Agree

Maybe, Czech used to be from the USSR after all.

there ain't too much difference in the amount of females or males that dont know how to handle a gun, that's why there is an option to have the skill set to minimum, made for insurgency or people who never used a gun.

TLDR: your speech is useless

brians999, why dont you go suggest female civilians to spawn in the kitchen of the houses? or why dont you go play minecraft? and leave this feeback tracker alone?

and i'd also request childrens, like in VBS2, but BIS is not gonna add them

in OFP it was realistic, female civilians could be armed, but then again, i disagree with the female soldiers thing

the problem is taht its not realistic to add female soldiers

ah, hi tyler, i am still expecting your next troll-ticket trying to make ArmA more codish.

search for an ArmA 2 addon of it then, because the Beta explains everywhere that this is beta and it doesn't contain the shit the relase ver. should get

its still Beta

well.... look at BIS, they never added not 3D editors nor the TOH flightmodel we were promised (and also many things) so i dont think they will think about tweaking the engine, not until an expancion come out at least, just like ArmA 2 with OA

"I'm afraid that won't happen. Bohemia will never model an extra vehicle etc. only for maneuvering planes on the airfield."

i remember an addon for ArmA 1 added that, but the way it attached to aircraft was SO FUCKING BUGGY it was useless, it only worked with like 1 or 2 planes, so even if reverse thrust for ALL aircrafts is unrealistic, until there are Aircrafts Tows, i have to upvote this

its more like if this game needs better driving simulation

but agian, it would be easyer if the game could simulate car driving, and simulating car driving its not THAT hard compared to simulating infantry or choppers, hence the reason why racing games are mostly light

But xavier, this is not a breakthrough in the engine, VBS proved it was possible. Besides, why do we even ask for things if people always reply "this should/iwant/could/would come in the next ArmA"?

If we want a feature and it HAS to be done in the next sequel then i personally want to see it done, i cant stand anymore people (and even BIS) answering that X will come in the sequel just because they dont want to add it.

Yo, feral, Where does it says the TITAN are the original makers of VBS? it doesn't say anywhere the name of the makers.

There is a mod for ArmA 3 that adds different planets and the posibility of actually moving in between arma maps.

No, i am not joking, i think i forgot the name of the mod, but it was pretty much mind-blowing

but this is not some impossible shit, i know this has been spamed all the time, but its an VBS2 feature.

i think you dont know how game engines work on computers. When you make a game engine you, depending on the code, do share something in common with other different game engines, but you make yours focused on the game you are making.

Elite/KSP/Outerra engines were made to be deisgned what they now are, and they cant do more, same goes with ArmA engine. Yes, some engine can do what others and more, but the point is that RV4 is an old engine and it cant do much more with the code as it is.

yes, i know, marry outerra if you like it so much, i'd do the same, i know its an near-perfect engine and the only things i dislike is that its barely updated and the night sky looks AWFUL.

But you must know that as much as all engines are still coded, you cant do magic. you cant pick up golden source from HL1 and make DCS, cry of fear, for example, pushed it to its limits, and i feel ArmA 3 its the limit of RV4. As much as everything is related to maths in computers, its better to create a new engine than to modify this one.

it has nothing to do with arma 3 because its another engine, if not, i would have mentioned kerbal space program.

Outerra has nothing to do with arma 3

i suggest that you change the title to "Planet curvature for ArmA maps"

its short, informative, and it gives the same amount of info than this title

exxDUDExx the ArmA engine that is being used ever since OFP

while true that the RV terrain in ArmA 3 is glitched, i disagree with AD, but i have to say that BIS cant really start making a new engine out right now, making an engine nowdays is a fucking nightmare in several ways, there is a reason why even EA is trying to recycle the frostbite over and over again.

if BIS DOES make a new engine, they would have to think about even the battlefield as a planet (yes, just like in Anteworld) and add realistic and accurate terrain of the whole earth planet. Not only that, but they would also have to think about making the engine as versatile as possible, using C++, making "Air" an element for the characters, and being able to literally do ANYTHING with that engine (porting ArmA 3, making a full new game, making a flight simulator with it, even making an arcade platformer with it).

If all those requierements are filled up, then they have to worry about time, work, and money.

