Spawning as a bird is the spectator mode in ArmA by default.

If you spawned as a bird while trying to play either of those something likely happened which outright killed them both.

If you'd bother to look around it's backwards compatible as in same names/codes.

Stop trying to be a smart ass.

The mods you're seeing pop up so fast & some missions, that's due to the fact they can directly port from A2 to A3 since the code is the same.

You do realize... Alpha has been out for less than a week.

You should just look at some of the A2 guides till someone decides to make one for A3.

ArmA is very backwards compatible.

Have you ever been in a Zombie Apocalypse? For all you know all you need is pop tarts to feed the zombies like ducks.

When you've played ArmA enough, you tend to notice what is broke & what's a legacy problem.

Oinky if you can't conduct yourself in a mature manner on the feedback tracker simply don't post at all.

Or robb, they could be broken hence why we have a feedback tracker.

Then make a ticket for updating the destruction.

It's likely due to the fact BI had no intentions of updating the destruction model, aka buildings, windows, cars, etc.

No roger it transmits on the radio that you choose, be it Vehicle, Group, Side, Global or Direct & even command. VOIP transmits on all channels.

Check your keys & make sure your VOIP key isn't set to side channel & is set to just VOIP.

If you can set one yourself, there's no reason to really consider it. It takes you 30 seconds max to get to the controls/set it.

... to remember them all? Even if they set it up FOR YOU. You'd still have to remember the key.

This isn't a bug nor should it be in here, as has been stated you can do it already, this isn't worth the devs time when they have bigger things to worry about.

Now that I think of it, this sounds familiar to the technique used in Battlefield: Project Reality around 0.9.

Hope to see it? It's been assigned to a dev. It will be in some form.

If it's been assigned someone is going to work on it.

Awesome idea based on thread linked. Would be interesting to see just this technique without the sinking.

Changing the AIs accuracy would just take away from the game.

Sounds a lot like what happened in ArmA 2 before they implemented a lot of fixes to change it.

Just to be clear, the reflex sights are meant to be magnified to 1.5x, they aren't meant for long range. It may just be how you're shooting OMAC.

The game is in Alpha, this isn't the game. This is a test build which will shape the game.

Banshee he was trying to convey that the OPFOR feel more like they're 1.3 as far as skill rating goes as opposed to being 1, thus the scaling is off.

AI isn't BIS's strong suit but they're aware of the problems and working on 'em.

Right now though they're probably looking more into the current AI problems before the suppression problem. Feel free to make a ticket though.

Devs are aware of the issue.

If you're using ACE disable it. I stopped having the problem once I did.

Apparentely with ACE You can disable the NVG problem server side or via module.

It's already well known about.

punkatux, don't post here anymore if you're going to act like a douche bag instead of helping.

Everything isn't about rank. You can set a car to colonel & a BTR to private, the BTR will still drive in front of the car. The devs have set up armor to go in front regardless of the order you set things on the map, which ruins the whole point of setting up an AI convoy.

It is horrible without a scripter/modder to fix it.

What kind of improvements brunova, it helps when your a bit more specific so the devs can fine tune.

That's another problem, objects sporadically exploding/combusting from hitting things, it really kills a lot of the fun/creativity that could be employed.

Just be glad they don't send your tank flying 100 feet in the air, worse than an AT mine.

Let me rephrase that, giving them something to work with so they can save time rather than put more time in trying to recreate a problem with a vague description which in some cases may not work when they go to do it thus wasting time that could be put towards fixing other things.

It's easy to replicate, but a community member taking 5 minutes out of their day to give them something they can load & work with from the get go saves them a few minutes that will otherwise go toward another problem that has higher priority or faster to get to work on.

Bar they have to work on more than just this issue.

You taking that 1 minute to set up a simple mission to give them more time to work on other things gives them more incentive to do something about it.

The problem is just the way the AI are programmed, there are mods/scripts which have fixed it in A2.

I have no problem going over 30 around most turns, just need to slow down & speed up half way into the turn like you would in reality.

Bar, how is the 256 shades of grey idea going to solve the pathing problem beyond just color coding which dosen't help the AI as much as it would a person.

AI just process commands, they don't process colors.

There was a script work around in A2, which had the AI driving smoother/not stopping every 100M, the AI were able to navigate turns/the terrain a lot better to.

Sounds like wonky A2 AI, wish I could see this for myself.

If you set their status to safe they use the roads.

It's likely the Garbage collector module is on.

Theres also the problem of light sources not casting light.

Might just be a shader problem if nothing else, update your drivers.

Dosen't look like an engine problem so much as possibly a mission one.

A) The TOD/Year is probably set to a point where there are no stars
B) The mission maker likely don't use any of the lighting modules

Update your video card drivers, adjust your brightness ingame.

