Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Vewt

  • Rank
    Fireteam Leader
  1. If I'm not terribly mistaken: Militia SL doesn't have an optics choice. Militia squad is 2 x optic rifleman, 1 x marksman. Brit also get optics on GL, and 2 optics rifle. GB squad is 2 x optic rifleman, 2 x marksman, 1 x GL, 1 x SL. I don't buy the "just flank them" argument. It smells of the "just ward the jungle and gank lycan" argument; sure, a successful flank counters everything, but militia have no special advantage when it comes to flanking, GB are not especially easy to flank and Kamdesh isn't especially easy to flank on; quite the opposite of all those really. It's easier to flank when you have optics for situational awareness and better camo. It's also easier to flank when the enemy is preoccupied by not being able to establish fire superiority, and it's easier to flank when the enemy doesn't know it's your only option to take a fight against them.
  2. I don't tend to agree with the sentiments of others in this thread. The asymmetrical balance between militia and conventional forces is mostly ok; maybe 60/40 blufor favoured, but that's not too bad, except for on Kamdesh, where I'd rate it 75/25 or 80/20. I could get on board with militia buffs, sure, like giving them a true sniper class (please not with WWII optics this time) as a more specific but weaker marksman alternative thst fits the faction's theme, but my beef here is really with Kamdesh's invasion layout favouring GB strengths too much.
  3. Kamdesh is brutal right now for militia. The map is lightly wooded and offers very long lines of sight; GB uniforms are well broken up and blend into the terrain very well, and only a two Militia kits have optics (and both are bad optics); spotting GB forces at range is next to impossible, while the reverse is trivial due to easier to spot uniforms and almost ubiquitous, very good, optics. This combines with the objectives in invasion being set in areas that tend to be very easy to set up overwatch against to make a decidedly unpleasant map to play if you aren't on the GB side. This reminds me of some iterations of PR Basrah that had insurgents trying to fight ACOG equipped blufor factions in open ground, or Kamisayah (?) that had a similar dynamic with optic MEC vs Insurgent. A typical defence involves dying over and over and over again from unseen enemies, or having a vague idea where an enemy might be, but never being able to apply accurate enough fire against them. I don't have an issue playing against GB on most maps, but on this particular map it's very hard to swallow. Short of redesigning the two factions to even out optics distribution a little (for example, moving the L86 marksman class into fire support, or adding optics G3 for the Milita SL) which I think is out of the question, I would quite like to see the density of the woods increased in some areas, so that there's some heavily scrubbed areas for militia to use as movement corridors and the terrain around objectives make rougher to break up sight lines into them a bit more. I will be the first to admit that I struggle in general without optics, but not on any map as much as this one against GB forces.
  4. Just wanted to thank the devs for the work on optimisation you've done. Give yourselves a pat on the back and have a cold one. When I first bought Squad, I was able to play with plenty of frames to spare. When the AMD crushing patch came out, I was getting 10-15 frames, and none of the versions until now resolved the issue. Now I'm getting 120 on the firing range and 60 - 80 in game. Can't overemphasise how thankful I am for the work you guys have put in to it, earlier this week I was genuinely thinking about dropping 2k on a new PC to play Squad, even though my performance is good on everything else, thankfully that now seems to be unnecessary. Setup is: Xeon 1230 v2 8gb DDR3 ( Radeon 7950 (OC to 1200 core clock and 1500 memory w/ 3GB VRAM)
  5. [Solved] Server closed connection

    Yeeep. Uninstalling Razor Surround and Razor Synapse fixed the bug for me.
  6. [Solved] Server closed connection

    Having the same issue. Very strange. Not SweetFX - haven't even heard of that. I'm going to try uninstalling Razor Synapse though - it's providing my audio drivers for virtual surround. That program has been nothing but trouble, so it wouldn't surprise me if it's it.
  7. Optics Not Zooming Enough

