-Gews-

The reply box is black-on-white but the posts are white-on black. A catastrophe!

Chernarus playable map is 236 km², that figure includes parts of the ocean.

Looks like we had the same idea.

Theoretical speeds at 2100 rpm, high range: V3S 1: 10 km/h 2: 19 km/h 3: 35 km/h 4: 61 km/h V3S M2 1: 14 km/h 2: 26 km/h 3: 48 km/h 4: 74 km/h Assuming my calculations are correct.. they came out pretty close to the quoted max speeds, anyways.

My theory is that it was put there to be funny... and also as another consumer of .357.

And salty ARMA players will tell you that the DayZ mod detracted from what the core gameplay was all about.

Haven't played for a while, started the game up, it threw me into a server. I had a shotgun from last time, so I made sure it was loaded, pressing "3" to use the buckshot on my hotbar. Turns out when I tried to reload from the hotbar, it would fire the shotgun, silently, and without depleting my ammunition. Thought someone was shooting at me to begin with. I was able to kill a few zombies like this, confirming it was actually firing projectiles. The zeds didn't seem to know where the shots were coming from. Weird. Relogged just now and things are back to normal.

ARMA 2-style fully-automatic shifting isn't accurate but neither is the standalone manual shifts. What @Sqeezorz mentioned about the stepped speeds is a good argument. Automatic transmission makes sense in vehicles with auto transmissions. About half of passenger cars in Russia are now purchased with auto xmsn. Looked up some stats since I was thinking about making a related topic on vehicle choices.

https://dayz.com/blog/status-report-09-jun-2015

No one will be able to tell if changes to eye zoom alone results in more player interactions or not. As far as I'm aware the devs haven't kept logs of all player interactions to date. The other stuff you mention is a different topic. 'More interaction' also was not the reason for removing 'eye zoom', that was just Peter weighing possible pros and cons of each option, as they haven't yet decided whether to keep the 'zoom' or not. My prediction is that there would be no noticeable differences in the number of players one runs into merely due to changing 'eye zoom', although if all things were equal, you'd probably miss a few encounters as you wouldn't be able to spot each other from as far away. Players would probably be shot on sight just as often, maybe from a little closer on average, but most encounters tend to be close range surprises as it stands.

So, this would require the ammunition affecting the accuracy of the weapon. Which would be a nice feature.

This is the reason: " ... absence of naked eye zoom was intentional as we run into technical problems due interference with switching to iron sights, witch was key-binded to middle mouse button. Time was running out and instead of fixing the old camera behaviour, we decided to cut it completely, so that we can start implementing a new camera from scratch to allow us to have more control over it (which is being worked on right now)." That's it. That's the reason it was missing from Gamescom demo. The other things mentioned are all just pros/cons they are considering, as they decide whether or not to re-implement the 'eye zoom'. (At least, that's what I understand from status report)

It was already reduced. Right now we sit between 0.54 and 0.55. As for that other BI game, A3, it's the same as A2. That's not a compromise you describe, it's a compromise right now in 0.62. Copy-paste: "This 'zoom' doesn't represent some intense kind of focus, the basic range of FOV, minFOV to maxFOV, represents simply a normal vision of the kind you are using while reading this text." And so it makes no sense to limit it because you're tired, or because you're standing upright instead of crouching down. The normal vision range needs to be consistent and it needs to be always accessible.

It's not possible to use 'zoom' in place of binoculars and scopes. Won't. See: patch 0.57.

Some horrifying news from Gamescom (via BarelyInfected). Q: "We can't zoom anymore." Dev response: [...] "I think, like, I was a, I was advocate of keeping the, that eye zoom, in [...] we wanted to throw it away like long time ago [...] I was like, okay guys, it's [...] great mark of ARMA [...] let's keep it and see how it goes [...] we lowered the zoom quite drastically [...] when compared to the ARMA, but now we had some issues with the [...] zooming value (?) in (?) the iron sights, so we tear it up (?), completely out, for this version, and I think, it will maybe... well, I like it, because [...] [talks about FOV and LODs] [...] so I think we will ditch it, probably." Receipts at 8 minutes 45: If the 'eye zoom' was removed I think I might ditch DayZ. The 'eye zoom' has always been one of my big concerns: https://forums.dayz.com/topic/165710-the-campaign-for-iron-sight-zoom/ https://forums.dayz.com/topic/225515-vision-nerfed-yet-again/ Patch 0.57, with extreme reduced zoom, was unplayable for me as I would run around squinting at things that were actually pretty close and should have been easy to see—myopic characters were not good for my blood pressure so I took a time out until they fixed it in 0.58. The only patch, the only decision which has bothered me to such an extent. The status report of 30 June 2015 gave a nice explanation of the 'eye zoom' feature, for those unaware. So it seemed the team was backing this feature and understood why it was there. But now I hear it will be removed? And the main reason seemed to be that transition between LODs aren't perfectly smooth? Is this related to console development or something? Seems unlikely, but I'm scratching my head. As far as I'm concerned removal of this feature would ruin the game. Much of the appeal of DayZ is the wide open map with long vistas and the ranged combat that can take place there. If my character doesn't have an 'authentic' visual acuity then those aspects of the game will not longer be 'authentic'. A variable FOV/zoom is a fundamental feature of any realistic game involving combat/shooting. I shouldn't need to use binoculars or scope to see a person a couple hundred yards away, instead of just a moving dot. My character is looking at someone all the time, which means that all the time, I will be seriously annoyed at my guy's gimped vision. And at that point it's no longer worth playing.

