Soldiers' awareness of their own pockets was improved on the engine side ;) Should be more reliable now.
In the attached mission all the classes have their grenades ready after the respawn. It should be reliable globally.

It should appear in the next version of dev build .exe.

It depends on the server difficulty. On Regular and Recruit the friendly tags are shown above the entity after pointing at it.

Already available for some time (approx. between EPC and Heli DLC).
See this post https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/169324-release-script-tgp-targeting-pod-for-air-vehicles/page-5#entry2951430

Thanks for helping us improve the game!

The helicopter modelling has been adjusted since this report and also Advanced Flight Model has been added.

This should be fixed in the next dev. branch update! (a different issue with similar symptoms is still present on positions where you can "turn" - e.g. gunners)

Thank you for helping us make the game better!

AIII-11660

Thank you for the report!

Optics mode resets as well which should not happen.

Could you please confirm whether this is still valid? I wasn't able to reproduce the issue - optics' mode stays the same as prev entering the vehicle.

@rangoon

If I map it this way:

• Helicopters
  • Collective - half of the chose axis has to be mapped on Collective raise (Analogue) the other half on Collective lower (Analogue)

Then

• it works purrfectly in AFM
• it gives higher max. climb rate in SFM than digital input (here's a BUG)
• the half-axis mapped to Collective raise (Analogue) works in it's full range
• the half-axis mapped to Collective lower (Analogue) only affects the descend rate down to 0.5 of the 0-1 input (here's a BUG)
• but there it gives the same max. descend rate in SFM as the digital input

(mapping both halves of the axis to Collective raise only spreads the upper half of the collective range in game to the whole controller axis)

Don't judge by how the helicopter lifts off earlier or later than in the AFM - it's a different model and simulation. Even if we tried to bring it as close as possible there's still a big gap.
I'd recommend starting in a hover in 2km altitude and observe how the input affects climb/descend rater.

Ok, let's sum it up. To have the full extent of one axis used on an action it has to be mapped this way:

• Airplanes
  • Throttle - both halves of the chosen axis have to be mapped on Throttle (Analogue)
  • Airbrake - both halves of the chosen axis have to be mapped on Brake (Analogue)

• Helicopters
  • Collective - half of the chose axis has to be mapped on Collective raise (Analogue) the other half on Collective lower (Analogue)

(This way it gives you exact control over the collective in 0-100% range both with Standard and Advanced flight model. For example with Hummingbird a hover can be maintained with collective around 60% with SFM and around 50% with AFM.)

@bickpickle - I've noticed you are using x55, which afaik handles throttle as a X/Y axes, not a slider. Make sure you are mapping only one of the levers and you have it set as linear in its full extend. If you still experience problems, please send me (http://forums.bistudio.com/member.php?98410-oukej) a screenshots of your mapping in A3 and settings in the Saitek profile. I will try to investigate what may be causing the issues.

I've already acknowledged it and we are completely aware of the unintuitiveness. It's a legacy issue, arisen due to how things have been added over the time and it doesn't only relate to collective/throttle, but generally how controllers are handled.

I'm trying to explain how to make it work using the configuration as it is now.

Works for aircraft but it doesnt for helicopters, thats where its really needed!

Unlike the airplanes for helicopters you actually have to map half of the axis on Collective raise (analogue) and the other half on Collective lower (analogue)

Wow. I can't believe this hasn't been fixed yet.

Please read previous comment about how to map the controller.

Throttle issue still present no matter how it is bound to the axises

Mare sure your axis is present like this http://imgur.com/YMInQVr in the action mapping (both halves of the throttle axis must be mapped).

Hey, thanks for the feedback.

You have to map both, - and +, part of the axes on the throttle action (when in the binding dialogue push the throttle all the way up and then all the way down. You should see 2 inputs mapped.)

I agree it is a bit unintuitive. We'll see if it can be improved somehow.

Extended armor (damage reduction for player and the members of his group) will be limited to Recruit in the upcoming dev branch update. Other presets have the option disabled and not changeable.

Is this still valid? Do you find the current state better?

Reopening.

As far as I understood the issue, this is more about the AI being unable to select a weapon, stick to it and effectively and asap fire at a dangerous threat. We are aware, that it is often troublesome to use the AT AI effectively.

Was discussed also here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?176549-Will-AT-soldier-AI-ever-be-fixed

However, I'd still recommend using only this issue for any further discussion.

Can you please check it again?

There have been some improvements deployed to the Dev Branch recently.

Duplicate of issues regarding fatique, weapon sway, weapon recoil and adjusted stance feature.

Please proceed according to "HOW TO GUIDE" in the top right corner when submitting a report. (Search for duplicates before posting. Only one report per specific issue. Try to be as brief and descriptive as possible in the summary field. And if possible it is very important to provide precise reproduction steps.)

