sqb-sma

Apologies for my ignorance, but rather than adding a player based shader could you not force a fog effect, seeing as volumetric fog is now supported, to anything below sea level? Or does this encounter problems with waves, because I can certainly see that being the case.

I saw those great descriptions and even the fantastic demonstration by Coulum which was... gosh a long time ago internet-wise! ;) I thought the idea, and the mod were fantastic progress. I'd like to see more of that, now, if there's nothing more to say then let the thread die in peace. That was back in april, and I used the script extensively until it broke with one of the patches. Video here: I think everybody wanted a little bit of refinement etc which, as you correctly surmise from that quote of Coulum's, needs additional work from BIS. Regarding what suppression consists of, obviously we need to have a limit, that's a good point Anachoretes, we can't simulate a soldier's anxiety that something's in the bushes because it's just too darn hard and if it were in it would react to everything, making the effect useless. It would be slightly easier to have a suppressive effect if an enemy is aiming at you, but then it could be used in a cheap way and, even though code wise it would be hard to implement, it would be hard to make it fair and beneficial to the gameplay. But just a simple thing from bullets whizzing too close? Easy(ish) to implement, beneficial to gameplay and (more debatably, I admit) to realism, I would personally like to see some model of suppression implemented by BIS, and I'm afraid the work will be delegated to modders. Must every good feature in the game be added by the next ACE (or ACE-like) mod? Why do we have to wait for that, instead of having them on release...?

AA missiles are very effective against helis, as helis are often found flying very low and slow(relatively, the speed limit of most military helicopters is at or below 350km/h). There's a high chance of survival if the enemy sight is using lower grade missiles (Igla, Strela, Stinger) and you have a lot of flares, as the missile will lose speed and you, as you're flying so low, can drive it close to the ground where your radar and heat signatures are harder to read and the flares and chaff have a greater chance of defeating it. High grade missiles like SA-8s, SA-11s, Amraam type guidance or, god forbid, a visual tracking system like a maverick (if the pilot's skilled/crazy enough to get a lock on you with it) you're pretty much fucked in a heli. There's a limit to how evasively you can fly, rotors are fairly fragile, and you won't have enough speed or altitude to properly engage defensive. If there's a hill or building nearby you may have a chance, but... well good luck with that. Regarding stand off engagement in Helicopters, it really depends more on the weaponry than the company of origin. Early Hinds have most unguided rockets and fairly poorly guided guns, and so Russian training at the time was to run in very close and use high amounts of ammunition to make an area a no-go zone. Modern Russian helicopters, and any other nation's modern heli, has the weapons needed for stand off engagements, which are far safer for the pilots. In 2035 I wouldn't expect any modern military to do helicopter gun runs against anything other than isolated infantry. Furthermore, modern tanks like the T90 and M1 Abrams have laser designated targeting systems and fully automated ballistic computers, they can shoot down a helicopter with their main cannon as well as coaxial MGs/mounted MGs. Even vehicles that aren't suited to AA are now a huge danger to helicopter pilots, I honestly don't think helicopters will play any role in all out war between two 1st world nations.

Haha, it does sound like they're trying to head back to the linearity of OFP. While I know some people will hate that, you can't deny that it was the best OFP/Arma campaign ever made, and I'm kinda sick of badly done open world campaigns. Until they managed to make something open world as fun as the semi-linear campaigns of OFP... gimme what's better anyday.

