You might be interested in the last updates we have in the thread;)

added two pictures - thanks for your support guys!

Still feeling that the game misses a lot through this.

E3 is there and the game still looks like this:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4934308/Arma%203/mid_range_problem/Chosen_bad/1.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4934308/Arma%203/mid_range_problem/Chosen_bad/2.jpg

...

push

I just have to laugh at the two guys who voted against this.

I bet they dont even know that - if they dont like the showcased look - it would even be possibly to keep the current texture set for them.

Every bet they just think this is a midrange replacement I am suggesting.

I love those ignorant fools
<b>
Oh and for the record: Logic map - logic map - its a logic map that I am talking about and not higher resolutions for textures....</b>

New examples added

Logicmap!

They have to understand that an increase of resolution is no fix for this issue.

The old resolutions were fine already - as I showed.

What it needs is the possiblity of different textures as shown above.

Another mashup added
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4934308/Arma%203/mid_range_problem/MashUP_engine/both_2.jpg

I just searched Arma 2s datas and found out that <b>Arma3 and Arma2 have got the exact same amount of pixel per meter at midrange.</b>

Since the midrange is still basically rendered the same way as in Arma 2 - this means we got a <b>4 year old midrange system....</b>

This is just another argument for an improvement in that direction.

Greetings

Update:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?149905-Sophisticated-considerations-on-how-to-get-rid-of-the-blurry-mid-range-textures&p=2367982&viewfull=1#post2367982

Nope you have not. It only changes one texture and doesnt delivier the capabilities my system would deliever.

What you probably mean is the new "landtex" texture set and the "midrange terrain texture replacement".
Both are only workarounds and only work partly.

For example the "midrange terrain texture replacement" is great for grassy areas. But now pls install it and fly over the airfield. You will immediately see what I mean.

It still works with only one texture that gets tiled over the whole island. This means it will look great at one place - and terrible awful at another (airfield).

My system delievers way more possibilities.

Best regards.

I thought about that too, but sadly there is no "edit" option for the OP=(

But thanks for your help and advice!

Greetings!

Thanks for your support guys=)

Thx for your support guys=)

Every comment here will help getting more people to notice it!

So each comment is well welcomed!

To be honest: I thought about how much an issue this is. And since nowadays the graphic is a huge selling point - this can have a huge impact.

On the other hand - I left the priority on normal:P

I understand your concern though.

Best regards!

Thank you for your time and information!

N keep up the good work!

Thank you for your feedback Smookie!

Now your explaination is sufficent for me. I understand that the work of programmers is needed elsewhere at the moment.

Is there any chance this will get fixed in later patches?

Ps: Nice to hear about the adjusted stances!

Greetz

I just cant get why this is not getting implemented better! You even have the system integrated - but only working with aiming deadzone.

Still you either dont understand what to do better or ...I dont know.

To have the torso move FIRST and then only have the legs move while aiming left and right would be such a big improvement to your animations!

And if you enable aiming deadzone this is EXACTLY WHAT YOU GET!

And you are telling me its impossible to implement the same behavior for when aiming deadzone is turned off?

YOu seriously must be kidding me!

Also: When you are in one of the middle stances your feed dont move when you turn left and right. I seriously cant believe how this is not fixed yet!

Guys I really love what you want to accomplish with this game but the more time passes and the less resutls I see in this parts of the game the more I get frustrated!

Urban prone left is coming in a later version=)))

@Earion - as far as I am concerned the movement is allways where your reticle aims at. Therefore the system shouldnt lead to this problem=)

Thanks for the write up!

Ps: MAybe your want to highlight your "TL:DR"-post with < b > ;)

@ShotgunSheamuS - of course its a question of taste if this bothers one or not - I for example care a lot about such things;)

But your suggestion to use freelook to fake this animation is not useable because it would give u a disadvantage over your enemys.
Also Freelook is not even there to "control your upper body when locking into ironsights" since you still can look left and right while in iron sights - and this only moves your head.

And the problem is "body" beeing everything apart from the head.

Allthough I think you didnt understand the system completely - I still accept your opinion;)

Best regards!

