Hit "Switch optics mode".

Added attachments since this problem has not been resolved yet, but appears to be a simple config issue.

The orange circle describes the area at which the rounds impact at 1500 meters distance. At closer ranges they would obviously tighten up, and beyond 1500 meters they would stay within the orange circle (this is the max dispersion of the gun).

I hope the illustration suffices to show what I mean.

Note that this dispersion is apparently much lower than what you would find in real life. On actual helicopters, the dispersion from the guns (as seen in AH-64 footage from Afghanistan and Iraq, where the engagement distances were around 1500 - 2200 meters) would be spread across the entire field of view at max zoom level.

The ability to go up or down a hill has nothing to do with offroad capability. It doesn´t matter if you´re on a road, or off a road, you will go slow in any case.

The problem is that all terrain is treated as if it were a concrete surface.

Even Tanks cannot go full speed in typical, mediterranean terrain. Reference this:

http://youtu.be/2L8OTynmklw?t=3m44s

Notice how much the Tank is bouncing. The height of these bounces is about a wheel's diameter (2/3rds of a meter, ish). If you run over that kind of terrain at full speed, someone inside will end up with broken bones.

Mind that your crew will not be strapped down inside the vehicle under combat conditions, because they will need to move about a lot (at the very least, the loader will.).

Wheeled vehicles will need to go even slower because they will destroy their suspension and tyres.

None of you seem to have understood the problem. I repeat: "Off-road" does not mean "Slow in going up hill". It does not matter if you are going up or downhill, the problem is that the game treats -all surfaces as if they were made of concrete-.

Does this look like it is made of concrete, perfectly flat and without obstacles? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Fisini_Lemnos.jpg

You won't go across that terrain at 100 kph, like the MRAPs can do right now. Not even in a tank.

There is an FSM editor in the BI tools. Isn´t that meant to be used for generating new AI behaviour, among other things?

There are I think two NV scopes mentioned in the files you can look at inside the alpha, a normal low light scope, and a thermal scope. But both of these seem to be made for Assault rifle type applications, not sniper rifles (like the NV scope on the M110 in Operation Arrowhead, for example.)

Added: You can also effectively "reload cancel" by doing urban prone sideways (not down), and hitting "reload" right after starting to move back to "normal" prone. After the animation finishes, your empty weapon will be reloaded again, cutting reload time depending on the weapon down to about 1/2 seconds.

I find this grating as well.

I´d love for the blufor soldiers to have the appropriate pouches to fit the new 6.5 CA stanag magazines.

However, there´s more inconsistencies like this throughout the game, for example the supposedly 6.5 caseless chambered Katiba feeds from 20 round stanag magazines, that have brass rounds physically modelled inside of them, and the bolt is also identical to the 5.56 AR-15 type bolt assembly the weapon is derived from. I am not sure it would work that way.

Use the 5.56 Stanag magazines instead, which is the type of magazine the Tavor accepts in real life anyways. The labelling is mixed up currently, for some weird reason, maybe the calibers are being changed around at the moment.

I don´t agree. In many situations, the fatigue isn´t severe enough, and on flat terrain it is okay, unless excessive loads are carried, when it again isn´t severe enough.

Try to run (the A3 "jog" is really a run, not a jog) 1 km with a plate carrier, helmet, full hydration pack, rifle in the ready, pistol, ammo for both, grenades and all that other kit (going towards 30 kgs, depending) and see if you´re exhausted.

5.56 has been abandoned in favor of 6.5 caseless ammunition. 6.5 is the new standard in-universe, though not as universal as 5.56 is nowadays.

Also, the Idea of the MX is that you have multiple rifles that all use the same ammunition for greater logistical efficiency and ammo commonality inside and between Units.

I think you would react by training before conciously making any decisions. Under adrenaline I doubt you´d even notice at the first moment that you´ve been shot unless it knocks you over completely, and in a well trained soldier, muscle memory would make sure that he´d at least try to point, shoot and move before finding out that he´s been hit (and then succumbing to shock.)

But I agree, the damage modelling, along with the armour system is sub par right now, considering the scale this game is working on.

This is not a bug, but is correctly modelled for the variant shown in the game.

Picture below.

http://www.defensesecurity.eu/img/02.jpg

Right now it is the wrong way around.

The charging handle reciprocates, while the bolt does not seem to move.

Slightly overkill, nontheless containing some information of worth regarding the distances and effectiveness of NV devices. Danger: very Math heavy!

