Strike_NOR

Member
  • Content count

    139
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

267 Excellent

About Strike_NOR

  • Rank
    Sergeant

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Scandinavistan

Contact Methods

  • XBOX Live
    alfen_deluxe@hotmail.com
  1. I'd say that one of the main issues regarding vehicular warfare in ArmA 3 at the moment is the lack of proper armor and module simulation. Firstly, the damage models are more advanced than average games, but less advanced than war-thunder (semi-simulation) type games. ARMA would benefit so much from revisiting the Armor system because it affects all types of ammunition and armor. In my opinion, for tanks DLC this has to change. I'm making an educated guess here that the current AT-soldier options and loadouts are there because of a few reasons, the main one being balance. If you were to only reduce the amount of rockets/missiles one could carry, you would need two to three AT soldiers to take down a Main Battle Tank. Why? Because the rockets deal indirect damage (splash damage) to tanks in an unrealistic way. Pretty much all modern rockets or missiles have too slow velocity in order to successfully penetrate armor with kinetic energy, therefore they use HEAT warheads. HEAT warheads have the same penetration values at ALL ranges, due to the fact that it is a shaped charge explosive. This is the main advantage of HEAT and is why it can be used in mines, grenades, rockets, missiles and shells. However, HEAT is not simulated in ArmA3 and therefore this "indirect hit" damage is used instead. The result is that using AT rockets on tanks becomes really predictable, no matter where you hit them. They will ALWAYS take some damage, and most likely always blow up no matter where you hit them, after a few shots. My ideal proposal for the HEAT ammunition would be as follows: The projectile impacts a target at sufficient angle for the impact-fuze to detonate. This creates a grenade-like explosion which deals some splash damage in the area (intended to damage nearby troops or turned-out crew, optics, machine guns, CROWS etc). At the exact time of the explosion, an AP-projectile (the molten copper jet/pressure blast) is spawned with the same orientation as the shell before it exploded and works as following: It has high speed, but it falls off immediately, very fast. If it does not hit anything armored, it will be lethal for up to a few meters. However, if it hits armor, it will have very good penetration. After penetrating, effectiveness drops immediately, but it generates a small "spalling effect" behind (either an splash-damage style orb or a few shotgun-like projectiles). This "spalling" effect is meant to damage crew or internal modules in the immediate vicinity of the penetration area. If the main "jet" still carries enough speed after penetration, it too will continue on until it hits something it can't penetrate, or exits the vehicle. If it exits the vehicle, the speed falloff is still there so it will mostly despawn/disappear immediatly. An effective way to counter HEAT is therefore, as in real life, spaced armor or anti-HEAT cages on vehicles. These will force the charge to detonate too far away from the armor, and the heat "JET" will have lost it's effective penetration before hitting the vehicles main armor. As tandem HEAT would be near-impossible to properly model, because it requires a first charge to blow a hole in the armor, and the second charge to pass through the same hole (i hardly think it's possible to do in the arma engine), I would recommend just upping the main jet's effective penetration values to make it pass through thicker armor. I also wish for better High-Explosive ammo, that would work like this: The projectile impacts a target at a sufficient angle for the impact fuze to detonate. Depending on the fuze type, it is either impact-detonation, or delayed impact-detonation. If the HE-round explodes on impact, it will deal superficial damage to thick armor, some damage to medium armor (APC/LAV) and heavy damage to light armor (trucks, jeeps etc). However, if the projectile has a delayed impact fuze the following happens: 1. The penetration is calculated - if it does not penetrate, it explodes on surface. 2. A successful penetration will cause the shell to detonate approx 1 meter behind whatever it penetrated. This not only makes HE extremely effective against light vehicles, but also against lightly fortified buildings or walls. As for using it against enemy tanks, it would damage turned out crew, and external modules, impairing the tanks performance. These HE-effects could be used for other things than tanks. For instance, artillery shells or bombs. An air-dropped bomb or artillery shell could easily pass through a building roof and detonate inside for maximum effect. Lastly I also wish for better AP handling: Armor Piercing projectiles should bounce or break if the angle is either too shallow or if the armor is too thick. In which case they should deal 0 damage to the target. However, another factor should be considered. Overpenetration. If you shoot a lightly armored vehicle, like a car, through the drivers cab. it should effectively just pass through. Very little of the kinetic energy is absorbed by the car, so it basically deals 0 damage to the vehicle. If it hits the engine block, fuel tank or other hard objects inside the car, it could easily tear it apart, because the energy is absorbed and distributed within the vehicle. Therefore, using AP ammo on cars and trucks may be