progamer

Nm, not relevant.

Keep things open in the sense that if someone does crack the walkable moving vehicles issue, that it can be applied to your vehicles. You could have your sinister red and modern blue variants of the C-130 so then everyone's happy. ---------- Post added at 08:21 ---------- Previous post was at 08:21 ---------- Also do you plan to have the real life armed version of the MV-22 in addition to the unarmed variant? They recently got 360 degree mini guns mounted on the bottom and also have machine guns on the sides and on the rear that are manned by soldiers. The armed version is called the CV-22. More info on the weapon systems here: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/video-bae-wins-cv-22-gun-contract-220905/ and another source: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/baes-turret-to-trial-in-cv-22s-04618/ And what about the cockpit being interactive in light of Franze teaching us how he did it here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?170122-Key-Interaction-Cockpit-Interaction-Tutorial&p=2578669#post2578669 Will the MV-22's "hell hole" be usable?

Me too. Wish I could scratch a name onto bullets though... :)

Weight, cost and many other things are factors of why this doesn't exist right now and I doubt such tech if it was somehow developed would be out the the prototype phase by 2030.

It should be realistic, if the mission maker does not want it, then we could have options to disable it. But it should be realistic as people voted for and not artificially modified for some sort of stupid balance. ---------- Post added at 06:01 ---------- Previous post was at 05:59 ---------- BI doesn't care about having something realistic affecting some sort of balance. That's the mission makers job. The thing that holds things back are the AI.

Awesome to see these becoming part of the community upgrade project! Can't wait to get back in the Osprey's pilot seat again! By improved hover control over the MV-22's hover abilities, wasn't the Arma 2 version the way it was because it was realistic? Wouldn't it make sense to keep the vehicle realistic?

Thank you for sharing this with us! This should be pinned. But can this be used on other vehicle types? Vehicles like marines could benefit from stuff like this.

Just report the thread for spam, or it will end up as another large fight between people who think different things.

Is it even realistic to have a body armor suit? Seems like some unrealistic balancing attempt.

I said it could have feature enabled/disabled. It would add so much to gameplay with a realistic medical system. There would spine so much more to move here shoot this and shrug off bullets then go here and repeat super soldier damage levels. ---------- Post added at 06:21 ---------- Previous post was at 05:48 ---------- This is unrelated to a discussion on a medical system and more so on what this threads intended topic was. At 1:05 in this video, we see a soldier get knocked over by a bullet then stand back up because of the body armor he was wearing.

Oh, you mean the "drop off" on the cliffs is unrealistic. I though you were saying the jagged mountains on the islands should be changed.

The discussion is about whether it is realistic or not. Not if it does it's job.

How are they too sharp? In real life they are "sharp". It's fine how it is.

Things can change from VBS2 to VBS3 as well. :)http://products.bisimulations.com/press-releases/tuesday-december-3-2013-0837/vbs3-iitsec-first-look ---------- Post added at 05:14 ---------- Previous post was at 03:46 ---------- It would be awesome to have VBS3 PE become more accessible with alternative pricing and easier to purchase. A very large community like Arma's could form and then more people would buy it because they could join other players online. VBS being so similar to Arma allows Arma players to adjust easier and transfer their knowledge from Arma to stuff they do in VBS. VBS also tends to fix the stuff players complain about in Arma games and adds features people request in Arma games. The wiki is much more informative (Arma's wiki just doesn't seem as detailed). Physx is fully implemented and modders could do much more amazing things ect... And the "Nothing is impossible" quote is just awesome! :)

nm not relevant.

That would not be game breaking, mods and missions could disable it. Leaving it completely for mods is not a solution. They are not really "niche" mods either. They just do what BI wants to do but are held back by AI problems. How does it take gameplay away from the player? Because he can't run around like a super soldier? Since when is this the new ideology? This kind of thinking is a complete downgrade from Arma 2. Players have wanted stuff like this in Arma for a very long time and it would suck for BI to make it arcade like or say they think gameplay is way more important than realism. Good gameplay for a game like Arma comes with realism. It isn't COD or BF and shouldn't play like those games. People buy Arma expecting realism and not arcade gameplay. You should not fight against an advanced medical system. Just fight for the ability to disable it completely or disable parts of it like VBS did. It is incredibly stupid to fight against something a large portion of the community have wanted for a very long time. It makes combat not some stupid arcade skill contest. I'd say it adds to the gameplay. And isn't the boring and unrealistic twitch shooter like combat we are currently stuck with. ---------- Post added at 01:16 ---------- Previous post was at 01:06 ---------- No body said all these aspects would be forced onto the player. Like VBS you could completely disable aspects of it. ---------- Post added at 01:19 ---------- Previous post was at 01:16 ---------- The problem is a lot of this needs BI to get to work on that advanced and complicated medical system. We should create the body armor with this in mind that it is coming, mods can use it and is better than some arcade stuff.

I'd just like if we were given support so that modders could do these things in Arma 3. If VBS becomes easier to purchase, the community size could increase greatly.

The RV4 engine is not really better than RV3 actually. VBS3 is on the RV3 engine with things ported from the RV4 engine. I have no doubt if VBS3 PE was marketed towards the sim market, they would completely dominate.

Can helicopters and planes make use of buoyancy LODs? It tried messing around with it myself but copying pasted configs just doesn't work.

Tonci87 made a interesting comment on the body armor system in another thread that might be valid for this one:

Just like vehicles, there are a few Israeli ammunition types used in game.

Please also make sure you understand the resolution LOD is not synced with the FIRE LOD: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=16115&nbn=6 There could be other things as will you may have to factor out of any tests done.

That's not an excuse to be against making the body armor system better and more realistic. If the person gets hit hit were the plates are not located, they could be in for some serious trouble. Making this realistic could help add more pressure for an advanced medical system. Body Armor does not make you some invincible tank. Currently it protect the entire soldier body. We need it to protect exactly were it is on the body and nothing more.

I don't worship it. The VBS developers have had to solve a lot of the problems we have currently. That video I linked thoug is likely outdated to the current system in VBS3.

Location of the where the bullets hit and the grade of the armor are all factors. The soldier in game are also not taking drugs. The current system is really bad. Moving towards what VBS has is the best option because military groups decided it was realistic out of all the factors that exist. ---------- Post added at 01:09 ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 ---------- There is a better video somewhere but it would be interesting to see what VBS3 does.