tarciop, very good idea!

please read carefully. two menus in theory. in the game it would feel like one menu for the abstract and self actions and one context-sensitive "use" button.
so more like one menu for abstarct stuff and one button to interact with gameworld.

"I also think the squad commanding UI should be improved."

I agree. Someone should make a ticket for it!

this idea could of course be combined with other ideas, like radial menus.
but i think it is critical to distinguish between contextual actions and abstract actions.

even if you have very cool designed radial menu, actions like opening a door or entering a vehicle should only be one click, or two fast clicks.

you would still have the "self" or abstract action menu for all the dirty, quick action like we have now.

only contextual actions would be seperated into new menu.

and additionaly the little improvments i talk about at the end. (more key-bindings, precizse but "lazy" contextual actions)

it is not significantly different from the current system but should play much faster and less clunky. just better :)

please feel free to contribute here:
http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?158384-The-community-s-definite-suggestion-for-better-heli-immersion-and-guided-weapon-FCS

please also see
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10323

well, in reality you could have a look at your magazine or try to guess from the weight of it.
ace-mod did it quite well. instead of having a bullet count you could press a button and there was a icon telling you if the magazine felt "light", "medium", or "heavy".

but i definitely agree, that the HUD of vehicles, or the HUD in pilots-helmets should have all the information you need, so that we could finally get rid of the white arma-style hud and only use the proper HUD of the vehicles / pilot-helmets.

same for guided man-portable missiles. no white arma-hud. only a well designed hud from the item itself.

please also consider this ticket for better UI/HUD in vehicles especially the APCs
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10884

wolfstriked, perhaps you could add the general request to make the driver and gunner view not only more functional but also visually more appealing.

another suggestion:

underneath the main "window" you could have another monitor for gps and if enabled in video options a monitor for rear-view camera (pip) and a third monitor showing gunner's view (pip).
AA-vehicles could also have a little monitor with a working air-radar or something...

most importantly have some good graphic-artist make it look splendid! currently many arma GUIs look still look a bit dated.

of course the best solution would be a interactive-interior like light vehicle have, but the dev have already said, it would not come for apc and heavy armor.

as substitution i would request at least a more sophisticated solution than what we have at the moment. in addition to some more hud-elements, some form of rear-camera would be nice. i also like the idea of having it constantly as a pip element. (can be disabled in the option)

additionaly it would be cool to have some form of free-look. or a way to shift the view to the left and right to get a better feeling for the surrounding.

the game battlefield 3 made the view from the vehicle visually appealing through some pp-effects, if i remember correctly. can't find pictures, but i remember it looked somehow "cool" and they also had no modeled interiors for apc and tanks.

related:
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10884

i think the gps is a very realistic expectation, as it should not be much work to implement.

by the way, many of us do still hope, that the other mfd will get functional. for example with working radar or some kind of working fcs (fire control).

but still mfd could be switched by click of a button to show gps. so still a very good idea!

*edit* other ideas for more immersive and realistic heli-flying:
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10323

it would NOT decrease fps. it is somehow pip, but it is not "render-to-texture". render-to-texture is what decreases fps.

small but cool feature. upvoted!

perhaps just make special para-trooper chest-rig that has more space. this would be cool, because you could distinguish a paratrooper from a regular soldier even if he is not carrying his chute.

upvoted!

another suggestion would be to have another kind of parachute, that is a combination of parachute and backpack.
this would be easier to implement perhaps.

upvoted!

i would also like to see 2-player coop firing drills.
something like you suggested would be functional for co-op, as the drills we have now are to tight and to "fast" to make use of cooperative play.

so, nice idea, but there are literally hundreds of more important things to add and improve at this stage!

JohnnieConcrete, i think i speak for everyone here, when i say, that i don't know what the hell you are talking about!
yes, you can remap the controls in arma. what has that to do, with the ticket?
may it be, that you just did not read the ticket?