TL;DR:

RV its starting to show its age, it has been holding up for 12 years now, but we need something better, HOWEVER, we cant have something better now, so we use what we have.

i already have it, sadly, no money to pay it

u'r welcome, i did thought it was fine it this feature was not gonna be in arma 3 but looking with envy to the VBS videos i found that thing about earth curvature

again, this was used in VBS using ArmA 1 engine, so its possible already

animated fire selector its also useless and its not noticeable even in first person view, but its there for realism, same argument here

Just saying, people, i checked this was a feature in VBS2, so it could be coded in ArmA 1 engine and its not that hard to make it, with the dynamic view distance then this feature WOULD be something you could catch when playing, so i dont see why the downvotes

still, in a modders view, i think it would be useful, and no, it wouldn't be a resource waste, many games simulate the earth as a planet instead of a plane and it doesn't kill resources

Tyler, didn't knew you could drive in UK at the age of 14

CPU consume? no, just making the water world curve. hard? yes, its still not neccessary if both islands are in 1 map, but we have to think more on a modders view perspective

Dark, this is not just about horizon, but about making giant, titanic maps of almost (if not exactly) the earth size, if this make it into the game (wich would be hard) someone could port the whole FSX map (wich AFAIK its the whole planet) and add it into the game

i dont say this thing is easy to do or REALLY useful, but it has to be accounted for being useful in big scale battles, and if they add realistic flight simulation of planes, for this last reason too.

Semiconductor, if this is an infantry simulator then we shouldn't have aircrafts, land vehicles or any vehicle at all. this is more of a war simulator, earth curvature its not really relevant to the realism, but i think modders will be more than grateful with this, and maybe being able to replicate planets in ArmA 3, it would be even better if modders can adjust planet size, and even better if that will also affect ballistic and gravity, after that i would suggest making the space dimension but i know that would be just too much

it IS hard to make, and it would give little results, but at the end, modders would be able to make a 100% realistic earth planisphere

this is on purpose, 120 flares/chaff in general for each side, 240 in total

yep, i think after arma 2 or with arma 2/3 engine you can make a big map without killing detail, like i said, you CAN make altis and stratis a one unique terrain, but its all about who will do it, if BIS wont do it for gameplay reasons or because Altis its not made yet.

ArmA 1 did something similar with that small island south of Sahrani, i hope A3 can do the same, and it was a shame A2 didn't did the same with Chernarus/Utes.

And after that, Limnos its only a portion of greece (lucky us, its actually the most beautiful part of greece)

correction, i meant south asia being 120 X 120 km

cant it be done as a modded single map when the game relases? it is possible, Seattle was the biggest map BIS ever made, and it was 100 X 100 km

the point its that you cant be aware of both things at the same time, same example is diving and reloading, you can be an athlete, but performing a task that requieres you to think will make you lose sync with your legs while diving

close, but i am still not convinced

but the point is that you cant be aware while doing both things at the same time, you can just be aware of 1 thing

its not just walking, its paying attention to walking AND doing something.

Please, listen to what i said and try to sky and using your phone at the same time, you cant talk to someone and turn a curve in the same time

ok, your video has yet to prove something, keeping balance like that is not an extra task, and i never said moving and reloading at the same time has to be out of the game or in, i said it has to be slower if you are running at a big speed, and ask any expert on the human brain, the brain cannot focus on more than 1/2 tasks at the time

ok, you see, i will understand i am wrong if you can tell me you are using your phone, talking or using it MEANWHILE you turn or break skying.

But a normal human cant do that, that's my point

it still wont prove nothing, show me the same thing but him walking while he is juggling, THEN i will prove you right

fine, i take your second comment, but i call bullshit on your first one,a human cannot train his brain to be able to do more than 1 task at the time, try actually reloading a gun while you pay attention to skying while you are going down a hill, tell me if you can do both at the same time with no problems, if you tell me you can, then i will upvote this.

And if you want to be proven right, show me some proof if you can

thanks, that's what i meant, ahmedabdo, that was my point, the human mind is limited to certain actions, there's a theory that females can focus on 2 tasks max while males can only focus in doing correctly 1 task

soldiers cant reload fast in all conditions while under fire, its hard to express myself, but if you have a gun, try reloading it while running as fast as you can, its pretty much the same as reloading when diving

juggling consumes your mind and focus, keeping balance when running the same, that's why you cant effectively reload fast while running, same when diving, you may try it slowly and do it without slowing down, but the human brain has it limits

"A baby hold his breath autmatically in water and remember before to born, in his mother he's in a fluid, and he's ready for fluids" that's the most stupid argument i have ever seen, a baby dont breath before born but the baby cannot hold breath, the O2 is given trough the mothers body.

there is a difference between watching your arm and using your mind to reload a gun, then again, diving and walking are 2 completely different ways in wich you have to reload.

