Hatchet_AS

I was going to bring this particular piece of things up early but I haven't had to time to look at the technical pieces in game to know whats what currently. Certainly feels like this is the case in game still. The disconnect for me (on the random pattern) is simply, when I'm shooting a weapon in real life I have all the tactile feedback of actually holding the weapon and I know where my muscles are being strained because I feel it. And because of those inputs to the brain, I can willingly and accurately adjust accordingly. Whether that adjustment is simply choosing to relax for sec before the next shot, or pushing myself to maintain the current sight picture. Whatever the adjustment, I still have control of the weapon and instinctively know what muscles to engage to achieve whatever I'm after. Now whether or not I have the capacity to do such, is scenario dependent. Considering there is no tactile feedback in game (obviously), it makes it hard for me accept a random pattern as reasonable. Although I gave up a couple years ago on the topic. The thought in the back of my head here is, if perhaps the pattern were not random, the current sway would be fine with no reduction. As it would be realistically possible to 'control' things, as you could fight the sway intelligently. The balance/challenge would be in how much mouse input is needed to maintain higher level of control (NOT a finite level of control). And of course fatigue, weapon weights, and whatnot would ideally affect that scaling of input. Just thoughts. Still like the idea of reducing sway under hold breath. I also agree that sway in the prone position needs to be reduced (sorry missed that earlier).

Mod solution for this issue in general is coming shortly via new silencers. We just need to sort configs per weapon, and I need to export a few dozen versions for the current array of weapons. I always like new toys though, the 4-Five is pretty sweet. I'm not surprised the Rahim has auto fire. Whether or not intentional, I have no clue. People would complain if it was single shot only I imagine. As this seems to be the natural cycle with these things, so meh.. clever enough. ;)

Arrr... made me go read again. You are correct, the original suggestion was beyond my scope of reasonable as well. Apparently my gear grinding took lead with that. And I honestly wouldn't change much of anything with the current system. A little less sway in general fits my idea of real world a little better. Talking something like 10% reduction. Outside of that though, I've never made a suggestion on how to fix it because I understand most of the mechanics and it is complicated when trying to maintain realism/gameplay standards for the masses. Reducing sway under hold breath seems like a reasonable approach, as this would fix the sight picture issue while 'engaged'. But still require players to utilize the systems available to be efficient. Outside of that, I don't really have any complaints. Less the lack of bipods, current silencer configs and the insanity with how that works and the affects they have on the topic at hand. But yeah, we're just fixing those ourselves. Which is not to say I think everything else seems realistic, rather what we have in game seems like a reasonable system, that is challenging as it should be. Just needs minor tweakage.

I'm not sure why you are equating my statement about things not being intuitive as a desire to make things easier. That is about as from my perspective and general thought process with these things as it can get. For what it's worth though, I do a fair amount of shooting (couple times a week) with an array of weaponry. I have no issues even in stress shoots hitting targets within 300 meters in any stance with an Aimpoint or iron sights for that matter, on any assault rifle. And have several brothers from the service and current activities that are capable of doing the same any day of the week. Thus things from my perspective don't seem to be true (intuitive). I thought the suggestion that I was referencing above my post was to simply reduce the amount of sway a bit, while holding breath. You know, that thing you always do anyway if you have any clue how to shoot in the game. That suggestion as I stated seemed like a reasonable solution, as it would address reasonably the issue I have with the system. Which is simply that maintaining a sight picture seems unrealistic compared to what I know to be real world. Weapon resting is available in a couple/few mods already. TMR and VTS come to mind. I'm about to release a set of bipods and other attachments (weekend at the latest), but unfortunately needing to replace a PSU in that box as of yesterday. Is coming though!

This is good news, and it is perfectly possible for things to get screwy with drivers. Granted it is much better these days than say 2-3yrs ago. I always do a clean install though, takes a minute or two longer, but rarely if ever see issues. My first thought was heat or hardware though with what you were saying. So hopefully you're good now with the easier fix.

