-Gews-

Body armor is perhaps one of the most important developments for modern infantry - so it would be nice to see ArmA 3 properly simulate it. Some people don't like the idea of players having body armor, but I think it needs to be introduced at some point, it would be great as a server / difficulty option (and I don't mean the "extended armor" option, that is not exactly satisfactory). All the soldiers are wearing body armor, the game takes place in the 2030s and it is over a decade since OFP was released... so I think it's time ArmA should start properly simulating it. Modding can help improve this, but most servers and players are not running mods - modding is not exactly a great solution to something that could be a core feature. I hope some future update will bring this feature, it seemed to be very popular on the Feedback Tracker (354 votes for it): http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=5377 Your thoughts?

I looked a peek at the config for the "50 BW", presumably .50 Beowulf... hit = 22; airFriction = -0.0012; typicalspeed = 550; initspeed = 580; Are these just random placeholder values? Looks like it :huh: airFriction should be at least twice as much, and the hit value surely not more than 14... if that. Same with 7.62x39: hit = 11, airFriction = -0.001. Too much hit, too little airFriction.

*Note: I'm not talking about barrel length affecting velocity* When I go through the configs I see some muzzle velocities seem to be correct, ie: 30rnd 5.56x45mm = 930 m/s 30rnd 5.45x39mm = 900 m/s 10rnd 12.7x99mm = 850 m/s 10rnd .338 Lapua = 936 m/s All the velocities above correspond to the "official" velocities for standard rifles, or are very close to them. However, some velocities seem to be quite incorrect. Here are some examples: 10rnd 7.62x54mm = 870 m/s [in all sources, the SVD's muzzle velocity should be 830 m/s with standard 7N14 sniper ammunition] 100rnd 7.62x51mm = 900 m/s [this is WAY to fast for standard 7.62 ammunition. It is loaded to about 855 m/s] 5rnd 7.62x51mm = 900 m/s [again, way too fast, standard M24 ammunition goes 800 m/s at the muzzle] 5rnd 12.7x99mm = 936 m/s [WAY too fast, the AS50 ammunition uses the same muzzle velocity as the .338 Lapua. If anything it should be 850 m/s or slightly slower, it has a shorter barrel than the M107] I also noticed this has occurred in ArmA III, the .50-caliber Gepard Lynx was given a muzzle velocity of 1,114 m/s! Some people have actually chronographed the Lynx and the ammunition was going 780 m/s. That is a truly massive disparity between game values and real-life values... Anyways, just food for thought...

DayZ weapons have more proxies right now, such as removable handguards, stocks, bipods, lights, for the M4, as well as proxy magazines for all firearms. In addition the weapons can be spray-painted various colours. A lot of this is cosmetic (or should be cosmetic). Meh, from ARMA 2 to DayZ, I notice little difference between the engines from a player's (infantry) perspective. For me, the most striking changes from ARMA 2 are due to config options, which could be easily changed. There are quite a few negative changes in DayZ IMO. I don't see a lot in DayZ which I would care to have in ARMA. The more extensive clothing is good. The damage system isn't complete so I don't know. The melee is much better but still very simple and clunky, and anyways melee in ARMA is not very important. IMO ARMA 3's stance system, controls and superior responsiveness (DayZ is currently much closer to A2 than A3) is far better than DayZ at the moment.

That really needs to be changed. Seriously, no more Hollywood explosions happening to every vehicle! One of the things that always bothered me.

Of course. Yet with the current system, I don't see how it can be adequately portrayed, so I would not want it introduced right now.

This is not Counter-Strike, Unreal Tournament or Quake... real life is somewhat random. You don't get 5000 hit points, and each shot takes away a certain amount :j: this is not eSports, this is supposed to be a combined-arms simulator. There should be an element of randomness. As for hollow point ammunition: no thank you. It won't and can't be properly represented with the current hitpoint system. It won't be properly represented so I'd rather not see it. Besides, most players are wearing something called body armor. Hollow-points don't help there, they can only make things worse.

In today's world, that would mean APDS or APFSDS. However, the jet can't use those safely, because the sabots could be sucked into the engines, and traditional capped, full-bore armor-piercing rounds have been outdated for decades now, and besides they have, for the most part, almost identical weights, speeds, and external ballistics compared to the high-explosive rounds.

I would expect a 25mm pod to be better for use against buildings and armored vehicles, after all, you could have high-explosive ammunition, as well as the depleted uranium APFSDS rounds which could penetrate ~3 inches of armor at 1000m. Of course in-game, they gave the 7.62mm minigun ammo the same penetration as 12.7x108 APDS, so...

Extended, yes, service life is apparently expected to extend to 2028. However by that time it will be in its final years and there may already be a replacement, and I doubt they would send their most aged equipment to the most serious war zones. Anyways, the gun doesn't need to be good against tanks, it has more uses, the point was if the A-10 was introduced, I would expect it to have unrealistic values. For example in ArmA 2, they made the direct damage SEVEN times as powerful as 30x165mm AP, and it also had an indirect damage value which was much greater than hand grenades! That had to be a deliberate decision based on people's expectations. So I would not want to see it because it would most likely be extremely dated, and also likely have unrealistically exaggerated performance.

