Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Victim9l3

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    306

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Victim9l3

  1. Posted · Edited by Victim9l3

    Yes the blackfoot has guided rockets, and yes i'm sure rockets can be considered missles but then that means all rockets are missles and that defeats the point that was being made. The Kajman has more rockets, 38, blackfoot 24. The kajman has 8 Air to surface missles while the Blackfoot has 4 Air to air missles, which can be used on ground targets.

    Since the original comment said one heli built for toughness and the other for it's lethality, the Kajman is both. I'm sure the types of missles will change as this moves on. I think that this may still be a dev branch topic though.

    Will bi fix the locking on the air to air missles to only lock on air targets? I thought they did that with OA. It will probably get tweaked a little once fixed wing come out. Right now air to air missles aren't as high a priority.

    Anyway this is mostly all off topic so maybe we should get back on topic.

    Speaking of back on topic, was there and update today? There is only one fix on the changelog page.

    Tankbuster is semi correct. Manual fire only works for rockets and missles and not gun. on blackfoot.

  2. Posted · Edited by Victim9l3

    The Blackfoot does not have A2G missles. It has rockets and A2A missles. They may work as air to ground but they are AA missles. And it definitely is fragile like most U.S. made aircraft. It's small. People like to compare the Kajman to it but the Kajman is not a normal attack heli; It's more like a flying tank. It's a bus with heavy firepower. It's not aerodynamic, it's a box. The hind was an attack heli that snuck in a compartment for people. The Kajman has a belly that hangs down and crew space that's too big. It's a good idea though; armor is expensive. Why not put some humans in there to take most of the damage so you can keep flying. Humans = Kevlar for helicopters.

    Aduilo - You might be mistaken. One is better armed AND can take a beating. The other is has less everything and can't take too many hits.

    And progamer - you can put any vehicles weapon on any vehicle? What about the turrets on top? How can you give missles to a vehicle that has no missle? Like the kamysh missles to the Madrid (or Madrid to kamysh) or you can give that heavy gun on the marshall to the panther?

  3. Posted

    Use this to make sure your object is straight up and down. :" this setVectorUp [0,0,1];" Actually use it on all objects. You don't want the bottom one doing something different. Then just set the height using this: "this setpos [getpos this select 0, getpos this select 1, 2];" or "this setposASL [getposASL this select 0, getposASL this select 1, 1.9];"

    One is height and other is height above sea level. Just change the last number to get the right height. The ASL will be useful for things that are over water or over other objects. If you have one H barrier below it it might cause issues. But I doubt it. But at least you have both for future reference.

  4. Posted

    Seriously, dev's get over the "NATO technicians have found and removed invisible barriers around Ghosthawk" and "Panther commanders have been trained to pop-out of their hatch less". Just tell us what you fixed without this misplaced need to create a story within a changelog. This dev branch update and dev branch discussion is about the workings of this game. If you want to tell us how NATO guys did something, then put that inside the game where it belongs. I'm sure you don't want us creating feedback tickets telling you how your NATO drivers prefer driving off the road or how Independent strider drivers prefer to hover in the air. No you want us telling you that strider wheels don't touch the ground, or how AI soldiers won't get out of parachutes as opposed to "My OPFOR have not been trained to get out of parachutes". Or they like setting fire to their parachutes. Please just tell us what you did in the dev branch update, no storyline. Thanks

  5. Posted · Edited by Victim9l3

    After seeing the latest streamed video of the upcoming gameplay I found myself disappointed.

    For one thing, the genericness of it all. They are playing this too safe. Calling Blufor NATO without giving specific armies is something a low budget game would do. That is one of the things that kind of hurt Battlefield 2142. There were no sides to anchor us down. Here we have given OPFOR a semi-real army, but Nato is not. We don't play games just because they feature specific armies like U.S. or BAF but calling everything NATO doesn't anchor us down into something we can connect to. Like U.N. If it's NATO you can still use nation specific things like BAF special forces or U.S. Armor, etc. But in the future it's less anchored. We have to take a few things for granted even if its 20 years in the future. Right now NATO countries all still have their own uniforms and equipment. We have them dressed in U.S. multicam and use them for crew of every vehicle. I will talk about vehicles in a minute. They can still be U.S. Nato forces. Then later add other armies. But so far, only the air vehicles are U.S..

