-Gews-

Waiting since 2009 for accessible hatch and external ladder on Green Mountain transmitter :emptycan:

Enabled by default in Elite difficulty. Servers can choose to turn it off.

The new crosshair has to go. I was easily pinging zombies from 300, 400 meters with a sightless Longhorn. It's a step backwards from the dot. It would be fine if they froze it in place but this swaying? No. I made a video demonstrating this perfect accuracy... By the way they seem to have different unique crosshairs for bow, pistol, shotgun, rifle, etc, in the works. Doesn't really bother me but I don't get why it's necessary, or how having completely different crosshairs for each class of weapon is in any way logical. I guess it's just standard practice in many other games. The ARMA 3 crosshair is fine and is there by default even on "Elite" difficulty. The A3 crosshair doesn't allow for precise shooting so there shouldn't be a problem with it. In real life you have much better spatial awareness than you do controlling a flat screen. There's nothing "unrealistic" about giving a reference to center, which is what that is. Once you can use it as an actual sight like the 0.57/0.58 crosshairs, then you have a problem. These DayZ crosshair changes irritate me not only because I don't agree with them but because I don't understand them. What's the point? More accurate hip fire? Or did some game designer think fancy crosshairs would look cool? I thought about it but I can't think of even one decent excuse.

There are a bunch of other machine guns I'd rather see, you just named one (RP-46), and front of that there are: -RPD -RPK -RPK-74 -PK, PKM -even PKP and that's just Soviet, not mentioning various similar weapons from NATO and others. The devs seem reluctant to place in even a single "proper" machine gun and we certainly won't have 5, 6, 7 or more of them chewing through that list until we reach DP-28. Why DP-28 in the first place? Because it's unusual with that pan mag? No reason for it to take the place of any more deserving weapon. Whereas MP 40, there aren't any obvious 9x19 SMG choices for it to punt out of the game. Chernarussian police "adopting" MP5K with RAK spawning there as well already shoved the standard MP5 off the weapons list plus a lot of other potential SMGs. MP 40 seems slightly unusual in 2015 but it's unusual to find any SMG in someone's house. I noticed it seemed among some "common" SMGs seized by police in East Europe are PPSh, PPS-43, MP 40 although all less common than AKs and many other weapons. I don't really support MP 40 but done right I can't really complain either. But look, here is something as well:

ARMA 3 trucks do have functional mirrors though, and much better handling. The camera is similar but standalone trucks are poor by comparison.

Well, serious driving in A3 works better in first person. In vehicles with good visibility like the offroad you can even swivel your head around drive it backwards with full control. I don't think perspective is the issue with standalone driving. A lot of people argue about the correct way to play. By the way, hop on experimental, the percentage of players who enter the 1st person experimental servers is THREE times that of stable. Ha.

ArmA 2 sample models. You can check the height of some objects in there and use that in conjunction with the in-game rangefinder to find the subtension of the thumb.

Rangefinder or A2SM. The "cowshed"/long white barn is modeled in 3 pieces so the length varies on how they put it together. The one you mentioned at Berezino is 92 m.

Well, I for one see it all the time in my inventory screen. And I do pay attention to fashion in the apocalypse despite not having another outside view of my character.

The numbers are the distance, ie: at 50 m the arrow impacts on the blue line. In that picture the brick wall behind the blue line is exactly 50 meters away. Outdated drop and they've changed FOV as well but interesting for comparison... I will see if I can make another similar image for a side-by-side. Long white barns are 71 m doorway to end wall, the shorter white barns are 50 m. I think 100 m is too far for this bow. Technically you could hit them with even the old bow at that range if you were skilled enough, but that would be an exceptional shot, not really "effective range". I don't like the nerf and buff for any balance reasons, I don't mind if these are placeholder values to get people trying the bow but ultimately they should improve it via better, more fluid mechanics instead of placing wrong values for properties like speed. It's tough because even when functional it would still have a short kill range. Chris Torchia talked about adding sights for the recurve bow so I assume that's what the main advantage will be, initially.

M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, Thompson, and DP-28 I would rather not, the rest are okay, but 8x57, 7.62 TT and 7.62 Nagant cartridges are unlikely to be added so that, unfortunately, rules out those three in the foreseeable future. I would like many more recent 9mms and other handguns added before implementing YET another old German pistol so Luger is out for me. MP40 is something that could be stashed in a cache, in the walls or floorboards, in a barn, etc, but it would be odd without ever finding PPSh or PPS in the same places. Most of these weapons are okay by themselves but they need to keep an overall balance in the weapons list, putting even half these in right now would make disproportionately WW2. On this subject, they showed us a Gewehr 98 in early alpha screenshots, I wonder what happened to it. Perhaps it was never made or intended for DayZ in the first place.

