"Why should I not tell BI to think about to make some dollars for an official "CAA1" and "CWR"?"

because:

1- BIS is getting lazy nowdays, for some reason, some suspect is because of the mods doing most of the work to make the game interesting.

2- it would be hard as fuck to bring unfinished mods to ArmA 2/3 as officials, think about it, besides, the original creator would still want money.

No, DayZ ITS NOT an example of this being right, DayZ was "lucky" because Dean Hall is a high rank in the BIS team.

"AIA proved that it's already "easy" to implant it into A3 and AIA also proved that BI anyway has to do some more to make AIA more functional."

AiA would still be a waste for BIS if the modders can do the same in a little bit more time with a little bit less quality

"I would like to get an complete official Armavers into the best Arma engine that is currently available.
In Arma3, Arma4, Arma5 or what ever comes next!"

That was actually planned, in wich ArmA 1, VBS 2, ArmA 2, OA, and some elements from ArmA 3 would mix together for a mega game, the dream was too expensive and hard, so they ended up dividing the game into diferent relases.

"As much as i'm thankful to the people who made the CWR, CAA1, and now AIA, I also would pay for official stuff just to get a COMMUNITY WIDE STANDARD."

I wouldn't, most wouldn't, that's what made me end up hating most of the Flight Simualtors addons, they at first start charging you 5 bucks for a very requested pack of planes or vehicles of top quality and a bunch of years after they end up charging for a mod that allows you to use your 3D cockpit camera freely (i DID saw people charging mods for that in FSX).

letting people charge for mods will grow up until the mod market collapses, pretty much like the video game crash of the 80'

"Until that happens I certainly stick to AIA and am glad to use it as a free mod."

yeah... its not that its THAT hard to do what they did anyway, they just made a VERY small compatibility for copying addons from ArmA 2 to ArmA 3, not hard, they just barely touched something, i will truly be amazed when you can use ALL the features from ArmA 3 in at least Vanilla ArmA 2/OA units.

"This Feedback Tracker "Feature request" Section is the best way to tell BI what people want as a feature for the current game."

I know that was for NodUnit, but this is a FEEDBACK tracker, is both for suggestions and bug reporting, reporting bugs comes first, then very needed and easy to do suggestions, then the barely useful suggestions, and they never touch the "hard to do" suggestions.

"The "Master Ticket" has the status "reviewed" so it can't be that wrong."

Reviewed means a mod/Dev thinks the ticket is fine within the Feedback rules for reporting, doesn't mean its gonna get added or even that the BIS team is gonna think about it, it just means they may take it off from the shit pile of people actually suggesting fast reloading and dual wielding sometime.

AKM47mm:

I DO agree with you, but the people at BIS are growing tired and annoyed of doing the same "modern military" shit for the last years, and with todays market, that genre is coming to a halt, ArmA 3 its more of an experiment than an actual hard work for a relase, unlike morrowind.

if bis TRULY wants to make one big last splash before stopping with ArmA for some time, they could at least give us something more from VBS besides the Physx and the underwater diving...

for the last friking time:

this is a NEW GAME with NEW things, ArmA 1 players most likely also wanted their precious addons for ArmA 2, but htat couldn't happend, be glad that you have AiA, but it is NOT gonna happen

try walking while crouching, i could sneak up to cm from the enemy, nothing to do tho, because there is no melee kill

upvoted, still, its a dupe. already suggested.... several times, for the vest to stop acting like a bag

not every mod can be BIS quality and BIS cant make so many mods, its the eternal problem with mostly games that require you to pay for addons (mostly flight simulators, like MSFS X, or IL 2 sturmovik) but its just how the game industry works

get AiA and use the CWR mod, stop being lazy

OOOHHH, so THAT's what he meant.........

i do believe removing the empty category until you place a player its stupid too

Best. Description. Ever.