I am curious=)

I just did a <b>proof of concept</b> to show that its possible.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4934308/Arma%203/Feature_better%20animations/animated_Arma_gif.gif
(You need to wait a bit till it loaded)

I enabled aiming deadzone in the game options and aimed at several points along the barricades on this pic. While I was aiming at a point I used "freelook" to center my aim again. Just like my suggested system would do.
I did a screenshot then and added them to a .gif.

This would be possible if you could add the mousemovement to the headmovement via some command files.
No big change in the animation system. At least not that I can see=) I may be wrong though - you are the expert in the end;)

Oh and if its not obvious: To enable the current "Aiming Deadzone" again - simply disable the "movement addition" to the headview.

Greetings and I hope you can now better understand what I am suggesting!

I wish I could speak tchesch at some times^^

Best regards!

So it still feels very hard to explain but here are two example pics.

They explain the basics. At least I hope^^

If the explained system works right - there should <b>not be any visual change while inside first peron view!</b>
Only the outside animations would change.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4934308/Arma%203/Feature_better%20animations/Current%20system.jpg

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4934308/Arma%203/Feature_better%20animations/suggested%20change.jpg

Now how do I think could this be implemented?

At the moment the "freelook" movement is basically an "add movement to head" kinf of script.
This could be used for my purpose.
As long as you move your reticle in the "Aiming Deadzone Square" the movement of the mouse will get added to your headmovement.
It would basically mean that you control your "freelook" and "reticle" at the same time while moving the mouse.

With the simple addition of such a command line to the game this system could be basically implemented. (Well I dont know HOW hard it is to add such a "commandline" but it sure cannot be a major workload, can it?)
The only difficulty with this will be that this "add to the headmovement" will have to stop the moment it reaches the "Aiming Deadzone Square" and restart working when the movement is happening in that square again.

If you would like - I would also agree to explain my thought to you via chat or skype! Not that I will force you to do so but I find it very hard to explain and I am quite sure that with the addition of a scriptline to the headmovement this system could be implemented.

Of course - if you can prove me wrong I will accept that. But at the moment I only got the feeling that we have a misunderstanding=)

Best regards!

No worrys mate^^
Everythings all right!

To be honest I am really glad we can have this conversation!

But I think we are misunderstanding each other. I apologize if my explainations arent that well written since I find my suggestions kind of hard to vocalize -even in my own language (which obviously isnt english)

I am all with you if you say you want to keep the aiming point always in the middle of the screen so that new comers can feel comfortable. Thats exactly what I want too.

On the other hand I dont want a system where the crosshair stays in the middle of the screen <b>all the time</b> either. Just as you suggested.
Freelook is a must in a game like arma.

I am trying to visualize my thoughts a bit more.
I hope that this will help us understand each other^^

Ill add another post as soon as I am ready with it.

Oh - and if at the end this isnt possible to implement, I could still live with it;) I just want to make sure we understand each other.

Best regards and see ya soon;)

Ps I tried if this is basically posible with Track Ir. I got the feeling it is.

Greetings

Sry but I think that is not really true.

All you need to do is:

"activate aiming deadzone by default" - and then bind the headmovement of the soldier in first person to the guns aiming point.

Of course that would need the negative acceleration to be gone for the aiming deadzone - but thats a bug either way.

This way all you needed to do would be to lock the headmovement to the gunmovement in first person.

If you wanted to activate the aiming deadzone again - just unbind the headmovement and the gun movement again. Et voila.

Could you explain me why this would need a reworking of the animation system?

I am willing to learn.

Best regards!

Jepp - right. Its kind of hard to explain^^

I only want that the soldiers first turn their body a few inch and then move their feet - without any change in the first person view.

The aiming deadzone example is only to show off that this system is allready integrated - but sadly restricted to the aiming deadzone users - which is really unnecessary.

Greetings

I just want to underline again: What I want is NOT MAKING THE AMING DEADZONE STANDARD.

Instead I only want the body behavior of that system from the outside - to get rid of the robotic behavior we currently have.

The first person aiming should stay perfectly as it is. Only the outside look should change.

Well - the deadzones are not there so your animations look smother. Its a control option that people prefer or dont.