@doveman: please see the detailed suggestions in the link: render-to-texture would be beneficial, but you could still use "toggle optics" to get the flir/tv in full screen. so everything would still work even when render-to-texture is disabled.

i updated "Various improvments" in the forum front page with cargo weight and counter-measures simulation.

o.k. when i update next time, i will Incorporate the suggestion to add effects of weight and weight distribution, as well as more sophisticated countermeasure behavior (see forum thread).
i think especially the weight thing should be lower priority though. definitely nice to have, but other things are more important. i hope you agree.

thanks for the feedback. check back soon!

thanks for the positive feedback!

@captainwacky: you are right with your first point. the ticket has this issue covered indirectly:
see point 4. "various improvments":
"Unguided weaponry should be controlled by the pilot and / or the possibilities of sharing workload between pilot and gunner should be further improved, so that control over individual weapons systems can be shared."
with this either the pilot itself would fire the unguided rockets, or the gunner could take over flight controls to aim and fire unguided rockets.
concerning the "ghost hawk" this is an AI problem and i don't want to cover it here. in previous arma titles behavior of such helicopters was already better, so i guess we will still see improvments here. alternatively try the "loiter" waypoint. this should force the helicopter to circle around a area. did not test it myself though.

your second point is partly covered. should the whole "magic radar" aspects be reworked, AI would have to use their "normal" senses to identify targets and would loose their magic spotting abilities. the aspect of engaging at will is an AI issue again. that is simply how the arma AI works at the moment. it is very aggressive and attacks everything it sees. AI would definitely need some ROE (rules of engagements). you could however use scripting to stop undesired behavior of AI in your missions.

atm i can't really say anything to your third point. i check this out, the next time, i start arma. if it is that bad, i would assume it is still WIP, but i will give it a try.
*edit* oh, i just read the above post: it is already fixed! thx for the info, nod!

added weight for cargo helicopters is a very good idea. i would like to hear some more feedback, if this is indeed realistic, but common sense tells me, that their should be noticeable differences.
feedback please:)

o.k. so now we have magic missiles that are active-radar-homing and can also be manually guided. that is a bit strange. let's hope that is not final, but just the devs starting to work and experimenting with missile guidance.

to clarify:

active (radar) homing: fire and forget. missile tracks target by itself.
semi active (laser) homing: missile locks on laser designation. (helicopters own laser target or laser by fac/jtac)
beam riding: missile tries to stay in a beam or "path" that is projected from the aircraft. the beam is manually targeted by the gunner.

why would someone vote this ticket down?
guys, if you don't like aspects of the suggested changes, leave your feedback please!

what do you mean with laser-guided? "lock" on laser designation (laser homing), or manual guidance by the gunner (beam-riding)?
i can't test it myself right now.

@suizideking:
yes, either automatically querying, or you could think of it as a combination of GPS and "link16", where positions of friendly units are constantly updated via datalink and then combined with the sensor readouts of the radar.
to be honest, i don't really care, because for armas future scenario there are so many "realistic" (thinkable) possibilities. even today it would be hard to say, what would be the "realistic" version, because every complex system could be jammed or disturbed by a high-tech enemy (electronic warfare). then there would be back-up systems. perhaps these could get jammed to. arma can't model everything, so at some point one would have to decide, what would be most beneficial for gameplay and how difficult is it to implement.

i don't think this is the right place to discuss such complex matter.

but feel free to post your suggestion in the thread at the forum:
http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?158384-The-community-s-definite-suggestion-for-better-heli-immersion-and-guided-weapon-FCS&p=2431793#post2431793
if other's like your idea, i will somehow incorperate this into the front post / ticket.

