yes the player get tired soon and cann't continue to sprinting

This is normal. But should only be used HE with a half charge

if you are from bohemia your greeting is very very ungraceful, arma 3 was so far from releasing and people like me are take our time to tell you why it was! just see main page of this site, there is near 15,000 bugs reported which say yeah arma 3 shouldnot released last week!

I'm not working for BI. I'm a paying customer.

Try it before creating a ticket:

1. launch Arma 3
2. go to editor
3. place any SPA anywhere, player as gunner
4. preview
5. elevate the gun manually to less than 10 degrees
6. fire and observe where the round hits

Summary: It's possible to engage closeby targets. The 500 meters I mentioned earlier is the minimum distance of MLRS in Arma 3.

I doubt that Arma 3 can be bought in Iran legally, I think it didn't get a license. Still, pirating it is bad, mkay?

In other words: you pirated it..?
Ya, it sounds a little bit bad if you ask me...

I cannot buy it but I can help to improve it, that sounds bad?

these pics show that there is no angle limition for self-propelled artilleries,
http://mz.perm.ru/images/1081.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/g6/images/g6_12.jpg
http://www.tonyrogers.com/images/weapons/crusader2.jpg
for a momentyou just think that there is an enemy tank in the gate of the your base and is moving to enter the base, you have only 2S9 Sochor which can aim 0 angle and shoot that tank but it's impossible in arma 3 because no one care about our bug reports, I can not buy arma 3 because I'm an iranian user and our banks are banned from business by the world but only way I can help Arma project is reporting these bugs, if any thing other can help I will do. I am following you from flashpoint 1985 in 2001
(hope our president rohani can do something in United Nations this week!!!)

but he won't because he's not supposed to be close to targets that deserve a 155mm to the face

this is why he has a mounted turret on top

BUT IN A REAL WAR THE GUNNER CAN AIM DOWN AND SHOOT MANUALLY TO THE TARGETS

...Are you absolutely sure the gunner can do that in real life? Lets take an example: Can Pzh2000 gunner engage targets at point-blank range? SPG's have minimum elevation angle: show me even one photo of Pzh2000 where the elevation angle is <= 0. It's not designed for what you want it to be, modern SPG's are not deployed even remotely close to the enemy. In Arma 3 it's possible to hit targets approximately 500 meters away from you by adjusting the gun elevation (not just aiming with the targeting system [mouse]).

You want SPG's to be completely different that they are in real life. What next? Artillery computer for rifles so you can engage enemies on the other side of a hill by using indirect fire..?

Edit: tested SPG's when tried to repro another ticket. It seems SPG's in Arma 3 CAN use minimum elevation! This means they are even better suited for close encounters than they would be in real life. Then again, I didn't serve in the artillery corps, so can't be 100% sure about this. If this conversation keeps going, I will ask couple of friends who did serve in the artillery corps...

I guess I'll have to stand corrected. However: self-propelled artilleries in Arma 3 have a minimum angle of negative degrees. I tested in the editor: it's actually very possible to destroy close targets with it!

And your example is not even remotely realistic. Arma 3 is about symmetrical warfare.

...And by the way... If you can't buy Arma 3, then how do you know you can't engage closeby targets (which you can, by the way)?

This is intended. It's SPA (self-propelled artillery), not MBT (main battle tank).

If camera could be shifted in X and Y axis so you can move it a side so vehicle is in any corner of view. Then the reticle in 3rd person view would be awesome.

It use to be there so you enabled free look pressing twice Alt button and then moving mouse so you could look different way. Then you just used joystick to fly and you could fire well.

...or just remove 3rd person?

issue exists yet!

please add cross hair for kajman too when using unguided rockets, like AH-9 pawnee as you see in last image.

@AD2001

I guess I forgot to change the difficulty level... Sorry about that. ;)

@Gekkibi

Really? I know there were crosshairs for all of the vehicles. Maybe they've been removed?

Confirmed, we don't have external camera crosshairs if using ANY vehicle.

In my opinion this is unwanted and unnecessary feature: downvoted.

