Mythbusters ArmA edition.

[NeMeSiS]

I dont think that should be tested, someone who is less lazy then me should just open the configfiles and read the values.

[Heatseeker]

Here's a myth for you to crack:

All OPFor vehicles and weapons are lower quality in terms of armor and ammo, when compared to their respective BLUFor equivalents.

This is often heard on russian forums, and I would love to see this tested. I realise that perhaps it would be hard to test every vehicle, but a majority should defenately be tested.

That doesnt even qualify as a myth.. so it cant be busted.

LAV 25 vs BTR-90?
AAV vs BMP3?
UH1-Y vs Mi-24?
MH-60s vs Mi-8 MTV?

Afaik the russian military is not equiped half as well as it is represented in A2 so the Russians are actually overpowered (they might have the hardware but not produced and fielded in great numbers).

[Second]

Okay. I will bust one MYTHBUSTED for starter.

If your on hill your are generally in better cover than guy who is lower than you. How come? I understand that if person believes that world is like ArmA universe then he doesn't see this. But in reality there's tons of cover/concealment everywhere, enough for scared guy to go hide in (reason why real firefights don't turn into bloodbath as they do in ArmA universe). This won't happen as easily if your facing enemy which can see you from much higher position.

While guy in higher position finds much more hard cover for himself from every nook there is (and usually there is plenty). If your obstructed to go into wilderness to try it, try it in OFP with high/very high terrain detail and you will see it in action: One doesn't need to seek that (actually reverse slope) position where top of the hill protects him. There's enough cover in enemy's side of hill as well... Reason why it's very often good idea to have higher position against enemies even to this date and to long future.

Reason why going too much downhill to enemy's side is ill-idea is that PRIMARY fallback and movement routes will be exposed to enemy's overwatch and fire. Naturally using hills/tall houses as fighting position has problems with being potentially too exposed to enemy's firesupport. Yet thru out history to this date (and to long future) top of the hills have been utilized with great success, even against highly overpowered (firepower and manpower) enemies. They offer cover, overwatch for defenders/ambushers. For opposition they offer increased firesupport possibilities but also exposure and fatigue while on their way to top.

Infact this works totally differently in ArmA. As person over hill will not see a sh!t because of grass while guy in bellow sees over the grass to hill. And guy in higher position usually doesn't have anysort of hard cover which he could use as firing position... So when he sees something like head of enemy he probably has exposed his torso to enemy.

So how do those bunch of idiots says it in TV... Myth confirmed?

[walker]

Hi Second

Title of thread:

Mythbusters ArmA edition.

Hint Hint

If you want to discuss its validity in the real world there is an offtopic military thread.

Kind Regards walker

[vinc3nt]

oh oh i have one! Running/sprinting into a little bird anti-torque causes it to have engine and anti-toqure failure. *I already now the answer BTW *

[R71]

oh oh i have one! Running/sprinting into a little bird anti-torque causes it to have engine and anti-toqure failure. *I already now the answer BTW *

Yep, and nothing happens to the guy that runs or walks into it. I dont mind this so much. It would be nice if it killed the person that runs into it though.

What I do mind is that when you hover next to the ground you can flip over easy, if there is a person next to your chpper. Its almost like the chopper has no weight at all to it.

[Bouben]

Yes. Suma was lying when he said that grass effects the AI. Ofcourse not literally, but being in an area with grass does give the AI a penalty to spot you, which is pretty wel simulated IMO.

Also, knowsabout gives you a value how much a unit knows about anothers units side. I dont know why you brought that up, but its a pretty good way to check is the AI can see your right through everything.

EDIT: Though you are right the layer is for PvP only.

No, Suma wasnt lying. He was talking about penalty. Thats all. No LOS effect. Once you fire a round you are unable to hide anymore untill enemy's knowsabout disappear. Grass does not hide you like bushes or houses for example does. That's it.

[Defunkt]

If you fire at the AI they aren't going to forget all about you just because you hide behind a bush.

[Grizzle]

oh oh i have one! Running/sprinting into a little bird anti-torque causes it to have engine and anti-toqure failure. *I already now the answer BTW *

Somehow I've managed to avoid running into tail rotors in BIS games. And I don't really see any need to start now. Maybe you should just avoid them?

[NeMeSiS]

No, Suma wasnt lying. He was talking about penalty. Thats all. No LOS effect. Once you fire a round you are unable to hide anymore untill enemy's knowsabout disappear. Grass does not hide you like bushes or houses for example does. That's it.

I never said that wasnt the case, but if it did it would be ridiculous. It would mean that you can hide everywhere like you are behind some invisble object and grass doesnt do that. And ingame it would give you a huge advantage over the AI since the AI also doesnt disappear in the grass layer.