machineabuse

You guys have finally pushed me over the edge and had me resume development of a cyclic extension for my Warthog :lol:

GiPPo, outlawled, thanks much for keeping this alive :)

As an Asian from Asialand I thank you on behalf of my peoples! :D

+1 to this sentiment!

A native solution for both authentic and HMD solutions would be preferable. That said, I have a lot of faith that syko and team will figure out a good solution :)

A HMD an option so that pilots who prefer/need it can have that would go a long way to ensuring MELB has good reach in the community. For everyone else who may make use of the grease pencil mark I suppose I would ask what is the standard practice for AH6 weapons employment in reality? Do they really just put a dot on the windscreen or do they draw some kind of reticule? Half of my problems come from head tracking my target and trying to bring the dot into my field of view and not immediately realizing that it's my aiming mark. The other of course is being off center when I pull the trigger which is something I've just tried to "deal with", but makes me wonder how less or more difficult than reality it is. Following what I've seen of AH6s on Youtube I've been try to gun my way onto target before squeezing off a quick rocket but that often requires me to come off a flight control to switch weapon via Num key. Having many modes for guns and rockets doesn't help much for being able to make that informed switch rapidly into the correct rocket/guns mode via the fire mode key. I do like the authenticity but this level of commitment to it may require some kind of pilot's resource for MELB users to learn from and reference. Real pilots of course get trained ;)

Wuuuuuuuuuut :D

Relevant to my interests too. Right now our group circulates a batch file that we run that renames the .pbos that we don't use.

Typo, thanks and I apologize for that to all. I have made an amendment.

I will reiterate since it seems I was not understood the first time; The difference between resting and deployment should be; 1. Weapon resting is the stability of your body and the environment 2. Weapon deployment is the stability of your weapon and the environment Hence weapon resting should concern the physical contact of your body against walls, the ground, what you are sitting on, leaning against etc. Everything from proning out on the ground to burying your back against the wall. While weapon resting encompasses the stability of your weapon as it interacts with the environment, whether you are placing it up against an environmental object, pushing whichever part of the weapon that will reach the ground into the ground or flicking out the bipod to lay it on the same ground. Again this false argument of "no basis in reality" yet making deployment the sole domain of an object on the weapon is a total failure to critically examing what a bipod actually is in real life and it's usage. Bipods in reality do not absorb recoil. At all. What they are for in the context of a machinegun is to offset the load of an otherwise heavy and unwieldy weapon system from the soldier onto the environment. The bipod format happens to provide convenience to do that across a wide variety of surfaces especially if the legs are adjustable and pivot in some fashion. In the context of accuracy the bipod again offsets the instability of the human body to the inherent stability of the ground. So now that I've answered all your questions let me ask you; what makes you think any of that offset is the sole domain of the bipod format that cannot be achieved to lesser degrees by either monopodding the weapon on the ground or placing the weapon on an object in the environment and what makes you think that this doesn't apply to the reality that we live in? This rigid dogma of deployment is bipods only feels like it comes from a "because other games do it" mentality masquerading as a realism argument. I'm not trying to antagonize you but ^That's a video you should watch. I can't remember how embedding works on this forum. ---------- Post added at 19:56 ---------- Previous post was at 19:28 ---------- '>Some additional reading material for monopodding magazines on the ground

The current implementation is again primitive. Yes you are correct the current iteration doesn't work as I have described. I am asserting that that is how I think it should work. Deploying a weapon without a bipod makes sense, deploying a bipod without a bipod doesn't make sense. My response to Alwarren above addresses this. The current implementation logic does not reflect the behavior I have described. The described behavior is my rationalization of how to distinguish weapon resting and weapon deployment. The photos I have linked to in my previous post both show combatants using their weapons sans in a deployed fashion albiet without actually using the bipods which are on their weapons for pretty obvious reasons. Furthermore, it is completely possible to deploy on flat terrain with many small arms. Long magazines can be used as monopods on the ground for example. I agree the problem is that deployment treats the weapon as assumed to have a bipod regardless of whether or not the weapon has a bipod or not. What I assert is that instead of removing deployment from weapons with no bipods is instead to stop treating deployment with bipods the same as deployment without bipods. Especially since the hard limits on the bipod pivots prevent even the weapons they are capable of being used with ingame from being deployed on cover at angles they would otherwise be in reality.