Forgot to mention I believe it was Ivan or the dev that made the goggles whom was hoping to one day get an animation for it (GDC 2012)

That would be an animation type deal & it's been discussed previously.

Try disabling your AV or verify the steam cache

Do you have Zonealarm?

If so; http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=2234

It would require using PIP & rendering 2 images.

They have to scale the outside back which is rendering two different parts of the scenery at a time not to mention if you move it has to change the images, which puts more stress on an already stressed CPU.

Just telling you, it's been discussed on the forums for ~4 months if not more. Can still upvote it though.

If you read some of the articles/forums the reason why it's not being done is resource allocation via hardware.

This is one for the books.

Screenshot?

I'm aware what safe mode is, the tickets wording wasn't very good though, hence why I asked him to clarify.

Are you talking about a safe mode for guns or a safe mode for trouble shooting the game?

Got a vid?

Sounds like a delayed explosion problem.

I'd rather be able to fire & hit nearby than fire and hit nothing at all.

The point is you'd never run and shoot at the same time, you wouldn't be able to hit anyone. That's why we have tactical pace.

You could just tactical pace.

Stop trolling and let it die.

You're all making things worse by going on impulse via replying, let this die.

Stop trolling.

Them votes.

The whole point of firing from a vehicle isn't really for suppresive or support unless you've got a door gun, the idea of being able to use personal weapons is primarily in a self defense role. That is the main idea I had in mind when posting it & within reason what i'm sure people before had the idea of.

To be "effective" all you need to do is hit within a few feet of someone. Which even the average person could do if their marksmanship skills are decent/going at a cruising speed.

More or less true, but as we all know due how to BIS feels about piling things on rather than fixing/improving areas of gameplay to a solid level, mostly vehicles that's unlikely. I'd love to use helos/vehicles in general more if it wasn't tab to win & they had a better system in place to make teamwork useful.

Limits which need to be pushed to get progress.

It wouldn't be all that hard for BIS to allow people to shoot their guns while laying on the sides of boats.

It's not amazingly difficult for them to add the ability to shoot from vehicles either, it's been done by a number of scripters already.

The problem is BIS prioritizes the wrong things.

Stay on topic.

Maybe you should go back and read what I was saying before JNC in specific reference to the RPG-7. A recoilless rifle was designed to be fired from a vehicle, similar to a TOW mounted upon a HMMWV.

In closing my whole point on the subject was that not every vehicle would benefit from AT weapons being fired from them, especially on the move. LBs for example & other light vehicles at high speeds, may or may not flip.

Creeper, an RPG dosen't give off the same amount of energy as some traditional AT weapons do.

Huron, we're discussing a hand held not a CSW. Recoilless rifles have already been featured in past iterations. Next time you try to join the conversation get on the same page first.

"The picture is of a firing port from an AT. "

Elaborate.

For one jejn when a boat is going over 50MPH think of it like a car without chains going down ice, similar effect if a strong force was produced on one side without a counter from the other side, it would fly off into the unopposed direction.

It hasn't sent anyone flying when exactly? Open top vehicle or not, that's still a strong amount of force being forced through the back of the tube to propel the rocket, which could cause problems going over 50MPH such as flipping your vehicle or rolling it onto it's side.

AI would be using a regular gun rather than just a mounted one jejn, they'd possibly have the ability to use sights, their weapon would function differently , if they had LMGs there would be no way to stabilize it more than likely unless they could detach the gun from it's platform & mount it.

If you fired a rocket from a boat, you'd likely flip the boat, or knock someone out of the boat which is not likely to be simulated.

While the boats with remote MK19s on them do carry a lot of hardware, they are not unflippable, nor designed to withstand the force of a rocket behind fired from them.

You would never fire a rocket from a vehicle, especially the top of one, all that force would flip the vehicle over if it were in motion & likely kill the guy firing it as he was crushed.

You do not fire rockets from APCs/Tanks simply due to the fact you are a big target, it's a confined space inside, in a tank you barely have room to squeeze yourself through. What's the point of a rocket when the vehicle you're in fires 30MM rounds or 120MM which do more damage, are superior in accuracy/range to a rocket equipped with stabilizers.

While the cS does not produce backblast, it still produces force, you need a solid firing position to prevent the rocket from hitting the ground in front of you or doing something equally absurd.

The CS variant of the AT4 is also more costly than a standard AT4, they're also single use, thus making them not so worth the cost compared to re-usable shoulder mounted rocket launcher systems which are tried/proven with the same capability, sometimes better.

Those have been there for a while squelch, they just never acted on the opportunities they had to go further.

You would never fire a rocket at the enemy from a vehicle, especially a helo due to back blast, more so you'd probably fall off.

