Katana67

Knowing the paltry amount of information that I do about SVD internals, I don't see anything that jumps out at me. Same goes for the GL theory, but that's certainly possible. They've rendered the AK-74 with the GP-25 before. My theory is that it's either a gas-block of some kind, or a component of a front sight assembly. Could be a slide-stop on a shotgun as well.

Well, you're still moving inland. You're describing inland mobility, which is exactly what I want. We've no confirmation that helicopter crashes will even be in the Standalone, and they're ostensibly randomized, so that's a concern no matter where one spawns. And Devil's doesn't/didn't really drop anything significant. People can go from Pavlovo barracks, to Zeleno barracks, to NWAF from the south as well. A far more rewarding route. The only minor caveat I'd cite is the presence of NEAF in proximity to the coast.

Interesting... My first guess would've been a PKM, but I've been way off before...

Why not?

People hear "remove/minimize random deviation," or "we need realistic ballistics" and think "the guy wants us to be firing laser beams!" That and people mistake pre-shot randomization (i.e. having to counter sway whilst sighting in a target) for post-shot randomization (i.e. after you've sighted in a target and fired, your round goes elsewhere based on an arbitrary deviation value).

Yeah, I mean I just think they need to look at the spawns again (both player and loot, and zombie for that matter) and come back with a good proposal. I'm marginally sure that they shifted the spawns to Berezino in order to test out their new areas up north, as Berezino is situated close to the Svetlojarsk East-West axis upon which they're placing new towns/cities. So I'm sure it'll be temporary. However, if I had my way, several things would happen... 1. Spawns would be dispersed ALL ALONG the coast, never inland... ever, all along the coast. 2. Spawns would be made more granular and varied (i.e. more of them), as to diminish (not remove) the likelihood of spawn killing 3. "Military" spawns on the coast (i.e. Balota) would be removed or placed further inland 4. Zombies, once at an acceptable state, would be far more numerous on the coast and in the coastal cities... as to make entering these areas near-suicide for the average new spawn. 5. The overall loot bias should favor the inland more so.

Well, no, I'm not splitting hairs. Because there's no hair to split. Civilian weapons, over the past 50 years, have become militarized. Civilian offerings of and/or use of assault rifles are/is commonplace, even in Eastern European countries. Likewise, former "military" weapons have been integrated into the civilian market to a degree as to become indistinguishable (i.e. Mosin, SKS, M1911, etc.) Saying something is objectively "civilian" is no longer applicable, and there's too large of a grey area for it to be significant. Now, it is applicable in certain scenarios (i.e. with LMGs/GPMGs which aren't usually sold on the open market anywhere). But those are specific applications, vice a broad connotation. Never mind that this is fiction, and they're not (or shouldn't be) necessarily beholden to real-world circumstance. However, it is especially insignificant when the art department (i.e. Chris Torchia) is using the Czech Republic, which has a wide variety of weapons available, as a source of inspiration. Here's a link to a picture gallery of a gun shop in Prague. http://prahaexpat.blogspot.com/2009/10/czech-gun-shop.html You'll find AR-15s, G3s, AKs, Sterling SMGs, Beretta M9s, Thompsons, Uzis, Skorpions, and EOTechs... in addition to "Western" ammunition. All available to civilians. If you mean hunting rifles, then say that. But even then, there are AR-15s built specifically for hunting. So, it's not a discussion of semantics, the wider a term you use to describe something... the less applicable it becomes. Point being, there's no reason to distinguish based upon the arbitrary "military" or "civilian" divide in terms of what's plausibly to be found in X. Instead, it is more relevant to discuss which weapons should spawn in limited numbers and which ones shouldn't, as to justify the advantages conferred upon certain types of weapons (i.e. modularity, full-automatic, long-range capability, etc.) And for the record, the original post which I was questioning called for the outright removal of the M4 and the imposition of "civilian" weapons only. It was far more geared toward that objective, vice mentioning ammunition rarity in passing.

I like that vest though in the video, that's pretty much exactly what I want to see as a high-end vest in DayZ.

No, I was talking about playing a character vice playing as yourself. As per the context of cuddly_rabbit's comment, not your irrelevant interjection. However, yes, I was talking about accuracy in the sense that we're playing NOBODY. Meaning that we're not playing as Commander Shepard, Master Chief, or Sam Fisher. Conversely, we're not playing as John Q. Moron or Sally J. Civilian. We're playing as NOBODY, the game isn't forcing us to play a character. So it's completely pointless to say that "Oh, we're not a military dude so we need to simulate our characters being inept in firing a weapon." We're not playing as a SFOD-D operator any more than we're playing as Sally J. Civilian. I don't recall ever mentioning anything about weather or the status of our avatars dictating accuracy, which is a separate issue entirely from what was being discussed. If you'd like to talk about that, then talk about it. Don't interject it where it's an irrelevant consideration.