@SuicideKing
personally i think in armas 2035 scenario your suggestion would be a bit to oldschool from a realism-aspect. even today there are systems like link16, which give decent awareness of friendly movement and even hostile movement, if the hostile target is somehow tracked by a unit with appropriate capabilities.
so, i think IFF for friendlies could be automatic. for hostiles on the other hand no IFF at all (with exceptions) as stated in the ticket.

i rewrote the ticket. the basic ideas and suggestion should be the same.
Feel free to discuss things you don't like or things you would like to see added in the forum.
http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?158384-The-community-s-definite-suggestion-for-better-heli-immersion-and-guided-weapon-FCS

falconx1, please read the ticket carefully. you could still press tab for calling targets. only that you would need to "lock" on that target before firing.
please read this: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?158384-The-community-s-definite-suggestion-for-better-heli-immersion-and-guided-weapon-FCS

also feel free to give feedback in the thread.

have a look here please.
http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?158384-The-community-s-definite-suggestion-for-better-heli-immersion-and-guided-weapon-FCS

i'm going to incorperate the thread into this ticket soon. please feel free to criticize and give feedback in the forum!

my hopes are still high :P

don't get me wrong. i'm a big fan of ace:)

if i remember correctly, the implementation of heli FCS in ace was realistic and good, but the way you changed the attack profile of the hellfire for example was a bit "complicated" because it didn't use the buttons you were used from arma vanilla but had it's own system on top of it. (with this mfds that would pop up)
i guess it was the best they could do and it was far from bad!
let's not discuss ace here. ace was good:)

let's focus on a proper FCS with nice HUD right out of the arma 3 vanilla box;)

no. ace-mod did not manage to have functional cockpit, proper HUD and the system was not compatible with AI gunner. some aspects of the mods made the control scheme of arma even more clunky.

to clarify: i really appreciate the great efforts of the talented people behind ace and other great mods like mando-missile, but a proper implementation is what we need!

imagine what the modders could do, if there was a basic implementation of HUD, functional cockpit and proper FCS. they could push the system to hyper-realism, if they wanted, while still maintaining appealing GUI and control schemes;)

of course, "autonomous" missiles could also be used in arma 3.
it is just that in reality nearly all heli-based atgms are semi-active. still missiles with radar transceivers would be possible, yes!

even i and many others refer to the problem of easy target acquisition as "tab lock issue" i want to make clear again, that pressing tab to toggle through targets is not the problem!

tab to toggle targets and some form of target overview a.k.a. "radar" a.k.a. "link16" is a good way of calling targets for your human or AI gunner. the main problem of current implementation is, that "calling" a target and locking the target is more or less the same thing, because there is nor real "locking". it is just choosing the target and firing away. in reality and even in every other flightsim - be it hardcore sim or arcade sim - you would need some sort of firing solution, requiring the sighting devices of the craft and/or the missile being aimed a the target and waiting for the computer fcs-systems to give some sort of confirmation for lock.
and that is only for autonomous missiles. manual or semi active missiles would require the gunner to manually direct the misisile to target in some way. of course before firing a semi-active missile the pilot could use tab to "call" the target for ai or human gunner.

fraczek, you made soem good points.

The old ofp-style radar-view could be useful for "communicating" with an AI-Gunner. The limited IFF and perhaps less frequent updates are good considerations also.

For me it would be very important that assigning a target to your gunner and locking the target isn't the same thing, as it is now. More or less...

I could imagine using some sort of stripped down ofp-style radar without or with limited IFF and limited refresh to call out targets for the gunner.

But archiving lock on target would be another thing. Consider that locking targets is only possible within a certain degree in front of the helicopter and would take some time. perhaps only some milliseconds.
Of course semi-active missiles would not need lock-on, but would be guided by gunner.

*edit* yes, i'm also quite sure, that radar on the actual mfd in the cockpit could be done without pip. well it would be some kind of pip, but not render-to-texture.

i didn't think of that. good idea with the helmets.

@Byku: Yes, that would make sense.

We start to get into the little Details now, but there is nothing wrong with it, i guess.