Still seems fast to me. Here was what I got before with improvised arrows, tested with rangefinder. Note that even at point blank the arrow impacted under the center of the screen. At the same time the speed was increased they dropped the damage, perhaps inadvertently. Composite down 40%, improvised down 25%. Two to four times less drop is still a decent trade-off in terms of effectiveness for most situations. For ambushes I would still prefer the extra power for one-shot kill. I don't think this bow deserves an effective range any longer than 25 meters, effective meaning a good chance of a skill-based one-shot kill. Part of the issue is that 25 m looks a good ways in real life but seems very close on the screen's two dimensions, that leads to more complaints about limited range than it should. The limited spatial awareness makes it hard to get a feel for the trajectory and your eyes are locked to your bow's elevation. Then the rest of the clunky and annoying mechanics such as being locked in place while drawing and aiming. After running you are out of breath for a good time, and while out of breath timing with the sway doesn't really work and accuracy goes to pot. Since DayZ is a running simulator odds are your bow will be hard to use most of the time. It's easier to simply grab a gun and ammo which will be far better in just about every situation so just about everyone will grab the guns, but killing with the bow is very satisfying.. I still think the bow works best for planned ambushes although with the massively increased range this isn't as necessary as before. As it stands the arrow speeds will be the same from either the recurve or improvised bows so there's a decent chance they'll still be changing these stats around. But for either bow the speed should be no higher than 60 m/s at most. Say 50-60 for recurve, for the improvised bow more they could do 30-45 m/s. Even a few m/s makes a large difference in effectiveness since the difference in the drop of the arrows is roughly equivalent to the square of the difference in speed.

My EXP character has a bow and plenty of "composite arrows" since no one takes them from the loot piles that are everywhere. Problem is with 0-5 players per server I haven't found any players to try it on. They made it better in 0.57 at the expense of realism. 330 feet per second from cut wood stick and a rope? Get out. Forget recurves, that's compound IBO speed. A while ago I made some tests with the bow, comparing with those, the composite arrows drop only 25% of what they used to (max range ca. 365 m). No matter what they do I still don't think most people will use the bow. It's always going to be worse than a gun so it will be left to the "survivalists" and people using it for kicks on the coast.

Variety, yes, but you did seem of the opinion 16" AR is not different enough from M4A1 - I'm pointing out in that case neither are the other variants you mentioned, they might look different but the gameplay would be the same. I don't care about pointless so much, me, I wouldn't mind a bunch more slightly different AK variants but I often see people complain "enough AKs!". As for the AK-101 they should change it to AK-74M since that's what it is, and it's obvious. They should have done so long ago, the fact it takes 5.56 makes little to no difference in function or performance, it just makes it wrong for no good purpose. The big difference from the AK-74, if they chose to work on it, would be its folding stock, though they would also need to remove the ability for all these instant stock swaps. Make AKMS and AKM two different guns, etc. Doubt this would happen.

"Will anything of the ARMA engine remain in the final game?" Yes.

Well, problem is apart from very minor specs the M16A4, Mk18, 933 doesn't bring any different gameplay or features from the M4. Game doesn't factor in velocity loss, all take attachments, all are accurate enough for differences never to matter, the smallest of the above is still more than 1/2 foot longer than AKS-74U (forget AKS-74U, the Mk18 and 933 are longer than a folded stock 7.62mm AKMS!) so backpack concealment is not allowed, etc...

They could just take the M4 model, extend the barrel 1.5 inches and call it done, but I think players would be irritated such a weapon didn't look different enough. They could just put a Norinco M305 and spawn 5-rd magazines and the odd 20-rd in civilian areas. I don't see why the 30-round .223 "assault weapons" should be a civilian spawn yet the 20-round "classic" .308 they replaced should only be military. Gameplay-wise it makes sense due to the current hitpoint damage system but that's not the way it should be. Similar reason we won't see Tigr carbine or, most likely, hunting rifles spawning with scopes attached as makes sense. As for the M39 it is being replaced with the M110 since 2010, so it doesn't make sense having M39 but not M110. "Why not both?" but since they perform the same function making one redundant I'd much rather have the latter. Or similar, HK417, depends on backstory, country of origin. I think a lot of people want M14 just because M14. Personally I want at least one autoloading hunting rifle, and the same for shotguns. Browning BAR. Benelli R1. Verney Carron Impact. Etc. Such guns, always overlooked, probably the reason being they have little representation in popular media.

Hmm... I already see people in here who were against forcing 1st person ("you have your own 1st person servers, they are less popular, don't force everyone else to play your way", etc)... yet want to force vanilla on everyone who purchased the game despite devs' promises of future modding capabilities. Happens every time this subject pops up. So to flip that back: you have vanilla servers, they are (or have been, will be) less popular, don't force everyone else to play your way.

Rocket called it exploitable in August 2013. "I think that it has been demonstrated that there is a "problem" with the allowance of third person, and the proposed solution is the best I can come up with. It's not perfect, but if we just allow servers to turn it on/off then I think demand will dictate that people gravitate to 'third person allowed" servers - despite them acknowledging the exploits." x "It's going to be hard to get it right, but I really want us to try. I find I am using third person alot in DayZ SA while running long distances, or to "check" my character (like to see where I am shot to check direction of firer), but then third person is so exploitable in prone. So we are going to try both forcing first for prone, and the "sucking camera in close" and see which works best. Agree too, crouching would really benefit from a more "over the shoulder", we'll try that and put some previs up for people to comment on." x http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/144748-august-round-up-devblog-dayzdaily-gamescom/

It was thoroughly explained why it "zooms". You have to stop thinking of it as zoom, what's really happening is you are playing zoomed OUT by default for the extra peripheral vision and hold right mouse returns it to the default "1x magnification". Binoculars shouldn't be necessary to see things within a couple hundred meters.

