doc. caliban

Unfortunately, it appears that the original request for the .408 and .50 caliber suppressors has been formally closed with the reasoning that the DLC addressed the issue. It does not. I've opened a new request ticket since the original issue is still unresolved, and was never formally denied during the two years that it was open. I'm still just being hopeful and would be understanding of, if not happy about, it being closed as "won't fix". At least that would be addressing the original request head on. http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=23751 Best, -Doc

No problem. I was just wanting to hear the details about your reference. I didn't know about VBS3 ... cool stuff! Regardless of the symantics, Arma is where I want it on the scale in that it's on the simulator side of things. When I talk about reasilsm, suppressors in general make one of the best examples: Decision: How to treat suppressed weapons in a game. Realistic (simulation): Adjust the ballistics in a realistic way for the given system. (slightly better accuracy, higher velocity.) Realistic (game): Don't alter the ballistics. Unrealistic: Reduce the weapon's power, range, accuracy, whatever, to appease the people who think anything else is "unfair". I'm simply advocating for Arma to stay well above that last option. That's my outlook on the fact that suppressors were not included in the vanilla game for the .408 and .50. They exist and are common, so why not have them? My "issue" is that I hope the reason that they are not there has to do with the feature not making the cut or something like that as opposed to, "Some people might be unhappy with how much it sucks to be shot at by a suppressed weapon from 1.5k away." That's the kind of balancing I'm against. Those folks can go play CoD. :-) Thanks for the followup. I'm liking how the DLC suppressor on the .338 causes the point of impact to be significantly high at ranges beyond 700 or 800 meters ... I have to zero down 100m to get the point of impact back into the center of the crosshairs at around the 1k mark. Why? Because a suppressor increases the velocity of the projectile, meaning that it shoots flatter and requires less compensation. Excellent modeling! I'm impressed. Enjoy! -Doc

I'm a customer; I was only around for the spending my money part. :-) Were you going to elaborate? I can imagine that there was a lot of back and forth over balancing whatever they wanted the product to be and what the masses were wanting. My vote is always for realism when there is a choice. Plenty of FPS game-games out there already. So far, Arma has been great.

I liked that feature in GRAW. Personally, I hope that Arma 3 is about anything but balancing. Balancing is for games, and we need a title that values realism over all else in the interest of being more on the "simulator" side of the scale, IMO. Arma is the closest thing we are likely to get. Balancing is about "fairness", and fairness is a concept invented by human beings. Reality doesn't believe in it. -Doc

I was wrong. When I hover over the bipod, it says it's premium content and prompts me to press a key combo to, "purchase this DLC". I ignore that and it works just like normal. -Doc ---------- Post added at 04:30 ---------- Previous post was at 04:26 ---------- I have no issues with the DLC in general ... a mod on the issue tracker had lead me to believe that the two suppressors that aren't in the vanilla game for the .50 and .408 would be added with the DLC. That was my gripe. Turns out to not be the case though. -Doc

They had weapon clipping? Oh man, why did they disable it? We are in the habit of switching to handguns or PDWs when going into buildings as a way of self-inforcing a sense of realism ... actual clipping would be great! But no, I'm just staying on my topic of the two suppressors. There are no doubt many things that can be improved or what have you, but this particular cause is one that means something to me since it's such a commonly misunderstood thing, argued against with overly-specific what-if's, and in this case they already set up at least 5 other suppressors, so programmatically the feature is already there. I'll let others take up the cause on other topics. -Doc

Agreed: Release your mod and shut that damn Doc. Caliban guy up. :-) Also being familiar with software production is why I always cite PM (Project Managers) as typically being responsible for where lines are drawn on features. -Doc