    Is there only 1 weapon manufacturer in the future? Why do all the vehicles have the exact same weapons? Look at the vehicle turrets. They all have the exact same design. Opfor, Blufor, greenfor, all have the same mounted turrets. You can tell, because they also have the same vehicles. Boats, subs, ships, are identicle. MG and GL turrets have the same design if not identical. I thought some of these things were the same just so they can give us some content to use, but they remain the same in video of the game.

    The armor was what finally did it for me. Why are we using Current Israeli armor as future NATO armor and give it U.S. names.

    -The Israeli Merkava is now the M2 A1 Slammer. A U.S. designation as the future of our M1 A2's.

    -The Merkava IFV Namer is our future IFV-6c Panther?

    I understand that the less than cool names like "slammer" couldn't have a real name because then they would have to show who it belongs to or risk problems with real world stuff.

    The Blufor vehicles are too clean and naked. The LAV Marshall which is just a squared out LAV 25 has nothing on it. No equipment, no dirt, no personality. It's just a squeaky clean super generic vehicle. The Hunters too. They look like they just came off assembly line. They don't look like they've been in any wars. Too many of the "cockpit" vehicles are complete waste of space. The Ifrit is twice the size of normal vehicle but fits half the crew. The Opfor vehicles look a little less perfect but that's probably due to the camo pattern. But the Opfor Kajman is a cool idea but it's way to bulky to be an attack heli.

    The last thing i'll touch on is the Greenfor camo craziness. No army has everything in its arsenal all camo'd out the same. Uniform, guns, everysingle vehicle, aircraft, etc... It's a little overboard. The ACR DLC was similar but jets were still gray, trucks were one color. etc. The guns even!!! Is the Greenfor so advanced that wasting money on camoing everything the same is no big deal.

    Don't get me wrong, I love the game. I hate that I can't use DLC's like BAF and ACR in arma3 (those were my favorite). But it's tough to go back to lower forms of Arma. But the small selection of vehicles (20 vehicels in the finished product) and the genericness off all the armies is a huge let down. Recycling that ALCA again but not any modern vehicles. It's just a let down. It's the future. It's bigger and better. Yet not much selection but so much of the same in all armies. It's just a topic starter, not my sole opinion. I could argue positive things but there is enough of that already. But the negative comments on the board are mostly about trivial things or specific functions or things.

    Thanks for reading.

  7. Posted

    BI, can we do without the "CSAT technicians have invested some time in enhancing horizontal banking indicators in HMDs of their helos" or "CSAT engineers have figured out how to pimp helicopter doors" or the "'Trained' CSAT to enter the Kamysh from the side of the vehicle", etc.... It was funny at first but it's getting old now. I want to know what you fixed not try to figure out what you did through some "clever" storyline. Its a development branch update so we know what has changed.

    Here's a good example from today's update: "Fixed cost of .45 ACP ammo compared to 9mm". Is the cost that you are referring to some imaginary in-game reference to money or is it a cost referring to something that costs the system? Like fps or some value that determines how many magazines someon can carry depending on what else he is carrying. Like a weight cost?

    We can save the pretend for when we actually play the game. OR maybe we should start doing that too when we tell you what's not working in the game.

    How about this.."My OPFOR recon guys decided to where blue vest under their Kevlar today. It looks like an NOHQ texture but who is to argue with new fashion statements." or "my kamysh drivers are going on strike. They have all refused to drive out of water and on to the land. They prefer to stop right at the point the touch ground."

    That's just my opinion. thanks

  8. Posted

    Only a few pages but a lot to read here. Do we know for sure how unmanned vehicles will be controlled? Giving them waypoints is absolute terrible. That's fine if they are automatic. I don't want to sit there with a video camera trying to make heads or tales of what i'm seeing while the vehicle moves constantly. I've seen some real life operators and it's not unlike flying an aircraft in arma. Why shouldn't Arma give you the video camera control and complete control of it's flight path. When I move joystick left, my aircraft should fly left. Exactly like putting a video camera on a remote controlled car. ESPECIALLY since we are 20 years into the future. Please no waypoints. Or at least optional.