Yep... they should remove this swaying part of the new crosshair. Crosshair shouldn't do that. If you want to see exactly where your gun is pointing, you should have to aim down the sights.

So now it looks like: minFov = 0.4143 which is slightly less zoom than the mod's minFov = 0.25 or 0.54 and ARMA 3's minFov = 0.375, but much more than 0.57's minFov = 0.65. Iron sights and eyes are now both locked to this same (close enough) max zoom. Much better. But iron sights could now use a larger initial field of view, which goes back to "The Campaign for Iron Sight Zoom". When you right click to enter iron sights, suddenly your FOV is reduced from the initial level (depends on FOV slider but default 91, max 116) to 75 degrees. I don't see the reason for this, one could argue while aiming down sights your peripheral vision may be somewhat impaired but that could also be argued against. It does seem to make it more janky and in many close-quarters situations one might not want to zoom at all. They should also speed the zoom so it has more snap, it takes approx. 0.3 s to zoom in. Time spent slowly zooming in is wasted time. In ARMA 3 it takes 0.2 s.

This is my number one biggest problem with the standalone. I can live with almost everything else. I can't live with this. ARMA's excellent zoom mechanics have been monkeyed with and utterly ruined! WHY DO WE HAVE ZOOM? Some people have called the zoom unrealistic, "bionic" eyes, etc. So why do your player's eyes zoom in at all? Simple answer: they don't. Check out this comparison of zoomed out, zoomed in, and the ACOG. Look at the coloured boxes drawn around the oil derrick. As you can see, the "zoomed in" level represented your normal eyesight. "Zoomed in" is 1x. If there was no "zoom" feature, you couldn't see anyone past ridiculously short ranges. Your eyes don't zoom in, they are zoomed OUT by default. The human eye has a way larger field of view and a way larger resolution than a little flat monitor can portray. The variable field of view is necessary for a realistic game, which is why the ARMA series has the "zoom" in the first place. Note: for clarity I'm still going to refer to the 1x view as the "zoomed in" one for the rest of this post. IS THIS THE SAME IN STANDALONE? Look at this comparison, using standard FOV for both games. The level of "zoom" is EXACTLY the same. No difference whatsoever. However, the answer is no. It's not the same in standalone, and the reason why makes absolutely no sense... WHY IS MY CHARACTER'S EYESIGHT TOTALLY INCONSISTENT? In the standalone, your character's eyesight randomly changes for no logical reason. Check out this comparison of the T3N red dot, and a bare iron sight. The T3N has the same magnification as the M68, which is supposed to be NON-MAGNIFIED. Yet the image appears a full 40% larger! WHY DOES A NON-MAGNIFIED RED DOT MAGNIFY? It doesn't! The red dot's "magnification" is the exact same as your character's normal 1x eyesight (described in WHY DO WE HAVE ZOOM?). SO WHAT'S GOING ON? What's going on is that iron sights have been limited. Your character, for reasons unknown, can't see as far when using them. He can see properly with a red dot, or with an axe (ie, no sights), but the moment he looks down any iron sights - BAM - his normal "zoom" is restricted by 40%. HOW DOES THIS COMPARE TO ARMA? ARMA made perfect sense - your "zooms" in iron sight mode were EXACTLY the same as your normal "zooms". You had the same two levels of "zoom" whether running around without any weapons, or when looking down the sights of an AKM. In gameplay terms, you have less zoom. I hear some people have even tried not using the sights in order to get more "zoom". That wouldn't be necessary if your eyesight wasn't randomly limited. Here's the standalone's Mosin vs ARMA's Lee-Enfield. we had 40% more zoom in ARMA... and still do in the standalone, except when using irons! BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! This isn't just about zooming in. I want to zoom OUT as well! Let's consider a scenario: say, room clearing. You don't want to be zoomed in for room clearing. But in the standalone, if you're looking down the sights, you're ALWAYS FULLY ZOOMED whether you like it or not. Look at this revolver comparison. The ARMA 2 revolver has a field of view that's over 40% wider, because like all guns in the standalone, the "Magnum" is always fully zoomed in! The only exception is the 2D long range scope. I don't want to be forced into a zoom I don't need or want! The difference in the above comparison may not be obvious enough - it feels terrible when playing - so consider this: like I said above, red dots zoom 40% more than iron sights. What does that mean? With a standalone red dot, you're going to have HALF the field of view you would have with an ARMA 2 red dot. Half. That's awful. GIVE US BACK OUR ZOOM! It worked great in ARMA. It made perfect sense. It enhanced gameplay. So what was wrong with it? I want it back ASAP, and hopefully others do too.

And now the SP-6.