Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

dragon01

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    2001

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by dragon01

  2. Posted

    I do hope that infantry AI gets improved. Last time I tested vehicles worked well, but that might have changed. Infantry is, IMO, the most important part of the game. Vehicles, as long as they're usable in normal situations (besides VTOLs, they are, unlike what some people claim) are a secondary concern.

  4. Posted

    When they tweak vehicle AI, people complain about infantry AI having issues. When they tweak infantry AI, you complain about problems with vehicle AI... In general, AI design is a very complex matter. Despite what people are saying, there are no "simple" problems. It takes a lot of time and a significant manpower investment to do anything with AI. 

    • Like 2

  5. Posted

    This does seem like something that a real jet of that kind could do, especially with advanced missiles and an upward-looking IRST, like the one Russian aircraft tend to have. However, the Shikra we have in game seems to be a "monkey model" that doesn't have a HMD (which would be needed to actually lock that kind of shot) and I'm not sure if the AI is supposed to be capable of doing that, anyway.

  9. Posted

    2 hours ago, JD Wang said:

     

    I generally use mine if I have to clear a building when running as the squads machine gunner, or marksman. 
    Much easier/smoother to clear with a pistol than an M249 or a long rifle 

    I suppose that's one use. Though after a case where I emptied an entire pistol mag into a guy and he didn't die, I started to doubt their utility in any situation. I think he was wearing armor and the pistol was silenced, but still. Might have even been in ArmA2. Given the AI's penchant for immediately firing back with perfect accuracy, in spite of having just been shot, I usually found the instant kill of an MG a somewhat more reliable option, despite its clumsiness. Or at least, it used to be that way last time I tried, which admittedly was a while ago. 

  10. Posted

    7 hours ago, shurka said:
     
    Okay, then what about the RPG-28?

    How exactly is that different? It's an RPG-27 with an even larger warhead. Maybe it would be able to kill a tank with less skill in some situations, but in the end, RPG-26 works just fine. Really, the only RPG RHS could possibly use in its current state is RPG-29, if only because it can punch through the frontal armor of just about every vehicle in game. Since the Russians have no shoulder-launched missile that can do that (the US have the Javelin, even if it doesn't technically attack frontal armor and is actually more comparable to Metis), it would be potentially useful. Still, with some tactics, RPG-26 and RPG-7 are all you need.

  11. Posted

    Pistols in general are of limited utility in ArmA. I've never found myself in a situation in which I'd pull out a pistol, they're underpowered and not that accurate. RPG-26 already does a good job at knocking out all US tanks available in RHS, so RPG-27 would be of little use, too (it's the same thing, but bigger, heavier, and a little more powerful). RMG is impossible to simulate properly in ArmA, because there is no penetration+explosion mechanic. Not only are those things not "necessary", but they're completely useless, except for RPK. If Tanks DLC brings a better system for bunker busters and penetration with explosive rounds, then RMG would become a nice idea, too, but it's way too far off.

     

    I'd rather see some more teasers of new/revised aircraft weapons. 

    • Like 1

  15. Posted

    CUP and RHS, in particular, overlap heavily. Many of those addons add a lot of content which is duplicated by others. If you can cut down on everything that's duplicated in RHS, then you won't lose much in terms of equipment that's available, but might eke out some extra performance.

     

    At any rate, CPU is the culprit here. I don't see why content packs would cause much trouble in that area, but this CPU has too poor single thread performance to be much good in ArmA. Also, JSRS is CPU heavy, which compounds the issue. 30% usage means, on an octocore, two cores maxed out and one partially loaded. ArmA won't use all 8. Graphics are a result of that, with GPU simply not having that much to do. ArmA3 is absurdly CPU heavy, more so than any other game, including famous CPU hogs like Skyrim.

  17. Posted

    10 minutes ago, bludski said:

    What I am talking about is we are using sea water to pretend it isn't because that is the only water we have. One level. Rivers flow downward. From an elevated position. Doing more than one particular season and playing with tides doesn't enter into it.