they removed it because BIS saw many people with different thought complained about them, some of them wanted the doors to stay in the position someone left them, some others wanted the AI to use the doors just like they did before, some others wanted the AI to let the doors open all time, etc.

i do believe everything would be fixed if we can add the VBS way to make the cargo a full open space in wich you can shoot trough or walk, pretty much like a mobile house

but BIS will come out then and say its all the AI fault

......falcon, are you ok? calling everybody a bot/troll/insult them, and having several grammar errors make you look like a troll

so..... you need facts to disagree? didn't knew that.

and your whole argument of "The truth is i don't care what people say and I am right" its pretty hipocrital. after all, your whole ticket its just opinion, YOU find this crosshair type annoying, everyone who voted you down didn't, if i have to talk by myself, i dislike the new crosshair type too, but i just took the crosshair in general off from the game and i have no problems with it

Falcon, even though an option to turn it off wouldn't be bad, your attitude towards the people who disagree its pretty rude.

"i dont care what you say i am right" its not something you should use when posting a ticket

talk rubbish?

all right, i am done with this crap, do what you want, say what you think, but i won't change my downvote

..........because they are INSIDE a vehicle, isn't it obvious?

YOU learn what are you talking about before posting a note, you have to re-write the engine because the engine doesn't compare a character to a vehicle, the engine won't allow movement up or down easily because it was coded so it could make infantry just move like how they should, and even if you make the engine think infantry can move like a vehicle, you have several vehicle classess the engine can take (small engined vehicles, bikes, cars, APC, tracked APC, tanks, boats, subs, planes, helis)

wait... what was that last part?

People:

Vault: your character becomes a ghost and goes over a short wall. animation incluided

Jump: the character hit box actually raises and then lowers itself.

understand? there is no way "jumping" can be done easily on the engine

like i said, the vault animation its just making the character a "ghost" for a time and make the player teleport or move itself 1 or 2 meters, the player is never raised or lowered from their position, just moved.

Jump is when the actual player is moved upwards, like leaving a hovering chopper, however, when landing, the animations, hit box and etc. are broken, that's why you cant have a "jump" in the game with no engine redesign

DayZ standalone is still a vault that looks like jumping.

Killzone kid, that animation is modded, not incluided, and it IS still a vault with another animation

but that's a script with an animation, its like i said before, just another high vault, its not exactly "jump"

no, i find it almost impossible to make a jump, an actual jump, in the game, no "high vault with jumpt animation" but a real jump, wich would mostly require to remake the falling effects and damage, movement momentum, etc.

not a good idea to carry a 4 kg rifle and 15 kg in equipment and jump a fence in the middle of the open place where you can get killed, you can vault, its not the same, but to have an actual binding to jump it would require an engine rewrite

change the misleading ticket title

adding an ArmA 2 pic won't help, also, this feature was already confirmed

weird thing, checked it up, it only happened once...... weird.... closing ticket.

so..... you want your helicopter to not follow your orders?

downvoted, that's how it works

its just like it is, if a soldier is prone, he'd better stay there without moving, because if you want to move sthealthy you'd better crouch walk

well, there IS a grenade reloading animation for the hand, but the GL of the gun is static

..... i will assume this got fixed then and i havent noticed

Dave, i hope you arent serious.....

Gikkibi: exactly, now read the ticket description again

Dave, this ticket is to have them inversed, thats how it works in real life

Gekkibi, that doesn't make sense

IF anybody dowvote this ticket, they should know that the tracked vehicles work diferent than the wheeled one, and the tracked vehicles shouldn't have inversed driving controls when going backwards

ArmA 2 firefights were longer and had the same thing. In arma 2 i could pick up a HOLO sight and shoot almost perfectly fine at 200 meters of range, in arma 3 i cant, although i kinda blame recoil too.

The reason why firefights barely last is because of the AI.

the problem with that formmula is that it would need to calculate the distance and time of flight before impact or before leaving the gun barrel itself.

you would need the game to calculate things that are not happening yet.