and dont talk like if you think you are right just because you have dived, i have also dived in my life (i pretty much like to be in the water) and i find impossible to hold the rythm of your legs while you search for a mag to put and take the chamber back so you can use the gun

"ye and why babies can start to dive before to walk?"

first, i have never heard of that, second, i am pretty sure a baby dont really "swim" or "dive" because to dive you need to learn how to move your body underwater and how to hold your breath, and when moving your feets to swim you DO need to use your focus to hold a steady rithm

And i checked again, yes, you can move and reload at the same time, i think i couldn't in dev. build for some reason, but i was wrong

dude.... you cant reload when moving in land already......

but it should be done, far more slowly than when you are quiet, but it should be done.

my point is that walking is far more natural for a byped entity than diving, that's why reloading when moving its not a good idea when underwater, and if we use a real life scenario, dont forget about someone accidentally thorwing the mag away under water.

Pluto:

1- the human brain has a hard time moving and doing something at the same time while you have to see where are you going and avoid obstacles
2- i never said walls, i meant things like rocks, underwater floor, sand, the coast, and yes, there can be walls underwater.

dude....... what the fuck are you talking about? moving the head? please read the note i posted before

try doing a puzzle underwater while you keep diving and looking where are you going

drivers?

The ghosthawk is not a real chopper either, lets add FLIR and FFAR to it!

you mean me?

i still think they based the MX in the ACR, even with those changes.

Goblinbutt: I forgot to tell you, yes, i TRIED VBS, and trust me, its almost the same gameplay as ArmA 1 but with those small details that people want to have in arma.

http://www.popularairsoft.com/files/images/magpul-gbb-acrfs-de_ehobbyasia_02.jpg

that's the ACR with angled foregrip

Compare that gun to this one

http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/5/5f/Arma3_MX_1.jpg/600px-Arma3_MX_1.jpg

No, the reason for the change of names is for licence money. Alwarren: Yes, it WOULD be enough reason to fix it but BIS thinks just because this is futuristic they can do whateverthey want.

And check again the ACR. it may have a different foregrip but its almost the same weapon.

still, since when an extra pistol round is so important? granted, just like in real life it can mean life or death, but there is not much difference for just 1 extra bullet, i dont think this is a balancing issue, just a realism issue.

i would buy VBS but i am not rich.

ArmA hasn't been THAT balanced, actually, ArmA 2 had a little bit more OP russian forces, and in OA the insurgents would be useless.

ArmA 3 is far more mainstream with the MMS genre and i dislike that.

Good for you if you are fine with arma being more of a game, but i want a simulator, and some mods can make arma exactly that. A simulator.

you know its sad when even a battlefield worse than BF3 is more realistic than ArmA 3........

i was right, BIS IS getting lazy.

blame BIS, they call on lack of resources after making 4 games at the same time being just an indie dev with barely 100 people, what do they do now? they make a contest with over 200 000€ as a prize.

TRULY A SMART MOVE.

Demon, i think you should re-read my comment....

you would be impressed at the amount of people that agrees with you, mustang.

i think this is because ArmA 3 is set in the future, if they were to use it on a modern or past time they would be forced to use realism and people would be happier.

the problem is that this is a m1911

St. Jimmy i NEVER said ArmA wouldn't. i said ArmA never did it, but everyone wants to, i doubt if the engine allow it, because not even VBS can do it

you convinced me.

its funny, but not really, most of the users has 7 bullets mags, i hate it when most of the games (far cry 2, heroes and generals, maybe far cry 3) uses the 8 rounds mags for every M1911, but it was originally designed for 7 rounds mags

but ArmA never could calculate the round in the chamber of any weapon, and Kardaslt, the MX its not a fictionalrifle, its a placeholder name, the actual rifle its the ACR

MX name may be fictional, but its so alike an ACR that it may as well be called ACR A1, every gun its almost identical to the real life counter part anyway

I will:

this is not an M1911, just like many things in this game, mostly placeholders, have changed stats in comparision to real life equipment, in this case, the M1911 in the game has 1 or 2 extra rounds in the magazine.

renamed title and description to fit whats going on

well, it doesn't for me

pretty easy, i have heard USMC in iraq or afghan that got fucked up because they threw a grenade inside one of those mud-dirt houses and the house itself blew up, however, in greece you se concrete walls and houses, wich could stand a grenade explosion.

check also the Flashbang addon for the game, in the video of the addon you see the flashbang breaks the windows of the house it was thrown into, and the windows of the surrounding houses, even though a flashbang has no effect after a wall.