Thank you for your feedback

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?149636-Development-Branch-Changelog&p=2793634&viewfull=1#post2793634

Improved: AI helicopter landing

The AI should now be significantly better at landing a helo and also at pickup up the right, safe LZ.

Could you please re-check and ev. confirm?

Thanks a lot!

After some consulting and testing I would dare to say the design is wrong to force too many helicopters that are not in one group (therefore not coordinating their paths) into a small area moreover with some challenging LZs.

In a warzone similar situation might have lead to an accident, a collision as well. Allowing such uncoordinated dense traffic would be rather a HQ-failure. The helicopters indeed do crash into each other or the environment, but only if they are forced to do avoid several another collisions at one moment. That's why irl there's always a human pilot, AI can never beat the human improvisation :) And even though the accidents are still the major cause of death and injuries in today's warzones.

About the directions and pinpoint desing. Generally said it is best to leave the AI some freedom. Especially extensive scripting and making the AI to perform a simple action in an precisely delineated way can have a much worse result than giving the AI sort of military-fashioned, simple orders, and leave it to chose its own way to deal with it. In my opinion a mission designer in ARMA is rather a commander (with all the risks such person has to keep in mind) than a movie director.

I'm sorry for atm I can't assist you with the mission design itself, please don't hesitate to use our forums in that regard.

To be able to investigate wrong AI behaviour, I need a very simple repro, e.g. 3 AIs max.

Ja dekuju :)

Summary edit: one issue/one report

Could you please retest with the latest data? The helicopter AI was slightly improved and should be less prone to crash/fly more carefully.

I had only 1/10 success with a clearly wrong behaviour (Pilot landing on a tree and then safelanding), but nothing reliable.

A note: The desired behaviour is that AI always tries to land at the designated invisible helipad, even if it was placed in the middle of a forest

I've meant rather one helicopter + one transported unit, nothing else :) As atm I'm afraid I can't investigate your mission design.

I've cleared the mission and tried only how AI can deal with the hidden heliports placed by you.

MH-9 had no problems landing on all the LZs you are using. Even though I'd dare to say some of them are are placed so even irl a pilot would not be happy about being forced to land exactly at such spots :]

Thank you for the feedback!
Please could you provide your mission? If possible cut it to be as simple as possible while retaining high probability (ideally 100%;) of AI crashing.

Thanks, you've shocked me a bit ;D
Would it be possible, please, to cut it so it's as simple as possible (as little amount of units necessary and a specific problematiz LZ placement) and using only the vanilla Alpha game, withou any community made content?

I was not able to reproduce the crashing using only the steps you described in repro but without cleanly isolating the ill behaviour we can't clearly diag where the bug is hidden.

Fix in development build

Note that the inventory should be accessible in the vehicles in all positions under all conditions (as long as the vehicle has an inventory). Any other behavior is a bug :)

The non-local vehicle's inventory (0081150) should be fixed in the next dev build.

As for the SP map inventory access (0081104) - I'll report back once I know more info about feasibility of a fix.

As for the SP map inventory access (0081104) - I'll report back once I know more info about feasibility of a fix.

I'm sorry, but we are not going to fix this. Thanks for your understanding.

Closing as resolved. Thanks a lot for the cooperation!

Thanks a lot for the quick feedback with two issues right away.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?149636-Development-Branch-Changelog&p=2777896&viewfull=1#post2777896

Added: Accessible inventory in vehicles

Please report if you find any vehicle (that has inventory) or any position with the inventory inaccessible.

Drivers (pilots...) should focus on driving.

Do you still experience issues that you are unable to access inventory as a passenger?

Thank you for the feedback!

There is such feature.

There were issues with inventory being closed, when the vehicle was mobile and with accessible "ground" inventory, but that has got fixed even before Alpha.

There's a bug, that you can access inventory of a vehicle from outside and have it opened even if the vehicle has already driven away.

There is an issue with crew priorities in vehicles (mainly in MP, when there are multiple players - someone has the access, others don't, depending on hierarchy in the vehicle/squad) which is being investigated at the moment. Could that be this case?

https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/140837-development-branch-changelog/page-35#entry2961647

Thank you for helping us improve the game!

And a part of it already happened!

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?159711-Development-Branch-Captain-s-AI-Log&p=2903326&viewfull=1#post2903326

Fixed in https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/150500-development-branch-captains-ai-log/page-3#entry2836995

Thanks a lot for your help!

Thanks a lot!

Getting stuck seems to be caused by one particular Metal Rack placed near the exit. (see http://feedback.arma3.com/file_download.php?file_id=11058&type=bug ; after removing the rack everything seems fine)

We may still try to investigate why it started happening and was not happening previously.

Thank you!