Killer :3

Then I only disagree with Variable's sentiment that we should only be able to deploy with bipods :) I agree that the differentiation should be better. IMO I consider weapon resting as stability from your body being in contact with surroundings while deployment as stability from placing the weapon in contact with the environment.

I will respectfully disagree with Alwarren and Variable. Deployment as it is implemented is extremely primitive. Let's not forget here that the purpose a bipod is meant to serve is primarily to present a stable firing platform on a flat surface. When we observe the practical application of "deploying" a weapon in the real world what we actually want to achieve is leveraging the environment to provide for a stable, static-as-possible firing platform. A bipod is only ONE interface that is used to achieve that of many. For this reason you often see machinegunners and marksman in the real world not deploying the bipod legs on their weapons because in actual fact a direct interface with the environment is occasionally more favorable (ledges, low walls, window sills may provide a more mechanically advantageous body position/offer more cover/etc.). That said a bipod should offer greater advantage on flat ground and the major advantage a bipod should have but doesn't in ArmA 3 is tilt compensation for deployment on slanted terrain. Sometimes a gunner's gotta do what a gunner's gotta do y'know.

Hey Nouber, don't know how you feel about this but some kind of "dying" feature for ACRE2 might be kinda cool where instead of cutting direct VON instantly when a player dies they might get a few seconds of fading speech. Perhaps with some subtle gurgling or death rattle mixer effect via Babel. Just a thought ;)

Rock on PuFu. Personally these changes are really minor and easy for most people (including myself) to overlook but thanks for taking a look :cool:

I do lurve me a nice Glock :) Hate to say it but your guide rod is the wrong shape though. The Gen4 guide rod has a wide end cap and is actually really skinny to accommodate dual recoil springs beneath the dust cover. A couple other minor things; Glock mag exteriors and triggers are all polymer. They won't have shiny scratches and on a browning tilt-unlocking barrel the wear on it will be concentrated on the top where it meets the slide, not the edges. There will also be wear on top of the barrel for the same reason.

Thanks, I needed that coffee all over my table xD

Forgive the asking of a content related thing, but I would like to suggest a version of the Aimpoint CompM4 with the Killflash ARD removed. I understand the intent of it's inclusion and I applaud the effort and attention to detail to include the Killflash on the model, however due to the way the hex pattern renders with heavy aliasing in the game, it has a marked negative effect on the useability for any user not running with high anti-aliasing settings. If keeping the Killflash on the model is preferred due to unit homogeneity I would suggest therefore that the visibility of the hex pattern while looking through the ocular lens be reduced to zero (as it would be in reality if your eye was focusing past it.).

Actually having holstered weapons is the bomb diggety :cool: Awesome stuff! I hope you guys find time to experiment with the primary weapon proxy slung in front/side of the body instead of on the back. I do recall discussion that the weapon slung on back is rooted in legacy code but it doesn't hurt to hope ;)

Correct. Prior to the Mod 1, the MK18 used the standard KAC RIS from the SOPMOD 1 package. Daniel Defense does make the RIS2 in black, but I doubt any MK18s in US service were ever built with them.

The hotfix for the limited head motion when moving helps a little bit, but there really is still something just a little bit awkward about it with the weapon lowered. With head tracking it feel like my head is fighting my body in some use cases especially when trying to position to interact with multiple objects on the ground. I feel that the behavior while the weapon is lowered when the player starts moving the head should inherit the intended vertical pitch angle of the body and sum it, such that one's head will stay on the same vertical pitch. I feel the best result will probably be had if there was an option to allow the head to orient freely of the torso in vertical pitch within the limits, instead of inheriting the torso's pitch.

Must be helluva annoying for US rotary pilots to sit on the right in helos and sit on the left in their cars ;)

The MD500/MD530 series the H-6/MH-6 is based on puts the pilot on the left side of the pit. It's easier to lean over to look out the door over while keeping a hand on the collective. Helos built built to work with hoists favor left side pilot placement for the same reason with the hoist located on the corresponding side. Usually you can tell which is the pilot side from the location of the tail rotor.

That's not a solution to what is a problem with the execution. Why would you need to use a different system to get back your head movement just because you are moving? I use TrackIR and have always used a synthesis between moving my body and head to look where I need to and I find this (call it what it is) bug as jarring as the next person. I can't imagine that this was an intentional execution.