joostsidy

Like I suspected! Thanks Prof. Unfortunately I don't know anything about modding, is this changable in any way?

I'm wondering if there is a possiblity of showing the infantry's personal weapons while they are in cargo. I'm also wondering what the reason is that they don't show. Is it performance issue or the fact that long weapons (sniper rifles) might clip with vehicle? At least in OFP weapons were shown. The offroad passenger seat still has weapon shown at it looks great. The FFV obviously have weapons shown and it looks very good as well. My guess is that the animation states of the cargo have a boolean like showWeapon turned off. I hope there is a mod that can turn this on or someone would like to make this or maybe I'll make a feedback tracker ticket request.

The passenger position in the offroad (next to driver) has a proper sitting position with weapon. Sitting in chair animations also have toggle on/off weapons showing properly. Are these sitting animations not (almost) the same as the sitting in cargo animations? I suspect the weapon animations already exist for the cargo sitting positions. If they don't, that could be a reason why it's not implemented.

Yeah, even with dynamic effects, some of the old sounds are still superior. WIP I guess. I'm currently making a mission with mortars, they used to sound awesome, very powerful. Now not so much.

Ah ok, I've seen pictures from compounds in Afghanistan featuring containers and concrete barriers that are also in Arma3, but it's hard to judge the characteristics and use of these things from pictures alone.

Thanks for that info AJsarge, I didn't know that regular containers are recycled. Do these modified structures have any kind of armor or do people just pile sandbags on top/against or something like that? I try to make my Arma missions kind of realistic so I'm wondering if the metal bunkers are worth defending from a small attack or that they are not defensible and the occupants should exit the buildings and seek better protection.

But Altis and Stratis both have many bases already with suitable landing spaces (marked or unmarked). I personally don't have the need for a extra helipad, although the idea is nice. I do think this is the kind of thing that would be fun if the community built it. Relatively simple and might come in handy.

I think the watchtower purpose makes sense especially in combination that these base areas are small.

I was working with the NATO cargo net crate, considering to clear its contents and fill it with a custom loadout because it contains so many missiles. The unit receiving it can take out a bunch of tank platoons with these and the ones they already have. There are probably two type of constraint to the number of missiles a squad or platoon has in reality: - Cost: I read a Javelin costs about $75.000: it seems a bit much to give squads/platoons millions worth of missiles - Weight and size: I would think they are too heavy and too big to carry a whole bunch of them I did some research, but was unable to find many details on how many missiles is 'normal' for let's say a platoon or company. I found out that Javelins are carried by a team of two and they seem to carry a missile each besides the launcher and guidance unit. I'm looking for some rules of thumb on which to base loadouts, a meaningful balance between gameplay and realism.

@lvlagic: I agree, however, I'm looking at reality to improve the internal game balance: vehicle assets are weaker now because of all the infantry carrying launchers and spare missiles. @eggbeast: I like your suggestion of vehicle backups for infantry with missiles. It frees the infantry of load, it gives (enemy) vehicles more strength because not everyone has a missile and gives friendly vehicles more meaning because they're needed to transport essential weapons. I already script the vehicle's cargo so indeed there's no mod requirement. The ammo carriers look very cool, the 'penalty' of dragging these things around is very visible here. Nobody's jumping over fences with these :-)

Well that BF4 video is actually a nice example of how Arma3 is NOT far behind other games. Besides that pivot example, all the other 20 examples are motions that Arma does just as well or better. And the vid even had one jumping animation which looks cool but is terribly unrealistic with all that gear. Conclusion, yeah, the current pivoting is a remnant of an older generation of games and it would be nice see improved, but on the whole Arma3 has many cool and realistic motion captured animations.

Your observations are not because of 'autopilot', mostly limited physics simulation which leads to incorrect aircraft behaviour. Basically, airflow over wing surfaces is not simulated: your aircraft is just a sky-car with a speed and direction. This results in the behaviour that if you bank a plane you don't get any horizontal 'lift' and reduction of vertical lift. The (advanced flight model) helicopters are better, I have much fun flying them in game.

'In Iraq we would carry that dumb ass CLU around cause of its optics'. Haha, I did this in Arma3 as well in missions, keeping the Titan launcher without missile for use of its optics. However, I didn't mind dragging that thing around from the comfort of my desk chair with a cup of coffee. It is nice that an RL detail such as this carries over to Arma. Even though the simple answer is mission requirement, the thing is that Arma goes a bit overboard easily with the missiles. In one of my missions I have a (custom) squad with a AT launcher (Titan) with 3 missiles. An ammo carrier carries another two. So that's a total of 5 MBT defeating missiles. On the one hand its fun to be able to engage lots of vehicles in a mission but on the other hand armor looses its significance on the battle field too much. I also have a feeling that its not realistic to carry so many missiles around considering size and weight of the things. I just read up on the Rafael Spike, the supposed inspiration for the Titan. Even though its not clearly stated, it seems that only one tube is used (launcher with missile) and no spare missiles. To simulate this in Arma is a bit weird because the game backpacks allow much room for extra missiles that you then don't use on purpose. I do like to give my missions a certain consistency, I'm not giving the infantry a ton of missiles if I'm playing infantry and then nerfing them if I play as armor in another mission, so I'm looking for a 'realistic' balance.

Thanks for the info, for gameplay reasons I don't mind representing LAWS etc. as Javelins. I've been cutting AT guys from squads in missions already. I think I'll remove even more :-) I would be interested in hearing from people who are members of serious MP groups if and how they restrict launchers and/or missiles.

