rye1

This deserves a meme. Scumbag Steve hat I'm thinking. ;)

Why? It's so silly. Only niche first person shooter games have this 'feature'. Plus in terms of controls how would it be implemented? Scroll wheel is used for opening the action menu currently.

(Have only played a bit of beta so...) Is it still made so you have to get the chopper all the way on the ground before you can scroll and get-out? If so, I hope that changes. So you can hover insert, helocast, helicopter parachute etc instead of physically landing all the time.

I think this is something you only see in RVS type games. I don't think it would do that well in ARMA.... just shoot through the door. ;)

Some of the doors in my opinion, especially on center-fed rooms, need to open all the way instead of opening to an angle then stopping. Wouldn't be bad if they were free-objects and you could run into them to push them... but then again I could imagine a door killing me with that.

With the pilot holster it would be cool to see a new animation for unholstering the pistol. :)

There's some written stuff out there too if you ever want to read.

Sometimes ACE is a little slow on loading the fact you have your bipod down. Sometimes it's dodgy when it can't detect the object below you. The whole 'symbolization' to say 'you have your weapon rested' is like when you used to get bumped with a 'shoulder tap'. I think if those things got improved... and that 'bump' thing removed it would be better within a vanilla ARMA3. It's certainly a thumbs up and something that would be great to replicate to a degree in ARMA3 but not exactly as the ACE team did it.

Sounds really cool. Are you able to weapon rest if you don't have a bipod? I suppose if bipods being useable is featured as you say then weapon resting would be implementable also.

G35's -- flick the 3D sound switch on your left side on and off while in game. Ta-da. :D No really, not a lot to change imho.

If the issue is on the bug tracker then we'll get around to it. Feel free to add me on Skype and we can see about getting you to test the latest build.

I hope not. Making AI stack would be silly. And what do you mean by 'pathfind better'?

Don't they decrease damage in game? In ARMA 2 they did. Especially with ACE, subsonics were realistically terrible when it came to taking someone down.

You quoted a statement made that supported the energy theory as a damage causer and the energy transfer theory. So yes, it was said. :j: As I've stated, the potential is because of the way the bullet acts within the body; not because of energy.

I hope it actually means improvement.

Here's the way we're doing it: http://i1207.photobucket.com/albums/bb463/RyanAAF/arma32013-03-2422-17-16-61.jpg (131 kB) Obviously more complex as expected from a modification.

What about blood effects? Mmm... squirty blood. Too much?

It should be working. Works fine for me and everyone else I know who has tested it. Dev-hev with repro it if it doesn't work for you.

No, it sounds really cool none the less and I'd love to see similar in ARMA 3. You've put a lot of brain power into it. Four... But feel free, we'd love to have another person on board from a research-advise stand point. Hit me up on Skype. :) Be sure to check it out... ....

It's already there. Cat out the bag but we've been making CMSA3 for a while. In terms of the 'body picture' of the wounded soldier, we're currently doing something similar. It's a great idea and you've portrayed a vanilla system that would be more easily accepted for the general population of ARMA players. I have a few questions: How would items work? Would you have a medical backpack with all items or have to pick out items individually - or would they be included in the first aid kit currently in A3? Are there any negative affects for placing things in the wrong position, etc? It sounds like more of a game of place the picture by the problem, end of story. But still, it gives a medic more to do and expands the current system.

What are you trying to point out? You've bolded two points about energy. Penetration needs energy behind it, we understand that as velocity. The energy debate tells us that you need lots of energy to be placed into the human body to cause damage, as if energy is a 'damage causer', which is untrue. As Doctor Gary K. Roberts puts it: "Physics. It's real. Kinetic energy is simply a measure of the work potential of a projectile. As noted above, although part of the equation, kinetic energy in and of itself it is not a predictor of incapacitation effectiveness. Recall: -- Bullets cannot physically knock down a person by the force of their impact. -- Kinetic energy or momentum transfer from a projectile to tissue is not a wounding mechanism. -- The amount of "energy" deposited or momentum transferred to a body by a projectile is not directly proportional to the amount of tissue damage and is not a measure of wounding power. -- Wounds of vastly differing severity can be inflicted by bullets with identical kinetic energy and momentum. What a bullet does inside the body--whether it yaws, deforms, or fragments, how deeply it penetrates, and what tissue it passes through is what determines wound severity, not KE!" The energy debate is full of leaks. So, no, I'm not a troll. http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/myths.html#energy

You quote a man still discussing energy when multiple Wound Ballistic Experts discredit the myth that energy is the main 'problem causer'. They agree that energy is a symptom for certain ways the bullet will perform in ballistic gel, and in human tissue, but do not rate it as a damaging factor as depicted by the temporary cavity which is the dispersing factor of the vast amount of energy, known to be the cause of very little tissue destruction and detachment. Other rounds such as the MK262 have proven the energy theory to be quite misinformed with the medical-human aspect of wound ballistics. For instance shallow wounds aren't about energy, they're about dissipation of fragments with very little penetrating energy, yet are known to be the most effective rounds to put someone down due to overwhelming pain. This is not about energy. It's about tissue destruction, the primary cavity. The reason why faster rounds can do little damage is because the way the round performs 'through-and-throughs' are more likely to occur to to the fact the penetrating power you have is more than the width of tissue the bullet enters; and shot-lines on a face-front target tend to agree with this argument through exampled shoot-outs in some research data. Therefore it's in, and it's out. No tumble, no yaw, no real internal structure or organ damage. Some through-and-throughs have been known to go through flesh and not affect any other part of the body, allowing the fight to continue. I agree. You'll always have the noise of your action (cycling), muzzle blast and the noise of the projectile impacting. Unless we're using the Welrod.

Wait... you holster the sidearm and then say engaging an immediate threat is 'slow'?! Relate to the last picture of my avatar.

When you're in any training area with a staged platform, the cat-walk, above you - you're not supposed to have your weapon up otherwise you might cap the RSO with an AD therefore there can be this dogmatic hovering opinion when it comes to muzzle up or down, high or low-ready when it comes from an instructor perspective. As with many instructors, safety concern sometimes overlooks reality-risk and benefit. Chris (Crap) Costa and Travis (Tit) Haley got bagged pretty hard for their systems check, where they roll the carbine to visually inspect the bolt position, by some Military units -- and 'tactical gurus'. So, it's not all 'If he does, I do'. There is no correct way, there's only opinion. Don't listen to one source. For example I hear people talking about James Yeager like he's the God of God's. Have you ever seen his "CQB course" videos? Absolute crap. It's called superficial knowledge. There's many ways to do this over that and we won't get them all in game. They have to WORK for the game. We've got the cross-hold, we've got low and high-ready, we've got quicker animation-to-shot times. I think BIS if there were to change something aesthetically, can only make small changes because it's pretty much spot on in my opinion.

Yeah but is it common for unstable velocity changes to be apparent with Military ammunition and Military suppressors?