General Discussion (dev branch)

Has anyone else experienced extremely strong OPFOR helmets?

When shooting at the side of the helmet, above the ear, 9mm rounds can just bounce off, creating a puff of dust and no reaction from the soldier. Are these ricochets, perhaps caused by an odd collision detection? Should harmless ricochet hits even be possible?

BLUFOR and INDFOR die from 1-2 shots to the same area, reacting normally.

I have no idea what protection will 2030-like helmets have, but I wouldn't be surprised if they could stop simple 9mm bullets. Granted some sort of physical reaction should be felt by the soldier.

Yay!

I have no idea what protection will 2030-like helmets have, but I wouldn't be surprised if they could stop simple 9mm bullets. Granted some sort of physical reaction should be felt by the soldier.

Yay!

1940s steel pot helmets stop 9mm bullets. German 1940s steel helmets will even protect against glancing hits by battle rifle calibers. Modern helmets will do the same, but do it -reliably-. There are pictures going around the net from soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, british, german and (mostly) american, with the soldier showing his recently hit helmet and the bruise on their forehead. Sometimes they were fired upon by 7.62 caliber battle rifle (Dragunov or PKM) rounds.

Problem is that the fire geometry needs to work first, before this kind of heavy duty protection can be enabled. Same for body armor. Without the ability to build correctly sized and placed plate geometry into the models, the mathematical modifiers need to be scaled so that you have a fair chance of surviving an imperfect hit, but not so that you or enemies unfairly survive multiple hits in regions that would have resulted in a fatality (For example, shots into the hip region, groin, center of the neck, face, leg joint or inside of the armpit-chest region where major arteries and nerve lines are located.).

Which is difficult.

So, I'd say that expecting realistic behaviour with the current system is impossible, and we should instead focus on what behaves nicely in a gameplay sense until whatever the issues with the model approach are, are sorted out.

I have no idea what protection will 2030-like helmets have, but I wouldn't be surprised if they could stop simple 9mm bullets. Granted some sort of physical reaction should be felt by the soldier.!

That argument isn't really conclusive. 9 mm ammo would have gone out of use if armour could simply deflect it. There is always a race between defense and offense, and if by 2035 helmets would simply stop bullets like that, then people would use bigger guns :)

That argument isn't really conclusive. 9 mm ammo would have gone out of use if armour could simply deflect it. There is always a race between defense and offense, and if by 2035 helmets would simply stop bullets like that, then people would use bigger guns :)

Yes. If 9mm does not have an effect either get rid of it, or fix that bug (which it is) and simply call it something else (I suggest "magical Xmm helmet piercer"). It does not make much sense to carry around a pea pistol. ;-)

That argument isn't really conclusive. 9 mm ammo would have gone out of use if armour could simply deflect it. There is always a race between defense and offense, and if by 2035 helmets would simply stop bullets like that, then people would use bigger guns :)

Funny thing is, what you describe seems actually consistent with NATO and CSAT using 6.5 mm while the AAF and FIA are "stuck" with 5.56 mm... :p

Well there's already talk about using 6.5 or 6.8 as standard ammo. IIRC, the German Army wants to upgrade their G36 to 6.8 SPC. It would make sense to improve weapon performance to counter better body armor.

We have speÑial topic about this http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?169985-Soldier-protection/page28

Please read old messages

I have no idea what protection will 2030-like helmets have, but I wouldn't be surprised if they could stop simple 9mm bullets. Granted some sort of physical reaction should be felt by the soldier.

Yay!

This only happens with OPFOR helmets, and only from the side. It is a glitch.

ok i tested the 48vs48 scenario with the new mainbranch. Now it seems the bad performance of the devbranch is introduced into mainbranch :(

Old main: 42fps average (with 48+48 inf ai)

new main: 31fps average

not good.....

OK I had something strange happen to me. Yesterday I played the second recon mission in the Adapt campaign and I got to the point where I have to attack the CSAT Checkpoint. The mission was already running for quite some time and I had a few reverts. The noticable that the performance was getting worse the longer the mission ran (might have something to do with reverts too).

