paramed14

My first observation was the stamina/fatigue. Wholly unrealistic, unless were simulating overweight recruits, or ancient reservists. Someone who is reasonably fit isn't going to be so weighed down that they can only walk. While playing on a King of the Hill server, with ammo perk, I'd be equipped with the NAVID with 600 rounds. I can only walk! If it were the M240B, that'd would be reasonable. Two 150-200 pouches on the body with 1, often 2 assault packs in the ruck or bandoliered. Assistant gunners have been known to sport almost 800 rounds with tripod and T&E. It may vary depending on what other crap they make you carry, but ARMA 3 doesn't simulate carrying the bivy, sleeping bag, ground mat, cookware, food, spare clothes, WATER, chocolate, poncho with liner, E-Tool, hygiene equipment, weapon cleaning supplies on and on... The "fighting light" load is 70lbs, not including the extra "fluff", and they are still expected to sprint across the street, climbs stairs, and commense combat. That is plenty to accomodate a machine gunner, particularly since I won't be carrying any apare parts, barrels, a tripod... Just now, I engaged the enemy from a second story. I ran down the stairs and out the back, and by that time is was WALKING!!!! What in the world! Why are we sending these poor anemic boys into combat! I was also laying down progressive fire from the standing position with bipod, but it swayed so badly I could not render accurate fire beyond 150yds, pathetic! What ever happened to stability, the gun must weigh 30lbs, it shouldn't be going anywhere! It was fine before, why change it? It was unneccessary and not needed. If you wanted to make a change, why aren't LMG's carried appropriately? Seldom do you run around with a shouldered 25lb weapon. Sling it at the hip or hoist it on a shoulder. A SAW can be strung up higher and fired from the shoulder, but is preferred to be rested.

They may "prefer" lower elevations, but that is only because it makes for easy math. Low angle engagements are also very common. Backdrops are eliminated if you stay off of a crest. Its an easy and common sense thing to do. People automatically assume a sniper is in the hills because its militarily imperative to seek the high ground. It is easy to defend as well as render the most effective and deliberate fire. How can a sharpshooter provide adequate over watch without a position from which to do so? How else can a sniper shoot at the distances they're best suited without some altitude? Snipers prefer higher ground as a mere 100m increase in height gives you a 30km horizon, and full scope of the battlefield from which to report. Also, while they cannot reach out and touch something at those extreme distances, they won't be surprised when something approaches. At moderate, operational distances, hill faces and top floors of high rises are preferred. Being positioned among a platoon, to take difficult shots or perform counter sniper or IED clearing work doesn't require a sniper at all. I would also like to see a harris tripod being used from a seated position as that is one of my favorites. Another gripe, is that my sight picture never returns to see where I hit. In real life, a properly positioned shooter, with the rifle seated, should return to shooting position on its own. Not exactly, but not to the irregular fashion in the current ARMA 3.

There seems to be alot of information here, and I haven't read it all, but I suppose I'll give my two cents. Some observations regarding the bipods...they are infernally annoying most of the time and occasionally quite useful in the GPMG role. I am by habit, a sniper, and my current experience in ARMA with bipods is disappointing. When I spy from elevation (from whence a sniper should) a target and I deploy my bipod, I am all of a sudden staring at the ground. I then have to reaquire the target and often do not have enough elevation to do so. If I can, the sight picture is blurry. In my own experience with legitimate long arms, there are a multitudes of remedies for this and is seldom a real concern as found in the "simulation". It would be a splendid improvement should the bipods be adjustable and pivot around the barrel as to eliminate the canted cross hairs. BiStudios emphasis on weapon sway is quite exaggerated. Also, with bipods deployed, the grass seems to be unmanageable, and handicaps the marksman. When I trample down the grass at my position (putting myself at risk) it quickly comes up again in under a minute, obscuring my sight picture. I try shooting from a crest, but this makes my very vulnerable and depending on the position, the sight is too high or too low.

Adjusting cyclic rate to exactly real world values won't lend you a huge boost to realism. Besides, real world values are theoretical. Oddly, all firearms in ARMA remain brand new and don't suffer the effects of heat, dust and propellant residue, which would skew those numbers. Inconsistencies in ammunition would affect recoil rate, misfire and failure. So far, I have yet to encounter a misfire, malfunction, overheat, or had to manually readjust my gas return valve, change a barrel, etc. So I would surmise that default rates will do just fine.