very ineffective, unless you penetrate vital parts. HE would be the preferred option here as any hit would guarantee a detonation. AP ammo comes in different styles too. Sabot ammunition (dart ammo) and shells, some with explosive filler. Making an explosively-filled AP round would essentially be like copy-pasting the HE shell and give it more penetration value, but less explosive force. Using a pure AP shell would give higher penetration values, but less "beyond armor" damage. Using Dart ammunition would be the ultimate penetrating shell, and because of the high velocity, it generates a lot of heat and spalling effects when penetrating armor of a certain thickness. This ammo is best suited for heavily armored tanks, because with thin armor, it essentially overpenetrates before the energy of the dart can be absorbed in the vehicle. How would this work though? Armor plates would have to be fitted to all vehicles (defined areas of armor with defined thickness and type (steel, aluminum, composite etc)). Crew fighting compartments would have to be "free of firegeometry" so that deadly effects could happen inside the tank (splash damage, spalling etc). Tanks (and preferably other vehicles) would require more types of damage modules (ammunition, transmission, turret ring, elevation mechanism, optics, CROWS etc.) Vehicles and soldiers would need wider selection of ammunition types. Why would this work? The pros: Realistic vehicle damage leads to realistic tactics and approaches. Player ammunition choices have greater influence to outcome of vehicular combat. More incapacitated vehicles, rather than burning, exploded wrecks. Players will less frequently experience being "one-shotted" or obliterated. More focus on repair logistics and ammunition resupply. (more ammo types means you need to rearm frequently used types more often). Better infantry vs vehicle combat (HEAT ammo) means you have to think about where you hit enemies, because it will no longer damage the entire vehicle, just the modules/crew behind the point of impact. Better vehicle vs infantry combat (shooting the tarp on a transport truck with AP shells no longer vaporizes the truck - the shell simply penetrates and flies out the other side). Warrants more types/specialization of Anti-Tank infantry. The cons: New ARMOR system means ALL vehicles, vanilla, mods, etc will have to be updated with proper values. Some vehicles may require little tweaking (such as planes, helicopters, cars), but armored vehicles such as tanks, IFVs, APC etc require armor type and thickness alterations. New ammo types mean breaking existing types and "synthetic HEAT simulation". But this compliments a new armor system well. So this bullet and the previous go hand-in-hand, or not at all. Certain anti-armor weapons may prove absolutely ineffective against main battle tanks, leading to player confusion. Mainstream games have us believe that rocket launchers make everything explode into a fireball. New damageable modules require a lot of existing vehicles to be revisited. Questionable reliability of HEAT/delayed fuze in arma 3 environment. If CPU is under heavy load, will the shell detonate at the correct "frame" ? This question is a little bit out of my league. AP shots would drain very little health from the overall target. Meaning that you could probably shoot and penetrate an MBT 50 times without it exploding, if you never hit the critical modules inside. This may lead to some confusion if you don't know how armor penetration works. I guess all in all i'd say. Try to copy WarThunder wherever you can. It makes armored warfare 100x more interesting. The major ACE up the sleeve of arma is that you can FINALLY bail from an incapacitated vehicle!
  2. I don't know whether to try to answer this, or just state the obvious. If you ask stupid questions you are gonna get _______ answers :) However, there are some splendid™ hypothesis on the matter: The people of Altis, Stratis and Malden have learned mutated to efficiently absorb all matter from food . As such, their bodies no longer discard "waste". They don't eat. (There are no women to cook for them, neither do they have women to impress by cooking for). Chronic constipation disorder. Toilet paper is too expensive (and, coincidentially, is nowhere to be bought), so the only logical option is to hold it in. People don't use toilets in 2035, there's a pill for that! Photosynthesis? I can't believe how this has been overlooked by the devs since 2013? Somebody make a ticket!! Soiler alert:
  3. I don't know if you've thought about this, you probably have, but you could always ask the guy behind the raptors mod (originally mr ruppertle I believe) and ask for the animation skeleton/rig. That way you would "only" replace the 3D model of the raptors with an alien model. The same was done for Operation Flashpoint back in the day I believe. They would act like raptors, jump around and stuff, pin people to the ground, but no wall-climbing, tail-impaling etc. Yes, old Alien fan here :)
