Tsark

Sure, but at the time 1-2, maximum 3 shots with an assault rifle to the torso killed somebody, now that they' ve became pea shooters, they' re absolutely useless in vanilla. Now that i think about it, in the previous games there was no inertia or anything like that, people had no penalty for taking the biggest baddest handcannon in town. (except not fitting through doors). Now that there is, if they had kept the damage in the same vein as it was in Arma2 the logical go to weapon choice for default/general use for players would have been assault rifles, by that i mean that most players would' ve naturally chosen assault rifles since just taking the biggest gun for everything wasn' t gonna work that well anymore, but since with the Arma3 damage they' re pea shooters they' re of absolutely no use. I' ll call that a missed opportunity by Bis.

I agree with you about the causes. BIS should really make the game with the old school playerbase following them since OFP in mind first and stop making the game FOR the KOTH, Altis Life, Wasteland, Battle Royale, whatever playerbase which is really the COD/BF player base but well there is the market law and this subject had been debated a million times by other people so i' ll stop there, but i' ve just had to say it too because at some point this is gonna have to stop.

Well i' m not really worrying for myself, we never use the vanilla body armors anyway, but rather for what Arma (and has already for a large part) is becoming. See what you are describing about using the sniper or designated marksman rifles for CQB to defeat the body armors? This is EXACTLY what i' m describing. OFP, ARMA1, 2 were some of those very few games where Assault rifles actually hurt people, so that you wouldn' t see everybody running around with m82s or bolt action rifles with reddot sights on top in cqb because the other weapons were pea shooters. Apparently this is what Arma3 vanilla has become.

Nice find -Coulum-. Sums up my thoughts pretty well, except that imo in addition to that what i mentionned in my last post that Joint ops reminded me of could make it look even better with optics with thick housings such as an Eotech 553 i believe in his vid, or the aimpoint m2 that i mentionned as an example. What do you think?

Re watching those Joint Ops vids made me think about one thing; Maybe in addition to making the sight' s frame semi transparent when looking through it (pressing right click), other effects could also be used to make the semi transparent mettalic sight frame look thinner than how it looks when not semi transparent (as in not looking through it, pressing right click). A sight with a thick frame such as an aimpoint M2 could look a bit weird if the model is simply turned semi transparent when looking through it and nothing else is done. The model of the sight when not in optics mode would obviously not be affected and kept as it is. I don' t know if i can express what i mean very well, and i' m not sure how that would look in game, but i' am sure that by adding other effects on top of the semi transparency the semi transparency and the effect in general can be made much better and more natural looking.

Hello, i can' t find any info on this, Has BI mentionned whether the fact that we can' t hold breath with the weapon deployed because it hasn' t been deployed yet (see what i did there?) or is this some kind of bullshit "balancing" feature? And same question regarding the fact that we can' t move until the bipod has been folded, is it by design or something not yet implemented? I absolutely agree.

Gee, thank you Bohemia Interactive! It is obvious that the fact that the soldiers in Arma3 wouldn' t take enough shots to go down was one of the main problems of the game, i' m glad to see you guys fixing this! :butbut: Good thing i never play without AGM anymore...

Exactly. To simulate using reddot or holo sights with one eye closed, which is exactly what we have now, is about as stupid as having sniper scopes without magnification would be. Quite frankly, i really don' t get all the hate from people who supposedly value realism over Michael Bayttlefield 4 eyecandy and explosions.

I agree. Let' s force it upon everybody then. :p You might very well be right. I thought about making the sight frame' s top very transparent ish and then that it would get progressively more opaque as it would get closer to the receiver, until it reaches the top of the receiver which would at this point be completely opaque, but your idea might be much better, frankly i have no idea it would have to be seen ingame to determine what looks the best. This is definitely something that would require a lot of trial and error to get the best possible looking effect. Will it visually simulate the effect perfectly? No, i absolutely agree. But will it be better than what the have now? Once again, i believe that 10 000 times, yes. The Red dot sights frame' s in game right now are freaking walls. In reality i could see behind it so it' s not a problem but ingame as it is now it' s as if i' ve had a wall around my reticle, which can range from quite thin to absolutely huge depending on the model, filling up three quarters of your screen when pressing right click leaving as only usable screen space a tiny tunnel around the reticle and some tiny spots around the frame, forcing me to constanly think "should i be looking through my sights at this point and have my fov blocked or not look through them and waste time if an enemy pops up?" in situations where i' d just have my sights up irl? Does that seem as a realistic depiction of a red dot sight to you? To me it doesn' t. And i for one don' t wan' t to wait until devellopers decide that 3d gear is widespread enough to implement it as the norm to see something tackling that problem implemented in Arma. What if it takes 15 years until devellopers decide that 3d gear is widespread enough to call it "the norm"? Will i still play video games at this point? Heck, will i even be alive? So it might not look perfect, but in terms of praticality, of usage, it will be much more realistic than what we have now. By the way, does anybody remember Joint Ops? This game had semi transparency for red dot sights, it even had it to some extent for iron sights: Is that Kobra THAT bad looking? Is it really this mounstrous, visually horrible looking thing that you guys are making it out to be? Of course, that was 2d sights and all, lots of adjustments and refinements would have to be made but still?

Good to hear that the FPS is Great. Ah map of that scale in the Sahelo-Saharian desert for Special Forces desert patrols would be a dream come true for me, i hope that your work will inspire other mapmakers to make bigger maps.

Sure thing mate. Here' s another thought: If i was you i' d avoid putting the boltcutter on the back panel of the default rifleman version of the vest, i' d make it a separate "breacher" one. Having each and everyone of your riflemen running around with boltcutters might quickly look a bit weird, even if they' re SOF and all. Edit: Oh and it might be the angle but that glock looks a little small to me.

