Watch the video, it's so it can attack a target easier without complex maneuvers like other attack helicopters. It's part of the helicopter design to be able to do so.

Why is this downvoted? This is something the real Comanche is designed to do!

Why not have a take weapons control option too?

Does anybody read? The screens and interiors of the pilot and gunner are still in the process of being switched around. The names of the vehicles are ONLY different because they aren't as big as a company as EA and dn't have endless funds to throw at lawyers to fight against the manufactures to be able to use the real names. http://www.gamespot.com/news/ea-pulls-out-of-licensing-deals-with-arms-manufacturers-6408078
It costs money to get a license to use the weapons and vehicles names. How much money? We don't know but if EA is trying to stop paying then I guess its a decent amount.

Yea weird, always thought it was flat!

It is the RAH-66, but in game it has a different name so BIS doesn't get sued by the vehicles manufacture. EA is already being sued for using weapons in their games with the real names, BIS wants to avoid legal problems. BIS probably got the go ahead from the manufacture of the HEMTT to use its name.

Why must you freak out? Seriously calm down, this was specified in the development Changelog:
"Crew of AH-99 is now trained to get in proper seats (some model changes to reflect this pending)"

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?149636-Beta-Development-branch-changelog/page10

BIS said they are still working on switch the cockpit textures for pilot and gunner.

BIS said they are pending changes in the inside model of the cockpit, but adding the take control option for each seat to take control of the others would be nice.

This has been resolved for now, in the latest dev build the seats were switched.

I did edit the title...

I messaging Dwarden regarding the ticket being changed slightly.

Hopefully since this ticket is already reviewed but I changed it slightly to accurately reflect our finding in the matter, the devs will take another look at it.

But as I was saying the current AI would not prevent this important issue from being resolved.

We have got BIS in the past to acually fix/ make more realistic like AI only shooting a sniper at you inside an 800m circle but now they fixed it so they can engage you at the same ranges you would engage them.

The only Comanche aircraft built had the ability to both pilot or be the gunner in both seats.

I doubt AI problems would stop this feature from being implemented because functionality for this already exists for when flying with AI

For people who enjoy the AH-99 this is a must for making it more realistic.

So from what information there is, it appears both seats have full pilot and full gunner functionality.

Already been reviewed! Though why does it not have a priority? This is quite the bug for the Comanche?

The Chinese are making a Coil-Gun tank as we speak.

I have made a Coil-Gun myself so don't tell me it costs too much or is not realistic.

I love Arma for being realistic as well but I can't understand why you have the need to "defend" Arma 3 from a realistic rail-gun concept that is likely already in prototype form in some top secret testing facility.

Though I would think that the tank appears to be using a Coil gun system which small compact version exist.

The actual rail gun size on the tank is already made and works well, this tank is not a future tank but current technology applied to a tracked vehicle.

Do you mean counter measures or that you put smoke gernade or round into the vehicle and it fires them?

If you turn to quick, it will drift more.
What we need to do first is fix the fact that the propellers are 2d drawn on and do not move at all.

The ticket you made directly contradicts the real life Comanche helicopter.

Watch this before you vote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0R1ISQAmqk
It explains the Comanche's ability to lock on in seconds then fire the missle and go back down to hiding again. It also explains the Comanche's radar which is realistic. :)

The majority of the community want realism, so aim for realism rather than making it less realistic to try to make it more challenging/ fun.

If you don't spawn in a diver, then yes this happens.

The AH-99 was designed as a scout helicopter with CAS abilities and not a actual attack helicopter like the Mi series.

Closed as it is a duplicate.

I agree, listen to the experts on this issue.

Unless the missle hits in such a way the rotors would be destroyed (even then the remaining parts of the rotors would spin), the rotors should spin for autorotation.

AA shouldn't damage every part of the helicopter as a single rocket.

What of they also add engine1 and engine2 like tracked vehicles have track1 and track2.

Making like the MGS mod doesn't seem like the most realistic approach, it's a mod for a reason so that people who want that can have it.

Have you tried the dev build? Autorotation was fixed.

Right now when a missle hits, the chopper which still looks intact plummets to the ground.

Also would the helicopter have a system to disconnect the rotors from the engine so the engine does not stop the rotors from spinning in an emergency?

Helicopter have reverse rotation which makes the safer than planes when disabled.

I could see disabling channels causing issues with people note being able to understand others. While some people abuse chat, it can be quite useful. If such a feature was added, it would have to be able to be disabled by servers.

Not a glitch, the vehicle itself is designed that way so when you release divers, a huge air bubble doesn't give you away.

Divers are missing the googles?

I don't understand why you are so apposed to this idea, not even constructive posts?

I wouldn't want to give the developers a heart attack... :)

Or of the enemy had a metal storm weapons system, just get out the tank and surrender no questions asked.