Ads? Oh man, could that actually happen? Luckily, no. It wasn't always like that, BTW ... it's only been recently that I've noticed the bipod showing as premium. I'm using it on the MK18. (I switch back and forth between the bipod and laser designator during missions.) I guess that's another thing ... enemy with NV don't see the laser designator, but oh well. -Doc ---------- Post added at 22:02 ---------- Previous post was at 21:57 ---------- I don't understand why they wouldn't want them ... (Just thinking out loud, not arguing the point.) The advantage is exactly the same as it is with the sidearms, assault rifles, and DMRs. That's why I figured it was a misplaced effort at unneeded balancing. I mean, what difference does it make to my target if I'm shooting them from 800m with a suppressed weapon vs. from 1,400 meters with a different suppressed weapon? My personal interest in having the option is that my MP play is typically 2-3 person co-op, so as much stealth as possible is usually the rule. -Doc

That makes sense. I wonder why my bipod says premium when I mouse over it. The text color changes to yellow/gold as well. Muahahaha! I have a special bipod that no one else has! :-) Thanks for the info, -Doc

Ah, no; the suppressors themselves are not that big of a deal; I use the Mk18 almost exclusively. For me personally, it's always been about why they aren't there, and advocating for their inclusion based on realism. In 30 years of FPS gaming it's always annoyed me when suppressed weapons are penalized with fictitious limitations in games (less power usually being the case) in the name of "balancing". While understandable with the popularity of PvP style gaming and the level of "it's not fair!" whininess of enough of the players, PM's feel that they have to neuter what some players perceive as an unfair, super-weapon when they find themselves on the wrong end of it. With Arma, I hoped that wouldn't happen and that players would simply be subjected to the real-wolrd unpleasantness of being in such a situation. The seemingly inevitable issue I've seen in brining this up for any game is the instant deluge of opposing feedback fueled entirely by a mix of misinformation about the technology and the aforementioned opining of how unfair suppressors are. The former isn't a big deal as it's fact-based as opposed to opinion-based, and I can shine a lot of light on that issue. Most folks are interested in it and are happy to learn more about it. The latter are the folks I take more issue with, though I temper my opinion with the awareness of the fact that those people are a big part of the product's customer base and that their opinions count too. This difference for me here is that it's Arma, and this is likely the best chance I'm ever going to have at seeing a title that values realism over the artificial, toning down of reality in the name of coddling players that have grown accustomed to the unrealistic treatment of suppressed weapons in most of the game-centric titles over the years. Circling back around a bit, the reason for my original rant when I got this thread off on the wrong foot, is that there is a mod in the Issue Tracker that keeps stating that the issue is resolved in the DLC. Since the ticket is about the suppressors being omitted in the vanilla game, he/she is basically saying that the functionality is being added for a fee as part of the DLC. They are likely forgetting the point of the ticket and thinking of it as just being about not having suppressed, heavy-caliber weapons, in which case the statements might seem correct in their mind. Again though, that is not what the ticket is, so the DLC is not resolving the issue, regardless. My mistake was taking the mod's word as authoritative, and not thinking that they were misconstruing the topic of the ticket. As it stands now, my understanding is that the DLC won't address the issue, which is good because that would not be the correct way to do so. So, that leaves me to continue being a whiny-ass-bitch because, damn it; those suppressors should be included in the vanilla game! The simple fact that they exist and are common should soundly trump the fact that some people will be butt-hurt over the painful reality of their inclusion. :-) As for premium content, what is that exactly? I mentioned before that I noticed the bipod is marked as such, but I can't imagine what would make such a basic and ridiculously common attachment "premium". I worry that it's more non-reality based "balancing" or something else along those lines. I haven't noticed any difference in gameplay though, so I haven't been too worried about it. Thanks for the replies, all. -Doc

A thoughtful reply, thank you. I added a disclaimer to the top of the original post explaining for any newcomers that I was mistaken, so that's all good. Nothing in my recent replies has been about the DLC, just my support for the idea of making the vanilla game "whole" when it comes to the suppressors. I think that's a significantly different thing from the F-35 example in both situation and complexity. At this point, my only complaint is that the suppressors for those two weapons were inexplicably left out of the vanilla game, and I would like them to be added at some point as part of a regular patch. Best, -Doc p.s. In regards to longevity and reliability, I know of a suppressor manufacturer that guarantees their devices for 30,000 rounds, and who has not had a single device failure in over 20 years. (And they are a primary supplier of suppressors to the US Military, so we're talking high volume and lots of use.) There's nothing fragile about a well designed and built suppressor!