I wasn't able to reproduce the issue though. Neither by spawning units in the building, placing them via editor or just letting them walk through the building. I was only able to reproduce the issue in the Disarmament mission and only when I accelerated the time :/

Could you please try reproducing the issue in an isolated case? (strip down the mission to just player and few AIs)

I was able to reproduce some issues on the mentioned

• Inn Garden @ grid 111145 Altis
• Military Cargo House @ 141212 Altis

On both occasions the AI won't even enter the building. If you spawn the AI in it already it has troubles finding a way out. Both in Stable 1.40 and current Dev.

---

I wasn't able to make the AI get stuck near

• Cargo Container @ 124151 Altis

Would you be pls able to create a repro mission for it if you succeed reproducing it?

---

Regarding the WS mission Disarmament - could you pls tell me the location of the Military Offices? I've tried the ones on Stratis Air Base and wasn't able to get the AI stuck in there (neither if I spawned them there nor when I made them walk through the building)

the AI works mutch better in the 1.40 stable like in current DEV-Build.

In regards to this getting stuck?

Hey, thanks for the report!

Have you observed this in the open terrain too or does it happen only in or near the buildings? (incl. patios, staircases, bridges)

Being stuck in buildings (often because of inaccessible exit - bad connection between path lod and terrain) should now almost completely fixed in Dev Branch. Could you please check it?

Thank you for your feedback! It happens also outside NV, only it's less observable.

Thank you for helping us improve the game!
Was hopefully solved as part of http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9786

A decision was made to allow switching seats in vehicles only in a way to somehow reflect real-life plausibility + we've made some exceptions for sake of a better game-play.

So you should be able to change seats inside a MRAP, but you should not be able to move from a Offroad's flatbed to the cabin or from a helicopter's cargo space to cabin (or vice versa).

One more bug is described here. It was a bug specific to Helicopter Showcase. Player should not be able to enter anywhere else than the pilot's seat in this mission. (modified some time ago).

Thanks a lot for the feedback!

Attacking turned out crew was fixed by https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/150500-development-branch-captains-ai-log/page-4#entry2884002

I'm also no longer able to reproduce the original issue (even with lowest skill AI)

Thank you!

I'll merge this one with http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=669 (older, but less votes, comments) . Hopefully I got it right - both are dealing with AI that actually uses an inappropriate weapon on a target. Which usually means an incorrectly defined target.

Could you, please, list vehicles where have you observed such behavior?

Also note that currently the AI will prefer to kill the crew if possible (AI crew turned out...)

Do you still experience issues when the AT equipped AI would use small arms against a vehicle inappropriately?
Could you eventually please list such cases, types of vehicles, AT weapons used?

I think the issue is just the name of the command... it really tells the AI to use whatever stance is appropriate for the situation.

You're right. It has been renamed to Automatic stance.

Improved / fixed in
https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/150500-development-branch-captains-ai-log/page-5#entry2965608 ;)

Thanks for helping us improve the game!

Thanks for the reports!

There are several issues mentioned here.

• The original one - formation set-up. Odds and evens form together, on the previous odd or even squad member.

If everyone is moving in formation and No.2 gets delayed so does No.4,6,8.... But if you tell No.2 specifically to move somewhere or stop, it excludes No.2 from the formation, but No.4 (6,8...) is still there and follows you.
This is an intended behavior(closing the ticket). The group should stay together. I see it can cause troubles with rogue players that don't keep in formation, but that can be avoided by the mentioned commands or by a suitable scenario design and creation of individual groups for individual players. The newly introduced Dynamic Groups should also improve the situation.

• Then there's a mentioned issue with first JIP player taking the command. Could you please create a repro and a separate ticket and PM me it on forums?

• And also there's an issue, where the AI subordinate seizes command and doesn't give it back after leader's respawn. Removing the authority from the commander only happens when the commander becomes a renegade. However, currently _you become renegade also by respawning/suiciding_ or by being in charge of a vehicle that has crashed. We'll try to solve these two situations. However if you become a renegade deliberately by friendly fire and destroying friendly or civilian assets, you'll be removed from the command and won't be given it back. (even after respawn)

Hopefully improved by http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9786

Could you please verify if the issue is still valid?
Wasn't able to reproduce it. Thanks a lot!

Several improvements have been done in https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/150500-development-branch-captains-ai-log/page-5#entry2965608
And there's now a possibility to disable autocombat in a case the mission designer wants to have full control over the AI behavior at given points in the mission.

• https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/150500-development-branch-captains-ai-log/page-5#entry2968995
• https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/disableAI

More improvements are WIP, so please don't start making "disabled combat always" mods yet ;) Otherwise you may miss all the cool stuff.

Closing (fixed probably at some point in the Alpha stage;). Thanks a lot for the report & checking!

Is this still happening?

Could you, please, confirm if this is still happening or was fixed together with the animation fixes?