Lol, that's why you give up when you know metal storm is watching.

Idk why you think this makes the tank invincible, may weapons systems are designed to deal with this type of defense.

Like I said, there are many weapons that can get around this.

I don't think it would help much in urban areas as the rcokets would come to close too soon and I believe it has limited ammo?

The RPG-30 can get past the trophy system, so the "Trench Coat" system was designed as a separate system. But even the "Trench Coat can be evaded as it only works in close range and has limited ammo.

Upvoted but this is likely a duplicate because this issue was in the dev build for a while.

I tested this in the latest development build and I can confirm that this ticket is valid.

The 9mm is place holder, and was confirmed so by the devs, this weapons is still work in progress.
Also why is this listed under balance, rather than a bug or something like that?

Arma does not and should neve need artificial drawbacks for balancing ever.

I really hope we don't get a C-130 and instead we get a C-17 or some modern aircraft.

The TAB problem is separate from what you think about radar, they need to be separate tickets.
The TAB problem should be about making the lock on system more realistic.

You shouldn't combine all of these topics together as well, if someone disagrees withd one they will not vote for this feedback ticket.

No need to rage, because people have different opinions than you...

If Arma 3 is using 3rd generation MANPADS, countermeasures will only allow the missle and easier lock, with most antimanpad systems.

If you just had the TAB thing you would get many more votes...

If you don't like the current system kju makes pvp scene for pvp players. Check it out.

The problem was with the target acquisition though TAB. If you though this page of the thread: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?157390-helicopters-to-overpowered-with-this-radar/page5 you will see how you can have radar on and vehicle pretty much.

Why would a heli contain a crappy radar system when they could have a much better radar system that transmits its data to the heli?

Make the flare part a separate feedback post only if such a thing exists in real life.

Please check out my ticket as it more accurately describes this issue and others related: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8468

My ticket deals with helicopters not interacting releastically with water, your ticket is a duplicate of mine.

oukej, what issues would occur with allowing the player to have manual control over an aircrafts gear? Just curious because past Arma games and TOH had the ability for the player to control gear.

Just realized fixed wing aircraft like the Greyhawk have manual gear.

Why did we have automatic gear to begin with? This is a must for the full game.

All aircraft with gears should be manual, and have breaks that you can acess using the scroll menu when your gear is down.

Th back ramp will likely come, when moving vehicle doors come back. Until then, it will not happen. Moving door were removed in the beta so that they could be be fixed up as they had many bugs.
Until then, a script can open vehicle doors and may be able to open the back door of the CH-49/ Merlin.

I know the Blackfoot/ comanche has weapon controls for the pilot in real life, but what of the Mi and Ka aircraft?

I upvote for realism, not balancing.

Can anyone else confirm this is not resolved?

Looks like BIS is listening! http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=13971

The ticket is about raising the water level, flooding areas, creating ponds, lakes, and tides. But possibly doing it the way Arma 2 ACR did which did not include moving water.

10 fps? This ticket is not about moving water. That could come at a later date.

The ticket would include that.

Yea, I was thinking about an idea like, Arma is also a sandbox game after all. But I tried to use more realistic suggestions in the ticket because the majority of the community prefers realism.

I mistakenly put 40m when it was incorrect.

Well I am in a location were you walk down a staircase to get onto the beach when the tide is out and when it comes in, it goes up 54.6ft or 16.8 meters.

Right now I am in a place were the tides rise and fall 40 meters! Imagine something like this in Arma 3!

It may not be realistic for the mediterranean, but the bay of Fundy were I am on vacation at has 40m tides and that would be pretty awesome to play around with in Arma 3 though not that realistic, but it's a sandbox game!

I've shown it's possible, and it's supported by the engine. Hopefully it's reviewed soon.

But it has the Arma 2 water textures and do not look good at night with street lights.

Imagine having to worry about tides with landing craft and large boats. Or parking vehicles close to the ocean!

Did some messing around with AiA and kind of got the Arma 2 ACR flooding working in Arma 3 but with glitches.

Yea, imagine boating down the streets of Agia Marina with waves and the lights flickering at night!

Sure! Arma is about making the game your own!

Rescue missions, racing missions, flying missions, boating missions, survival missions, and diving missions would all be possible with this and more!

Imagine a mission were a script makes the water kill you, and also makes it rise slowly. You would have to fight people for the highest ground areas to survive while others would get trapped on lower areas and wait to drown watching you surviving!

Would you say this ticket is well written?

Yea, and depending the time of year, the lake on Atlis could or could not be connected to the ocean as well.

If flooding is implemented, we could then have tides that are controlled by the time you set like the moon and light level is.

Atlis has a dry lake, meaning it's connected to the ocean at times and other times at not, Atlis would have areas for water to be not connected to the ocean as Atlis has flat wide open farmland and such.

Depends if the flood water is connected to the ocean or not.