Gravity drop is already there, wind is neccessary, temperature, humidity, and pressure are WAY too much, and the change is not even that much.

Goose, even though you are right, these ballistics at least do just fine.

Using TOH Flight model even as an option would be a far bigger priority, or being able to jam your gun and using Barrel Heat to change the bullet path is also a bigger priority

got fixed in some of the 2 last beta builds

my chopper still explodes on contact with the water/the game wont let me exit the chopper and forces me to drown.

Using the enhanced chopper flymodel, beta dev updates version.

right, i forgot about the sea and that every vehicle explodes when they touch the water in the game.

if you are at 1m above ground then land it. Unless there is an irregular terrain or objects that can destroy the chopper there is no point in bailing out 1 meter above terrain, if you can land, land, if you are going too fast, bailing out would kill you.

Good point.

again, how many people will use it for trolling? now "IF" but "HOW MANY"

Point, there may be a need for a "bail out" option, but ejection seats depend on the chopper, not on the game.

i checked before i shreck'd myself, but you see, ArmA is not the kind of game where "oh, you want X thing but no one else does? Well, make it an option!"

It is true that ArmA does have sandbox elements (wich are mostly due to the editor), but the game is mostly supposed to be (ever since OFP) a domestic simulator of infantry combat.

Paladin, pilots should be able to get into choppers with parachutes, the thing is that pilots should have problems with a big pack on their backs. During WWII pilots had their parachutes under the seats because not everyone can fly with it in their backs.

There must be another alternative.

Talking about that, several medium-cargo choppers in-game have parachutes, it would kinda make sense if the choppers were fit to have paratrooper capabilities (like, AFAIK, the Mi-8)

Well, the last 2 comments are making me realize that the people think ArmA is a sandbox and not a military simulator.....

Not all points are bad, but helo pilots are not given parachutes, at least not the medium/light transport ones

The reason for turning an engine off, mister pete, is for testing, is better if you become familiar to how to land without exploding before hand rather than making your first time the time where you REALLY need to know how to.

If the crew of a chopper does not have parachutes, then making a "bail out" action or ejection action would be useless.

I still laugh at Sensei for thinking ejection seats on helicopters are realistic.

Tell me. You have refueled and most likely mantained many US army choppers. Do all of them have parachutes for the crew and passangers?

that its not true, doctor.

you mean using the speed and turning it to increase the preassure below the chopper? AFAIK that's the most basic manuver for an emergency landing

collective won't work if there is no air, and increasing collective would automatically start engine on EVERY BIS game

...... auto rotation IS hovering in ArmA, and you cant raise collective and turn off the engines because when you turn the engine off the collective wont work anymore, that whole sentence about what to do in case you have to do an emergency landing makes no sense at all

the WWII pilots did had some training to put them quickly in case something happened

nod, people jump DOWN, and the helicopter its not going at 400 km/h, there is no way the people that jump could hit the rotors

i think at least you should be able to jump out, just like in ArmA 2 ACE, besides, passangers cant eject from some choppers

thanks, there is a big silent discussion about if its right or wrong to let AI take controll of the soldiers you are not controlling at the moment

what ver. are you using?

no, a guerrilla tactic is using the insurgency way to do things, when you cant or you dont have a conventional force, but a bunch of people together because of money, ideologies, or something else, but acting as both military and civilian at the same time

• Usage of military guns
• Everyone with the same clothing and equipment
• Usage of same attachment

looks more like a militia than a guerrilla or insurgents

if the insurgents ARE gonna be in the final ver. then this ticket its completely useless

cool? yes
i want it? yes
practical? no
relevant to ArmA 3 campaign? no

related to #0011981

this was an issue in ArmA 2 when the gunner accidentally killed a friendly and both the gunner and the pilot became enemies

Clip is also the word.

Goose:

ok, i am lost now.

So we can assume the LMG variant of the MX (ACR in real life) its able to use both Clip and Mag?