  4. Realistically speaking, it's no problem to carry one rifle in your hands, and another one on the back. A typical loaded standard issue rifle weighs about 4-5 kgs. However, there are so many practical reasons to why one wouldn't do it. Here's to name just a few: Higher ammo/magazine capacity for your weapon if you only opt for one firearm. Less micro-management, fewer distractions. If you've ever operated firearms, you know that keeping tabs on mag-count, etc is hard enough with just one weapon. Less cumbersome. You are more agile with one weapon. Anyone who has ever run with a rifle strapped on their back knows it will bash the back of your skull every now and then and get stuck in all kinds of vegetation. However, I agree that in real life, there is nothing that says you can't strap yourself like 1980's Arnold style, packing a personal arsenal. Cool for movies, not so effective though. If we are talking about game balance, I don't see a real problem here. As long as we have the launcher slot, players will still be able to arm themselves as a one man army (carry a machine gun for primary, a guided missile launcher, grenades, C4 and a revolver) if they like. So what's the difference? Well, actually, having two "primary weapons" will enable players to prioritize CQB when needed, and long range combat when not. But remember guys that are already crying "IMBALANCE!!!!"... This means they have probably 1/2 of the ammo for either situation AND they can't use anti tank OR anti air weapons.. To be quite frank, I can't understand why this hasn't been thought of before? Like some others here already have said. Many situations call for a guy to bring a breaching shotgun or grenade launcher. Would be nice to see this :)
  5. I can't help myself, this debate is going to get my two cents :P I'll list them up as bullets to simplify some pros and cons. Tank Interior pros: Immersion - Much better to feel "encapsulated in armor" and adds to overall realism. Damage assessment - See dead crew-members, possible damage textures etc. Realism - because it deserves its own bullet point. Consistency with the rest of armas vehicles. Tank interior cons: Time-consuming to model and animate FPS-hit Poor internal damage effects due to engine limits (pilot LOD overlays the "exterior" world). Would be hard to make smoke, flames, sparks etc appear inside. Could be less user friendly to those who don't own track IR (as looking around the interior is quite cumbersome if you don't have head tracking). What I am most eager to see in tanks DLC summarized: Reworked large-caliber ballistics and terminal ballistics (proper AP, HEAT, HE, HESH etc simulation) Reworked armor and fire geometry, allowing to simulate different armor types, thicknesses etc. Reworked modules (turret ring, elevation drive, ammo storage, optics, sensors). Reworked handling/physics. Better inertia, mass, suspension. Reworked AI behavior. New tanks! (why so low? Bamboozled again BI? New stuff is great, but better stuff is better™) ;) And lastly, if ammo module is to be modeled, please a fantastic ammo-cookoff firework to show everyone on the battlefield that you just REK'D someone ;) Anyways, just my two cents :p who cares?
  6. Wow. I've so far only seen your youtube videos of the mod in action, but it looks incredibly well made! A lot of time and effort went into this I can tell! A very cool and creative way to use ArmA 3's engine for something completely different! Downloading this later :)
  7. Too many, man..... too many.... Hehe. On a serious note though, I actually found myself exploring oreokastro like nuts, afraid that I might miss something. Would be nice with an "discovered memory X out of X" update along the way.
  8. While this is similar to what modern day metal-detectors behave like, I am sure the developers have chosen the current approach for a few viable reasons. It immediately becomes easier to determine if all mines have been spotted, or you missed something. The constant beep spam would be incredibly annoying after a while. It may actually become mentally exhausting. Who knows what kind of mine-detector one can expect in 2035 service. Maybe one with GPS sync that will memorize discovered mines and only warn you of undiscovered ones is possible at that time? I agree that it does not mimic current metal-detectors behavior 100%, but it does work as intended for gameplay. The red triangle visible on HUD and map markers make every player on your faction well aware not to wander carelessly into these areas of the map :) My personal hope and suggestion would be that discovered mines do not show as a red triangle in HUD, but with a mine-flag object, which has already been suggested by many others. It may still show on the map for all I care, but I'd prefer if it were visible to the players by means of a small flag that pops up once it has been spotted. Maybe it should require the player to have a "mine flag pack" item in their inventory, so that regular infantry won't deploy flags by default, but still automatically mark it on the map. As of the large UXO discussion... devs could probably expand the variation with minimal effort™, by using the already available 3D models of munitions (Bombs, rockets, artillery shells) and add them to the game as editor-placeable UXOs. I realize they have a lot on their plate right now before official release of the DLC, but it would give the community some extra variety to play with for EOD operations. Ideally, to increase UXO quality, the 3D models of large munitions would have to be severely damaged to seem realistic (bent, torn, disintegrated, distorted, semi-buried etc). It would have a very unsettling effect on players though. Imagine seeing a mangled bomb, dug halfway into the second floor of a building wall. If it were to detonate, it would have an enormous lethal radius compared to the cluster-size munitions. It would bring even further problems into the equation, such as evacuation of civilians, other personell and ordnance disposal on-site.
