Tangox5

Thanks for this mod, great work! I am curious if I have something wrong in my installation or configuration -- I can fire the AT-13 (i.e. Metis) from a standing position without the tripod and it's perfectly accurate. I think in real life the tripod is needed, I don't think it can be shoulder fired. Or am I wrong? Reload times are fantastic, especially grenade launchers (e.g., M203, MGL) Is that a gameplay/fun enhancing decision or again do I have something wrong? Not looking to challenge you guys, just want to understand. Thanks!

Thank you for this mod, great work. I took to the firing range to try the different firearms and noticed some stuff I couldn't understand. Firstly, I noticed that firearms were performing more or less according to their chamber. 9mm were surprising accurate -- I could hit the farthest man sized targets with short bursts from the M10, and a couple others I can't recall -- overall 9mm performed really well. .45 ACP not so much. UMP45 and Thompson were good examples, where I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Using the larger targets I found that even hitting the first and second range boards was difficult, and noticed impacts striking up dust from short bursts at very wide angles. Why does it work this way and can anyone explain a bit about how the ballistics were done?

This is true. Don't forget to swallow that. It's good for you.

Here, decide for yourself. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=102795 A discussion stamped out twice now. What for? He says in a private message I am breaking forum rules by expressing my opinion about the moderators. Well here's one more Placebo: You're an idiot. Now here comes the ban. I'm long since past caring, obviously. Goodbye. Great game. Horrible company front end. Probably won't buy again.

This is an attempt to have a discussion that was stamped out pretty dubiously in the now locked thread here. Obviously as far as the mod aspect is concerned, "If you don't like it don't do it" isn't the least bit helpful since the whole need for such a mod is for multiplayer. The mod or lack thereof isn't that interesting but there was raised this point: The limits of rendering a scene with pixels on a monitor make spotting things harder than you'd be able to in real life. Essentially, there is less resolution, but without getting technical anyone can probably see that it's easier to see in real life than at low res on a pc monitor. So, therefore, we should have some amount of zoom built in to the player so he can see things about as well as he'd be able to in real life. I understand the argument. It's the wrong way to approach it. The goal should not be to make things on your monitor look as sharp as they do in real life, but to make it about as hard to spot soldiers in the game as it would be in real life. That's a very big difference. Here's why. In real life, there is considerably more "clutter" and much less "shimmer" (on moving objects that are only a couple pixels). It is much harder to spot infantry in concealment in real life than it is in Arma2. In addition, in Arma2 there is not enough concealment (especially since all that terrain and vegetation disappears after some short distance.) That's without using the zoom. Add the zoom and it gets ridiculous. You can spot infantry hiding in woods, for example, from hundreds of meters away. Take a man standing next to a tree 300m away. You can see him with a quick scan at zoomed levels. In real life you'd just never make him out, there is too much clutter. This is incidentally a principle in camouflage. It's why a Ghillie suit works better than plain clothes, even if the clothes are a more matching colour to the terrain. What we should care about is how any tool such as this affects *gameplay*. If having it one way leads to realistic spotting distances while having it the other way leads to unrealistic spotting ability, we should prefer the former. When you try to *increase the player resolution* to a state comparable to *real life* you make it ridiculously easy to spot anything. The lack of resolution in the game compared with real life is canceled out when you consider just how much easier it is to see things in the game. The only time giving a free zoom ability to players is going to "fit" is when Arma2 can also render terrain at realistic levels of "clutter". When that time comes, by all means let me zoom in on signposts and read them at the same distance I could in real life. :P Thanks for listening.

Kronzky "If "SuperAI" is turned on in the Difficulty Menu, the skill level is always 1, no matter what was defined in the editor or via this command. " Suggests skill value in editor matters, but doesn't explain whether it (or how it) is related to the profile difficulty settings. :( Someone out there knows exactly how this works. It's just a matter of them noticing the thread.

Yeah it might be one of those things you play with for a while to see what it's like and then disable. :) However, it would be neat as a difficulty setting for *player controlled* vehicles, mostly for multiplayer.

Has anyone managed to throw a track from driving over boulders or anything?

Yeah looking for more :\ Even a confirmation if the editor sliders don't do anything.

I had the same question and came across this thread. Wow, over all these years and nobody has answered or figured this out exactly? Can someone who knows for sure how this works please explain?

............ ---------- Post added at 06:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:28 PM ---------- I gather this works if you have both arma 2 and oa in the same directory. (i.e. "combined") Also same for Sprocket customers?

I've been searching for a way to do this without finding anything. In the editor I have setup a few squads with a move command to behind a wall (stone) using all the different options. I want them to defend the location using the wall as cover. I have them facing the direction of their enemy overlooking a field. The problem is that they don't make use of the cover at all. Indeed, they even charge ahead over the wall into the incoming fire and then go prone on the forward slope of the terrain. I tried Hold, Sentry, Guard, tried not giving any waypoint or command, tried using hold fire and disengage. Nadda :(:confused:

Does ACE fix it?

I think you're the one on a childish rant. Nobody is talking about nationalist anything here. We're talking about a tank 50 years older than another one taking it out frontally with 2 HE shots. ---------- Post added at 04:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:32 PM ---------- Sorry no, the T-72 is not remotely comparable to the M1. The M1 was a big jump in technology for armor, far far ahead of the T-72 -- even the most modern updated versions. ---------- Post added at 04:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 PM ---------- At least useful to show how the system is modeling things, i.e., hitpoints. But we're not just examining strange cases that never occur in combat. I pointed out that a T34 can be destroyed by flanking fire from heavy machine guns, modestly quickly too. HE and HEAT from T55's shouldn't brew up M1A2's. The stuff that we're seeing is significant for gameplay and tactics. It removes realism from how the battle unfolds and forces the commander to use his forces in unrealistic ways, or avoid using them in specific situations where they are supposed to excel. One guy says if you don't want to die, don't get in a vehicle. And with the radar all the vehicles have that see's through terrain and sometimes hillsides, what can possibly be considered a "simulation" about this? The infantry stuff is top notch. Wish the vehicles were as well done.

I never noticed this - note they are sighted for 300m. I'll check next time I use the weapon.