I would just like to highlight a part of the ticket, that hasn't been discussed much:
The proper HUD-implementation. I think that is very important. At the moment it feels like you communicate with the "game", because this white osd is a game overlay. If you would transfer the target acquisition and locking on target to the simulated HUD of the helicopter itself it would be much more realistic and immersive immediately.
In this regard (and ONLY in this regard!!!) even the battlefield series, has a more "authentic" feel to the helicopters:
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111230015259/battlefield/images/thumb/2/20/Battlefield-3-cobra-4.jpg/640px-Battlefield-3-cobra-4.jpg

*edit* also imagine how cool (and realistic) it would be using the pip-feature for target identification, like in reality. On the HUD you would have just a green marker around the potential target without any info about unit type.
Your screen in the cockpit would then show a life-video-feed of the helicopters targeting-system (for example: FLIR), basically giving you a zoomed-in view of the target.

Indeed modern and probably future attack helicopters have many sophisticated computer systems that help the crew in a significant way and make many tasks relatively easy!

For those who might fear the idea behind this ticket is to make target acquisition in arma more complex than it would be in real life, fear not!
there could definitely be targeting systems and corresponding weapon system , that would allow you cycling through targets by a push of a button and engaging by the push of another one.

still - and that is important - it would still be different from the current implementation in arma. please read the ticket carefully - it is NOT about making things unrealistic difficult for gameplay or balance!
the main idea behind the ticket is to make arma more realistic and immersive. i also tried to explain, that this added realism could in fact help with gameplay and balance.

helicopters and jets would still be kings and queens of the modern battlefield.

Mulle, do you really think the engineers of military high technology are that stupid? The laser is coded of course! There are many ways of ciphering an visual signal. Easiest way would be pulsing.
So of course the missile will follow the laser, it is programmed to follow.

Of course there are counter-technologies. But because the laser is coded, you would need to decipher the code or use brute force. I'm not sure, but i think variants of the T-80 tank have a system that "blinds" weapons systems by extremely big amounts of infrared-light emitted from two special flood lights.

So every system has advantages and disadvantages. Of course you can't simulate every aspect of atgm, counter-atgm-systems and electronic warfare. In the end the devs have to decide how far they want to go in the simulation to strike good gameplay balance.

No offense, but if you really know so little about the topic, just ask me or other people on the forum who have decent knowledge about the subject.
Unfortunately there are no explanatory videos on youtube, so the best source would be wikipedia, if you want to learn about this technology by yourself.

progamer, the link you provided is nothing more than an advertisment for the commanche project, which is - by the way - cancelled since years.

no offense, but you simply don't seem to know much about military technology or technology in general. in arma 3 the "commanche" is equipped with DAGR. these missiles don't lock on. they are laser homing.

i don't even know where to start, i don't know what you do not understand. please read the wikipedia articles about the technology. don't watch silly infomercials.
but yes, spotting, identifying and attacking a target with modern atgms and sighting devices is a fast and relatively easy process.
i guess in your stupid video the are referring to the AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire, which ironically is not as straight forward to fire as more simple missiles.
well, and as mentioned before the arma version of the commance is equipped with the DAGR, which is not unrealistic because it is a very modern / near futuristic weapon. and as i said a thousand times. it is SALH!!!!! semi (!) activ. it needs guidance during the flight. the guidance can be done by the gunner of the helicopter or another unit, for example a jtac with laser-marker.

Mulle, i and probably every other thinking man, don't know what you mean. Please explain your thoughts. Thank you.

As far as i know the "AGM-114L" is the only atgm in service today that tracks the target autonomously. This thing is complex, expensive and needs proper programming before launch. All other AGM-114-Variants and all other Helicopter-launched atgms in service today and development are manual or semic-active, which means, that they need guidance or are laser homing.

If i've forgotten some type of missile please feel free to correct me.

as mentioned above, i would also like a super realistic system. but it is unrealistic to expect something like in dcs or similar simulators.
if the devs decide to do something about the current fcs, then it can only get more realistic and better!

but please feel free to use this place to discuss how much realism you want and what you would feel be realistic in 2035.

as mentioned before: if the devs had unlimited resources i, mostly playing coop and singleplayer, would go "full realism". but i guess some compromise have to be made.

changed it. feel free to give more feedback.