As I attacked the checkpoint a CSAT guy wen´t around the corner just 1 meter, or less, away from me. I imediately emptied my clip into him but guess what: The bullets went through him without doing damage! I could see the dust kicked up behind him so I know that the bullets definately left my rifle. He also emptied his weapon into me but didn´t cause any damage. I quickly drew my pistol and emptied a whole clip into his head, again without doing any damage. I reloaded my pistol and ran around him as I did to not get shot, then I shot him in the head again and this time the hits were registered and he died.

Biggest WTF?!?! moment in my whole Arma history.

Before a few months I reported that I had the suspicion that a few of my bullets are passing through soldiers without actually hitting them, Now I know that I was right.

I also encountered a similiar situation at the AAF checkpoint where my bullets passed through the guy standing at the static grenade launcher.

Oh and while we are at static Grenade launchers: One of the static grenade launchers at the CSAT checkpoint tried to kill me but I managed to shoot the guy operating it. Guess what: The launcher didn´t stop shooting and killed me after a few more salvos.

Could it be that the hitdetection refuses to work if the performance is not good (around 20-25 FPS)?

ok i tested the 48vs48 scenario with the new mainbranch. Now it seems the bad performance of the devbranch is introduced into mainbranch :(

Old main: 42fps average (with 48+48 inf ai)

new main: 31fps average

not good.....

ah man that's shocking.. have you given BIS your mission.pbo?

Could it be that the hitdetection refuses to work if the performance is not good (around 20-25 FPS)?

Hello,

I think this could be a possibility - I play a lot of flight sims that of are a similar disposition to Arma (CPU heavy sims with the capacity for the user to overload the sim by either asking the sim to render too much or have too many things going on to calculate). The critical FPS when the simulation starts to break down is about 20 FPS, so maybe this could be the case with Arma as well.

Here's a little snippet from the X-Plane website. They're talking about flutter (when physics go weird due to low FPS) but I would imagine a similar problems with Arma's simulation could happen at low FPS.

This occurs due to the way that X-Plane moves aircraft within the simulation. X-Plane calculates the acceleration of the craft for each frame, then adds up the acceleration between frames to move the plane. This works fine if the frame rate is reasonably high and the accelerations are reasonable low. In fact, for any reasonably normal aircraft that has reasonably normal accelerations, a frame rate of 20 fps or more is fine.

From this page (If you wanted a bit of further reading):

http://www.x-plane.com/subject/configuring/rendering-options/

Hey! Why'd you guys change the white head model to Nikos' head? The white heads look strange now. Please change it back.

ok i tested the 48vs48 scenario with the new mainbranch. Now it seems the bad performance of the devbranch is introduced into mainbranch :(

Old main: 42fps average (with 48+48 inf ai)

new main: 31fps average

not good.....

We have recently fixed AI path planning as the AI soldiers sometimes weren't planning their paths properly. The drawback is that it now takes more time which obviously is not good - we are looking into possible optimizations. But note that it shouldn't be very noticeable in normal missions - your test mission is rather specific as it simultaneously spawns a lot of AIs and they begin their simulation and path planning all together.

We have recently fixed AI path planning as the AI soldiers sometimes weren't planning their paths properly. The drawback is that it now takes more time which obviously is not good - we are looking into possible optimizations. But note that it shouldn't be very noticeable in normal missions - your test mission is rather specific as it simultaneously spawns a lot of AIs and they begin their simulation and path planning all together.

So what? The current enigne is not able to handle 96 AI's spwaning at once? In words "ninety-six"? Since when 96 Ai's are "rather specific"? What about multiplayer coop missions like Domination or Warfare that made ArmA popular? So why did you release Atlis? Should we play 8 vs.8 pvp on Altis?

Please bear in mind that the single player campaign is just a "nice to have", 'cause once your customers finished it they will see the muliplayer button and find an epic fail. We are close to one year after alpha release, but the content is still poor, lots of bugs, no DLC's, and we obvioulsy play with an engine that is not able to handle 96 Ai's spwaning at once.

Dream on ;)

So what? The current enigne is not able to handle 96 AI's spwaning at once? In words "fourtyeight"? Since when 96 Ai's are "rather specific"? What about multiplayer coop missions like Domination or Warfare that made ArmA popular? So why did you release Atlis? Should we play 8 vs.8 pvp on Altis?

