-Gews-

The OP is whiny and condescending, but was reacting to some quite nonsensical changes. They may care, or may not. In any case, they don't have the time to spend, nor do they care to the extent, that some obsessives do. I'll always point out where it can be improved. Not sure why this annoys you, pretty common stuff in ARMA forums or other similar games.

Clearly it doesn't bother you whether it's realistic, semi-realistic or unrealistic, so I don't see why you'd be bothered either way. It seems the devs currently wish these numbers to be realistic, having gone to the effort to base them on ballistic tables from a Czech ammunition manufacturer. Unfortunately they didn't spot the instances where the manufacturer has provided incorrect numbers, so I'm pointing them out. I will probably make a separate thread re: 1.0150408 tweaks and changes. I consider such dismissive responses as trolling. It's not even providing an argument against such changes. Adds nothing to the discussion.

It doesn't rely on those physics. Separate system from physics items. I agree. Who is this OP to complain about stuff or give constructive criticism? If he doesn't like their numbers he should not say anything and make a mod for it, or alternatively, acquire funds and attempt to set up his own game studio.

So, the ballistics are now closer than before, a couple are good to go, but many are still worse than they were in 0.62. A couple of the values are a little odd, as well. For example, the 7.62x54R is now set to 790 m/s. Why this odd 790 m/s, when Wikipedia (not always accurate but most people's first go-to) clearly says the PKM is "officially" 825 m/s, SVD is 830, and Mosin is 865? Acting on a hunch, today I checked the website of Czech ammunition manufacturer Sellier & Bellot; I believe they have based their new ballistics on the figures given on S&B's website. Two problems with this: Problem 1: low-quality data Unfortunately (like many manufacturers) S&B figures are not particularly accurate themselves. You can tell by comparing to other reliable sources and finding large discrepancies for the same type of bullet. For example, they claim their .45 ACP has a ballistic coefficient of 0.093. Way too low. Every other manufacturer gives significantly higher. Nothing special about S&B bullets, simply a bad number. It's going to be more like 0.19. Another example of bad data: they claim their .223 55 grain FMJ has a ballistic coefficient of 0.300. Too high! Should be more like 0.24 (and their tables give an even higher result than 0.300! The ballistic coefficient figures S&B give sometimes do not match to the velocities given in their tables, either). This bad data is partly a result of insufficient testing at short range. Can't make truly accurate ballistics off it. Problem 2: inappropriate loadings It's weird for military SVDs and PKMs to be using 174 grain Sellier & Bellot civilian ammo. The largest source for 7.62x54R ammo is military, and military surplus. It just makes way more sense to model the properties of the standard military/surplus rounds than that of a certain S&B target ammo which uses a much heavier lead-core bullet. Coincidentally (don't place much importance on eye candy) this is what is shown on the 7.62x54R box—military steel core light ball—and not coincidentally, this is how it used to be—ballistics from 0.34 to 0.62 were accurate for standard steel core light ball. Another example would be the 5.56 ballistics set (or intended to be set—it's not correct) for 55-grain ammo. As mentioned above most all nations use 62-grain ammo since the 1980s as this is the NATO standard.

New experimental update, new ballistics tweaks. Review! Won't bother typing it all again so:

This is just a text file, you're looking at a binarised version. Can't apply motorcycle helmet's maps to great helm. There's a examples of ARMA super shader rvmat and how to use on this page as well as previous link: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Super_shader You want to point to great helm's _nohq, _smdi, _as maps in the appropriate stages, change specular, specularPower and in Stage6 the fresnel values, and for a world map you want to replace ARMA 3 environment map with "dz\data\data\env_land_co.paa" in Stage7.

Have to use your own object to preview rvmat look that way. Or look at the values from another one which has material similar to what you want.

Text editor, but easiest way is in Object Builder, in Resources Library window, you can see "Current LOD", "Current Model", etc, within those is "material" folder and if you have rvmat in there, you can double-click and edit within that, and use Buldozer to see your changes. https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/RVMAT_basics

You can use hiddenSelectionsMaterials to replace the original rvmat with your own.

In your new class put hiddenSelections[] = {"zbytek"}; and then change that with hiddenSelectionsTextures and hiddenSelectionsMaterials for the rvmat. The base class has "camo" for the hiddenSelections, and "camo" excludes the reinforcing bands.

On PC at least, that was the original plan. ...however, it's no longer the plan. So though I could be wrong, I doubt for Xbox either.

Five years of public alpha, one month of beta, and a 1.0 release with many of the bugs from the beta and a few new ones, too.

Only thing that was "fixed" is buckshot, but just reverted to previous values, which weren't perfect (8 pellets vs standard 9, lower than standard speed, too low airFriction), I guess because buckshot was actually useless, whereas all the others still kill people fine. I don't trust the impact effects timing on a server, eg: leading a target, although it seems to work offline.

Look in username_settings.DayZProfile for head bob. Didn't check if changing it does anything. I am not a fan of this apparent new mindset where they take options away from player. No longer can I choose my own menu settings for head bob (NOT a fan), post-processing, toggle vs hold, brightness and gamma, resolution, etc. Instead it's all forced to be a certain way, to make sure you get the "intended experience". Don't like it.