Looking at the FOV that appears to be the correct width. It certainly doesn't look as "stunning"... but then this is a simulator, and I certainly wouldn't want a planetside Sun in the sky. Still... the old sunrise/sunset was pretty beautiful. gah, I can't make up my mind! XD

You're playing on the stable build then, as that hump + straight line movement was due to guidance, which has been removed on the dev build. It follows a ballistic arc now. (RPG)

Exactly, PR style firefights are exactly the point I'm trying to get across, the fear etc etc. Good sounds, good supressive effects and good weapon handling make the difference between meh and "holy shit that was intense". The difference between a fragger where you just pop out and shoot, which Arma 3 feels like at the moment, and a realistic shooter, where being shot at is terrifying. I'm really disappointed that none of you calmed down and stopped your fucking argument. If you're coming in to a discussion believing that your opponent is 100% incorrect then you shouldn't even open your mouth, every opinion is formed based off some fact, you need to find out what that fact is, help educated and be prepared to learn that you yourself are wrong. It seems like people on both sides of this argument are falling victim to the ol' back and forth. It's getting nowhere, it has to stop. If you're reiterating yourself from 10 pages ago... maybe the fact that your oponent didn't learn from it last time is a hint that they won't learn from it this time. And do you think you're ever going to persuade someone by name calling, or accusing them of name calling? No, if you do think that's gonna happen you need to check yourself. Because currently some of you are making fools of yourselves over what is admittedly a minor point in the game. Please, try to understand your opponent's perspective. Stop arguing and start discussing. And yes, some people on this forum won't be too intelligent, or mature, you can't stoop to their level if you run across someone like that, just try to help them out. Ok?

Especially the trucks. If you damage the civilian truck it just sits there, perfectly fine, then it explodes like 10kg of TNT, blowing flaming shrapnel hundreds of meters away and killing/hurting anyone nearby. Who knows why. The trucks should never, ever, explode. Even being hit by a tank shot it would disintegrated and catch on fire, there's no way it would blow up like it does now. I'd like the default "dead" state for vehicles to be a wrecked vehicle, not a burnt out husk post explosion.

Ugh, I hate commanding AI in Arma, they're too smart to just follow orders! :D I would love more missions like flashpoint, fairly linear but if you do one objective instead of another it slightly changes the outcome, a good plot, some good situations, less boring "lead your team, gather resources" crap.

True, but that's a different kind of cloud to what we currently have in game and that's not a hugely common occurrence.

Something that could be fairly easy to program (comparatively) but would make the game a lot better would be an integrated "buddy" system. Where AI automatically form teams of two and the second guy simply follows the first. If the first is moving, so is the second, if the first is engaging, the second one attempts to as well. It seems the AI is forgetting to stick with the squad and they end up spread out and on their own.

Turns out BIS has perfectly modeled the human brain, unfortunately the brain they chose was Yoshimura's.

awwwww yiss!

Yeah, weapon resting actually adds a lot more to the game than most people would expect. There's a reason it has filtered down to more arcade games, it's beneficial for gameplay and realism.

In BF3 being suppressed made your screen blurry, decreased recoil compensation (basically increased recoil) and increased the random deviation of the weapons by a huge amount. NOBODY is asking for that in Arma (I hope ;)). Who copied who also makes no difference. What would you like in the game, seeing as you've said what you don't want? Here's what I'd like: If a bullet comes very close to you there's an audible bullet snap, not these wussy "plink" sounds we have now, which make me think the bullets are hitting hundreds of meters away not going right past my ear, and your soldier flinches, misalignment the sights momentarily (very, very, momentarily). There's also a slight "blink" of blurryness like a much, much more subtle version of Darkest Hour/Red Orchestra Ostfront's blur. If a large volume of rounds passes near, but not necessarily hugely close to, the player you'll experience a slight weapon shake and the same effects as being out of stamina (heavy breathing etc). These effects go away immediately once the enemy stops firing, so you could look over and shoot them as they reload.

Good eye and great video! Those murky grey clouds before sunrise are really quite ugly, and it seems the orange range they go through is far too bright..