And the majority seems to not like it=/

But that shouldnt mean that this is the only way to improve the animations.

As I said - the aiming deadzone should be kept for those who want it - but the animatinos still should be adapted.

Thats exactly what I wanted to express;)

Jeah basically I want the soldiers to move their torso before moving their feet. Its what you would do in real life.

At the moment the soldiers move their feet with every look left and right they make. Thats just not very natural.

By the example of the "aiming deadzone" I wanted to show that this is theoretically is already integrated.

It just needs to be cut off the "aiming deadzone" realation. I dont want to use deadzones so my soldiers moves naturally.

Best regards!

Agreed.

That and the shot "away" tires just look plain silly.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=2998

Best regards

Is this really assinged?!?!?!? I Cannot believe my eyes!

I wrote with the developers about this a year or so ago and they told me it would not get implemented!

So happy to see this!

Nevertheless: Maybe it would be wise to only add this as an option so low cpu players can play arma too. In MP it can be forced on nevertheless, just like gras rendering in Arma II.

Greetings!

@jjondle - I think you are referring to the sinking as it is in Arma 2. (It feels its different in Arma3)

It may be of your interest that in Arma 2 the character model indeed!! was put underground!

But the important noticeable thing is: The HITBOX DIDNT MOVE WITH IT.

That meant you had to shoot ABOVE them (even above the whole model) to shoot them appropriately.

Just for your information;)

Best regards!

Why is this even assigned?

Its been half a year since its been assigned and theres no single sign that it will ever get implemented.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4934308/Arma%203/Bush_rework/diver_vs_ghillie_both.jpg

Left a diver - right a Ghillie suit........

@Dagonath exactly.
Also it is more power stressfull to first calculate and render the grass around him and then turn that into an alpha mask.

The whole idea behind the alpha mask is to save performance through tileable pieces. Your idea sadly is contraproductive in that part.

Best regards

Very important:

<B>First:</B>
Since there are different kinds of gras - there should be different kinds of this alpha too!

Test it youself - the gras between the airfields is the highest I have found on the map. THIS gras should even be able to block the whole soldier!
Think about it: If you lay down in that gras you are:

1. not visible to a person nearby

( [URL=" https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4934308/Arma%203/grass%20problem/arma3%202013-03-10%2021-22-24-34.jpg "]example pic[/URL] ) the farer you go away - the harder it should be possibly to see you.

2. you yourself are NOT ABLE TO SEE ANYTHING ELSE TOO. So theres no way to abuse this. Its just how camo would work in reality too.

<B>Second</B>
I see another problem:
if you see the person lying in the gras from above - how to hide him?
Solution: Id say - for views from above - keep the current system of transitioning him into the ground.

<B>Third</B>
Ghullie suits

They are meant to be invisible at distance.
There is no "this could be abused".
Its simply realistic that you are not able to see a ghillie suit in the distance. That should be the status in a military simulation as Arma is.

For the ones thiking of too many snipers in the MP then: The server admins are able to allow or disallaw certain camos.

<B>Fourth</B>
Some testing with the gras delievered some needed tweaking: In the current state the soldiers begin to transition into the gras at [B]]too far distances[/B].
It is like this(note that I have gras render distance on max):

1. You cant see the soldier in the gras
2. You move backwards - the soldier becomes good visible on the ground since the gras disappears.
3. The soldier starts to transition into the ground.

<b>The alpha mask should apply as early as needed to avoid this situation. </b>

Ps: Its better to have the soldiers be A BIT HARDER TO SEE as the other way around. Thats the way it would be in reality. And pls guys - try it out. Lay down in gras and you will see that its way harder to see enemys while lying there since the gras abscures your very own vision too. It should be the same the other way around.

+1 Only that I want to see improved lighting in twilight siutations.

The game shines when there are light sources and looks like crap when there are none

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4934308/Arma%203/arma3%202013-03-09%2018-57-21-15.jpg

A simple fix would be to allow some part of the mid-day lighting to be turned on on such occasions. While it would not be 100% realistic - it would at least make the game look a hundred times more appealing.

@-Coulum- Good point!

And the AI needs to be top priority! The game stands and falls with it!