  9. Posted

    Why do I see so many complaints about AI. The AI in this game are so much better than any previous versions, yet I can't go a page or two without seeing complaints. If I just went by reading these threads I would think this game was terrible. The AI does so many things they never had before but you would never know it.

  10. Posted

    Can anyone confirm that a lot of the infantry have pieces of blue texture sticking out from them. I thought it was just opfor but it seems on blufor too. I didn't notice it before last build. On the back of their left shoulder is where it sticks out. I looks like a misplaced backpack or vest with a nohq texture.

    Pictured is the blufor repair specialist. I know the opfor recon all had this too. Not sure who else.

    Here are some pictures of it:

    http://i1340.photobucket.com/albums/o726/Victim913/arma32013-08-0711-41-15-50_zpseca0ed47.png

    http://i1340.photobucket.com/albums/o726/Victim913/arma32013-08-0711-41-39-91_zpsd3fc89f5.png

  11. Posted

    Talking about animations with binoculars to guns etc.. I like bigboss's comments. Rifles hang in front of you now. Also it's really stupid to not allow rocket launcher animations from ground. I can't tell you how many times I've been killed after firing an AT round because i'm standing up like a jackass while I comfortably switch weapons. Even when in a great hiding place. You can't kill tanks with infantry around. BI won't allow you to drop down, then switch to gun. There is no option but to stand there and wait for animation to be done. So binoculars are the least of our animation problems.

  14. Posted

    If you use that rating way, there is a module for it. Just sync it to you. It has a box for you to type the rating in.

    I tried a mission like you described and I get the same result. You should create a ticket so it gets fixed. I think what's happening is the same as what happens when your leader tells you to destroy enemy vehicles even when they are empty. Somehow it sees the vehicle as an active unit.

    One thing you could try is to put an opfor as the driver then delete him a second after game starts. It might make the hawk appear as opfor or neither. He needs to get out though, you can't delete him inside. put moveindriver in his init, then set a trigger for opfor present, then trigger him out and delete. It might help.

  15. Posted

    With such a focus on stealth and stealthy vehicles I wonder if it is just a name or is it real? So far the enemy has no problem targeting me in my stealth vehicles. The point is that those vehicles should be hard to detect right? Ghost Hawk has no problem getting shot down, the Blackfoot too. I know that the F35 will be in game and that is supposed to be stealth/stealthier. So will stealthy vehicles be just as easy to see as non stealth? If I am in a fighter plane and my enemy is the F35 will I see him on my radar? Can I push the "next target" button and find him even if he is out of visual range? Just curious.

    Thanks

  16. Posted

    on the modules for like sites etc... or any module that requires axis sizes for example 300 by 300 should have like a circle round the boarder.

    currently there is no boarder so i have no idea how big the radius is.

    AMEN!!!!!!!!!!! I had brought this up when I first got the Alpha. here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?155055-Modules-need-visible-boundries&p=2395894#post2395894

    I got only 1 response. I guess that means you didn't search. But anyway, I think it is extremely important. The biggest reason is that they don't just have you input a radius. They created it exactly like a trigger. You can choose what shape it will be in axis a and b. So you can't just guess. Some people don't think it's a big deal because they mostly use it on bases and things that don't use the whole area. but put down a couple minefields and tell me that you don't need to know exactly how big it is. I have to constantly create triggers just so I can use the trigger to see what shape and which direction it faces. The direction it faces is very important. Some mines need to have a direction and you can't just guess.

    But this topic has nothing to do with the development branch. You should respond on the thread I started. Why don't you create a ticket so BI actually pays attention to it. Also, place the different sites down and look at it from a helicopter. Most sites, if not all, usually have at least one group on patrol. Even the traffic stop. The bad thing is is that they drop vehicles down in terrible places. Usually the second vehicle ends up on fire by about 3 seconds into the game. Some don't work. Last time I checkd independants didn't work. And they won't fill all types of buildings. And despite what it says, it does NOT put anyone inside the small cargo buildings. They have one spot inside but the soldier gets spawned outside.

  17. Posted

    There are a lot of good and bad things about the editor. Those who defend the 3D editor by saying it's "hidden" or "unsupported" are proving the problem. Why is it? By now, all these years from Arma 1 (and OFP) Bi should have figured out how to make the editor kick ass by now.

