- User Since
- Feb 8 2019, 6:59 PM (18 w, 4 d)
Mar 25 2019
There wasn't any non-ticket related discussion here until you took issue to something I said and decided to comment on it here. If you don't want any further frivolous discussion then don't initiate it; that being said lets just end this "conversation" here.
Being banned from your one public forum means I only have one way to communicate with the devs...and that's here.
The priority system doesn't help me or any of the non-devs in the slightest, it's supposed to be a system to help YOU or any other future dev know the priority of each ticket. Being belligerent to a person who simply posts bug reports is unproductive and only serves to make you and the entire CUP team that you represent look unprofessional.
I find it odd that one person's comment was enough to simply invalidate an entire ticket without confirming that what they said is actually true.
Yeah repeated testing has confirmed on my end that the MAAWS launcher has a fixed zeroing of 100, this ticket isn't invalid.
Yeah there is a reason the priority system for this tracker exists, everyone seems to believe that all tickets seem to represent some sort of imminent and immediate demand for them to be resolved. And it doesn't help that a lot of the tickets simply aren't prioritized and are simply left on "Needs Review".
And even if they were to make the decision to make their NLAW a literal first generation 2008-2009 NLAW the range would still be off as those had a maximum guidance range of 600m. And your comment on the PCML is pointless because the NLAW is superior in every way to it, even without its proper ranging. Both have a 500m range, but the NLAW does more damage and has the correct lock time (unlike the PCML's unrealistically slow lock time, especially for a purported 2035 weapons system).
They said themselves that they didn't want their content to be a "simple port" and they made that choice when they gave the NLAW guidance to begin with. In Arma 2 it was a direct fire weapon only.
http://www.military-today.com/missiles/nlaw.htm and https://saab.com/land/weapon-systems/support-weapons/nlaw/ The system received software updates to extend its guidance range to 800m and above, with an absolute propellant limit of 1000m. So yes it can.
@Spazz1219 Are you sure you're testing with the MAAWS launcher and not the SMAW? Because testing with it now and before (with and without scopes) I created the ticket forbids me from changing the zeroing from 100.
Part of this ticket is a duplicate of T3103, which already addresses the RARDEN's high rate of fire and very high magazine capacity.
Mar 24 2019
Mar 23 2019
If that's the case then why do some aircraft like the SU-25T (which ironically does have a built in camera and laser designator irl) not have a camera?
Well in the stable version it's merely cosmetic. I have yet to check the dev version.
Mar 22 2019
Yeah I've posted a bug report on it to the ArmA 3 bug tracker, so one of you guys can go ahead and close this ticket since it ain't just CUP related.
Mar 21 2019
Mar 18 2019
Mar 12 2019
I thought those were from Arma 2, which took place from 2009-2012. But more importantly Arma 3 treats the camo on Ghillie suits as thermal protection (you can see that the uniform under the actual camo in the half ghillies is still visible in thermals) so I don't see a reason why CUPs ghillie suits wouldn't conform to this standard, as that is the stated point of the CUP mod.
Mar 11 2019
All that "design concept" does is omit an actual function of the rifle. Not to mention that carrying two 30 round mags of subsonic ammo weighs the same as carrying one 60 round mag.
Yes that's exactly why it should be renamed to "Revolver" as BIS did for Arma 2. Cause the gun itself is not a Taurus Tracker 455 and it's a low effort solution in lieu of creating an actual Taurus 455.
Is the model different as well?
This was probably why in ArmA 2 it was just called the "Revolver" rather than a specific weapon name, as it doesn't actually exist in real life.
Actually your comment exposes a completely different issue, upon further research the Taurus 455 is a 5 shot revolver (https://www.genitron.com/Handgun/Taurus/Revolver/455-Tracker/45-Auto/Variant-2), yet the model in-game is a 6 shot revolver. I'll be changing this ticket to reflect that issue, as it completely nullifies the bug I previously had for it.
Mar 10 2019
How is it that other vehicle's with commanders guns are able to work only when turned out? (like the Challenger 2 or the Leopard 2)
Mar 9 2019
Mar 8 2019
Yes...why is that a reason for not allowing lasers/flashlight attachments on the side of the weapon? You can just turn off the laser when firing at those ranges.
Also, it seems the system is already in place with the coaxials of APCs such as the Bradley, so it only seems logical that it be included in the MBTs
Oh, may I ask why so? It's a convenient system in place in vanilla vics, and it certainly makes sense to have for the modern MBTs such as the Challenger, T-90, Leopard, and Abrams.
I'll adjust the ticket now, I've always used AI for my gunner so I never realized they didn't have this feature until some testing I did recently.
it was added in an update awhile ago and none of the CUP MBTs seem to have been updated to include it for their coax.
No I meant vanilla, I realize that you guys seem to have chosen not to implement that vanilla feature into any of the tanks.
doesn't seem to make sense that the MG3 on the leopard 2 of all things just wouldn't
All vanilla vehicles that have a laser rangefinder do.
Mar 5 2019
Mar 4 2019
Mar 3 2019
"Whining and ranting" Have you actually ever tried out anything that's I've mentioned here? Actually bothered to play with your mod for a bit to see that all these flaws are there?
Idk what missiles you're using, but my testing now and use of it on several servers running the latest version of CUP show that using the entire magazine of missiles in the T-90 isn't enough to kill a normal Abrams from the front. And if you're talking about the Metis, that takes two shots to kill an Abrams from the front.
Except for maybe the damage being a bit low for what it is, but that's already in a separate ticket.
Just thinking that maybe the same thing could be happening here with a specific tank, cause I don't have any issues using the AT-10 in the T-90.
Idk if it's the case anymore or in the dev build, but I specifically remember in the past that when you targeted the turret of the T-55 with the metis, it would go wild and miss when it was about to hit.
What tank were you shooting at? Because I know there are certain tanks whose armor seems to affect these SALCOS missile's targeting (like the T-55 with the Metis).
Mar 2 2019
And that ticket you linked appears to have only had the fix for the ejection of the cases committed, with no work being done on it since November of last year. So I doubt this issue has been fixed.
Which severely reduces the usefulness of the weapon.