Dude....maybe search a bit before opening a new issue? The related issue is the Nr.2 voted... it shouldnt have been to hard to find:P

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=432

Inb4 closure;)

Best regards!

Jeah I am up for this!

Also the blood on the ground at distance looks bad.

Either it shouldnt be visible because there would be gras over it - or it would be 80% darker.

But I would rather see no blood AT DISTANCE at all. At close distance on the other hand it should stay.

related to this:
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=2998

This happens in every stance besides standing and crouching.

related Nr.3 of this:

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=3033

<b>Three important missing features:</b>

1. Theres no way to tell on which page you are
2. Theres no "next page", "previous page" button
3. Either the refreshrate of the voting page is to low or it is bugged.

For example: My new report (ID: 0004635) about mid range texture improvement has now reached 60 votes and is not noted in the list at the according place.

Thanks for the info!

*ck youtube and google...
Because I deleted my google whatever profile now my youtube channel is fcked up...

....

<b>I think an implementation of this would be a heavy development cost.</b>

Since we allready saw sophisticated wounding systems in the past - I rather have BI only implement all the needed features and animations and then focus on another important topic.

For example:

1. We need a hit detection system that is precise enough to tell if you hit certain organs.
2. We need good animations for different wounds - like to walk with a limp or holding a broken arm or sth similiar.
3. We need animations for treating these wounds.

<b>Animations were allways the bottle neck of community mods. </b>
And since BI has their own motion capture studio I see them in the responsibility to deliever these.

If the above mentioned features are delivered - the community will take no longer than 2 weeks to implement a sophisticated system I tell you;)

<b>
We have to keep in mind that BI is no tripple A studio.
Their recources are limited. And to get the best out of the game - we should rely on such symbiotic coorporations with the community and the developers.</b>

Related to this:
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=3265

Experienced the same. Muzzle flashes are very dim.

In twilight for example they seem like their opacity is reduced or sth.

On the other hand - the muzzle flash from the little birds minigun seems fine.

@Nodunit yes I agree. Still it could make a difference if the soldiers were darker. It would mean they would stick less out of the environment even if the environment gets toned down.

The question is if the environment gets adjusted ACCORDING to the units or by a SET AMOUNT.

If it was the last it would mean we would get a way darker picture with less outstanding persons.

The problem with the low contrast and dark picture could then be solved via PP.

Besides that: Again: Why not rebuild the FLIR mod from Arma 2 pre Arrowhead times? It looked way more real and fair to use.

@gutsnav: Absolutely right=) But more importantly: The current system is extremely frustrating to play against. Like I said before: Its basically a texture hack. AND THAT on top of the realism factor is a huge reason to actually do sth about it.

Btw: Saw you on the tactical battlefield forums: Great work with the windage system!=)

Greetz

Also: Wouldnt it be possible to assign thermal textures to each object?

Then the engine wouldnt tone them down.

Heres another video:

The ground is even hotter than the persons....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzM6Jcavph0

Oh and just now a very popular PvP mod got released Tactical Battlefield.
Guess what: They dont want to use FLIR because its so unfair.

There you have it: The current implementation is so lacking that it will not get used in PvP.

What reason do you need more?

How about we simply change the thermal textures of the units to sth way darker?

Maybe then the post processing wont darken the surroundings any more?

Worth a try

@cyrilator - but is way closer to the reality and way more interesting to play with.

YOu got what you want from a thermal: Better vision at night + a different view of the battlefield at daylight.

Of course heatmaps would be great but not important to give a believable gamingexperience.

If the integration of FLIR was such a great improvement in Arma OA, then why is it disabled in any bigger pvp scenario?

Its because its a cheat as it is and as shown above in several examples its not even realistic.

The realistic implementation would be much more fun to play with/against since it wouldnt be a magic eye.

Just this weekend I was on a military demonstration near my hometown and got the chance to look through a top notch state of the art thermal imaging system(Ophelios) mounted on a Fennek.

It was nowhere near what we see in Arma. It was more a brighter version of the real life image in black and white.