Is there a reason you're not using TMR, it does a better job of this at the moment, though this mod came out very quickly and was very good. Installing mods: Just put @VTS (or whatever it's called) into the root. The addon folder shouldn't be moved. (So it should be like steam>steamapps>arma 3>@vts_weaponresting>Addons>A bunch of pbos and bisigns here). Copy/paste the userconfig in steam>steamapps>arma 3>@vts_weaponresting into the root directory and merge the folders, the same goes for bikeys. To run the mod edit the lauch params to add -mod=@CBA_A3;@vts_weaponresting Note that @blah has to correspond exactly to the folder name, so if your CBA is just called @CBA then type that out instead.

Haha, I know exactly what you mean. The better mouse movement in Arma 3 is for sure a selling point, and I wouldn't want to remove it ever. My idea effects only the gun, never the camera, so the looking around is still just as responsive. I too play with deadzone 100% off in both A2 and A3. I'm not a fan of the A2 implementation, and A3's is broken. But I would like some form of free aim and weapon inertia, especially as BIS has already put the effort into creating such a system.

Yep! So glad they changed that hideous hue!

It's probably too late to do anything about, but I've been playing a bit of A2 recently and thinking about intertia and weapons has got me thinking. There's 3 current systems: * Arcade/Arma 3 - Non-inertial - Your mouse look is free of negative accel and the gun is slaved to the screen (as a disclaimer, I know A3 has a freelook mode but it's currently broken, sensitivity is far too high when aiming, far too low when turning the character and it breaks my trackIR so let's consider it a non-feature until we see how the devs intend it to function). This mode has the serious flaw that you can spin on the spot and nail a baddy accurately, because the gun is always pointed at screen center (sway has a tiny effect) which is fairly unrealistic. * Red Orchestra "freelook" - Non-Inertial + weapon lead. This is the same as before, if we deleted the gun from the screen that is. It's still free of negative accel which means looking around feels just as smooth. The "free aim" (I use "" because free aim should have a still camera and use the mouse to purely control the gun) is just the gun moving around the screen, but at all times moving the mouse still moves the camera, making the game feel responsive. If you look to your right the screen moves purely as a non-inertial, non accelerated, system, but the gun leads, going to the right of the screen. The same applies for the ironsights. This means the gun isn't always dead center, which is good because it reduces snap shooting. However spinning quickly the gun still rotates VERY quickly, so you can still sort of snap shoot but you have to do a bit more thinking with the free aim ironsights. Arma 2 - Inertial - Let's just look at the non-free aim Arma 2 system here. In it any movement of the mouse was passed to the gun, screen movement was 100% slaved to the gun with free aim off. The gun had inertia, as you turned the mouse the gun had negative accel applied to it and therefore the screen had negative accel on it. This lead to the game feeling sluggish because any head movement had negative accel (which favoured x and y pure, instead of a proper vector but that's another issue entirely) making the game feel awful. But in return the gunplay was fairly realistic, no more snap shooting! Proposed changes to A3: 1) Lead into drag - Ro2 style "free aim" with an inertial gun that's NOT tied to the camera directly. In this the camera would always behave purely without negative acceleration!!!! The gun would try to lead your mouse movements (i.e. it would multiply your mouse movement by 1.5 or so and then apply an inertia model to that), however it would have a max turning speed. If you turned slow it would be just like Ro2 except with a wee bit of momentum, if you spun on the spot very quickly the gun would (if we consider this in slow mo) move to the right of the screen as you start your turn, reach it's top speed and fall off to the left as you spin too fast for it. In this situation you would see your enemy behind you before being able to bring your gun around. The benefit of this is that the gun behaves with inertia again, so aiming could be made more realistic like in Arma 2 without sacrificing the better feel of Arma 3. Furthermore when turning too fast for the gun your player could automatically lower the weapon, by holding it closer to the body you would allow the weapon to rotate with your body instead of lagging such that when the rotation stops your player could again automatically raise it to the center of the screen. In the end I think it's best that we find some way to re-introduce some form of inertia to the guns, but the Arma 2 way was far too clunky for a game, the Arma 3 mouselook is brilliant as is but leads to arcade gun handling, so why not combine the two and come up with a new freelook mode?