    How is it that the 3D editor is so primitive that it can't even separate the different types of units. If I open the 3d editor with all my user created addons I would never be able to accomplish anything. Go to place a fireteam. Select unit and double click. I have a list of about 100 units to choose from with no way to recognize which unit it is. There are 7 different "squad leaders". With no category to separate their groups, I have to place all 7 in order to find which one I want. SO I find the squad leader I want; the USMC desert one. He was 5th on the list. So now I want to place an "autorifleman". There are 7 of those. So I place the 5th one down, thinking that makes sense but no. I have to place all 7 down again to figure out which one is the USMC.

    Tell me that Bi, with all that they do, can't figure out a way to create a drop down box to fix that. In arma 2 a guy created "RTE". That editor was awesome and extremely basic. BI can't even make something that converts 3d editor to 2d editor. But, all of you who defend bi on this 3d editor thing, Nothing has changed since Arma2. It's not rebuilding an entire game. They already have the 3d editor close to being good. Why not go the little extra mile. I won't get into map creating but they can do a little more there too.

    Here's the bottom line; Arma is successful because of the community. I have never seen a game anywhere that has this much user content. Bi gives the platform for us. The thing that some don't realize is that Bi depends on user content. You can see it with the DLC addons. DLC's only have partially amies. So if we want fixed wing aircraft for the BAF, we have to make it. No tank either. So if we want to use BAF in the same way as the US Army, then we have to create.

    So my point is that since the community gives most of the physical content, then BI should finally get the 3d editor up to RTE standards. All it does is give you another option to select "Russian" or "takistani" or whoever, so that when you go to place a squad leader down, you know which group he belongs to. You can't tell me that BI can't compete with a guy who created that, relatively simple 3d editor. I don't know if the guy who made RTE will update it for arma3 but I guess we will have to be happy that bi let us have uncompleted editor. 3d editor is a MUST. Now that most buildings are enterable 2d editor won't suffice. AT least IMnotsoHO.

  20. Posted

    I didn't want to put this in any AI complaint thread since it's not about their behavior. I'm used to only seeing super heroes walk through things like walls but what about AI? AI have been walking through things since Alpha. Is this something that is going to change or not? I know in arma2 they walked through walls that Humans had to crawl under. So I wonder if this is something that will stick in order to keep AI as good as they are or will it ever be fixed? I know it's only beta, but I know some times fixing these things can negatively affect things like the AI.

    The weird thing is that they can walk through vehicles but not other AI. I can't even get close to one without some invisible force making me stay a foot or two away. I shot a guy as he turned a corner and he ended up hanging himself. His head disappeared into the stairway above him while his body dangled a couple inches off the ground. Another walked through a Panther, yet I can't put my gun against another unit without "the force" turning me to one side or the other.

    Another thing is that they float above a lot of surfaces. Like floors. If I try to put them in buildings they always stay about an inch or two off the floors. Even if I try lowering their height. Eventually they either spawn under or over the floor a lot of the time.

  22. Posted

    i have just noticed that you cannot rearm soldiers using ammo bearers or assistant gunners etc..

    this means AI cannot do this either.

    but, you can walk up to the ammo bearer yourself and rearm lol

    ticket attached

    http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=12105

    Yes you can rearm with support units. The same as always. Walk up to/behind them, select "open (whatever backpack they have)", then take what you need. There is also a "rearm at (soldier type)" when you are in that spot

  23. Posted

    I've been looking through the pbo's in arma 3 addon folder and I can't seem to find the backpacks. I want to retexture those terrible blue backpacks that are supposed to be urban opfor camo. I don't know why they made them completely blue then on top of that they give opfor recon those blue packs. Why not paint a target on them. So I want to make them more like the regular urban colors.

    I've looked in the characters pbo and weapons pbo, but somehow I just can't find them, or maybe they are there. Can someone help point me in the right place? thanks

  24. Posted · Edited by Victim9l3

    I notice that the individual unit icons for opfor in the editor are messed up. Well, when looking at a zoomed out view they are small like normal, but as you zoom in they get huge. They actually overgrow the "playable circle" which is normally always bigger. One soldier icon takes up the space of about 4 in game. They were accurate before.

×