What about Clip-feed Machine guns using magazines?

its still the fact that the barrel and the bullet both should affect the range, penetration, and speed, not just one.

Cant Mag-feed guns be used with belt-feed clips?

Or viceversa?

See? that's why this ticket its here.

the way ballistic works in the link between gun-bullet is wrong.

Goose, you just contradicted yourself in the second comment.

Different guns can use the same ammo in a different way, the Opfor gun being a Bullpup SMG can have a shorter barrel (less m/s) or a barrel of the same lenght.

i understand

wait, supercereal, you want penetartion to be calculated from the bullet type? or from the gun? or from both?

the changes of the guns in the penetration are barely anything.

the L85A2 does penetrate almost the same as the M16A4

but the M16A4 doesn't penetrate the same compared to the US army M4 Carbine.

penetration should be calculated by both using guns and ammo, like saying that the kind of bullet should have a certain basic config and every gun should modify that config as a different gun, to simulate this

Because if then, ArmA 3 should allow a FULL simulation on headgear, and no one wants to compete against TF2.

In real life headgear its just a secured prop that its not actually glued to the head, so the complexity of that its just so big and hard to make into the game that its better just to let it like that.

Besides, using Baclavas and facepaint in the same slot (player customization) its fine by itself

Baclavas, facepaint, and masks are to be used as faces in the player customization, i think that's the most useful thing, because i dont think you shouldn't be able to use NVG and a baclava at the same time......

its still stupid to say that, you have an unlimited water space in the map just to practice, what we want its to test flightmodels, not a giant place to make realistic flight excercises or recon

are they fucking kidding me? maps too small? we are bugtesting the game itself, the map already have an airstrip, its enough for me to be able to test the planes, i am not gonna test a realistic combat experience or a dogfight, but the aircrafts should be in, even in small maps, just like in ArmA 2, you could fly maps normally in Utes

and i wish to have TOH controls

Progamer, fake statement, vehicles are affected by Physix

i am starting to lose hopes when i see that there are still many things from VBS that could be easily ported into ArmA, yet they haven't been ported.

AD:

maybe the thing most of the people or at least I ever wanted was to be able to go around the cargo space, wich incluides being able to shoot in cargo space of a chopper, wich incluides being able to take the passanger seat YOU want, and the falling animations that are better there.

and lets not talk about the realistic FOV, being able to be dry inside a ship even below water surface (making possible to make submarines ever since ArmA 1 engine) and the realistic animations and interaction with the aircrafts carriers made there.

In other words, ArmA 3 still barely have ANYTHING VBS made with the ArmA 1 engine.

you can use OA planes or ArmA 1 planes i think, besides, you can still use the Cessna 182 addons

no, seriously, BIS did like to work on OFP, but after that, they never put so much interest in the ArmA saga, even the CEO brother who is the leaders of the coding section on the company said that he is tired of making a war simulator.

i hope they can make a flight simulator, racing simulator, or just a sandbox TPS game to change the direction a bit

i dont really agree with you, programer, BIS is not that ambicious, actually, arma is a proyect BIS really want to lay off

the planes wouldn't still handle very different, ArmA 1, 2, OA, TOH they all have planes that behave ALMOST the same, unless BIS actually do some shit and relase a flight simulator wich they will include, just like the TOH controls for ArmA 3, so, dont expect too much

then just use the ArmA 2 F-35 and port it to arma 3

twistking, the flight model is the same, it hasn't even changed since ArmA 1

take the ArmA 2 mods, you know already the game is in Beta and you will have to wait for full relase for the rest of the addons

this is not battlefield, vehicles should be realistic, not baalnced, downvoted

this is not an Mi-35, there is no AH-99, there is no UH-60 nor MH-6 in the game, i do hate the fake names, but that means they can do whatever they want to the in-game vehicles because they "do not exist"

not quite, they just changed some values and the names