Please bear in mind that the single player campaign is just a "nice to have", 'cause once your customers finished it they will see the muliplayer button and find an epic fail. We are close to one year after alpha release, but the content is still poor, lots of bugs, no DLC's, and we obvioulsy play with an engine that is not able to handle 96 Ai's spwaning at once.

Dream on ;)

Well read, Sir, you almost got it.

edit: Ah, ninja'd, darn you

So what? The current enigne is not able to handle 96 AI's spwaning at once? In words "ninety-six"? Since when 96 Ai's are "rather specific"? What about multiplayer coop missions like Domination or Warfare that made ArmA popular? So why did you release Atlis? Should we play 8 vs.8 pvp on Altis?

Please bear in mind that the single player campaign is just a "nice to have", 'cause once your customers finished it they will see the muliplayer button and find an epic fail. We are close to one year after alpha release, but the content is still poor, lots of bugs, no DLC's, and we obvioulsy play with an engine that is not able to handle 96 Ai's spwaning at once.

Dream on ;)

got it all in one

So what? The current enigne is not able to handle 96 AI's spwaning at once? In words "ninety-six"? Since when 96 Ai's are "rather specific"? What about multiplayer coop missions like Domination or Warfare that made ArmA popular? So why did you release Atlis? Should we play 8 vs.8 pvp on Altis?

Please bear in mind that the single player campaign is just a "nice to have", 'cause once your customers finished it they will see the muliplayer button and find an epic fail. We are close to one year after alpha release, but the content is still poor, lots of bugs, no DLC's, and we obvioulsy play with an engine that is not able to handle 96 Ai's spwaning at once.

Dream on ;)

no DLC's? Forgot about AAF additions? Or you would preffer to pay for it? Damn BI, you just lost a chance to cash us 15$ for this!

And yeah, you should reread what he said perhaps one more time.

So what? The current enigne is not able to handle 96 AI's spwaning at once? In words "ninety-six"? Since when 96 Ai's are "rather specific"? What about multiplayer coop missions like Domination or Warfare that made ArmA popular? So why did you release Atlis? Should we play 8 vs.8 pvp on Altis?

Please bear in mind that the single player campaign is just a "nice to have", 'cause once your customers finished it they will see the muliplayer button and find an epic fail. We are close to one year after alpha release, but the content is still poor, lots of bugs, no DLC's, and we obvioulsy play with an engine that is not able to handle 96 Ai's spwaning at once.

Dream on ;)

I completely agree.

for example, in BETA we saw the inventory editor button.. "EQUIPMENT" and still no comment on it when people keep making threads asking for information.

If its AXED just say

So what? The current enigne is not able to handle 96 AI's spwaning at once? In words "ninety-six"? Since when 96 Ai's are "rather specific"? What about multiplayer coop missions like Domination or Warfare that made ArmA popular? So why did you release Atlis? Should we play 8 vs.8 pvp on Altis?

Please bear in mind that the single player campaign is just a "nice to have", 'cause once your customers finished it they will see the muliplayer button and find an epic fail. We are close to one year after alpha release, but the content is still poor, lots of bugs, no DLC's, and we obvioulsy play with an engine that is not able to handle 96 Ai's spwaning at once.

Dream on ;)

"Animated plate selections for other Slammer variants"

...Other...Slammer...variants??! YEAAAHHHH

So what? The current enigne is not able to handle 96 AI's spwaning at once? In words "ninety-six"? Since when 96 Ai's are "rather specific"? What about multiplayer coop missions like Domination or Warfare that made ArmA popular? So why did you release Atlis? Should we play 8 vs.8 pvp on Altis?

Reality check due here, since there seems to be some bandwagoning with mediocrity happening.

No mission needs to spawn 96 AI at once. At once, key words. It is very easy to work around what is, for now, a bug. Not something to base an ill-conceived rant on.

Domination (which was the last resort of desperate of public MP and never made anything popular besides teamkilling with stolen choppers) doesn't spawn like that anyways. Warfare will start with even fewer units on the map because of the group leader system.