I just put my new titan in today and funny enough this was the first thing I saw. Which was depressing for a few seconds ... but meh, just seems like a texture/mat issue. Sure it'll get sorted before to long. Guess it would suck if all you do is fly the one jet around in the game right now though. :p

Well, for what it's worth we are all noticing an array of sound issues still in the game. Granted it's come a long way from alpha. There are still oddities with surround stuff for many of us on our servers (true or emulated). And we indeed hear the same db level issues. Our current thought process is that the surround issues might account for many of the volume differences being heard (ie.. not all channels firing at correct levels, and or some channels just not firing). My rear and center channels seem to fail me most often. Whether its a vehicle sound, gun shot, reloading and seemingly whatever else. It is random and fairly rare I suppose considering how many sounds get played in a session. That being said a couple other things I noted while reading the thread here. In the video it seems to me that the frags are actually a lot quieter than they should be at that range. I think what you are defining as blown out is actually normal. At least for me, nades are usually audibly loud at that range. My in-game effects volume is around 25%. Also regarding the smoke grenades, I've tossed a few dozen M18's over the years. They do get very loud as they burn out. I personally thought that was a nice touch, and is fairly spot on. So most likely intentional. Would imagine it might confuse some people though.

I didn't read the whole thread, but this accurately describes how I feel about things currently. Even with having things tweaked more to my liking, the mouse battle mentioned is really the issue I have with things. Just doesn't seem intuitive at all. Not completely sure if that is purely sway, or recoil effects and sway. Either way the suggestion quoted, seems like it might be a really good idea.

Haven't had time to play with the sub class yet. Was honestly just waiting to see if Gnat comes up with something sooner or later. I'm patient like that. Unfortunately the config value to prevent water from entering the hull of my computer was missing earlier this evening. And true to form, water inside the hull is still a fail scenario. Good news is, it looks like I'm just down a PSU. Hopefully back up tomorrow ... was in the middle of configuring a stripped down tanker for testing when chaos struck. :j:

I was referring to the man class issues and whether or not fixing it is possible. I'm very aware of the 'vehicle' on vehicle stuff working far better than anything previously. Although still a little quirky as seen in that video. Which is the same thing I've experienced on the MkV and VLCC. Driving CRRC's up on the back deck of the MkV is fairly realistic right now. Right up until you want to get out of the CRRC. Which is where the man class stuff starts. And again, I'm somewhat limited in knowledge ... but it seems as maionaze mentioned, that the man class vehicles do not share the same physx characteristics. Or perhaps are not even part of the physx simulation on the movement side of things? My thought is if it is not part of the physx simulation, that would likely be a big todo on the dev side. And thus not something we'd be likely to see anytime soon, if ever. I'm hopeful that I'm just misguided with my thoughts, and this ends with BIS being able to reconfigure some things and it work properly for the man class. Certainly appears that vehicle on vehicle collision stuff can be tweaked to an acceptable point, as it is mostly working now.

Still need another day or two (RL business is busy), but I intend to pitch about as proper a fit as I can on the subject matter. Just need to tweak a couple working examples, and reverify quickly what I think I know. Certainly things have improved in some areas in ArmA 3. Unfortunately while I'm somewhat capable of fumbling around and making things do stuff, I lack in the deeper knowledge of technical things. Which makes articulating my woes somewhat more challenging. Nonetheless, this really needs to be addressed. I see it as preventing us from reaching the next level of 'epic' on many fronts. *edit* The video link is nice. But as one of the comments says, issues are with large vehicles. Like the VLCC I'm working on, 300m long, 50m wide. The semisubmersible is 100m square'ish. I'd be interested in seeing that model and config though. *edit deuce* Missed two posts.. think you are correct though maionaze. Is what I've gathered at least from fumbling around. Which really makes me think this ends in, sorry guys just not possible (under this RV, or combination of systems within). That confirmation would suffice though. Saves me headache and time, which is always appreciated.

This fairly accurately summarizes my feelings currently. The 'timing' factor seems to be the single biggest issue. Perhaps the sounds and visual effects wouldn't be as tragic if employed more reasonably (at a time that makes reasonable sense.). Just seems like too much too fast in the effects department. And well, I'm not that kind of player!