Manoeuvring is an essential part of infantry combat, making steep slopes easy to climb decreases the functionality of the terrain. Combat would become more like the simple FPS shooters that we all know. That the slow walk sometimes doesn´t look right is another matter.

I'm using the BIS functions in SP. During the mission they work for all playable units, however they are not visible (none are) in the debriefing screen: ["task_outpost", "SUCCEEDED", true] call BIS_fnc_taskSetState; "end1" call BIS_fnc_endMission; Help?

Would like to add my strong support to the request for fast moving infantry under fire. Missions where you cooperate with AI infantry result often in failure when for instance flanking AI infantry starts to move very slow when receiving only light fire. If it doesn't lead to failure of the objective, the waiting is often boring and immersion breaking, because the AI should know beforehand that their part relies on speed and now the incompetents are pinnned down by very light resistance. Aspects related to this behaviour, maybe: - infantry should follow the behaviour of the leader more, this helps at least if the leader is a human. - infantry should follow formation less strict in certain situations, it slows down squads moving on difficult terrain (where it's hard to keep formation -> fences etc), even when not under fire. - the distance of a waypoint could influence the moving behaviour, a long distance would result in less danger dance - setting the speedMode could infuence the moving behaviour, speedMode fast would lead to 'no prone' and less stops in engagements - the skill setting could influence the moving behaviour by paying more attention to commands and less to knows about In the previous comments I sometimes got the feeling that a 'fast move under fire' rules would be hacking the ai and/or ignoring the psychological aspects of being under fire. I disagree with this. Running under fire can both reflect highly trained soldiers and undisciplined soldiers on the attack or retreat. Making this behaviour part of the game would make for a much more diverse and realistic game play. I would like to set the developers on 'COMBAT', set their courage on max and set a waypoint on the deep OFP-code if necessary.

@goth: The shorter explosion sounds sound very good. you really know your sounds and explain it well. You demonstrate convincingly that improvements to the sound can reflect the physical processes behind the sound better. Your suggested improvements sound both more authentic and more awesome to me. In my opinion, ignoring these 'rules' can lead to a feeling 'over-processed' sounds. The lesson from this: Less is more? :-)

Unfortunately stapler sounds are normal for now in dev and stable branch, just read some of the previous pages to get more insight. BIS is aware of many problems and working on it so we have to be patient. In the end (months?) sound will probably be improved overall.

Most scripts use the 'lineIntersects' (or similar) statement, using it to draw a line to the sky, if it hits a ceiling you're indoors :-)

I agree with this very much. - Even though some of the sound quality is subjective, it's safe to say some the basic gun sounds are not good and don't sound like firearms at all at the moment - Some of the sounds are broken with dynamic effects missing or hardly noticable - The overall balancing is off The result of this is that the current soundscape doesn't sound good and is detrimental to the gameplay in a functional way. With update 1.40 I was shocked at the overall decrease in sound quality. I made a post on the feedback tracker but devs as well as a lot of players didn't give it much notice which surprised me. I even didn't want to play the game for a few days because some of the changed sounds were so weird to say the least. I understand that improving the sound is a huge step and takes time. However the current soundsystem is so 'experimental' that I feel it doesn't belong in the full game I play, it belongs in the dev-branch. I hope the current situation is the result of circumstances and maybe some misjudgement by BIS and not a deliberate planned strategy. I'm not in favor of the one-step-back two-step-forwards taking place over many months in the full game release. ---------- Post added at 16:47 ---------- Previous post was at 16:25 ---------- For instance the Vermin SMG sounds like an electric stapler to me now, but is it because because of the basic sample? or wrong dynamic effects? In the current situation it is hard to judge and give good feedback. So my main wish is to release big things like these later in a more polished form so we can give more accurate feedback. This also would help in decreasing some of the 'panicy' reactions about the sound system (of which I'm guilty as well :-)

No offence, but I was a little bit annoyed by your post. It is titled 'Sniping in Arma3', so I clicked on it expecting an interesting discussion about sniping in general in Arma3, maybe tied in to the new DLC. However, it was just you looking for someone to tell you to press 'C' to deploy a bipod. It kind of annoying to see these simple questions in a forum which can be answered by looking in the game itself or by a Google search. "you can't ask them all on the forums": now I'm afraid that you will be back when the expansion comes out asking more button-press questions. :-), please promise me you won't ;-) EDIT: don't let this discourage you to contribute to the forums of course, don't want to chase people away :-)

Persius, Arma3 has dozens of button options, you can't ask them all on the forums. Why didn't you just open up the configuration menu and looked for 'deploy bipod'? If you hadn't looked there yet, I recommend you do! There probably are lots of functions that you don't even know existed. Happy sniping! ;-)

Illuminati, leave Lady Gaga and the MX rifle alone!

High quality people usually have enough work already, why should they join you? Not trying to disrespect but why would a serious person with serious skills contact you, a random person on the internet bringing amazing content etc. Do you think people with serious skills are sitting at home doing nothing, waiting for someone to approach? Do you think they were working on crap content, but will switch to you for 'amazing content'? My advice to you is to present your 'business case'. What do want to build, why, when, how.. What do you have already in people and assets, what do you personally bring to the table, etc.? I see these types of messages regularly and I doubt very much that they work, so I thought I should give you some advice, if I'm mistaken I'll gladly apologize.