dragon01
-
Content Count
2030 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
-
Medals
-
Everything posted by dragon01
-
Tac-Ops Mission Pack Military Operations
dragon01 replied to Tom_48_97's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Don't have TacOps so I don't know who's doing that, but with irregular or poorly trained forces (Syndikat thugs and the like) this isn't that unrealistic. Such "tactics" are called "Iraqi Death Blossom" after a force with a particular fondness of them, and they're rather common among insurgent forces. It's about as effective as you're seeing, too, since firing in the general direction of the target in full auto just isn't that likely to land a hit (this can be more successful against large groups... barely). I found Syndikat doing that in Apex rather realistic, they fought like a band of two-bit thugs they were. -
Says someone without a single released mod to his name... Changelogs are documentation, and documentation is important. It's true whether it's a small mod or a multimillion dollar software project. Documenting changes as you do them is also good and should be a universal practice, exactly because there can be temporary changes for debugging. Neglecting that can and does lead to releasing with a "dev switch" flipped the wrong way somewhere, and if you don't have a robust tester base (and sometimes even then), it may lead to frustrating attempts to debug it and an embarrassing hotfix once the problem is finally uncovered. Changelogs are really the most basic form of documentation, and aside from being just plain easy to read (as opposed to, say, trawling through a sprawling wiki), they're also, by definition, up to date.
-
ACE3+RHS is the best you can do, in any consumer military simulation ever. If you want more, join the army and play VBS.
-
RHS is one of the best out there. It is realistic. It might not act what you expected it to, but this is often the case with truly realistic simulation. Also, wrong board.
-
RHS terrains. RHSKATYA, RHSPKL, RHSVIDDA
dragon01 replied to bludski's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: DISCUSSION
I suspect Livonia structures will be made available for non-owners after a while, in a similar way Tanoa ones were. Probably just a matter of time, BIS doesn't exactly have a lot of manpower working on ArmA3. Are you planning to release a "dev" build in a similar way to main RHS mod, or is there no point in doing that for terrains? -
RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)
dragon01 replied to soul_assassin's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE
I know, I just wanted to be sure you do. 🙂 I don't doubt someone would've noticed that eventually (maybe they already did), but you'd be surprised (or not, you've been working it for quite a while, after all) what can slip under the radar in a big project like that... -
RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)
dragon01 replied to soul_assassin's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE
Well, do check if the missiles aren't getting intercepted. That would reduce their armor penteration quite severely. 🙂 Speaking of which, I've tried the RHS beta, the current Armata APS has an annoying habit of shooting down my own gun-launched missiles. It could probably use a check against that. -
RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)
dragon01 replied to soul_assassin's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE
I think that the idea is that the crew would retreat in that case, not bail out. The general idea is that the hull can take quite a beating, even from the best modern AT weapons. The way T-14 is designed means that damage to the turret wouldn't be a direct threat to the crew, so in most cases they'd want to drive the tank away, as opposed to bailing out and exposing themselves to MG fire. Considering that a modern APFSDS hit on the turret is pretty likely to cause a mission kill on any modern tank (that's what those rounds are for, after all), I'd say this may not be as much of a disadvantage as it seems. With armor that thin, you'd get less spallation, so it might actually help with survivability in this scenario. Of course, autocannons or even HMGs could become a threat with armor that thin, but I suppose a competent crew should be able to avoid being shot at with autocannons from the side. -
There is no reason why SCBA wouldn't work in very shallow water, but deeper down it might have pressure issues. It is certainly not recommended to use an SCBA as a makeshift SCUBA, though if your life depended on it, you probably could do that.
-
True for rifles (most of them. Some old Mosins are notorious for spewing giant flames out of the barrel). Handguns, however, tend to make quite a flash due to their short barrels. They're much louder than rifles, as well, which is something I really hope ArmA series will get right someday.