I don't think that any modern suppressors, let alone any made in the Arma 3 timeframe, suffer from this kind of problem unless they are inferior in design and materials to start with, and/or improperly used. From a tactical standpoint, who cares how hot they get? How hot do you think a barrel gets under sustained fire? The fore end of an assault rifle is typically a ventilated hand guard for this very reason. Again, these are highly situational, subjective, and narrowly-defined arguments. How about suppressing 200-rounds of 7.62x51mm fired thought an LMG (HK-21) in a continuous burst? Impossible? How about SEVEN 200-round belts in 15 minutes? This was done as a torture rest of a particular brand of suppressor. Result: A wicked-hot suppressor and weapon, no reduction in accuracy, and no reduction in sound suppression effectiveness. Did I mention that this demonstration was done over 10 years ago? (Imagine what the capabilities are like now, or will be in the near future of Arma 3!) We reproduced a truncated version of this test (400 rounds) with an FN MAG and a different (high end) brand and design suppressor. Result: A wicked-hot suppressor and weapon, no reduction in accuracy, and less than a 15% increase in sound, though that was contested because someone else's sound metering setup detected no increase. (It was a casual demonstration.) Again, large caliber suppressors exist, are commonly available, have been for years, are completely effective, and offer the same advantages as any other caliber, taking into account scaling of the device given the same design. Not having them in Arma 3 because "it wouldn't be fair" is a subjective argument that could be made against everything else in the game, and is, IMO, an insult to the entire point of Arma and where it sits in the spectrum of realism in FPS titles. My understanding is that it's supposed to be the undisputed realism champ in relation to all of the rest ... such a product should have no tolerance for subjective manipulation of features in the name of game play. Sucks to be under fire from a real, suppressed weapon system at 1,300m and not be able to tell where the hell the shooter is? Yep. Realism can certainly suck! Bring it, I say! Best, -Doc

I've been through a lot of these threads over the years. :-) First have a look at my comments in this thread. Again, it's a frustrating read because it seems like a never-ending presentation of facts countered by misinformation and opinions, then representing the facts just to have it start over again, but it clears up a lot of the misconceptions. My last comment there lists multiple models from just a few minutes using Google. There are many manufacturers and models, and any force that can procure them has them and uses them when appropriate. High quality models have been around for .50 for at least a decade. Not sure if I'd responded to the POI factor in there, so I'll touch on it here: The change is consistent and therefore predictable, so zeroing doesn't include any randomness. In most cases the difference can simply be compensated for by a shooter familiar with the system without bothering to re-zero. I know that people always sound like pretentious wankers when they explain how it is that they know what they know, but for what it's worth: I worked as a law enforcement sales rep for a while, demonstrating and selling Class III weapons to LE departments. I've done tons of research, hands-on testing and demos, and interfaced with multiple manufacturers. Every misconception under the sun was fielded by us time and time again because it's not just us gamers who have picked up bad info from games and movies over the years. I even had a cop tell me that he thought the suppressor made the bullet spin in the other direction, and that that somehow reduced the noise. :j: I've had the good fortune to interact with many SO Marksmen who have significant practical experience in the field. In a way, I feel that the info is even more solid than coming from a single person with more hands-on experience than I have because I've gotten to obtain info from experienced people from all across the spectrum of these things, from design engineers and factory sales reps, to experienced LE marksmen with significant military experience with the technology. As for why they should be in the game, I can sum that up right here: They exist in real life, in quantity and variety, and have since decades before the timeline of Arma 3. Specifically in response to your first point, limiting common hardware options in Arma 3 for "game play" reasons is what makes it just that much more of a game and less of a simulation. Fairness is a concept invented by human beings. The universe doesn't believe in it. Arma 3 is about realism, in so much as they are able to do so; Let other "games" do stupid "balancing" bull**** like reducing the power of suppressed weapons, etc. For more details, do have a look at that other thread if you're interested. (I think it's all interesting, if not arduous to communicate. It's like some of those people don't want to learn anything.) Let me know if I can answer anything not addressed in the other thread. I love talking about this stuff and sharing my knowledge! Best, -Doc ---------- Post added at 02:26 ---------- Previous post was at 02:10 ---------- Already aknowleged; yes. BTW, what is premium content? I noticed that the bipod (talk about common and plentiful crap) shows as being "premium" when I select it. Other than it only going on weapons that BIS decides can use it, what is premium about it, and what does that mean in the game? I hope it doesn't mean that it's somehow rare or special! "Thermal imaging / NV scope? No problem! Bipod? Oooooo ... special!" :-) -Doc