"A working formula for NV Devices quality. Preliminary Information": http://www.ips.iit.bas.bg/I_Mustakerov/CIT-2006-6(3)-85-92.pdf

"Analytical Calculation of NV Devices working range":
http://www.cit.iit.bas.bg/CIT_05/v5-2/142-155.pdf

The effects of light sources as well as the effectiveness of laser devices, and the interplay of NV devices and FLIR with the weather is also important. Arma simulates enormously complex weather and terrain situations, and increasing the difficulty through clever use of PP and Vision device simulation may be more beneficial than trying to uber the AI.

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.

What. If the action is identical, and just the chassis and barrel are different, why should it not be fully automatic too? The fire control group is identical, the markings on the ejection port are identical, and the gas system from what we can see also seems to be identical: the only one that is visually different is that of the MXSW, which is full auto only.

I´d rather have a full auto mode on the gun than not, also since the EBR has this ability too.

The reload animation could use some love too. The magazine isn't even synced up with the hands.

Almost confused this with a gameplay issue.

Yeah, the bolt closes too slowly on those rifles.

When the gun is empty, the bolt locks back, but when hitting reload it snaps forward and slowly sneaks to the back while the magazine is already out, at least on the MX.

Minor but visually annoying issue.

This was something I was thinking about too, nice to see the suggestion here. Upvoted.

Just because ACE has it doesn´t mean it works.

The AI in ACE frequently kills each other with backblast, sometimes in groups.

I´d rather just have a strong visual effect when standing in a backblast area, maybe a knockdown using the new ragdoll, but no kill effect.

I can confirm this occuring every time I play at night. It can only be fixed by switching nighvision on and off again, or restarting the mission at daytime.

I have the stable version running.

I have seen that other suggestion, and I like it. Both that and my solution make some sense, however my suggestion is also concerned with attempting to make AI spotting at distances more realistic.

That is why I made a seperate ticket.

Updated with a screenshot for immediate illustrative purposes.

Arma is completely neutral about the Issue. "This is War" is to be taken merely on its own, not as a statement, in regards to what happens in most Arma missions: Warfare.

If you want to ban a sentence, go ahead, but I am against self censorship of any kind. People are getting upset with war? Maybe work on the actual issue, and don´t try to ban bad words and sentences because you don´t want to put effort into fixing the issue.

I think Arma is a cultural phenomenon. Not Arma celebrates war, society does, in a fashion. This is just a product of this fascination, even more so than the common shooter, because this is a game where people have the explicit choice NOT to depict warfare.

Yet they do. And if you have a problem with your own fascination with it being taken badly by people paying attention to the game (which is the underlying message of your request) maybe you should look into your own perception of this kind of game, and wether or not you feel right to play something like this.

Thinking way too deep here: tl;dr, if you don´t like it, don´t support it. Rant, out.

http://almost-spooky.tumblr.com/post/64525799436/so-a-couple-of-weeks-ago-i-bought-one-of-ar500

Interesting test. These aren't ceramic but steel armor plates, so may be rather heavy. They stopped everything up to and including 5.56 and only after 30+ rounds could they produce a penetration.

Bodyarmor, especially with modern technology, is a lifesaver. I wouldn't be surprised if most casualties in modern warfare result from hits that completely missed the armor. These plates are nearly impervious to anything but battle rifle calibers. Still would need some kind of knockdown, though...

5 hits to kill would be irrelevant with my suggested system anyway, since the bullets would use native penetration, and they either get through or they don't, and if they get through, they do as much damage as they carry after penetrating the vest. If the vest is sufficiently damaged, it becomes "transparent" as far as weapons are concerned, so while it may save you once or twice (provided you get actually hit in the plates, and not somewhere else), it will not last forever.

Added my simulator picture for fire geometry on vests. Colored areas should have their own rvmats and use native penetration, if the round penetrates the vest, fire geometry of soldier is below.

Vests should also have hitpoints so after a certain amount of hits, they will become totally ineffective. Damage textures for vests would be great too.

Instead of modifying damage to the soldier config wise, this appears to me as a more simple method. Why overcomplicate things by modifying the configuration with the vest, rather than using the penetration system the engine already provides?

Legend:

RED: Ballistic plate inserts (Rifle grade plate)
Blue: Ballistic soft inserts (shrapnel/pistol grade kevlar)
Green: Vest-mounted equipment, radios, magazines, etc

I think to properly evaluate how effective body armour is, there needs to be a concise and as complete as possible (and also unbiased and controlled) documentation on what bodyarmour can do.