Guys, looking through the ARGUMENT on the last few pages, please at least pretend to be civilized. What has stemmed from a small misunderstanding has (through some admittedly cryptic and borderline trolling answers) escalated dramatically. I'm not saying blame is equal between all of you, but please just read answers for what they are and withhold the personal attacks, even if they started it. I also see Anachoretes has reported metalcraze's first comment. That's not a valid response for disagreeing with someone. Ok, so to summarize the two positions (and fingers crossed y'all stop your bickering/trolling). Debate topic: Are suppressive effects necessary in a video game like Arma? Against: When being shot at the only "suppressive" effect should be your fear of being killed, there's no need for artificial measures. You keep your head down not because your screen is blurred but because you hear the bullets coming by and don't want to poke your head out and die To add to this, I think if something like this system were in the game it wouldn't be gamebreaking, but the sounds of bullet impacts and snaps would have to be realistic and loud, currently bullets sound almost nonthreatening For: Because a life in game could be as short as 3-4 minutes with a 7 second wait for respawn there is not enough incentive to stay alive just through fear of death. A 7 second reprimand is just not enough. Due to this some artificial measure reflecting a loss of skills of the soldier due to fear/will-to-live should be implemented, this could be flinching from individual bullets (I'm all for this one, you're not going to aim accurately with rounds coming within a meter of you, in fact on most combat videos soldiers who see that kind of a close call drop everything and hit the deck and fuck returning fire I ain't dying here) or a buildup over time. Either way they serve the same purpose, allowing cover -> move -> fire tactics to work by effectively pinning and negating the ability for a unit to effectively return fire purely by shooting near them. My conclusion? You can probably already see my bias? Without suppressive effects there's no punishment for popping out of cover when bullets are flying by, if you're a very quick shot (and now that Arma has no weapon inertia it is possible to snap shoot like in Arcade games, I'd prefer screen movement to always be non-inertial/unaccelerated but for the gun to always be inertial, even if aiming deadzone is off!) you can probably shoot the suppresser before he gets you. This is unrealistic, suppressive effects should stop this from happening. QED Suppressive effects have a role in this game. Regarding the "suppressive effects are used in arcade games and we should be as different to those as possible" line of thought. Man, fuck EVERYTHING about this argument, I've seen it a million times since Arma 1 came out and it's starting to really piss me off. Take Battlefield3, as an example, arguably a very arcade game, but it tries to make the experience authentic (NOT REALISTIC, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE) so that the teens who play it can pretend they're in a war whilst just playing another arcade FPS. The game has real world weapons, some with their real firing rates and ammo types (will, if this arcade game has it we should just get our weapon stats out of thin air then shouldn't we!), it has bipods (Which Arma sorely lacks at the moment, thank god for modders doing BIS' job for them on this count), it has suppression. The point is these are things that exist in reality, and BF has them so that it's considered a war experience, when in game bipods make weapons go from horribly inaccurate things with broken barrels to real LMGs. That's gamey, nobody's suggesting that happens in real life or that it should happen in Arma. The same goes for suppression. Guys, please, smarten up the conversation, spend a minute longer crafting your reply so you're not playing politics and personally attacking your "foe" (you know, stay on topic and all that) and make it legible. Some of the replies in this thread look record breakingly dumb, just put some goddamn thought and time into it.

If the story is of the caliber of OFP, having it in the game on launch will massively help the review score If the story is of Arma 2 caliber then I wouldn't mind not having it at all.

One can dream, right? *drools* I've been having a load of fun in the techdemo, I somehow landed a triple barrel roll over near the canyon, only damage was a stripped bumper.

Erm... so who reported the Dwarden's post? Perhaps they misunderstood the meaning of the thread...

If you want the game to look darker you want to lower the gamma, not the brightness. EDIT: Oh I see you're talking about bleach values, yeah that comes from brightness, still try lowering the gamma.