You' re welcome.

I was indeed thinking of Depth of Field since FrankHH brought it up, but probably mixed up what it could do or couldn' t do with some other effect. So since semi transparency is the only way it goes like this: Semi transparency is needed but it doesn' t look very good alone, so which effect do you guys suggest be added in addition to the semi transparency of the reflex sight' s frame to make it better?

What i suggest would involve making the sight' s frame semi transparent only when looking through it and not all the time obviously. Having the sight' s frame semi transparent at all times would be beyond ridiculous, i of course agree.

Hi Rainey, since you mentioned that you were working on a grenadier version of the JPC, the JPC is not a really big carrier, you wouldn' t be able to put many grenade pouches in addition to the mag pouches etc, have you thought about moddeling a grenade belt? i don' t think i' ever seen an addon with one yet, i think that a grenade belt sitting under the JPC would be cool. Oh, and don' t try to post updates everyday or things like that it would be suicide. As long as the mod doesn' t die i' m happy.

Porn.:cool:

This is precisely the heart of my interrogation, i hope that the answer will be positive.

It might not be perfect but it will be a lot closer to reality than what we have now. I' ve never seen this in any other game sadly but isn' t this why we play Arma3? So we can experience things that we can' t in any stupid COD/BF shooter? Sure there are other issues with sights in general in this game but since BI is in the process of refining weapon handling now' s a good time to tackle that. I must of mixed up DOF with something else, but we must be able to see what' s behind the sight' s frame. About implementing it on iron sights i' m not sure, since it requires your brain to supperpose three images (Rear sight, Front sight and target) instead of 2 (Dot and target) and thus requires a lot of focus and feels unnatural. IMO it' s not trivial since it' s something that' s obvious and very annoying that happens everytime i bring up my sights when i have a reflex sight, which is very, very often. About iron sights and focus of the eye sure it cannot be implemented with todays technology yet, but simulating using reflex sights both eyes opens is apparently easy to simulate with semi transparency of the sight' s frame the way it' s done in VBS2. Sure, it might not be very elegant, if somebody has a better solution to simulate the effect i' m all ears, but if not then i' ll take what' s in VBS2 10 000 times over what we have now, it is much more true to life in term of functionality and that' s all that matters to me. If people don' t like it BI could make it so it could be disabled in the options as it is in VBS2? Using your logic, we shouldn' t have vehicles as the animation for getting in those is ugly, the doors don' t open etc it is half baked, so until it all looks great we shouldn' t have vehicles?:p

I know next to nothing about the technical specificities of the ways to achieve it, but one way or another the sight' s frame blocking the screen has to go. And even with the VBS2 way it wouldn' t have to be the whole gun, only the sight' s frame back. Anyway what i see in that vid is 2000 times better than what we have now.

Well, if RobertHammer sees no gripe with it then sure thing!:cool: RobertHammer, it is extremely minor but i thought that i' d mention it anyway: On the HK416 d145rs barrel, the part of the barrel that is exposed and behind the legacy m203 notch, and the m203 notch look a very tiny bit too long for a 416. It is especially evident by seeing that when folded the front sight only reach half of the m203 notch, while on the real one it pretty much reach the end of it. The thing is, if you' d shorten it there would once again be the discrepancy between the 416 d145rs barrel lenght and the M4 barrel lenght. So if you are interested in furthing improving the 416 model, i think that the best solution would be to shorten these two parts, leaving the flashhider where it is and then to make bigger the exposed part of the barrel, but leaving the flashhider as it is. That way, making that part of the barrel bigger would fill the gap that would be created by shortening the two before mentionned parts, would make the proportions of the barrel more true to life to the real hk416 and would make the barrel a bit less flimsy looking wich wouldn' t be a bad thing, plus it would solve the fact that the front sight only reach half of the m203 notch and would reduce the gap above the barrel that is between the barrel and the front sight when folded, that is a bit too wide at the moment. That way, the overall lenght of the barrel and the weapon will remain unaffected thus there will be no discrepancy with the m4s. Of course, this is ridiculously minor, and i' m fine if it stays the way it is actually, but i thought i' d share my observations.:)

Hello Robert, just to report that the Aimpoint M4s and the cqb mode of the Shortdot still have Arma2 zoom/FOV values. Also, if you have time for it i think that it would be nice to have an over the scope view for the Long range scopes like on the ACOGs without red dots.:)

Hello Robalo, do you think that with the inclusion of a new slot for bipods, you will be able to make use of it for other accessories, such as flashlights, or is it too early too tell?

Lovely Minimi WIPs Toadie, it really is about time to have something better in that department that the Arma1 SAW and it' s edits.:cool:

I saw some M4 Barrel lenght talk a few pages back, and i have to say, saying that it looks almost like a 16inch barrel might be a tad over the top, here' s what a 16.1 barreled m4 look a like looks like;http://www.colt.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=DrNcSB8CTJI%3d&tabid=259&portalid=0&mid=885:p All joking aside, i think that the barrel lenght is now fine but that it' s the front sight that' s looking a bit too short and vertical, lenghtening it by a few millimeters might solve the problem. Basically, i understand what you guys mean when you say that the barrel looks too long, i just don' t think that it' s the barrel lenght itself that is at fault but rather a too short front sight. And i' m 99 per cent certain sure that the barrel lenght before 0.3.6 that lengthened it was really too short compared to the rest of the weapon. About the blockII m4s, considering that imo the barrel lenght is fine i' d say that that the culprit is the rail system. About the 10.5 barreled models i didn' t really take a look.