There are videos on youtube of .45 caliber bullets fired from 1911's and similar pistols bouncing off PASGT helmets, while even small rifle bullets went clean through.

There seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread about what armour can and cannot do for you. This is a complex issue, and I think it would be worth being simulated in Arma. However, simply by stating opinion, nobody proves nothing. The only relevant proof is external documentation, that could technically be repeated.

An example for how this may look here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkVMSj6scxE
Test of military rated armour plate versus various types of calibers and ammunition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq6LOvTaMyU
Test of a 1980s-90s PASGT personal Vest.

scholar.google.com may also possibly provide links to at least useful abstracts.

This just as a suggestion and food for thought, because while I support the notion of working bodyarmour, I don´t think anybody right now really knows how it works under battlefield conditions and how effective it is. And I doubt anybody here has experience in repeatedly getting shot by military rifles while wearing bodyarmour and surviving getting hit.

Edit: I also doubt modern helmets can stop 7.62 rounds. They make a hit survivable, but that is not the same as stopping it. And a man down and unconcious from being hit in the head by a PKM round, or a man down and dead is the same to the game engine, since simulating somebody taking 30 minutes to wake up only to dabble about not knowing who or where he is seems a little over the top, if you pardon my tone.

There should be a definitive line between "can get up" and "can´t get up". What kind of "can´t get up" it is doesn´t really matter, or does it?

http://pastebin.com/SDB8vpT4

Sorry, just got the chance to look here today. I uploaded the DXDiag at pastebin, everyone with link has access, it does not expire.

The vehicles are okay on inclines.

They are weightless though and enable especially the AI to drive too aggressively, resulting in them to wreck them. So that part is upvoted, but please, no warp 9 trucks going up 45° slopes.

This is actually pretty important. This should include missile FCS, though, for example the Titan and other guided missiles.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8785

Problem already described in detail here, no reply though. I went into much more detail as far as lasers work to give a rough Idea of how the simulation of them should look.

Upvoted, but I doubt we´ll ever see this. It does not work with the current AI, never has, and never will. The best we have right now is the modules that automatically spawn Units inside buildings. But that´s about as good as it´ll get, I´m afraid.

Though, I´d rather hope for a pleasant surprise later.

The Zoom on these actually seems to be more than 4x just by the looks of it. You sure they are correct? The field of view and magnification seem awfully close to the high, rather than the low end of the scale...

Edit: Plus, I have observed engagements at ~800m and up to 1200m by the AI, so maybe these excessive zooms are deliberate? (note, these engagements were with rifles only, often not even scoped but with red dots)

Edit: Also, why the hell is this a "major" issue?

If anything, this is purely aesthetic, which is entirely subjective anyway. As I said, the core of the flashes being the way they are is because they are a conciously created gameplay element. "It is unrealistic" is a non argument in this case because the realism is not the primary point of this tool.

It is to increase the ease of spotting enemies firing at you, and making it easier for your enemy to spot you, in twilight and night scenarios. If you want this to go back to "no flashes at all, sir.", how do you bring back this elementary gameplay tool?

It is important because if Arma ever wants to produce a lively PVP community running on vanilla content, you need to have some sort of indicators that help you spotting from where you are being shot at (unless the mission designers wants to avoid that specifically, then he adds suppressors or flash hiders) without resorting to HUD elements.

If you have any suggestion as to how to enable this balancing aid without using HUD or prominent muzzle flashes, it´d be interesting to hear.

I also add that the size of the flashes varies greatly from weapon to weapon, for example the intervention rifle has neglible muzzle flash, compared to the MX, while the Tavor and the M200 are somewhere in the middle.

The illumination is too long lasting, but the flash itself is alright. This is a gameplay decision, and the reason for the flash suppressor attachments for the weapons. You want less flash, you put on a suppressor, and deal with the increased weight and bulk.

Nobody complained about the massive muzzleflashes back when OFP was released, then everybody complained about the static or nonexistent flashes in Arma 1+2, and now that the animated big flashes are back, people still complain?

It is a game, and the muzzleflashes are as much an aesthetic decision as a gameplay balancing one.

Movement is too quick, that´s deliberate: You overdo things and then scale back. Moving and shooting was terrible in all previous iterations. The inventory system was terrible. The AI wasn´t up to scratch.

Just because you can suddenly move, instead of hobbling around like a sedated brick on wheels doesn´t mean the series is getting Arcade-y.

Sorry, wasn´t supposed to be a "major" issue. :I Accidentially put in the wrong option in the drop down menu.

