Kalvarin

Well, now you've pointed out the body fair enough :D Didn't see it when I first looked, assumed you was taking shots at positions near the railroad. Shooting at targets at quite a large range and elevation difference would require increasing the zeroing, but here he is almost on top of you so it wouldn't matter :) I assumed the body was a tree root, my bad : P

Can't say silly is what I am feeling... perhaps confused as to why everyone keeps posting absolute nonsense :P Ermm... when firing from an elevated position the zeroing should NOT be equal to the distance to target... it should be higher. I just explained that... are you even reading what I posted? A weapon zeroed for 100m on the flat will hit a target at 100m range on the flat. A weapon zeroed for 100m will NOT hit a target at 100m range at the bottom of a hill. The zeroing must be higher to account for the elevation, even if that means setting it to 200m for a 100m shot. What part don't you understand?

Are you just trolling me now? It didn't work at 50 m, so he upped it to 100 m and it still missed. If he had said he had upped it all the way to 400 m and saw no difference, I would of been satisfied. It is possible there is a bug, but you must account for the elevation when zeroing, and I can't just know off the top of my head if increasing it by 50 m would do it.

You don't need to shoot a gun in real life to work out the zeroing mate :P And I can't find anything unfriendly in my intial post, he called me clueless if you had bothered to check. Now, for simplicity, let's ignore the air resistance on the bullet. The velocities are not accurate, it is just for an example. On the flat : Muzzle velocity = 100 m/s "Line of sight distance" to target = 100 m Elevation = 0 m Now let's calculate the angle, above the ground level, that the gun must be inclined at to reach that target, it comes out at about 2.8 degrees. On an elevated position: Muzzle velocity = 100 m/s "Line of sight distance" to target = 100 m Elevation = 50 m The same calculation gives about 6.4 degrees. That corresponds to a higher zeroing. So you do need to adjust for the elevation, the op said that he didn't, so it's one possible reason the shots were missing.

What are you on about? :P Your original post was about your shots falling short of the target when shooting from an elevated position. Where did this "shooting into the scenery" come from? Regardless, my initial post still stands, even without glitching scenery etc, a zeroing of 100m will not hit a target 100m downhill, the bullets will fall short. You need to increase your zeroing to account for that.

Why's that? :) Is it perhaps that you just looked very silly not understanding projectiles when firing from on top of a hill? :P You certainly would of missed those shots in real life if you did not account for your elevation. If you have an issue with what I just said, I will assume you are saying the ARMA physics engine is unable to calculate realistic ballistics *shrugs*. Is that what you are saying?

This isn't a bug, it's just the effect of gravity on the bullet when shooting at a downwards angle. If your weapon is zeroed to hit targets at 100m on the flat, then it will fall short of targets at 100m range when firing downhill. To compensate for this you will need to up the zeroing. That's all :) I calculated it to check, but can't be bothered posting it all unless required.

Hmm... tbh the trees in the screenshots look fine to me. At large distances they always render poorly, that's because in the ARMA engine the draw distance are so large. If the rendering of every distant tree was to high resolution you would encounter some serious framerate issues.

Well, usally I would say yes, it is always wrong to combat log, but in this case it is different. The main argument against combat logging is that it ruins the game for other players. So here, you log in and just so happen to find two players standing directly in front of you. No skill or time had been invested in this encounter, if you had shot them, or they had shot you, I doubt either would of gotten much out of the experience... except the loot perhaps. Did your combat logging ruin their gameplay experience? Very much doubt it. Now... I think it is a completely different situation if you had been playing for sometime and where not just magically teleported in front of them... but that's a different story :)

Because he hasn't "won" until he's forced half a million players into his playstyle and alienated much of the playerbase... no pleasing some people :P

This is including hits that struck anywhere on the body though. I think the graph that shows the number of accurate shots, those that struck the head or torso, is much more telling. In that situation the rifle and shotgun were shown to be much more likely to cause immediate incapicitation, with just one shot fired. Also, a problem with this data is that the conditions under which each shooting incident occured are unkown. It's entirely possible that in a lot of the cases the weapons were not used at their effetive ranges etc. Would make a huge difference in how efficient they were at taking people down.

Well said mate :)

It's a reasonable idea, and one which has more promise than waiting for all servers to have third person removed. Such an event would likely alienate most of the playerbase, so it just isn't going to happen. Waiting and wishing is just time lost that could be better spent playing dayz. So yes definetly, band together and get a first person community up and running. It's the easiest way to get what you want from the game :D And if I see any first person servers pop up, i'm cool to give them a try. Not picking any sides :)

Ehh no... you wouldn't have to go through an infinite number of frequences. We are talking about using a simple radio to track another simple radio. Finding the guys frequency is nothing more than turning a dial on your set until it picks theirs up. Like on those basic little radios people have and you can tune into several stations, it's pretty simple to do. It helps a lot when you are using a similar reciever to the one you are hoping to track.

Don't really need any of that... simple transmitter locating techniques were used extensively during the Second World War. You would need a fairly good directional antenna; improvising one out of spare parts would work to some degree. You would also need to know the frequency you are trying to pick up, knowing this allows you to use the correct dimensions in the design of the antenna. Then it is a simple case of connecting the improvised antenna to your radio. Rotating the antenna through 360 degrees you will notice differences in the quality of the signal you receive, just by using your ears. This will give you an indication of the bearing to the transmitter position. Same method is repeated at the second antenna location. Using the two bearings it would be possible to get a good indication of the position of your enemy. To account for the crudeness of the equipment being used, it would be necessary to have a large distance between the two antenna measuring positions. Also, when taking bearing measurements, a good number of separate measurements would be made, allowing an average bearing to be calculated. This would work quite well and requires only very basic equipment. (Ugh... what an awful text editor :P )