Corrected some typos. Please excuse my english!

i think this is already "fixed" on dev branch.

i think it is reasonable to think that the big version could fire the large AA-missiles as well as the smaller AT and HE missiles, while the compact variant could only fire the shorter missiles.

This would be logical from a realism point of view. gameplay and balancing wise this could always be tweaked by the mission maker in many ways. consider that there is also a dedicated non-guided at-launcher, which gives the titan some special weapon status in either way.

i did not vote, because i don't want to argue with the pvp-people;)

be nice!

please see this ticket for the whole package:

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10323

i did not check it myself, but yes, if the gunner has flight control, he should have the possibility to use "auto-hover".
should be added!

calm down, man!

but concerning the issue you are right of course. marker lights have to be switchable. currently they are always on. this is obviously not intended and should be fixed!

<i>"This thread was about yow the lights are not turn-on able. If you want the lights to be able to be turned off, make another post."</i>
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the stupiest thing, i've ever read on the internet!

*edit* ok. listen: this is obviously a bug. there is no need to open another ticket. please just add to the description, that the lights should be toggable. having them always on is just wrong.

upvoted!

i will just quote Byku's comment:
"Or make it even more realistic :P(like someone said - infra-red guided missiles - only launch is detected - radar guided - locking also).
Furthermore dumping flares would have to interrupt ir locking mechanism! EVEN BF has that!"

also feel free to vote here for better FCS:
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10323

@Raahk: At the moment interiors for APCs and Tanks are definitely <b>not planned</b>. That was stated at this years e3 by arma 3 project lead.

This ticket is our only hope!
Let's vote it up and spread the word!

yes. come on every single person. upvote that thing!

when you watch videos about arma 3, it's funny that all the youtubers take it for granted, that the current implementation is only a placeholder for proper interiors or proper GUI to come at a later stage.
tragic, but true: it is not!

what do you mean with forbidden, samogon?

sorry.
but i only link to another ticket (also to other people's ticket by the way), when i think that they are related somehow. i will be a bit more cautious in the future though!

humany, i assume that is a typo in your post? you wrote you "don't think", while you probably do indeed think that future tank drivers would have cameras?

Have a look here for a ticket about better optics, cameras and better tank GUI.
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10884

bump

modern tanks and apc tend to have very "clean" interiors. additional most analogue gauges and stuff could be replaced with digital MFD (which could all look the same) for armas 2035 scenario.
due to this building tank and apc interiors should be less work than building interiors for the light vehicles.

yes, i think this would be a very, very nice feature. currently the APCs are a bit of a disappointment in terms of immersion, authenticity and fun.

please note, that the devs already said, that we should not expect modeled interiors for tanks and APCs (same as in arma 2).
let's vote this up anyway! perhaps we can change their minds.

*edit* i uploaded a picture of how the current implementation feels.

upvoted!

i guess, they don't think it is that important, because tank crew would look through their sights most of the time.

it shouldn't be that complex to model the interiors, because for tanks and APCs many assets could be reused - in the end most modern tanks look quite similar from the inside. on the other hand, bohemia interactive is still a small developer, so they have to think carefully how to use their rescources.

to clarify: at E3 the devs said, that there won't be modeled interiors for tanks and APCs.
let's vote this ticket anyway! vote it and spread the word. perhaps we can change the devs' minds!

plase check here for the whole package:
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10323

tidal range of the mediterranean is about 10cm, absolute maximum is 200cm.
i don't know where you are, but if that place has 40 meter tidal range, than it is probably a moon of jupiter or something.

the engine should support it. the original ofp had working tides, when i remember correctly.

ps: yes, progamer: well written;)

good idea!

yes, tides would be cool. we had them in op flash when i remember correctly.