I apologize

I should´ve paid attention, the 3 round magazine for the 3GL is ingame.

It would be good to at least have the grenadiers use these, instead of single grenades, as a suggestion.

I do know that the XPS2 sight is being made with a 6.8 grendel reticle,where the center dot is the holdover for normal ammo at the dialed range (I think a 25 m zero for 250 meters point of aim = point of impact) and the lower dot is the same range but with subsonic ammunition.

I´ve not tested this, but the dot is correct for this sight. What it specifically is tuned for would either need to be told to us by BIS, or tested out.

I will do spotting tests as part of my AI investigation program thing.

What I´ve already found though is that accuracy isn´t just a factor of AI skill, when you set AI skill to manageable levels it´s also a matter of performance. I find I have a -much- easier time surviving when my fps are bad.

One thing the AI is too good at is spotting the player when they´ve fired. Firefights usually involve individual AI sniping individual AI, making the suppression mechanic useless because they hit with the first burst anyways. Same for the player, who actually -can- get suppressed because they can actually move in and out of cover quickly, which the AI can´t do.

As for the tests, I will have more time from next week on, so watch on the forums. I encourage people to provide their own tests, or try the ones I came up with. Point of the whole exercise is to figure out what is possible irl, and then carrying that over into the game. Not opinions, testing and evidence based conclusions need to be the order of the day.

This is not a bug. If anything, them throwing grenades -is- a bug while in this mode. At careless, they are supposed to not care.

Added another forum link. Also updated First post information with current status as far as I can see.

tick tock tick tock we are running out of tiiiimmmeee

I guess this is definitvely not going to be addressed?

Apparently, they can only accept attachments in their own configuration files. So no, vanilla weapons appear to not be able to accept any community attachments at this point.

Not without hacking/modifying their configuration files, at least, which opens a whole host of other problems.

The system is indeed too permissive, and I am not even sure it is fully implemented yet.

Running around with 80lbs of gear and plates on you will not only tire you after 100, it will tire you after sprinting 10 meters.

There should be a temporary "panic boost" lasting one or two seconds after a bullet impacts close enough to cause suppression, otherwise, fatigue should be scaled much more heavily for loaded down soldiers.

I believe the factor is something like weight x 2 results in four times as heavy a strain on the body, modified by the weight bearing equipment (good or bad) and the condition of the terrain, weather as well as the bearer.

This system should be one of -the- focal points of Arma 3s infantry combat design.

Tested with mortar, ranges 1 to 2 kilometers, dispersion had a radius of about 40 - 50 meters. The dispersion given in the artillery computer apparently gives the diameter of the beaten zone, not the radius.

I then tested the 155mm gun at 5 and 15 kilometers. Former gave about 50 meters dispersion (radius), latter about 75 meters dispersion. I tested three round salvoes each time.

Updated with a screenshot for immediate illustrative purposes.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11075

Have a ticket here with some rough suggestions to make these launchers more interesting, including simulating disposeables.

They are way too accurate right now.

I had no problems getting lots of kills with the Alpha dispersion.

Now you need to be a sniper to kill anything

Recoil is fine. Just be snappier with your mouse. If anything, it just needs to be tuned down slightly. Problem is enemies appear to be not as badly affected by it as players (better recoil management than A2?)

http://imgur.com/gallery/0m8JfqQ

Afghani Air force now has female pilots, role irrelevant.

Female soldiers should at least be available as an option, damn political correctness or lack of it.

They will heat themselves up to and beyond the temperature of the environment, depending on the temperature. In certain situations they will actually hide from the sun to prevent overheating (then they will be colder than the ground).

Reptiles are complicated to simulate for thermals because their appearance is very dynamic.

The GMG simply cannot reach that far, so the system defaults to 100 meters when selecting the 1500 m setting.

I would rather like this system to be replaced with proper laser rangefinders anyway. This is archaic, WW1 style ranging, as far as vehicles are concerned, and is especially impossible with the crosshairs of the RCWS, which does not have stadia lines.

Why is this the most voted on thing on this tracker when there are so many more gamebreaking issues like the press-A-to-win Missiles, simplistic Fire control in Vehicles, still rough AI and animation/model/design problems all over the place still?

I do not think this is an issue. FLIR in real life will have trouble under certain conditions to resolve images, which is a condition that insurgents in Afghanistan have been known to make use of, trying to move at times when it is less likely that thermal vision equipment of the coalition works.

FLIR is not magic, in fact, it should probably be nerfed a little bit more, according to environmental conditions and irl limitations of the equipment.