Not sure, but i think a vehicle DOES provide explosions cover

Dude, you got the CH-49 thing 100% WRONG, the chopper landing in water its a Sea Knight, y' know, the big USMC transport chopper besides the CH-53 family, not a Merlin

then please be kind enough like to tell me wich helicopter that is

drifting easy? at first i though that just saying that flying a chopper was easy in real life is stupid, but as a driving and car fan as i am, hearing such a thing is just stupid, do you think drifting is just using the handbrake?, ill tell you what:

1- drifting NEEDS: an RF car with MANUAL transmission, won't work with semi auto or auto.

2- you need to have slick tires or something alike

3- you need to have a powerful car

4- you need to know how to press your engine without breaking the car.

I never said i want it to be hard so people dont fly, i dont want it to be like in BFBC2, i said i wanted it to be realistic, in real life there is a reason why an infantry soldier just doesn't replace a pilot when flying a helicopter, and no, the way the choppers handle is NOT realistic, and i see you barely played TOH, because the way the collective and the landing gear and damage were simulated in TOH was almost perfect.

its like if you were now to tell me that flying a plane its not hard

drifting:
2- thanks for pointing it out, but i meant its easier using the slick ones, and if you manage to lose a bit of grip on a slick, the whole tire loses grip
3- what i meant is mostly the relation torque-weight, you can drift with a 100 HP engine if the car is light, etc.
4- AFAIK to drift you need to have enough RPM so that the tire lose grip with the ground, correct? that means the RPM for the engine are gonna increase faster, wich means the drifting can be risky to the engines.

and Yes, i think the TOH model or even slightly updated would work perfectly with arma 3, in ArmA 2 i had to keep up the UH-60 or the UH-1 at almost a 45º angle just to reach 200 km/h, in TOH with the realistic flight dinamics i didn't really had to, because a chopper doesn't need to be in that angle.

and lets not mention how you can do things in the ArmA flightmodel that you cant do in RL or TOH.

Yes... flying with a cessna or maybe a WWI or a training WWII plane can be easy, but i do mean modern planes, either for cargo or fighters

exxDUDExx, TOH flightmodel is slightly easier than in real life, if flying in real life its "not that hard" then TOH should be more than welcome, if you want an easier flightmodel than in real life, fine, but i think those who get in the chopper seat SHOULD know how to fly, i want flying choppers to be hard, so in clans you cant just pick up someone to press collective up and then fly, i want people to actually train to use choppers

i know, people like DDG suggested the TOH controls for making it more realistic because the idea is making helicopter flying challenging, not easy, Dsly and some others think that it would make the flight controls way too hard, so i came up with that, add it as a module and done, even if that means making 2 chopper config files, one for common flight controls, the other for TOH flight

not THAT much, it would just port the TOH flightmodel to A3 aircrafts, mostly code, it would take around 1 week if just 1 developer work on it

isn't the aim of the game making it realistic?

then add the TOH controls as an module and done.

i think we should use the TOH physics

Not only you dont know the definition of trolling (saying things just to make people mad, either believing them or faking them).

But you also think i have no knowledge of aircrafts or simulation at all of them.

the ticket talks about a request to lock on and engage multiple targets at the same time (pretty much what you see in HAWK) that's why people downvote this ticket.

I never mentioned the angle of locking of the aircraft, and unless you can give me proof on a video of any aircraft (like the F-14 you mentioned earlier) locking and engaging in a short time more than 1 target, i wont believe a word you said

heyv, the whole idea its not gonna be implemented unless BIS uses a more realistic way to interact with aerial vehicles

Demon, you have to learn that not just because someone thinks different its a "troll".

Multi locking its not possible, in real life i am sure a F-16 can IDENTIFY several targets, but if it cannot shot more than 1 missile, then multi locking its useless and impossible.

Multi identifying the enemy its possible in arma with the little unrealistic miniradar on top, multi locking can be easily scripted or added as an addon, multi engagement its just stupid.

i though it was already there, put one of your team in certain position, tell him to prone, tell him to hold fire and watch for certain place, he will tell you the enemies, and if you want to, tell him to attack certain obj.

never saw DayZ had a combat roll, maybe its because i haven't played it since months?.

But in real life combat rolls exist, however, they dont work with ANY weapon in your back, as it is already hard to do it with a rifle in hand, besides, it will stunn you for some seconds, i have done it several times in my training, its perfectly realistic, but its not exactly "fast" and its not exactly "very useful".

there was no "vault" for arma 1, and i voteup just for the roll animation, wich would be nice, but not important

really? i would like a bigger fov for smaller screens so that i can see everything in-game