Agreed about their current value. I always grab binocs or even better, PU scope from hunting stands when gearing up. You can scan a huge area with such items, they are invaluable for spotting people. I don't get why they need to be even more valuable than now. They have a function, and they perform it... what more is needed?

Fair enough. Correct. I wouldn't say the ability to see a realistic distance is a 'supernatural ability'. Binoculars and scopes should be used when things are too far away to see properly. Binoculars and scopes should NOT be needed to distinguish people (as opposed to dark pixel blobs) a mere 200 or 300 yards off. In 0.62 I find a magnifying optic is extremely useful for spotting players—'eye zoom' alone does not match up. Naked eyes should be enough to observe your environment. Today I watched someone walking in a field of tall grass, and their two dogs running alongside, at approximately 950-1050 meters. Small, yes, but neither bionic eyes or binoculars were necessary to simply see them. Note that I can't do that in DayZ, even with 0.62 'eye zoom'. As mentioned above, the inability to see properly would lead to people simply not seeing other players, and walking by one another without ever noticing. See better = more interactions. Good to hear. "Correct perspective" = zoom? In this case, characters with guns can see better—which would not make sense. If we have a correct perspective, assuming this means appropriate minFOV, I don't think added zoom is necessary. And I don't think holding breath should affect eyesight. Since, 1. Focusing on a distant object is not something you can only do for a few seconds, 2. the correct perspective / zoom already represents 'focus', in a way, and 3. if we were after top accuracy we would be focusing on front sight anyways. Anyways it is nice to see a response on this topic and I hope the feature is kept as is. "Simulation of mid to long range engagement wouldn’t be possible without such feature ..." "We know that zoomed fov or ironsights must be 45° because it emulates the eye and we stated earlier that 45° is realistic."

Glad to hear it.

Realistically if you're eating a nicely prepared human steak there shouldn't be any notable risks to your character's health.

Did @eugenharton end up commenting on this?

Those small ones are more like a camp knife, not for working in the fields. Not sure why they made the game version this small, there were many people pointing out the small size when the machete was added. I think a machete should be a desirable weapon. It's capable yet relatively light. People shouldn't be cross country running with fire or splitting axes esp. when they're already decked out with multiple guns. 12" vs 18"

Only a 12" machete in this game. Kind of puny, I have kitchen knives larger than that.

Would have liked to see a comment on this.

Hyperbolic? Of course. Premature? Please elaborate. Last time I checked they showed off their new build at Gamescom 2017, that build was missing a longstanding and major feature, and when attendees mentioned this they said it's gone because they plan to 'ditch it'. 'Premature'? Are we supposed to pretend that whole thing didn't happen? Hop in a server and don't hold down your right mouse button. If you don't care about realism, then it 'feels' just fine. Kind of like this.

Upvotes don't really validate an idea, the argument for zoom stands on its own. But upvotes can show community opinion, and community opinion can sway devs. Because who are they making the game for, in the end? I posted this one today: https://www.reddit.com/r/dayz/comments/6y1ks0/devs_plan_to_remove_eye_zoomlets_change_their/ So far ~375 upvotes at 90%, a decent number for today's r/dayz, and again the great majority of comments support keeping the zoom. One guy complaining doesn't do much by himself. Fifty, one hundred, two hundred complaining, maybe just a little bit more. More momentum. You're getting a better sample size there. If they realize such a change would be quite unpopular with the community, would they still pursue it? Unfortunately they don't interact too much these days on subreddit or forum. Maybe some dev browses the sub and will see that topic, or this forum, and it could spark some discussion or change.