    The kind of terrain you showed doesn't appear to include any elevated position. A wide, meandering river like in the pic on the previous page usually flows across a mostly flat area (hence the meandering - any grade noticeable to a human will make a river flow straight down the slope). At the map sizes we're talking about I wouldn't expect much in terms of elevation changes that far downriver.

     

    That said, given the changes in how vegetation looks between wet and dry seasons, sticking to just one of them is, all in all, probably a good idea.

  18. Posted

    2 hours ago, bludski said:

    I'm not talking about tides...

    You were talking about varying the water level in the river, right? If you're doing the river the "normal" way (not as a pond), and your terrain is landlocked, then it should be possible to get a reasonably realistic "wet season" effect using the tide curve. 

  19. Posted

    19 hours ago, bludski said:

    In reality, water in the area will vary by 10+ meters in the rain season but since we can't have elevated water in arma, 

    We can. BIS was recently experimenting with tides, I believe the same could be used for the river on a landlocked map. This feature was in ArmA2 already.

  20. Posted

    I have a few HUD/HMD-related things to report. The biggest problem is that on the Xi'an HMD, the rocket CCIP piper for the pilot is completely inaccurate (I'll also check the helos later, the new mechanic for switching weapon control between pilot and gunner might have complicated things here). Another thing is that waypoint carets on Wipeout seem to move when the plane is rolled, throwing off the heading reading. Finally, on the Buzzard HUD, the indicators for gear, flaps, lighting don't disappear completely, but slightly dim, rendering them rather useless for actually indicating anything without close inspection. The latter is not a new issue, but certainly annoying, no real HUD does that. 

     

    Also, a few suggestions. First, with the FM improvements, it would be useful to display AoA, G and Mach number in all planes. Second, the Wipeout should have a "graded" roll indicator somewhere, with tick marks to indicate 4 and 2 minute turns (now that FM is going to be changed to actually make such turns possible). Third, I'd really love to see the waypoint caret added to every HUD and HMD, it really helps navigation.

  21. Posted

    Weapons aren't affected by the wind and I don't think they're ever going to be in ArmA3. TBH, this would actually be a bigger deal for infantry than for aircraft, if you needed to take windage into account, sniping would become much more difficult. Low speed strafing runs can be done into/against the wind, which is easy to compensate for with the rate of fire CAS cannons offer, and even in a crosswind this would not be a big issue (dumb bombs are already not too accurate, anyway). Crosswind landing is the only real situation where it would be an issue, mostly for new players.

    On 7/9/2017 at 10:59 AM, jone_kone said:

    Strong winds with AFM can make flying helso almost impossible. 

    Which is par the course. Helicopters are very sensitive to winds. If it's strong enough, you're pretty much reduced to flying like an airplane, if at all. That said, no mission I played actually used wind that strong (I guess I could try it in the editor).

  23. Posted

    6 hours ago, rksl-rock said:

    EDIT - Just been told by a old Reg mate that the design i have is intended for the DAFs (but was used on some MANs).  And I should smack my mate Mark :P  Either way Its not a million miles out so I'm sticking with it as I cant be arsed to change it right now.  So there :P

    If it was used on some MANs, then this must be one of them. :) Simple. Who says that every vehicle available has to be the most bog-standard example. It's nice if it is, but we can use a less common variation just fine.

  25. Posted

    I don't think that ArmA does anything with the wind, besides having it blow smoke around. It doesn't affect ballistics and I think that AFM isn't affected, either (it was in TOH, but not all features have been implemented, I think).

     

    TBH, I don't see much point in wind affecting planes. It'd be nice, but you'd barely notice it in the jets. The only plane that would be significantly affected would be Caesar BTT. Landings in strong crosswinds could be interesting, but that's about the extent of it. With helos and VTOLs it's a big deal and with parachutes it can mean life or death, but planes, especially fighters, aren't gonna be too bothered.

×