-Gews-

This sounds good... But I wonder about this part: The wording of this is a bit confusing. So 45 or 60 degrees, both? Would pressing RMB also zoom to 45 degrees? Or only 60? And then to 45 with numpad +? Because it should go to 45 deg, it would be a pain to have to pressing +/- for a continuation of the same function that has always been provided by right mouse. Although I suppose one could bind RMB to that control instead. And I wonder about this. "This way would going into iron sights actually shows the unzoomed picture which is definitely not something you would desire" Actually that is something I would desire, as long as the sights can also zoom with RMB. Iron sight FOV should also have two zoom levels for the same reason as eye FOV. Although I suspect this might be referring to the current iron sight fixed FOV situation.

If those two pictures are both representing the default RMB zoom then that deals with my largest complaint of 0.57 which was "player/irons minFov much too high / player vision too low". :thumbsup:

The flash is overall ridiculous, it's crazy white and opaque, the same whether day or night and seems copy-pasted across various weapons regardless of ammunition or barrel length. This shouldn't even be a debate. ARMA 2 did it better.

It makes sense ammo should be balanced by weight, size or both. From heaviest to lightest: 12ga 2-3/4 = 46.5 g .308 = 24.5 g 9x39 = 23.5 g 7.62x54R = 22.8 g .45 ACP = 21.3 7.62x39 = 16.4 g 357 Mag = 16.2 g 9x19 = 12.3 5.56x45 = 12.2 g 5.45x39= 10.3 g .380 = 9.5 g .22 LR = 3.3 g So if we say 1 square allows us 20 .308 cartridges, by weight we should have: 10 x 12-gauge cartridges 22 x 7.62x54R cartridges 30 x 7.62x39 cartridges 30 x .357 Magnum cartridges 20 x 9x39 cartridges 40 x 5.56x45 cartridges 48 x 5.45x39 cartridges 22 x .45 ACP cartridges 40 x 9x19 cartridges 52 x .380 ACP cartridges 148 x .22 LR cartridges We could round that to 10 x 12-gauge 20 x 7.62x54R, .308, 9x39, .45 ACP 30 x 7.62x39, .357 Magnum 40 x 5.56x45, 9x19 50 x 5.45x39, .380 ACP 150 x .22 LR But I guess there's also the space to consider. Volume, high to low, taking each cartridge as a cylinder* (case base dia. x C.O.L.) 12ga 2-3/4 = 19.4 cm³ 7.62x54R = 9.3 cm³ 7.62x51 = 8.1 cm³ 9x39 = 5.7 cm³ 7.62x39 = 5.7 cm³ 5.45x39= 4.5 cm³ 5.56x45 = 4.2 cm³ .45 ACP = 3.7 cm³ 357 Mag = 2.9 cm³ 9x19 = 2.3 cm³ .380 = 1.8 cm³ .22 LR = 0.66 cm³ And that by itself would give us: 8 x 12-gauge 18 x 7.62x54R 28 x 7.62x39 28 x 9x39 36 x 5.45x39 38 x 5.56x45 44 x .45 ACP 56 x .357 Magnum 70 x 9x19 90 x .380 245 .22 LR *for simplicity's sake. A .308 cartridge has an actual volume of approx. 5.6 cm³. Which combined would look something like this if we're basing this on 20-round stacks of .308: 10 x 12-gauge 20 x .308, 7.62x54R 25 x 9x39 30 x 7.62x39 25-30 x 45 ACP 30-40 x .357 Mag 35-40 x 5.56x45 40-45 x 5.45x39 40-50 x 9x19 50-60 x .380 100-200 x .22 LR

‎

It's too powerful compared to 5.56, 5.45 and 9mm, they can either buff those three or nerf .45 ACP. IMO there should be only a difference of, say, 1.0-1.25 in hit vs 9mm.

Most likely. 7.62x39 still has incorrect ballistics pasted from ARMA 2 hence 34". Should be more like 26-29".

Here is how it works ... ... and here is how it should work.

Working as intended. Kind of. The scope is not supposed to be adjusted in the field, on an AK-74 the bullet will only rise about 15 inches so aim center mass and hit from 0-400 meters. Simple to use for Russian infantry. But on the AKM with its slower rounds the bullet has to rise about 34 inches to reach 400 meters. The AK-74 launches its bullet at about 0.17° to reach 400 meters. So if this was more realistic / better designed the same 0.17° would only send the AKM's bullet to about 260 meters, rising only 10 inches and you wouldn't have this problem of excessively loopy trajectory.