  9. I am guessing right now, that UXO's are really only feasible because the cluster bombs guarantee that something is going to take damage. If you drop a single 500lbs bomb and it does nothing, then the average player may get disheartened or even accuse it of being a bug. I honestly know very few multiplayer games that simulate duds, most likely due to the fact that it is a random case of "imbalance". "Hey!! I shot him, and nothing happened, he shot me and I blew up!?!?!" *ragequit*. See my point? However, using it in cluster munitions, there will always be some damage and some duds, which lets the player deal his intended damage, but leaves a new level of challenge. The area is now dangerous to lightly armored vehicles and infantry. An interesting thought though, is what modders may be able to do about this! The new types of submunitions may actually prove useful in a completely different manner. Think about your example. You drop a 500lbs Mk82 bomb. It plummets to the ground and impacts hard, but does not detonate. Now the pilot has to report that it was a dud, and a huge area is now "blocked" due to a large UXO. Another use of this function would be intentional delay! Many real life bombs can be set to have a delayed detonation after impact. This is especially handy for area denial. MK82's could be set with up to 24hr fuse. Drop one in the middle of a runway, and that runway is now unsafe for who knows how long? Low flying CAS may use delay fuses to avoid being hit by their own shrapnel. There are many uses for such features, that may not only be restricted to UXO's. I'd love to see an effect where "regular explosive ammo" may hit objects at an extremely shallow angle and "bounce/spin" off, leaving the shell/bomb unexploded somewhere nearby. But that requires a lot of work...
  10. Fantastic!! Thank you for the answer :) And I just have to say, I can't say I have ever experienced something like this in ArmA. You guys did an excellent job trying to nail down difficult and unpopular sides of armed combat. Most enjoyable ArmA 3 campaign experience so far for me :) I felt more "connected" to the story. Keep up the good work on polishing the details :)
  11. I second that about the submunitions! Really cool if there would be remnants of cluster bomb casing, spine and tail. Like mangled/warped metal from impacting the ground. Also, like others have mentioned. Clusterbombs tend to throw off a lot of sparks and dust, but not so much black/dark grey smoke. Just an observation. @DnA Finally, a quick question. How are the "dud"s spawned? Does every bomb generate a fixed number of duds, and a fixed number of dangerous duds in addition to the functional bomblets? Or is there randomization? What I'm asking is there a possibility that ALL bomblets detonate? Or is this a set amount in the code? Realistically speaking this should be random so that players don't get used to a set amount. If someone figures out "Hey. this bomb spawns 4 UXO's every time", then they will scan for 4 UXO's and consider the job done.
  12. Nah man, in africa they used to scare wild animals into the minefields to set them off. That's the cheapest EOD I can think of... it even gives you well-done meat in return. On a serious note though, I do find it odd that there aren't any IED aspects here, which would warrant a ground EOD robot. The only thing I found buggy/inconstistent with the DLC content was the anti-mine bombs on the drone. Sometimes a bomb would set off mines in a large area, other times it would not set off the mine 1 meter next to it. I suspect this because of the way arma 3 terrain works, there are small height differences in the "terrain grid". If a mine is sitting on a different grid, then the edge of this grid may "mask" the line of sight between bomb and mine, causing the mine to be shielded by terrain. Just my assumption.
  13. First off, I sat down yesterday and played through both the LOW Showcase, and the "Remnants of war" campaign, and my overall experience was very good and enjoyable. It even left me with a bad feeling, not because of the DLC, but the overall message of the DLC. I actually found this more powerful than I was expecting. This campaign also had me more paranoid than any previous arma experience, thinking about when I would hear a "click" followed by certain death. Kudos to you for pulling that off! Now, onto the bugs: Other than that there were a lot of very cool technical additions in this DLC. I really enjoyed the "rewind"-style story telling. The narrating was really good, reminded me of the "Firewatch" game, with similarities where the main character communicates his thoughts through "Splendid skype" ;) with a journalist. It was interesting to listen to. To be quite frank about it, the campaign was very interesting, it kept me interested through the entire experience and I really enjoyed it. It made me happy that my nation has banned all use of cluster-munitions and passive mines, and I think that was the purpose of this DLC. Some final critique in the spoiler:
  14. Haha! Made me laugh! Add to that "Place breaching charge"... "Set off Breaching charge" *Kills all hostages in a completely different room* But seriously. Would be nice with some lockable doors. Would make for some interesting breach & clear scenarios. If you can lock them in editor, maybe add functionality to allow certain sides lock certain doors, so that : Faction A can lock out Faction B and C. Faction B and C can pick lock or breach door of faction A, and still gain access. etc. Don't have to buy Rainbow six siege if I lobby BI Devs into re-inventing it for ArmA 3 *points finger to head*