-
RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)
dragon01 replied to soul_assassin's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE
Considering that T-14 was long touted as an entirely Russian-made tank, I don't think the sanctions will put that much of a damper on it. Of course, upgrading T-90 and T-72 will continue, because why throw away perfectly good tanks? 🙂 An initial batch is supposedly already in production, so I'd say it's doing pretty well. And besides, last thing Putin wants is to make it seem like the sanctions have any effect on the Russian military.- 16550 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- Weapons
- Accessories
- (and 1 more)
-
fixed Please correct the error of the player automatically getting up, after firing from the launcher
dragon01 replied to mickeymen's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
This was a suggestion for @reyhard, one that could, hopefully, be implemented without introducing too many new bugs. -
at-defense Counter-measures against AT-Missiles are worthless
dragon01 replied to mickeymen's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
It works, both for players and AI. If ACE3 messes with it, that's a mod problem. It should be noted that the current implementation is unrealistic. Popping smoke only works if done after the missile launch, and seems to work even if you don't move. Also, laser and manually guided missiles are immune unless used by a human player. This is because smokes use code for flares, and AI doesn't seem to account for its effect on vision. -
accuracy Please make adequate accuracy for Tank AI-gunners, against air targets
dragon01 replied to mickeymen's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
I seem to recall AI tanks shooting me down when flying a Wipeout, though that was a few versions ago. They generally only had a chance of hitting when you were strafing them with the gun (flying straight at them), so it was fair enough, I guess. I didn't mind it then and wouldn't mind seeing it come back. It'd make anti-armor CAS less of a turkey shoot. It certainly is something real tanks can do, there's a reason you're supposed to use missiles against them. They generally can't turn the gun fast enough or high enough to track fastmovers, and an attack helo has, if properly flown, several advantages over the tank that allow it to make a kill before the tank crew can react. If you're a pilot and you get yourself shot down by a tank's main gun, you've got noone but yourself to blame. -
fixed Please correct the error of the player automatically getting up, after firing from the launcher
dragon01 replied to mickeymen's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
A temporary solution would be to make the top attack the default fire mode. While I never had a problem with direct fire, top attack seems like the more useful of the two (IRL, direct fire is mostly for attacking low flying/hovering helos). If you don't use the second firemode, you don't get the bug, so that's one way to deal with it. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but until a more permanent fix can be found, this will let you get around it. That kind of bug is definitely a sign of software rot. Right now, the biggest concern should be avoiding introducing new bugs while trying to fix the worst of the old ones. ArmA3 might be at EOL, but RV is an outright zombie by now. There's a reason people have been hyped for ArmA4, specifically for the possibility of it running on Enfusion. -
Well, what if it costed a hundred bucks? Because I'm not in London, I'm in a country which gets German prices on Steam, while having a currency with one fourth the purchasing power of the Euro. Earning a hundred by mowing lawns would be pretty darn hard here (not to mention people would rather do it themselves than pay anybody), and you can eat for a week for that (not very well, but you can). If BIS sets up localized pricing so that I can pay a fair amount in my own currency (or I end up moving to Russia, because they get their prices adjusted), I'm all for it. Otherwise, no dice, I'm going to wait until ArmA4 comes out and ArmA3 DLCs end up actually costing twenty bucks in my currency (around 5 euros, you can now get Iron Front for that when it's on sale).
-
I was talking in context of this being released as standalone. So of course it would be priced like a full game in that case. I think it would be fine, what I wanted to say is that if anything, having this require owning ArmA3 to run is a questionable decision. I suppose it makes sense from a purely business standpoint for BIS (they get their cut and get to sell ArmA3 itself), but TBH, I'd rather see such comprehensive modifications go the Iron Front route. I'd probably ruffle less feathers than "Creator DLCs" idea did. I guess 10 long, really good SP missions would be OK for a standalone game, but they'd really have to be exceptional (mid-game ArmA2 missions are a good example).
-
It was an expansion for ArmA3 (and I think its SP was botched, TBH). By "standalone" I meant a separate title like Iron Front. If you gave the new DLC another 5-10 missions (not necessarily in the campaign, ArmA2 had about 10 campaign missions and a number of single ones) it would be comparable to what full ArmA series titles typically had at release.
-
This does look like something akin to Iron Front. Now, this probably doesn't apply to every such DLC, but this one could very well be packaged and sold as a separate game altogether. 10 SP missions is a bit short for a standalone, but I think that's fine if the price is set accordingly. The assets are cool, and I suppose they could be used in an asymmetrical mission with 2035 units, but TBH, i think it would be somewhat odd considering the vehicles only come in West/East German liveries. This DLC is meant to be used completely separately from all the other ArmA3 assets. If you think of it as a standalone game tacked onto ArmA3 distribution for logistical reasons, it looks OK. For something that integrates with vanilla assets, I'd be opposed (BI should use the normal DLC system for that), but from what we know the other Creator DLCs are going to be similarly detached from vanilla setting (they're going for diversity, and there's little that vanilla hadn't tried). As a matter of fact, "Iron Front II" would be a really cool DLC idea, IMO (either Iron Front extended and revamped as A3 DLC, or another WWII story). I'll probably buy it if a bundle comes out, and it's on a good sale (the usual procedure for me, games are ridiculously overpriced in my country). It looks cool, but without the ability to test it out, I can't be sure if I really want it (I bought Iron Front for what amounts to pocket change for the same reason).
-
I think that the last part might be because it would be very silly for a regular vehicle to keep burning while underwater. It does make sense to disable fire and smoke when in the water, though it causes problems for stuff like the ANZAC, which isn't a very common use case, to be fair.
-
Long range, as in, more than 25km? 🙂 Seriously, though, even the jets we have, even if we had a TOH-sized map to go with them, would realistically have combat range far exceeding the longest distance available on the maps. ArmA also doesn't really do conflict on a scale where strategic bombers would come into play. An off-map cruise missile is all you'd realistically get.
- 4 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- dlc
- suggestions
- (and 2 more)
-
Just saw the SitRep. A 3rd party DLC and a non-traditional BIS DLC? And here I thought ArmA3 development was winding down. 🙂 Well, it probably is winding down, but still, it's awesome that we're still getting new stuff after all this time (maybe that also means DLC bundle #2 will be sufficiently discounted for my budget come next sale 🙂). Eh, or at least it would be awesome and all, if I could play it. My GPU died a week or so ago and the integrated one is... not up to the task, to say the least. I hope I can get a replacement before all this gets staged to devbranch.
-
Project - Vertical Lift 2035
dragon01 replied to martinezfg11's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: DISCUSSION
As a matter of fact, the Blackfish is almost exactly the size of C-130. -
HAFM NAVY - Submarines & Ships - v2
dragon01 replied to Αplion's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: DISCUSSION
There should be an option to render an object all the way up to terrain rendering distance. It's currently used for aircraft, may be worth looking into for the ships, as well. -
RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)
dragon01 replied to soul_assassin's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE
Will the Trophy be functional on the new M1A2C?