Well, good luck. The way I see it, if it's floating up in the air it is always going to give a potential advantage over someone viewing from their character's head. Even just lying in the open grass, standing in a forest, driving a vehicle, etc.

In a perfect world I'd like to see the same thing but all the proposed fixes are unacceptable to one group or the other. I don't want to play servers where switching into third person gives any tactical advantage. Other people don't want to play on servers where players and other dynamic objects your character can't see aren't rendered (the only complete and practical fix).

There are dozens of games for nonstop player interaction. Giving players who kill others Parkinson's and psychotic hallucinations will not make players value their lives. A lot of people do play ARMA. Those are different games. I may as well ask why those after more "interactions" aren't playing DayZRP, H1Z1 PvE or Altis Life. "Value for life" can only be reached by incentives for living and penalties for death. Not penalties for PVP. You can force players not to kill each other but at that point it's no longer staying true to the original concept of DayZ. Interactions and decisions should be "organic." As Rocket said: "... I wanted to make systems that do not imply judgement: they should not tell you how to play. However, there also needed to be impact to your decisions. There will be decisions such as “do I pick up the ammo or do I pick up the food?” But you also face decisions like “do I shoot that person, or do I not?” If you shoot the person, there should be some effect from it. There shouldn’t be a direct negative consequence, of course, it shouldn’t tell you how to play, but there needed to be something ... So what we did was implement that bandit system, which highlights the killers. But I don’t think it works. I think we need to have skins that are based not on your humanity, but on things that you find, craft, and use. That should allow people to craft their characters how they want. To appear as the character you actually play."

Why would any player not want this? Let's see: because it unrealistically penalizes a play style? Some people might be playing as a psychopath. Some people might be into "tactical" squad play. The game shouldn't be deciding something as wishy-washy as your character's mental state, you are the character. As if people all react the same way. You could just as easily make the argument the more people you kill, the better your character gets at killing.

I don't see a zoo. And where did they get a solution which works on humans? Only good explanation for an anti-personnel tranquilizer gun in Chernarus is that it was developed and used to neutralize infected for examination. But I'd rather not see it all the same.

i cri evrytiem On topic: I don't like the idea of tranquilizer guns. Seems to fictional/gamey. Yeah, zombies, I know. Yes, game, I know.

My main wish for bows is to have more fluid movement instead of being rooted in place and a better-feeling drawing+aiming system. Whatever occurs I don't think this improvised bow should be effective more than 25 meters.

Well, I checked, my suspicions were correct. Hyper speed! Velocity increased to 328 ft/s for composite and bone arrows... 164 ft/s for improvised arrows. Which is an impossible speed for even a powerful recurve or longbow, that's as fast as modern compound IBO speeds. Improvised bow should be sub-150 ft/s. I get they want more people using the bows but it seemed appropriately shitty to me, just needed changes to the mechanics.

That's ridiculous, no way that bow should shoot that far with that little drop. They must have given it hyper velocity. Range was fine before, it's an improvised bow. Maybe this is in anticipation of the recurve bow. In which case hyper velocity comment still applies...

I agree with that. In fact there's no reason the zoom shouldn't be instant, apart from style. A2 is very slow. I said once, "the zoom is quicker in ARMA 3, it feels way more responsive and "usable" to the player. In real life, the zoom takes 0 seconds, because your eyes are "zoomed in" all the time. I believe a faster zoom in the standalone would be appreciated by all players."

Nah, it isn't. "Janky" my ass, you click, you zoom. What next, no iron sights or freelook either? Too "janky"?

Indeed, but that's a separate issue. "Lost my glasses" mode.

Hard to see the problem when you have no frame of reference. You look at a player, he appears about 300 meters off. Maybe he's only 150 meters away. Without rangefinder how do you know? Even with a rangefinder most people have little or no idea how objects should appear at various real life distances, or even what those distances look like. And furthermore most of the games people are used to playing have no zoom at all, coming from the 'arcade' side of things rather than 'mil sim'.

"A stupid level", how so?

Unless they altered the system this is already a thing, it would retain around 1/5 its damage at 800 meters.

Good Lord, have another read through the thread please. On standard 1080p monitor ARMA 2 has a bit too much zoom IMO. ARMA 3 seems better. These two examples seem about right to me. Rifleman at 300 meters Rifleman at 500 meters *by the way in DayZ 0.57 a player with those same apparent sizes would be only 173 and 288 meters away, respectively...