I've taken notice to that as well. I would prefer that they'd swap the helmets between Special Forces and regular Soldier(s), as the "two-flip glass helmet" looks more sophisticated then the one "one-flip glass helmet".

I mean, it's logical to think special forces gets the best gear.

I hate the Iranian helmets with a passion, they look so stupid.

I just got a kind of "stupid" question, where can I get this Iranian SF helmet? Is it part of the developement build ?

This ticket smell like serious goolge-"knowledge" problem.

Arma3 = Future scenario
90% of the things people know about "SF" = bullshit/hollywood

Stop it, please.

Ah and if anyone missed it: Arma3 = future scenario

@Vulcanexius - this is because they are Iranian and not NATOish?They're break my stereotypes,same as many things in ArmA3,but now I thing diffirent.I don't like it,but I don't hate them much.
SF have always have better weapon,that default infantry - their knowledges.They're trained much better.

The Arma 3 Opfor are the most recognizeable and unique enemies as far as their uniform design goes. I am not sure why people complain so much, you´re supposed to have fun shooting them later.

As for the SF helmet, it is lighter, and does require better cross eye coordination, and likely allows use of Scopes more easily. It makes sense for SF to have a lighter and more demanding to use helmet.

the opfor are ugly...the face masks are like bug eyes :(

If they are practical IRL then I would use them in war no matter how ugly they are :D

i can understand that, but im guessing in the future they have advanced reading glasses ;)

or fancy looking like some sort of metal gear solid guard ha ha ha

i hate how ugly they are, realisticly or not, i hate their helmets, having more than 1 flap glass doesn't mean its more about special forces.

and dont ask for today equipment, please, this is the 2035 we are talking about

@boid I think you missed the point. It's about swapping the SF helmet with the regular helmet. I'll upload a picture to display the difference.

*Uploaded*

now i see the difference...... yes, i think either they should be swapped or the standar infantryman shouldn't have the eye glasses at all

@colossus
I dont missed it, I just ignored it because as Dr_Death said: one glass more dont make it more special.

Actually I researched for about two years on augmented and virtual reality technologies and I recognized that over time, watch out spoiler incoming, that hardware efficiency in terms of usability increases while their physical dimensions getting smaller.

No news here, soldiers always try to minimize theire overall load and focus on specialized technology.

Mybe the standard infantry helmet got a additional facebook and twitter screen. .... *roll eyes*

I think the special forces should get a more compact helmet and compact HUD, without the ventilation pipe, because SF are probably trained to handle the extra stress/heat and they need agility.
Their helmet should be less egg-like(more like the NATO helmet) without protruding
glass holders(the thing that attaches the HUD to the helmet) and have goggles shaped HUD that is attaches to the underside edge of the helmet instead.

The Iranian helmets look awfully tearable really wish they had a different models for them altogether

@ST. Jimmy

They certainly don't appear to be practical. Current vision modifying methods have the character model bring said object directly over the eyes.....where the obviously opaque HUD panels are.

This means the wearer must be getting whatever's on the panel through a video camera, and it's safe to assume its the camera located on the left "cheekbone" of the helmet. This means that instead of the stereoscopic vision (with the source located in front of the face)humanity regularly enjoys, for some inexplicable reason some handful of Iranian generals thought it would be a good idea to nix that evolutionary trait their soldiers have adjusted to (and used their entire lives) for a monoscopic view, located to the *side* of the face.

This would be utter hell for a human being to adjust to, with absolutely no benefit at all. The eyes are perfectly located on the head; move the head to the left or right and you still have an unobstructed cone of vision. However if you move that vision to the left side of your face, you will have an obstructed view every time you swivel your head to the right. It's like closing your left eye and focusing the right eye as far left as possible without moving your head. A fair amount of your vision will be obscured with your fuzzy nose on the left side. Same concept would apply here, only this time you would be your entire head obstructing your view, on the right.

The problems mentioned above are the tip of the iceberg if such a product were to exist, as these are serious impairments to basic motor-visual skills. Not to say there might be some trade-offs to be had. A visual system could be hooked up to weapons sights, making any "out of cover" exposure a non-issue. A camera filter would be all it would require to change one's vision to NV. Binoculars would be obsolete. Gyroscopes in the helmet could potentially turn any soldier into a controller for a turret, in a manner similar to how Apache pilot's operate.

That being said, if BiS seriously implemented any of these perks, OPFOR would be an unstoppable machine (as comfort and ergonomics don't matter to software). A simple revision of OPFOR's helmet cosmetics would be the least resource consuming method to solving the problem.

yay assigned hopefully i wont be fighting flies anymore buzz buzz buzz

What exactly does "assigned" mean? Is it assigned to a person to be reviewed and thusly validated? Or has it already been validated, and someone is working on the solution?

it means somebody will take a look at it and see how they can fix it

Might just call this resolved now. Standard soldier now has both flaps retracted.