The mods for Arma 2 listed in my previous post look way more similar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q6rkob4Ibs
And Ace had it too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRnS_H7PHws

And this one is looks nearly real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSix-hvPb98

Here again...this is soo much closer to real live and way much more fun to play with <b>AND MORE IMPORTANT TO PLAY AGAINST

I could live with the hack version of the thermals as long as its PIP only.

And yes you were right. It wasnt Ace it was this mod.
http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=9067
And I am scared how much closer to the reality this mod is than the Arma 3 FLIR=(

I wrote a personal message to the modder. Maybe we can get some help on this topic

Greetz

I totally agree with you.

But I think there is still a chance we can alter that because all we need are graphic filters.

I allready saw some comparable mods for Arma 2 so it should be possible in SOME way.

The way they simulated FLIR in ACE before Operation Arrowhead is a good example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJJBNyzS6p8

That is how it should look.
Seeing that it was possible in Arma 2 keeps my hopes up.

Another brilliant video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPlxnYMZKww

And just for fun another one thats focussed on heated weapons^^
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSoUKqgi8ok

@Nodunit:

I agree so completely with you!

The current integration of Heat in Arma should be tweaked as it takes away any skill (and fun) to scan for enemys.

On top of that you showed enough examples that prove the current system not even realistic.

So there is really no reason to stay with the current system apart from workload.

I made some examples how a simple contrast change (as can be seen the Arma engine allready does. Only in the different direction) can solve in a more satisfying FLIR experience.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4934308/Arma%203/Flir/FLir_1.gif
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4934308/Arma%203/Flir/FLir_2.gif
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4934308/Arma%203/Flir/FLir_3.gif
Added some more:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4934308/Arma%203/Flir/FLir_4.gif
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4934308/Arma%203/Flir/FLir_5.gif
AS you see: A simple contrast adjustment will do a lot.

How about one finally takes REAL FLIRS as example.

http://www.military.com/video/shock-and-awe/flir/page/1/

Plenty of stuff showing how it should look like.

http://www.military.com/video/combat-vehicles/combat-tanks/inside-view-of-leclerc-mbt-firing/1526627826001/

at 30 seconds you can see the thermal vision of a leclerc tank.

THIS IS how the thermals should look in ARma 3

NodUnit wrote:"And adding a TI texture to the pbo's would depend on wether or not modifying the base content and then re-releasing it modified would be against the rules."

Wouldnt that be basically a retexture like there are allready hundreds?
I mean - BIs is even encouraging the community to retexture items. They even linked a texture guide on their FB page.
And retexturing the Heatmap still stays a retexture.

While I agree that this all needs to be inside the given rules - I see much evidance that this is not only allowed but even wanted.

Best regards!

(Ps: a discussion is allways a "bump" ;) )

What delevero said!

But as a suggestion: If BI doestn deliver realistic thermals - maybe we could do them by ourself.

As far as I am informed the thermal view got their very own texture sets - thats the reason why many "old arma2 models" were completely white - because they had "thermal texture" and tehrefore got the default all white one.

That would mean we could create our own textures for each vehicle, soldier etc. And that means that we could create our own realistic thermal texture set.

Also - if you look at the PIP thermal pictures in the Ifris - you will notice that the very first second you look at it the contrast between persons/vehicles and the environment is way less high. It seems only after one second it switches the contrast to the critizised current state.

That means there is some kind of filter editing the scene - simply turning this filter off would make a huge difference then.

Maybe this is allready doable?

Greetings!

upvote

I was thinking about exactly the same even in Arma 2 times!!!

+1!

This is definately no high priority but a nice to have.

If there are recources at the end - yes than this would be nice.

But let alone an animation for viewing through scope and having the gun shooting "from hip" (I know its allways shouldered) is good enough in the first place.

As I said - nice to have at the end of the day.

obviously just not finished.

still upvoted by me

Seriously....who came up with the current system? Regarding Armas modding history this was not very clever to say the least....

Next time allow only character models listed in a special list for each vehicle to be allowed to enter it....sounds equal to me....

Sry for beeing sarcastic but a little bit of thinking can seriously be expected before imlementing such otherwise great feature....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxtE8iMbgkc&list=UUd1FZhhjEMG7-3SpfxPcOYA&index=1

at around 14:14 you can see what I think is what you are talking about.