Great, clears it up. Thank you Rocket!

Is there a point here? You're saying that in order to play "as yourself" that you have to retroactively experience the same circumstances in-game... in real-life... simultaneously? Whenever they get holodecks, let me know. I guess the meaning of "represent the player" is lost.

Which is exactly what I'm saying, the idea of a "character" is entirely up to the player. Not the game. The game is there merely to give us the tools to play (hence the sandbox), not artificially dictate who we can play as.

But we're not playing a character, the avatar in DayZ is ideally meant to represent the player. It's not Tom Smith (real-life) playing Snake McDuff (DayZ character). It's Tom Smith playing as Tom Smith. This is a common misconception, DayZ's "characters" aren't really characters. They're just vessels, avatars, stand-ins for the real-world player behind the screen. Artificially simulating "ineptness" isn't possible when I consider my "character" to be ex-military, and yours is not. Point being, the idea of a "character" in DayZ is entirely invented by the player. We're not all playing as the same person. We're not playing as a separate person at all. We're playing as ourselves.

Neat! Still very skeptical, never seen one in-game, and it appears to be a different item in the video (it's listed with the shoes, glasses, and helmet vice as a container). That and the YT user has a video of the AK-74 in-game. So, either it's being ported in from the game files separately, or it's ported in from ARMA III somehow. Cool though!

Both allow you to see more than others not using the same settings. Simply because one's more common and one's not doesn't make it okay. I don't care about what monitors folks have, I care about how adjusting one's FOV affects gameplay. Just as I care about how gamma affects gameplay, how ATOC affects gameplay, and how 3PV/1PV affects gameplay.

Can you post a screenshot? The entirety of Google isn't yielding anything for something supposedly common in your experience.

Not justifying it, I'm saying folks who use graphics settings to their advantage shouldn't be an accepted norm. You're artificially tweaking your graphics settings to see more than someone else. If you're not okay with third person looking around corners, then you can't be in support of FOV's which allow you to SEE more than others in first-person without being hypocritical. It's the same concept. Both provide an artificially enhanced view.

Errr... the airsoft guns that I've handled when I was a bit younger were the most insanely inaccurate things on this side of Mars. It's a smoothbore musket, with wind-gust loving plastic pellets. I think you've got your properties reversed.

For one, this is one issue... which for all you/we know, is wholly different from the FOV issue. Acting like this one instance is somehow indicative of a trend, is disingenuous. Second, if you're using a fisheye FOV which allows you to see out the back of your head, you should suffer some sort of penalty over someone who is using a reasonable FOV.

Yeah, the fact that it's difficult certainly isn't news. I do recall Rocket discussing the issue. But they haven't been as clear in the past, as closing the bug ticket and saying "this isn't possible at this time." I'm interested in hearing some information from the developers regarding this, would be nice to know why it's unfeasible at this time.

Err, I hardly think it's indicative of a "direction." It's one single issue. Either they can do it at this particular time, or they can't.

Beat me to it, mods feel free to merge!

So, I guess the status of the "flashlights through walls" issue has been closed on the bugtracker. http://www.reddit.com/r/dayz/comments/25y1e5/i_just_received_some_incredibly_disappointing/ While most of the responses on Reddit are pretty rough and unreasonable, I think it's very unfortunate that this issue cannot be remedied at this time. What are your thoughts? I definitely think that this issue should be remedied eventually if at all possible (seems not at this juncture), and, am curious as to whether a change in the renderer will affect any of this. I don't know much about the nuts and bolts of the engine.

If it's feasible, sure. If not, meh, could live without. Definitely no in-vehicle screens or CROWS interfaces though, I think that'd end up being too much (unless it was suitably justified in being difficult to maintain). But, that's another issue. Would like to see a potentiality for a security camera type device, which could be used to monitor player stashes/bases. Or, a fixed camera which took images at intervals (a la hunting camera). Replace spooked deer with spooked bandit...

That's just it, though. It's not about "realism" for me. It's about making it more WYSIWYG. And making it a shooting mechanic that actually values player input and prowess. This is one of those rare cases where making something more "realistic" translates into making something more rewarding, skill-based, and straightforward all at the same time. While I don't like the others speaking for "the community," DayZ is and always has been a game which heavily features firearms. It's never claimed to be anything other than that. I dislike the connotation of DayZ as ARMA with zombies, as that's a bit simplistic. But firearms, and moreover, a wide variety of firearms will be a main tenet of DayZ (as we're seeing already). Making that shooting mechanic more straightforward and less random, makes all the sense in the world to me in terms of actually representing the player.