In response to the reasonable and on-topic replies, thanks! I am happy to be wrong about this! I'm after accuracy and fairness; not one-upmanship, contrarianism, and defending old information. :-) This is cool … sort of. From a realism standpoint it’s disappointing that there are not suppressed “heavy†caliber rifles in the DLC, but it’s good to be shown that my concern is misplaced. Yes, they were omitted from the vanilla game. The feature is available for the other applicable weapons and not for the larger rifles. That's a PM decision. It's not that suppressors weren't programmatically created and implemented in the vanilla code, then later added in a DLC. When a functioning feature is left out of applicable and logical sections of a product, it's considered to be an omission. (years of experience in the software industry) So let's work on getting the missing functionality added to the base game. The code is there and utilized appropriately for everything except those two rifles. Thanks again for the useful replies, -Doc

Then please lend your support to the request that they be added to the game. All arguments against have been addressed. I'd heard in a few places that there would be suppressed, large-caliber rifles in the DLC. IF there are, then the effect is the same: you have to pay to get the functionality via a DLC weapon when the base-game weapons should already have it. IOW, yes, I could be wrong ... we won't know for sure until it's out, but if such items are included for similarly chambered DLC weapons, then they should be added to the base game for free. (they should be there anyway, regardless) Thanks for the reply! -Doc

I wasn't clear in my description ... not joined circles as in, just touching, but combined into a wide view using three partially overlapping circles. I don't know what the MOH ones look like, but when I made mine for GR I went by the simulated image that is on the company's site that sells them: That image makes sense to me, though the upper and lower parts of the circles may be more or less off the top and bottom on your view. There is mask that looks just like this in the mod, but it's not the active mask. The active one is almost full-screen where as I don't think that's what the real view would look like. Logic dictates that the view is only expanded horizontally, not vertically as well. I'd love to use the other mask, but whenever I change those two files around the mod stops working. -Doc

Excellent! I made an NV mask for the original Ghost Recon that mimics these. :-) Is it possible to switch to the authentic view of the three joined circles? I see that you created the mask for that. Can I switch by simply renaming the files around so that one is #4? Thanks, -Doc

Back in the saddle. Just finished moving across the country, which is saying something when you live in North America. :-) Loaded up Arma, and BLAM! It started updating automatically, destroying my save game. (Gabe, I love ya, but this is the second time this has happened and I have auto updates DISABLED for this game in Steam. I'd say you owe me lunch at this point.) I started a new mission with 1.82C. In the first hour I captured an IFRIT HMG (personal favorite); took out a 4 man patrol that resulted in some intel and an Atlas launcher and 2 AA missiles; shot down a responding SAD chopper (first missile missed, second hit hard enough to force them to land), took out the crew and captured the chopper with a full ordinance load-out but very low fuel; and found a fuel truck. Off to a damn good start! I have not used a companion yet. I love the idea of playing with a live coop buddy, but otherwise prefer the isolation of being alone. I looked into the TPW HUD mod but didn't care for the idea of automatic target spotting and marking ... seemed a bit too easy IMO. I understand the near-future premiss of that feature, but prefer the challenge of either spotting the enemy or not with my own eyeballs. (and I use the hell out of the thermal optics on captured vehicles) When playing games with a similar feature, such as GRAW, I always disable it. Just personal preference. - Doc