    You should look up what semantics means, because after disagreeing with me, you argued semantics. Pact military doctrine did remove the specialist sniper role in favor of snipers at the platoon level once it motorised and mechanised, because the doctrine emphasised speed of manouvre to exploit the advantages of their first generation IFVs. Specialised, centrally controlled snipers simply had no place in this doctrine, so they were replaced with designated marksman at the platoon level. This doctrine was what created several concepts - the designated marksman is one of them, the infantry fighting vehicle is another. What you are doing is arguing about the terminology used to describe something, and changing your frame of reference as it suits you between two different languages, which is obviously fallacious and is also obviously arguing semantics. The fact is that the Pact doctrine that gave rise to the concept of a designated marksman, as well as the needs requirement that became the SVD rifle, did not draw a distinction between snipers and designated marksmen, because it only had the latter. Doctrines that do have both do draw the distinction.
  8. Optics Not Zooming Enough

    The sniper vs DMR thing is real semantics in this context. The Russians developed the DMR concept to give every platoon a sniper-like capability when they motorised and mechanised from 1955-1970. In other words, DMs effectively replaced the snipers of the Pact military because their doctrine substantially varied from what we're familiar with.
  9. Optics Not Zooming Enough

    The dime thing above was wrong by the way. It should have read four dimes at 1km, 16 dimes at 4km. Another way of testing the function of the PSO would be to see how many sight pictures there are in a full revolution; single sight picture has a diameter of 6 degrees, so if you took a sight picture, then noted what your right of arc was, then took a new sight picture with your old right of arc as your new left of arc, and then repeated the process, your 61st sight picture would be the same as your 1st sight picture. Obviously human error would be a factor, but anything way off 60 sight pictures for a revolution would show that the sight is not modeled accurately. An alternative way would be to build a map with a distance marker of 100 meters to an object 10.5104 meters wide. At that distance it would be the same width as the sight picture.
  10. Optics Not Zooming Enough

    There are a couple of different factors at play here, but I don't think the zoom is 4x, subjectively it seems much lower. I shoot with a 1-6x42 based on the PSO-1 as well as a 1.5x acquisition sight. The PSO and ACOG feel closer to the acquisition sight than the variable power one. One of the factors that I really didn't want to bring into it was resolution, but I guess I'll have to. The PSO-1 has a resolution of 12 seconds of arc in real life, which means that the smallest thing that could be discerned using one (ie. 1 "pixel width") for it would be a US dime at 1000m (given adequate lighting conditions). To put it another way, in clear conditions with good light, you could discern four dimes at 4km. Right now, it is difficult verging on impossible to discern white and red painted targets, approximately 2m in height from sand at a distance of 600m. That demonstrates that something is wrong with the optic.
  11. Ah look, another optics thread. Don't worry, I'm not arguing for PIP sights. Actually this thread is very straightforwards. From playing, the sights didn't feel right at all - picking targets out was really hard and I found myself gluing my eyes to my (very large, high pixel density) monitor to try to spot soldiers at 200-300 meters away under DMR optics. In other words I suspected the sights didn't appear to be zooming in enough. I tested this premise using the PSO-1 optic on the Russian SVD, using known distances on the shooting range map and the rangefinding stadia and I'm fairly sure that it's not zooming in nearly as much as it should be. Testing was conducted at 1920x1080, 2x resolution. I recorded it at 30 FPS, 1080p. I'll upload and link the video on youtube. Some of these facts can't be verified, but obviously it's based on assumptions that the following are correct: 1. The targets on the shooting range have their ranges accurately marked. 2. The transposition of PSO-1 stadia into the game is accurate to real life. 3. The shooting range targets are at least 1.7m tall (this one seems almost certain to be true, they're taller than the player model). If those 3 are correct, then: 4. The magnification on the PSO-1 is too low by a factor of about 1/2 to 3/4. I will upload a video to demonstrate what I mean, however at known distances, man sized (bigger?) targets fit the stadia for ranges that are between 1/2 to 3/4 further away than they really are, which (if all the above facts are correct) indicates that the sights are magnifying far less than they should. The pictures below demonstrate how it should work. Picture 1: http://imgur.com/HhK0DcW Picture 2: http://imgur.com/FI9fFjG Picture 3: http://imgur.com/phkulvJ