the mediterranean has not very strong tides, but depending on the coast-type, the tides can still change the character of an coastal area.

no, it just needs more time. they won't immediately review a ticket just because it has, say one hundred votes.

if the ticket is well written, then they will review it. normally little bugs get reviewed faster, than more complex suggestions.
so, don't worry;)

on a mediterranean island the size of stratis or altis, there is a 99% chance it would. lowest points of theese "smaller" island are always the coastal areas with higher point more in the middle.

well of course it would be thinkable that the flood is not conencted to ocean - but then again adding basic effects of breakwater like we have at the coast atm, should not be a big problem.

this would be brilliant if implemented properly.
but remember it's the mediterranean in arma 3, so we would need at least basic effects for waves interacting with geometry.

would give more meaning to the whole new underwater thing.

upvoted!

splendid!

only problem is, that in the end nobody wants to play at daylight;)

upvoted. for everyone interested in more realistic and immersive aircraft FCS please have a look here:
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10323

yes, i play arma since operation flashpoint and it always irritated me.

upvoted!

but we should go one step further: make all context-sensitive action tied to one key.
for details please see:
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10726

upvoted.

many vehicles/items in arma lack the ability to "fuck it up when under pressure". i don't think that every game mechanic would have to be hyper-realistic, but it would be nice, that some more mechanics were at least difficult enough to give a little chance of, well.. fucking them up (when under pressure).
for example:
guided missiles without proper seeking/locking procedure
missile launchers without backblast
laser rangefinder and designator with unlimited ammo / no cooldown
aircraft fire control systems...

i don't feel that it should be brighter. perhaps you all should turn your gamma up. i've a color calibrated monitor and when there is at least a little bit of moon light i can see decently without flashlight and very good with flashlight on.

so, please try increasing your gamma first. that said, i would not really care if flashlight would be a bit brighter, as long as it is not overdone!!!
did not vote!

very small, but nevertheless very welcome feature. not a big deal to implement. upvoted!

Hello Instagoat,
english is not my first language, so i can't understand if your ticket covers the "glowing", where laser hits an object or ground (see picture "painting_target.jpg"). I upvoted anyway, but i think this glow is very important for jtac/fac and i would make another ticket, if this is not covered here.
Thank you!
Have a nice day:)

Most importantly we also need a glow, where the laser hits!

this is important and should be improved!

good ticket!

besides the night vision the ir-laser should be improved. they look to "rigid". don't know how to describe it better.
http://devinstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/weapon-mounted-NV.jpg

same for respawn-scripting and stuff like that.

the script is super easy!

but although i'm decent at basic script commands after a decade of arma playing, i still think that every script that is used on a regular basis should be implemented in the GUI.

so... yes. upvoted!

any new on this topic? it is a must have for arma 3!

well, fragmachine, i guess that is just realistic and intended. the AP rounds are armor piercing and the grenades of the marid are not, so the marschall should always win against the marid.

let us hope for the best:)

related to this?
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11187

good idea, TPenn!

upvoted!
ace-system was very well done!

it is also a good example of a realistic solution being simply more fun.

please also consider giving the UI some love. arma looks brilliant in most cases, but things like aiming the man-portable missiles or driver/gunner views in apcs look dated.
kill the white arma UI for targeting and give each item/vehicle its own HUD or GUI. the combination of white arma UI for targeting and proper (but bugged) helmet HUD in the helicopters is especially irritating btw.

please also consider this ace-inspired action-menu improvment:

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10726

yes - for air-support guidance we would also need a visible glow, where the laser hits, to give the possibility of "painting" the target! like in reality!

arma 3 needs better midrange visuals. bis, make it happen!!!

i also think it is too much contrast, but this could easily be adjusted by the designers.
nord's example pictures should be seen as an example of how easy it would be so significantly increase graphics. they are not about art-direction!

702 votes already!

would be cool, if we could get a response from the devs, if they are considering nords solution, or at least considering some sort of improvment?!