Tulx

Hello everyone! I wanted to hear more opinions on what from my point of view is a distinct lack of visible bullet impacts on human targets in ArmA III alpha. Currently, it seems that ArmA doesn't simulate the kinetic energy of the shot being carried over to the target/soldier upon impact. Soldiers seem like paper targets with the bullets passing right through them without any resistance, if the soldier survives the hit. Only a deadly hit triggers the ragdoll effect. And even then, the soldiers just slump together as if lost consciousness and aren't pushed in the direction of the bullet. (They do retain the momentum if hit while running and fall forward, but bullet impacts never influence their falling direction) To better illustrate this, I have put together a short video with three examples - ArmA III alpha, where the kinetic bullet impact is missing, Crysis 2 (of all things), which seems to simulate this very well, and a piece of real life footage of a lucky soldier being hit by what is likely a 7,62mm bullet and surviving uninjured. Is this something that would justify a feedback tracker entry? What do you think?

I wholeheartedly upvoted this. I think that your suggestion is actually a lot more imporant than my complaint about the physical feedback. While mine concearns the immersion of infantry combat, implementing yours could completely change the dynamic of firefigts in ArmA (for the better).

This is exactly what I'm missing - a more distinct physical feedback to getting hit. Like we have physical feedback for getting nearly missed (the screen brightens and your aim shakes).

Yet you don't see him just jogging along despite the hits. At 1:10 he gets hit at least one time and is forced down - if not by the force of the bullet (rather the shock and pain of the hit). I don't want to see handgun shots hurl enemies through widows with explosions in the background, only some more physical feedback when hit that would simulate the experience. We already have the "suppression" effect that simulates the fear and adrenaline of near misses, so this would be a great addition in the same direction.

If you check the ArmA part of the video, I shot the soldier in the bulletproof vest there as well. I suppose another issue is that ArmA doesn't simulate those either - I'm pretty sure it's impossible for any kind of bullet to be stopped by body armour in ArmA, they just seem to mitigate a certain % of the damage. I do appreciate that at least the rag-doll effect has been added in ArmA III, but this makes it even more apparent that no external kinetic force can be applied to human models by gunfire (I haven't tested how bodies behave when hit by vehicles). Now that the rag-doll effect is present it creates an "uncanny valley" - you see the body move close to realistically when falling down and expect it to behave more realistically in other similar circumstances as well. But if I were to hit a soldier in ArmA with a .50 sniper rifle, he would lump together on the spot just like when hit by the smallest handgun in the game.

And Bill Gates said home PCs will never need more than 40MB of storage space. 3D games don't even exist for twenty years and we've already reached BF3 levels. In another ten years, BF3 will probably seem like Doom 1 looks now.

1. Soldiers in ArmA wear armour as well. And even when the shot penetrates the body, it does transfer a lot of its kinetic energy to the body in the process. 2. Correct. The 5,56mm rounds have proven to be lacking stopping power over greater distances, but the soldier in the video was shot by the Taliban which were most likely using 7,62mm rounds (he was lucky the shot didn't penetrate his armour at such close range).

Again, here is a real bullet impact on a soldier weighing probably at least 100kg (with full equipment). The vest took all of the bullet's kinetic energy, which made the impact even stronger, but this is usually also the case in ArmA. And this is Afghanistan, not Hollywood.

No, in ArmA III the soldier only falls when the hit is lethal (and the new ragdolls are great), but the hit has absolutely no kinetic effect if the soldier survives the shot. The force transferred to the body would be lower in the bullet passed through - it wouldn't knock the person down, maybe (or the shock would), but it would still be very much visible. Right now a small blood splatter is all we see - you can just keep running like you were before, unless your leg is hit.

Providing a realistic representation of 7,62mm round impact on a human target at 700 m/s would be right up ArmA's alley, though. Take a look at the video I posted above. I think you won't get a more accurate example than that. ---------- Post added at 08:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:12 PM ---------- I, for one, think that would immensely enhance the immersion.