(AI getting stuck in buildings is a different issue)

Note, that this means that a player can enter an immobile vehicle, but...

• AI will refuse to enter the vehicle (but will stay in it if it was there before the immobilization took place)
  • "allowCrewInImmobile" overrides that behavior
• if player is a subordinate - AI commander will force her/him out of the vehicle (and she/he won't be able to reenter as long as she/he remains the subordinate)

It is now on DEV build (state similar to ARMA2)

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?149636-Development-Branch-Changelog&p=2720416&viewfull=1#post2720416

Spatial/directional definition of sounds in close proximity (approx. 1-30m) has been improved.

Thanks for the idea.
It's unnecessarily complex. Also following the downvotes I'm closing the ticket.

Should be fixed, thank you for helping us improve the game experience!

We acknowledge there are issues. Worse, by creating convoys one just puts all those issues into one bag, stirs and shakes em;)

Sadly we can't simply "omg bis wtf fix dem cnvoyz nao, kthxbai" :( But by fixing the fractions we'll hopefully bring some improvements.

We've found some inconsistency between Altis and Stratis roads. Btw, do you find the behavior generally a little tiny bit better on Stratis roads?

We'll check if this helps at least a bit first. (but only after the next patch - it's a simple fix, but will require some extensive testing).

Closing issue as duplicate in favour of http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=5568

Duplicate to more general http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=4518

Was tweaked long time ago. There's also been added a much more precise simulation with the Advanced Flight Model.
We've tried to achieve as much consistency between AFM and SFM as possible. However the SFM stays limited to a lower responsiveness.

Thanks a lot for the cooperation and feedback!

(http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8151)
Auto-rotation was fixed, I'm able to auto-rotate at least as good in A2:OA. Obviously not as good as in Take On, but that's a completely different story ;)

There are also some trade-offs in terms of drag coef. when falling, but those only make the auto-rotation easier (and auto-rotating without proper approach is also possible).
Could you, please, provide more detailed feedback? I have reopened the ticket mentioned above for that purpose. (Please understand, that we won't be implementing a simulator-grade modelling.)

I have compared the descend and ascend rates in A3 and A2OA and they look pretty similar. Even the responsiveness in Take On simulation isn't much different.
Does this apply to all helicopters or do you feel or have any reference any single of them is completely off?
Could it be eventually by various input? (http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1970#c21198, like http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8002)

Thank you very much for the feedback!

Multiple changes were made.

Could you, please, give us some feedback?

Atm the descend and ascent rates are from a black-box point of view close to Arma II and Take On.

Thank you!

Just a quick note - the weapon is subject to adjustments for balancing other than rate of fire (e.g. handling, stabilization...)

The RPM should be closer to the XM312 than the M2HB. The project was dropped, partially because of the weapon's slow rate of fire. Well, meanwhile in another universe... :)

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=4518

The general situation described should be improved by the recent work on AI aiming done together with the AI suppression package.

Please take a look at the today's devbuild and share your feedback! (as said by GhostOne - clear repro's needed for something to be fixed)

Thank you!

There have been some changes in the helicopters' hitpoints since the issue was reported.

What do you think about the current durability of helicopters?
Also rotor collision should break (stop) the rotorblades.

Fixed some time ago. Thank you for the report!

long time ago :)

Our cunning programmers have dissolved the glue mistakenly applied before to the skids and wheels. You can observe the change already in the dev. build on Steam.

Yes, Arma 3 should now support the maximum available buttons and axes the actual DirectInput offers.

Note that Saitek x52 requires the Windows Game Controller Options to be opened while playing the game, otherwise you won't be able to map the MFD buttons (This applies to any game I've came across. But maybe you know about a general solution or a workaround).

I believe this is now as "resolved" as it can be. Thank you for the cooperation on this one and for helping us make a better game!

This should now be fixed in the Dev Branch.
Thanks for helping us improve the game and sorry for the delay on this one.

Now in dev. build.

Thank you for your feedback.

This has been improved altogether with overall increased speedboat maneuverability. Stay tuned, I'm sure it will appear soon in the Dev build ;)

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=3663#c73674

Please let us know if that helped at least a bit. Thanks a lot!

Duplicate of more general http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=4518

Thanks! Closing it then.

Unable to reproduce. My selected difficulty remains the same even after visiting a server with a different difficulty. Could you please provide more info (if this is still valid).

All the kudos go to the engine and config guys!

(There are also some known issues with roll and X axes of head movement)

It will :)

It's coming ;)

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?149636-Development-Branch-Changelog&p=2767079&viewfull=1#post2767079

I believe this was fixed quite a long time ago. Can you, please, confirm?
Thanks a lot! We are sorry for the delayed response

This should be fixed in the next Development Branch update.
Thanks guys for helping us improve the game!