and thus could be abstained from. I have bought -very- few games lately, none of my purchases were stirred by advertising. If you buy the marketing, review your own expectations and attitudes towards the art and industry, but don't blame the marketers for getting to the point people want to be shown to. Edit: Re bought reviews. This is too common in the industry, and one reason why I have completely stopped looking at major news outlets. I have a select range of individual games reviewers who share some of my attitudes about games, as well as a handful of niche gaming sites particular to my interests. Major gaming press outlets cannot really be trusted as forms of criticism.

Is it just me or this vehicle a bit too heavily armored? Even the hood stops rounds dead, no matter the caliber. The hood is made of plastic, as far as I know, only the crew compartment is armored. And should the plate of the turret stop the .408 dead, realistically speaking? At least the hood, wheel wells and rear of the vehicle should even be penetrated by pistol rounds, as they are unarmored, I think.

The VR content is very weak at this point, I think. It feels like a comprehensive demo, rather than a fully fledged component. The material penetration and ballistics alone could be done -much- more comprehensively. Ricochets, Deflection, Material penetration by different types of ammo (12.7 Ball vs 12.7 APDS for example) against different obstacles, etc. Commanding could also be done much more comprehensively, with the training set up to produce muscle memory. Another thing is that the armor penetration on vehicles also could be described here.

Undated photographs from during the civil war, likely during the early stages of NATO military aid. Units depicted are already wearing the russian provided digital camo fabric, but general standards of equipment are not as advanced as prior to the 2034 crisis. NATO Soldiers from an US Armored Unit repairing Equipment on their Tank. After the Economic defeats in Africa, rare Earth supplies for Electronics rose extremely in prices, leading to haphazard large-scale attempts at recycling old electronics materials. Equipment from this period, dating prior to the Jerusalem Accords has been known to suffer from sub-par materials, even affecting critical components at times. IR-Guards MI-46 early model, photographed during counter insurgency operations on Altis, 2034. Security Operator of an US-based Private Security Company training in house clearing drills, 2033, probably in the Joint-Administrative-Region greenzone in what used to be Syria. Contrary to the SCO and, today, CSAT aligned countries, the US and her Allies have not relied on the heavy employment of nominally government army trained and administrated, but "Independent Local Fighters"-designated troops. Instead, maintaining itself by feeding off the increasingly paranoid security climate and massive military-industrial-complex of the west, private security companies have taken over many roles previously performed by National Armies under UN mandate. Noteworthy is the MX (Also designated M-10 on some webpages) Rifle in the hands of the soldier, which was previously thought to be exclusive to US Military users only and not publicly for sale. (Last pic uses personal reskin, made by me. All others are stock.)

The mod that made the shooting range not work for me was CBA. Finished the mini campaign, glorious! Really gives you a sense of how badly things went down the drain prior to the Stratis incident. I hope that the end of adapt and then win will be great too, because I completely restarted my campaign to get the benefit of the new gear selection options and the fatigue system. The return of the company makes me want to go back to TOH and play the campaign to the finish. My PC will possibly be able to take the game now. The VR system has a couple of bugs right now, for example none of the start screen text in the tests show up. The VR training missions are also way too short. The material penetration system is complex, at least for rifle, and it would need to be shown off better than by lowering a wooden board in front of your target.

It would not be any less uncomfortable than a diving suit, and much, much more comfortable than a MOPP style NBC suit. The suit would be skintight underneath by necessity: it needs skin contact to draw away the heat. Again, the suit is thermo-regulating, so it maintains a pre-selected skin surface temperature up to the maximum outside temperature the climate unit can cope with. This system has been used for ages in space suits, and is now being used to thermoregulate the bodies of tank crews. Solid-state technology for the infantryman is not unfeasible. Additionally, you can design the uniform this way to specially interface with exoskeletons (Why these aren't ingame, I have no clue.) as well as armor modules. The VR suit probably comes close to how the CSAT Uniform looks underneath the camouflage fatigues. It is not a conventional uniform, and probably makes the individual CSAT soldier equipped in this way much more expensive. Then again, he would be better camouflaged against heat-sensitive observation equipment AND be able to fight in any weather and climate as if it were a comfortable 20 degrees outside. Nato soldiers will feel the cold, and they will feel the heat: CSAT soldiers, as long as their heat sink works, don't. Without heat stress, they would be much, much more combat effective. As for the overall design, maybe it's not aesthetically pleasing to some, but I like them quite a lot. So much in fact that I dislike how nerfed their uniforms are with regards to thermal camouflage (though that could be because of a flawed design, so there's that.) and the fact that they don't simulate video feeds, etc. But it would be nice if BI themselves could confirm what the Uniform is supposed to do/not do, because what I'm doing here is really just conjecture. How about a nice manufacturing stat poster?

It's perfectly feasible technology. The black parts are an undersuit, not part of the uniform. The camo uniform is just pulled over the thermal camouflage suit. By 2030 this would be state of the art, Nato is the one being completely backwards. They even still use 2010s era google-glass type combat goggles and uniforms, vests and helmets. The TCCU (Thermal Camouflage Combat Uniform) is comprised (as far as I can discern) from an undersuit with a heat transfer system, an insulating layer, and an armored top layer (this is why they do not wear heavy plate vests, their undersuit already provides basic protection all over.). The heat transfer system also doubles as a climate system to manage the soldiers body temperature under stress, at all environmental conditions. The Vents on the back of the Uniform are part of the heat sink and climate control unit, drawing in cooling air and expelling heated air from the climate system. The materials used are not made of fabric but of plastics because of their insulating capacity. Over that they wear a mixed-material, light camouflage suit made for basic protection against the elements, but mostly to provide camouflage. It is made to not trap air anywhere around the body, since air trapped between the suit and the undersuit would heat through residual heat transferred at especially close fitting joints. Because of this, it would likely be useless on its own, since all it would do is keep out water, but not protect from wind and cold. The helmet is fitted with an integrated camera both as a means to enforce soldierly conduct (Since no soldier can use his uniform with his helmet disconnected or unless provided with a key, which the soldiers wearing caps likely have. This activates the control unit at the neck. Usually the helmet would allow control of the uniforms climate control and camo functions via eye movements and voice command.) and especially to provide commanders with better means to control their units and figure out the situation on the battlefield. The eyepieces are both sunscreen and HUD devices. The connection from the helmet to the uniform doubles as a power cord and data transfer cable. At least, that's my interpretation of the uniforms design. Nothing in there is impossible today, and while expensive, probably state of the art in 25 years time. It only took 6 years for smartphones to almost completely replace classic mobile phones. The Design looks wild, but nobody cares about looks on the battlefield, as long as it works.