Look at my post. Theres allready a mod doing this.

Theres a mod for that already:

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=19692

Greetings!

Saying that implementing 3d scopes and distant gras rendering will let Arma III become the "best tactical shooter ever" sounds a bit ridiculous.

Theres a bit more to take into concern. And frankly - 3d scopes are no must have to be "the best tactical shooter ever".

And towards the topic of gras rendering:
You surely think of this as the number one reason why camouflage doesnt work at distance. But no - there are other reasons that support this issues more. Namely the big difference between the units and environmental LODs and the miss of shadows.

Frankly we cannot expect shadows to be drawn out to 1000 meters but there are other ways to improve camouflage at distance. Ways that dont involve such huge amounts of cpu power as grass rendering or shadow rendering use.
I am talking about proper uses of sprites, colours and the adjustment of distant foliage lods.

If the LODs of soldiers at distance will fit in with the ground around them AND if at the same time the foliage rendering at that distance will be adjusted to fit camouflage better, then theres no real need to have gras rendered till infinity.

Problem is: Gras rendering propably will eat up way to much cpu recources.

Greetings

In my opinion there are far more worse things to handle fist.

After that - I would agree

no offense

As said - it was already implemented by the community into Arma 2.

Its a shame if it wouldnt be integrated.

@MrR4PTOR Oh jeah - love those moments^^

Seriously galzohar....

The current system is as far as you can get from real life.

The weapon will ALLWAYS go back down after each shot. Its called gravity. You dont have to push it back down - it will do it by itself.

Weapons climb only as long as they have the force of the shot applied to them. Its simple mechanic.

I agree that the aim point should not be the exact same after each shot. But the weapon MUST realign with the first shot again.

Ps; Oh and so much for the "a soldier is trained to hold the weapon down - otherwise it would climb like in ARma III currently".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIPvPRWFd9A

I dont think so^^

PPs: And here you see a full auto G3 in the end of the movy. You can see that the force is pushing it INTO THE SHOULDER and not up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NEVm1UH0f0

I just have to add that the behavior of the weapons is neither realistic nor satisfying. Its not even adding to the game.

One fundamental argument against the upwards climbing of the weapons without any movement down after a shot:

Imagine you place a rifle in your hand and rise it to shoot.
When the recoil comes into play the weapon will climb up.

BUT IF YOU DONT MOVE YOUR ARMS AND HANDS, THEN THE WEAPON WILL FALL DOWN AGAIN.

That alone is argument enough to abandom the stupid current system.

Weapons fall back towards the ground because of sth called "gravity".

In the end: Listen to what ThePredator said. He pinpointed most of the necessary stuff.

Greetz

Ps: Red Orchestra 2 has very realistic and believable weapon handling. Way better than the current Arma 3 handlings.

I agree.

I dont want to see a weapon which resets at 100% the same spot as it was before since i like that you have to adjust after each shot- but at least it should drop back a bit.

It seems this shall simulate that the soldier himself is the one who forces the weapon back at the target - and therefore the player should do this too. But your weaponcontrol in reality is much much greater than whats possibly with a mouse.

So a little bit of compromise is really needed.

Ps: Arma 2 guns in comparisson where lasers if you want to call that argument.

Greetz

Agree - the aiming still doesnt feel right

Greetz

Heres just a screen I made for better comprehension.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4934308/Arma%203/bgus/aimingdeadzone.jpg

Greetings

Look at this pls

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=3505

Also: Gras is enormour performance hungry...its ridiculous to request having it rendered till the end of your view distance...

@SYSTEM - this is a brilliant example for stuff that the community would be eager to provide.

I think this would be best implmented by a mod team.

BUT! A big BUT.

I think BI should deliever all that is needed to implement such a system in a polished way.

Animations are the biggest part of that - exspecially since BI got their own motion capture studio!

What would be needed is:
An animation for treating a wounded (not the current animation which made it back from Arma 2)
An Animation for a humbling soldiers (beeing hit in the leg)
Animation for beeing stabalized.

And if that is delievered - let the community play with it. It wont take more than a week till the first system will be out then;)

Best regards