Thanks for information I suppose, I unfortunately stopped reading at the point where you felt it necessary to identify my post as off topic. The fact that you did that by quoting half of my sentance, that effectively acknowledged my understanding of the post being 'somewhat' off topic ... is well, interesting. Thus concludes my participation here. Fortunately, some good will come of the brief interaction that did occur.

Well enough, I shall get involved.

The semisubmersible would be capable of such feats. I would config it under shipx, but unfortunately there are still issues with moving vehicles and the man class and other things as noted in the thread and elsewhere. I sincerely hope something is done to address these issues. Until then, we'll play under the guise of it being anchored and drilling (which the model indicates fairly well). And the other large vessel (the main structure image) is 300m in length and would indeed also be capable of moving. However as noted, there are technical hurdles. On the brighter side of things, it is nice to watch AI walk the entire length of the vessels. Although that can be hit or miss across the proxies at times. Vast improvement in that department over ArmA 2 at least.

Guess this, is on topic enough. Couple more days and it'll be public. Just need to finish adjusting the barrel mounted versions positioning (as this is needed for the current array of weapons in-game). The image is one of the rail mounted models (which works on the few weapons with bottom rails.. then theres the GL's, and then the.. and the..). Anyway, Robalo should have the configs done soon after I get things to him. ;)

Well lets see, this one isn't particularly confidential these days, and is coming sooner than later. Along with a couple other somewhat profound static surprises not too far behind. One of which is a remodel of a model commercially available (for those who look at these things). About all I can leak at the moment. Although not carrier class or naval warfare with big boomsticks, we think/hope things will blend well with some of the newer features in game relating to water. ;)

Admittedly under the current systems for things, it would be nice if vehicles fell at reasonable/similar speeds (have chutes actually effect that..) and the effects be similar in nature when such events take place. Whether that be steep terrain incidents, failed cargo drops or whatever else one might devise. I'm fairly confident you could script making your tanks blow up after hitting the ground without much effort.

My side hurts.

Hanging around the pad the opportunity to check it out became available a couple times. I do not recall doing much other than sticking them to my eyes. Obviously the clarity/range was much better as you mentioned. I assume you are correct in them not having been adjusted properly. Knowing some of those guys, perhaps adjusted to instill yet more jealousy. :)

The only thing that gets to me about the current naming is stuff like naming a tracked vehicle a BTR. And other like scenarios with some of the weapons. I mean I get creative control and all that, but come on. BTR with tracks? FPDR Trivial though in the scheme of things, as this will surely be corrected by the community soon enough. And I completely understand why BIS would want to shy away these things. Makes sense to just let the community patch it up and avoid potential migraines in the future. :)

This is true. But it only adjusts it within the defined value. Which is in the map config itself. And what I thought the OP was getting at. For what its worth, from my experiences in A1/2, setting the clutter distance to anything beyond a couple hundred meters (little more at best), will produce more than significant performance issues (and I have fairly serious hardware). Thus it is the way it is. Which is not to say a large number of players with the hardware couldn't run it at higher than default distances (pretty sure ACE and others upped in A2). But it's not going to be anything massively larger. Unless of course you are just wanting to take screenshots or something. :)

Regarding the NVG's, it would be awesome to have a different (much less restricted) version for use in aircraft. I remember hanging around the guys at the 160th and looking through their goggles (decade plus ago), and they were infinitely better than what we had as the grunts. Which makes sense. The overall major difference was indeed the field of view though. While we had the mono tunnel of doom, those guys had amazing peripheral view. In a very oval shaped viewing area. Which is pretty well represented in DCS stuff. So I would say it is a fair reference. At least from my experiences. Also as an FO, I used a few different optics over the years, and while in theory you should see a fairly round image. This was often not the case. At least for me, but then again I have a fairly narrow head. So adjusting the optical device to give me that clean round picture was usually a 'meh' kind of thing. :rolleyes:

Wow, how did I miss this thread. Awesome stuff guys. Will be interesting to see where this goes. :)

For whatever it's worth, I always thought command was more for utilization in a GUI setting to launch a specified map/mission. To the best of my knowledge, it is not possible to switch maps without unloading the current one (which means leaving a mission). And I doubt very seriously there is a workaround for that. :)