You could enable it with a script at current.

Control plus any key is turbo. Stance adjust uses "turbo".

They probably didn't but everyone seems to keep trying to limit this to just the LB.

This ticket is about any vehicle where it would be humanly possible.

Even if said vehicle is your local lawn mower/tractor.

That's a duplicate of this ticket.

Cited the part of the devs wanting to work on it a while ago, now we just need them to confirm they plan to do so.

No ones really wondering how to implement it, we just want it implemented.

Some HMMWV's i've seen have windows which you can't roll down, they're ~2-3 inches of bullet proof glass which are bolted on.

The vehicles in game though, who knows.

The suggestion mainly applies to vehicles with the current capability to fire from them, such as ones without tops, sliding doors, open backs, etc.

Make a ticket silent.

One thing they could do after speeding up the raise/lowering weapons is to use control to bring it up to the ready position/put it into resting while you're riding cargo.

Why would vehicles be pentratable by rifle fire? The whole point of their inception is to counter that.

The HMMWV for example today is designed to prevent bullets from pentrating the armor. .50 cal rounds are another story.

If someone is filling your vehicle up full of holes & you have the ability to fire back I doubt you would even try.

In a situation where you're being chased, that might be a different story.

You've just killed me a bit on the inside maddog.

You make me so happy magical person that approved my ticket, now get me a soda.

Speaking of which after reading the notes, why is an ArmA 2: PR dev working the ticket system?

So what you're really saying is... Black Hawk Down.

If you guys want to discuss combined arms operations there's UO.

This ticket is not the place.

DayZ is going stand alone, which also does not relate to this topic.

The leaning out of a window to fire idea was interesting, could be a decent way to implement a firing from vehicles mechanic.

Altis, the name was changed.

Spanky, scroll up and you'll see that I mentioned that already.

Those are as it says, "Sort of confirmed/dev wishes."

Thus they aren't confirmed & we don't know if it'll happen.

Underground was removed already, it just wasn't updated.

Then get your friends to vote so that BIS will take a look into it later.

...yeahh.... Almost every vehicles has doors. Including hueys & blackhawks.

The original PoC Norrin did was on an LAV & Huey.

Shacktac probably used norrins, which was a rough proof of concept that it could be done.

186 - 0, keep up the good work boys.

Many people have, iirc it was on the semi confirmed/dev wishes in the confirmed features thread.

Shark you like many misguided Templars have overlooked the fact it says Feedback tracker it seems.

It's not being suggested because it's "cool" it's being suggested due to the fact it's been wanted by the community as a whole for a while. You can try CHECKING the forums.

Good Day sar!

Not to mention what stiffwood says, there is the option set feature as the feedback type.

I'm sure if you told people in countries where they use vehicles as firing platforms or even suicide vehicles that they're being overpowered they wouldn't care.

It would more than likely require a button to get into position such as the turbo key for changing stance.

You'd also in reality fire out the back of a truck if you had no other choice when it came to defending yourself.

They should add it to any vehicle where it's possible not just the littlebird. That's something that has been a highly demanded feature with the community for years.

"You wouldn't be able to hit anything with a .50 cal, you need to be prone to make accurate shots/to be still."

You wouldn't be able to hit anything with a .50 cal, you need to be prone to make accurate shots/to be still. It's pretty long/far too cumbersome to hit anyone from within a moving vehicle.

Special Operations Vehicle.

Or the SOV if it makes a triumphant return.

Crew Served Weapon (Mortar, M2 Browning .50 Cal tripod, MK19 Tripod, etc.)

It was a highly wanted feature that some of the devs even wanted, but never confirmed to my knowledge.

AT & overaly cumbersome/hard to maneuver weapons should probably be disabled, such as .50 cal snipers, CSW & AT as mentioned.

It was done in ACE2 & by Norrin.

You must be new Chris, this is something the community has wanted for years.

Not to mention it wouldn't cause balancing issues if you can fire from the door of a BH, inside an SOV HMMWV like in ArmA 2 OA or anything that allows you to aim your gun at a target without obstruction.

You're a pretty big target without a lot of fire power other than a gunner on top a lot of the time in ArmA.

A better way to word what I was trying to convey is instead of the wheels popping due to the vehicle taking damage, the hull instead should take the damage, seeing as wheels don't normally "pop" from smashing into something.

if the hull took damage when the wheels themselves aren't actually deflated, popped or damaged in anyway it would open up other opportunities such as ramming vehicles from the side to initiate an ambush, raid, prevent someone from fleeing.

This is not a high priority to compared to stabilizing the game.

True however if they put it in they may or may not be aware the textures aren't working.

Look a troll.

We never said that, however this is a bug/feedback reporting system thus a bug was reported.