The onus of this is somewhat on me as I've recently volunteered to work on a FAQ for Rydygier to help with some of the common, repeat questions we see in the thread. (Which I've asked myself a few times.) I am in the middle of moving at the moment though and have not gotten a chance to start. I like your idea of a readme file as well. I will try to get something started this weekend. Maybe we can figure out a collaborative way of doing it, and I could mostly compile, then Rydygier could go over it just before putting it online. -Doc

I do like the unorganized feel to the AC if for no other reason an organized, bigger group would be hard to take on by myself. :-)

Great! With the limited AC, does that mean that, on low for instance, that a total of 10 groups will spawn, and groups can be anything from a few people to a large group? Does the count include vehicles? Thanks for putting this in; I was still working on my current mission last night and really do like having AC enabled, so this change ensures that I will use it in my next mission for sure! EDIT: The more I think about it, it seems like it might be a bit high. If I'm correct that on medium up to 20 'groups' can be generated in an area, and if we say the average size of a group is 5 soldiers, that would be 100 AC troops in a 2600m area on average. Maybe I am not understanding how the groups work though. - Doc

I think it would be fun to have plenty of enemy for AC once it's no longer infinite. Feel free to keep the numbers up! As for the circle ... hadn't really thought about that. I was fine with the multiple circles, as that would accurately represent the captured info, but having one smaller circle would accurately represent the way the character would mark the map as he gets more info. I don't really have an opinion one way or another on that one. - Doc

Your Seven Samurai analogy is perfect. It could be argued that "in real life" more and more troops could keep showing up, but that reasoning breaks down when it's taken into consideration that the influx is both limitless and predictable. If I clear an area out and then sit and wait for a while, maybe take out another patrol or vehicle, then it's quiet for a while ... I'd likely go ahead and start with the next part of whatever my plan is. As it is now, if it's quiet for a while it just means that it's probably a bad idea to start the next phase of your plan as someone is certainly going to show up. :-) If there's a way to make AC no longer be limitless spawn, I would absolutely use it. I like the atmosphere and tension of unexpected battles erupting. - Doc PS: Any upcoming changes to the beta? Should I wait a few days or until the weekend, to start a new mission?

I'm thinking of bailing on my current 1.8C mission and starting fresh. I really like the original feel of the mission (I started with 1.2, I think.) with no civilians or AC; just an occupying force. I have enjoyed AC for the most part, but the realization that it's a constant flow of spawning troops removed the sense of 'finiteness' that is a big part of my planning and tactics. I like knowing that the ammo and time I spend are actually tilting a balance ... especially the ammo since I play with loot disabled and rely entirely on what I find on bodies. Aside from the infinite re-spawn of AC, I've really liked the atmosphere of battle going on around me! I am going back to the original roots of the mission ... focusing more on the simulation factors and eschewing things that are reminders of it being a game, but I will definitely enjoy the various gameplay enhancements that have come along. I'm looking forward to it and will probably get started sometime today. Thank you for making the game so customizable! - Doc EDIT: Rydygier, for people like me, is it possible to increase the finite number of troops on the island at the start of the game when AC is disabled? I always set garrisoning and checkpoints to 100%, but is there a way to get more patrols and so forth? I think you once said that it is already maxed out though.

I've taken him back about half of the times I've found him. It's the part of the game that makes your realize how small the map is because you can make straight shot to the boat in a handful of minutes from anywhere on the map. Best one was when I made a run for it and my vehicle (and my brother and I) were destroyed by a rocket from an S&D helicopter while I was at the boat getting ready to move the body ... literally seconds before finishing the mission. It was kind of funny. - Doc