UltimateBawb

I know this is a noob question, but it'd really help. Thanks.

So far it looks like BI is still trying to 'balance' weapons. The Cyrus and MAR-10 both have extremely low fire rate caps similar to what the GM6 Lynx still suffers from. These weapons are all semi-automatic and they should cycle just as quickly as other semi-automatic weapons- you can even see their bolts slowly close, which looks terribly unrealistic. The Mk14, Mk18, and Mk-I are basically all the same, why? The Mk14 shouldn't be fully automatic capable at the very least. If the Mk-I was also only semi-auto maybe its existence would be somewhat justified. Marksman DLC weapons are also of much higher quality than base game weapons. It would be fine if all base game weapons were of acceptable to good quality, but they're not- many are terrible and there's currently no quality control between weapons: https://imgur.com/a/oEIQO

Please stay on topic.

Can the ridiculous burst mode on the Navid be fixed too? :mad:

To everyone worshiping muzzle brakes: The weapon fired in this video is extremely lightweight compared to the GM6 and M320 as well, and the guy is fine. Muzzle brakes do not reduce "65% of the recoil." The main reason these weapons don't have terrible recoil is because they're heavy as all hell, not because they have a simple muzzle brake.

What? No they wouldn't- where are you getting your information? A .50 and especially a .408 don't have that much recoil, seriously recoil is ridiculously exaggerated by so many people. Considering how heavy the guns are as well it's not a huge issue. Do you really think redirecting some gasses is the difference between injury and no injury? Please.

The Mk-1 EMR also has ridiculously low recoil for a 7.62 weapon, especially in full auto. It's basically better than the Mk18/14 in every way. Also the Mk14 should be more accurate than the Mk18 because it has a longer barrel and the Mk18 should weigh less because it's basically a cut down version.

The MAR-10 is a CRTG weapon according to the guide.

It's opinions like these that ruin Arma. This entire game is based around authenticity and realism- if we were to follow your logic we'd end up with a game like BF. Realism is fun for the audience of this game, that's what people like you don't understand. Just like you don't understand that enough realism is balance. Saying to "use mods" if we want a feature is ridiculous- yeah let's just not have BI do anything and rely on user made mods of varying quality and stability (usually low in at least some regard) to fix the game. How about no? If you don't want realism: leave.

Why do we still have weapons with only camo variants? It's absolutely stupid to have a rocket launcher or rifle with a specific camo of a specific faction. The Rahim, RPG, and now the Navid (in the Marksman DLC) have only camo variations. This means they look completely ridiculous when used by any unit other than Opfor regular infantry. Opfor urban forces have different camo and it looks terrible when using these weapons. We have black MX variants which weren't even really needed because the default tan matches with anything. How hard would it be to make some quick grey/black skins? It's ridiculous to have weapons with the same camo as the soldier in the first place but having them as the ONLY option is pathetic.

Here's a question you should always ask before creating anything: why? Is there really a reason to calculate ballistics so precisely? You're talking about minuscule ballistic differences at the cost of non-minuscule performance differences (as well as development time). It seems to me that such "accurate" ballistics are a fool's errand.

The addon is not licensed, there is nothing binding anyone from editing the addon for noncommercial use. Even if the addon was licensed, it would be under APL or APL-SA; both allow for user modification. It would be illogical for someone to be able to take BI's content, port it, and then claim it is their own and disallow others from modifying it- not to mention not backed by law. Honestly I don't see why you have a problem with someone playing around with an addon to try and achieve some desired effect/improvement. I might be able to understand if all the content was brand new, or if I was making some kind of profit, or if I was distributing publicly. But I'm not.

I'm working on editing Chairborne's Mi-24 mod to give the helicopters bullet resistant glass as they should realistically. Modifying the armor values of the glass hit classes doesn't at all work, and minimalHit doesn't change anything either. After doing some research it seems that the armor value is bound to the model itself. Where would I begin to try and change this? Would I be looking for an .rvmat file or an actual model, and how would I go about editing it? Thanks for any help you can provide!

So there's no fire geometry LOD in the model- go figure. So what it's a broken model and I'm screwed? I really can't understand why the config even exists if it doesn't do anything, the fact that I have to jump through hoops to change the durability of glass is ridiculous.

I'm editing the model, which is provided by BI. What exactly would I change in the model to change the glass's strength? I can't find any information on this.

When trying to binarize a .cpp with Eliteness I get the error "Line 3 token= is not an array{}," and the line referred to is always just an array like requiredAddons = {"A3_Data_F", "A3_UI_F", "A3_Anims_F", "A3_Anims_F_Config_Sdr", "A3_Weapons_F"};. I've troubleshooted by debinarizing a working .pbo config and rebinarizing but still always get the same error regardless of the file or array. I can even comment out the first array and it happens on the next one. What's going on? I'm using Eliteness x32 version 3.24. Thanks for any help you can provide!

Thanks so much, problem solved. It confused me as to why this wasn't already in the code when debinarizing though...

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=21662

Because "scoring" doesn't matter in Arma, it's only a way to see who killed what. Arcade games like Battlefield and CoD need precise scoring, in Arma it's about completing the mission. Scoring means nothing.

You said it yourself, you have a crap notebook. Don't expect to run this game (or anything else even mildy demanding) on it. No magic command lines will help you.

For fuck's sake, get off your high horse and realize that just because someone disagrees doesn't mean they're "trolling." Go back to fucking 9gag.

The Mk18's iron sights are disgustingly low poly-count, and optics put on it just float above the chamber where there's no rail. Why is this? I avoid touching that gun because no matter what you do with it it's just painful to aim with. Why isn't the optic mount point just farther down the top rail?

Why are windows impeccably clear? It's hard to tell when a window's been shot out or not other than glare that's hit or miss. Windows should be more opaque and have dust or dirt on them, not look like they're out of a Windex commercial.

21) Use descriptive thread titles If you start a new thread, please make sure your thread title explains what you want without forcing people to read through your post first. Thread titles such as "How in the world do I...", "Need help!" or "Will we ever see..." are anything but descriptive. We do not allow these kind of titles and threads with such titles are subject to be closed.

I'm talking about vehicle windows; they're so perfectly clear and flawless that it's difficult to tell if it's even there unless there's glare (which only happens at certain view angles. An MRAP's windows are thick and should be much more opaque.