I actually wouldn't want to see A-10s, I've seen some people express that they would like that plane to be included. The first production models came off the line in 1975, it would be 60 years old by 2035! That would be like modern-day troops using a plane first produced in 1954. And anyways, the only reason so many people even like the A-10 is because of the iconic 30mm GAU-8/A. Without that cannon, the plane wouldn't be half as cool and everyone knows it. But the thing is, in all probability, the cannon would be very ineffective against modern tanks. It might damage tracks, optics, etc, but it's not a tankbuster :j: I've seen a figure of 2.3 inches penetration at 1000m when considering the plane's speed. Even T-72M1 has almost 16 inches of protection on the glacis, 7 inches on the upper front of the turret. Lighter vehicles, troops, fixed positions, okay. But against a 2030s Merkava variant I see little use for the cannon. But if BIS made the cannon ineffective against tanks, including certain AFVs (which it should be with the new armor penetration system) then people would probably complain, "the cannon on the A-10 is ineffective, fix please". So for every reason, A-10s are not suited to ArmA 3.

+1 :D

Yup, didn't expect that kind of thing either (although the T-90 did have guided missiles) However it's something for ArmA to aspire to, rather than keeping the game functionally the same, the depth and fidelity of the simulation should also improve with each installment as well.

Which begs the question, why did they remove the ERA tiles and the gun? Maybe because people would complain about non-functional ERA? Or perhaps because the Slammer/Merkava uses passive armor? Possibly integrated ERA? Or maybe someone just preferred the "clean" look? But there is no reason to only have one machine gun on a modern tank. Hopefully they are adding an extra one in a future patch, or two even. Anyways it's too bad the Merkava/Slammer currently lacks a fully-featured FCS, barrel-launched ATGMs, the 60mm mortar, a remote gun station on the turret roof and a .50 caliber over the barrel, as well as the Trophy active defence system... I find it hard to believe tanks in the 2030s would be less capable than those of the 2000s :j: And anyways, I have seen people saying "it's not a Merkava, just based on one, the developers wanted it different" etc, etc. And my question is: so what? why not add the features that are missing? What is the downside to it? Does anyone seriously WANT the tank to only have one MG?

It's a Merkava as much as the Strv 122 is a Leopard. And still doesn't explain why there is an empty mount waiting for a machine gun right above the barrel... as well, the early screens showed a roof-mounted remote-controlled MG, so it seems someone made a decision to remove it. Only having a coaxial (and a 6.5mm at that) is madness. I don't think there are any modern tanks that follow that configuration and there is no reason for such a vehicle design decision.

The Merkava should only be able to hold a couple soldiers, more passengers = less ammunition. "The Merkava can carry 6 passengers, one for each 12 rounds of main gun ammunition removed."

Still need to fix the missing guns on the Merkava. ^You can see the empty mount, there should be a .50 cal in there!

Well, remember this interview? "And the rest is mainly about balancing countermeasures on several levels – armies, units, their strengths and weaknesses. If you compare for example the Ifrit with the Hunter (faster, but less resistant), they are quite different, but still balanced - even in 1-on-1 engagements. The Red and Green armies aren't just a plain mirror of each other, but the conflict isn't as asymmetric as it used to be for example in Arrowhead." "Each army should have weak points and strengths. Even more so for the ‘Green’ army (Beta leak). We still think that all sides should be distinguishable yet balanced." http://www.arma3.com/news/report-in-petr-kolar-encoding I say leave balance to the mission maker (ie, don't put an Abrams vs some guys with AKs!), in a perfect world ArmA should be about creating a true-to-life experience and attempting to closely replicate the performance of the different weapons systems.

This is a very serious problem! I don't recall having this problem in Takistan, even with 5km view distance, low terrain detail, etc... but I have this problem on Altis even at short ranges!

Without weapon sway, sniping was way too easy in ArmA 2. All you needed to know was "bullet drop" and you would hit the target. Yes, it is more frustrating in ArmA 3. Even though the rifles zero to much farther ranges, it is harder to hit people at those ranges. In ArmA 2 just place crosshairs on target and instant hit. In a couple instances I even hit (although not killed) players at over 1500 meters with an M24 because the bullet was almost perfectly accurate in the vertical plane, no wind, no loss of stability at subsonic speeds, etc :j: However, I preferred the ACE2 system with working bipods and much more precise elevation and wind adjustment.

The main problems with grenades in A2 were: 1, difficult to throw accurately 2, you have to stand perfectly still while throwing That meant throwing a grenade around a corner, you would have to step out, hold the mouse, release it and expose your whole body for that time and also while the throwing animation played.

The L-159T1, T2 and B are trainers, the L-159A is a multipurpose aircraft, they replaced the rear seat in the A version with another fuel tank. "The L-159 is much more than just an upgraded training aircraft, this becomes very clear when looking at its avionics suite. The L-159A is fitted with the Italian FIAR Grifo-L multimode pulse Doppler radar. The Grifo-L was selected in favour of the US Westinghouse AN/APG-68, in particular for its low installation requirements and maintainability. Plus the Grifo radar series has a proven record in various F-5 and Mirage fighter upgrades. The radar has five air-to-air modes including track-while-scan with four air combat submodes, and is able to track up to eight targets simultaneously. For ground and maritime attack it has nine air-to-surface modes. "

You are correct, I did not take that into consideration. Still, comparing the numbers to some 1930s biplanes, this time at sea level: Fiat CR42 = 342 km/h Gloster Gladiator = 338 km/h Poliparkov I-153 = 364 km/h Henschel Hs 123 = 333 km/h A jet airplane is faster than 1930s biplanes, clean configuration or not, it should be capable of far higher speeds.

Clearly the plane is far too slow. Instead of excuses like "it's always been that way", "balancing", "map is too small", etc - just. make. the. plane. faster. Fiat CR42 can go 440 km/h. It's absurd for L-159 to have a usual speed of 300 km/h. Plane needs to be faster, end of discussion.

If it's a difficulty option, there is literally no downside to adding it. I liked it in ACE.