I do agree that the "feedback" of a hit is lacking in this game and actually most others. The people act like paper targets - the bullets seem to simply pass though them without any resistance (without any kinetic energy transferred from the bullet to the body) and they slump lifelessly to the ground. This is how a hit looks like (probably a 7,62mm or ~.308) in real life. I've seen very few games do it right. The best probably being Crysis 2 (funny, right?), where you see each hit knocking the enemy off balance. I've heard Rage did this good as well. Haven't played Crysis 3 yet.

Greetings! Has anyone else tried this combination yet? I installed Win8 Release Preview recently and the AMD beta drivers that came with it. The graphics in ArmA II are completely messed up. Textures are blurry and performance is bad. I can select only medium textures - the option "high" is disabled. Many textures are missing completely. I wonder if this is a beta driver issue or I have corrupted my ArmA files while moving them back and forth... Any experience regarding this?

I concur. Upon weighing the advantages and drawbacks of this, I conclude that ArmA III should have... ALL THE THINGS!!!

I see where you're going with this, and I like it. The ArmA 2 campaign had this "living" world to some degree and I would very much like to see it expanded in ArmA III. Like a GTA, only serious and about a war-torn island in the near future...well not really like GTA, but you get the idea...

I, for one, would like the campaigm to actually, y'know....work. I tried ArmA campaign several times from the start: 1st time, a script in the 1st mission didn't trigger, making the mission impossible to complete, 2nd time a extraction chopper just froze in the air, 3rd time the extraction chopper crashed upon landing. I'm sure there have been some more bugs which made me quit the campaign and just enjoy the great multiplayer, but those are the ones I remember rught now.

I think the forest density in AII is just right. There ARE certain places, mostly fir formations, which were really dense (I can remember a lot in the region of Devil's Castle), and provide perfect cover for infantry. What the forests could have used, is more undergrowth, but tree density as such is pretty decent for a temperate European forest. Only pine forests tend to have no undergrowth. I am indeed a bit sad that AIII moves away from the oh-so familiar Eastern European flora. It really felt like home and appealed to me greatly. Still, I'm sure BI environmental artists will make a good Mediterranean island. Been to a few, so I hope I can relate to them as well. PS - there actually are "forests" on Mediterranean islands as well. I remember some, although really small and few, on Kerkyra and I think on Crete as well. Plus, there are olive growths all over the damn place, so we'll have some visual cover. ;)

For that matter - is any PvP ACE server alive? I'd very much like to play on one.

Wow - you people make this so damn complicated. I'm able to destinguish between the uniforms in AII and stormtroopers, and, as long as my textures in ArmA look more like the former than the latter, I'm perfectly satisfied. :)

Just one small note: in order for OA to start properly, both the original ArmA II and Operation Arrowhead must have been launched (through Steam) at least once.

It does look the same from a comparable angle. Thanks. Convinced.

I'm sure I'll regret this, but I think I'll take the word of some guy from the internet. Thanks for pointing out. Still - am I the only one who thinks the Merkava in the photography looks lower-profile?

Are you shure that is a Merkava? It shares some of the characteristics, but it definitely doesn't resemble a Merkava MK IV to full 100%. Look at the differently shaped turret. The MK IV has a noticably lower profile than the one in the ArmA III picture. And it resembles the other models of the Merkava even less. Maybe is SUPPOSED to be a Merkava MK IV, but it doesn't look much like one to me. PS - maybe it's the view angle that makes the difference. PPS - sorry for "discussing" it here, but wanted to point this out.

I use Razer Barracuda H-1 (or smth like that) with ArmA II and it definitely supports 3d sound (5.1, probably). I'm not sure if it's capable of 7.1 as well, but the difference shouldn't be that huge. Anyway - having good headphones/surround speakers really gives you an advantage in multiplayer. You can hear tanks and other vehickes form a kilometer away and can intercept them with an RPG or whet ever. Point is - good sound will help you enjoy this game a lot more.

Hello everyone! I've recorded and uploaded a short gameplay footage from the DAO.nu Berzerk server. Anyone bothered can watch it on YouTube. I didn't edit out any menus, so you can see some of the great Berzerk II features in action. Link:

This man gets it. :idea: Anyway - yes - what was Berzerk is now Valhalla and it's better thank ever. The DAO.nu server population is teh only proof you need, really.