You're not using rockets, you're using the cannon.

do you really tested what I say? new pic with rocket!

AD2001 if you don't test issues that users report here so please do not dirt the posts maybe developers read this and try to fix

Well, then, don't play 3rd person. You wouldn't be able to hit anything, anyway.

see pic there is no crosshair in 3rd view

sorry i don't know why the pic had problem here is other pic

You do have crosshairs.
/downvoted

What the hell is on that screenshot?

Mass closing resolved issues not updated since November.

fix will appear in version 1.10
so wait for it

This happen me too, south of Chalkeia 203111, the bridge with the metal barrier on the sides, if you it them of if you drive on it the bridge will disappear/collapse.
This happen with vehicle bigger then cars (Trucks, Tank).

This is the bugged bridge:

http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb409/privitan/ARMA3%20BUGS/arma3BuggedBridge800x450.jpg

I used to build bridges and I am a draughtsman specializing in reinforced concrete. Unless the bridge is designed to withstand the weight it will collapse.
It maybe that this is the way the game is made, as you said you cant reproduce it with a car

Update for 1.30: HC doesn't autoassign (if the mission has the default value for joinUnassigned) but also doesn't make a slot disappear.

@JohnnieConcrete
Did you try this? Even a minimal hit with MBT will collapse the bridge. And could you explain that the biggest bridge in the game collapses so easily, but you can ram smaller ones full speed and nothing happens..?

Experience the same issue on Stable 1.04.111746

Very simple MP mission with 3 units on the map, no scripts etc.
2nd unit config:

id=1;
side="WEST";
vehicle="B_Soldier_F";
player="PLAY CDG";
forceHeadlessClient=1;
leader=1;
skill=0.60000002;
text="Unit_2_hc";
description="Unit_2_hc";

Expected behavior:
HC will connect automatically in 2nd player slot

Observed behavior:

• HC will automatically connect to 1st available player slot and never in reserved hc slot

(This slot disappears from selectable players even if hc is dragged to other slot)

• HC will in most cases(?) not init successfully after mission start due to timeout.
• Manual drag to 2nd_hc slot of hc user is not possible
• Manual drag to 1st or 3rd slot of hc user is possible. After manual drag to any slot HC inits successfully and mission starts successfully

Removing "forceHeadlessClient=1; " from 2nd unit
Observed behavior:

• HC will automatically connect to 1st available player slot

(This slot disappears from selectable players even if hc is dragged to other slot)

• HC will in most cases(?) not init successfully after mission start due to timeout.
• Manual drag to 2nd_hc slot (or other slot) of hc user is now possible. After manual drag to any slot HC inits successfully and mission starts successfully .

Found this out with some unrelated testing, not necessarily directly useful but you never know...

If the mission has joinUnassigned=0 and disabledAI=1 in its description.ext, the headless client is able to automatically join "properly" (as in, spawns as a player in game).

Note that just joinUnassigned=0 on its own isn't sufficient.

Tested in V1.24 and you must join two times... first join the HC go to the first not "forceHeadlessClient=1" Unit and the second try he is on the rigth slot...

The whole point is absurd. Vehicles, ammo, and other assets are just tactical stuff, there should be able to destroy, capture, or do whatever you want with them; so NEVER should be faction binded.

As it happens in real life.

Haha funny you mention nintendo arcade kids because I think this mechanics of making you an enemy if you destroy own assets WAS designed to stop nintendo arcade kids from grieving. I agree with ripley, changing vehicle camo should count.

So the US has NEVER destroyed an asset to prevent the enemy from getting it?

Destroying a downed aircraft to prevent the enemy from getting it's technology is a legitimate military procedure.

Did you see what was left of the helicopter that was destroyed by Seal Team Six during the raid on Osama-Bin Laden's compound after it crash landed at the compound? The "ghost hawk" in ARMA 3 is partially based on that helicopter!

For co-op gameplay, we could use some type of "special action" or OPTION to occasionally allow the destruction of friendly assets (by friendly forces) when the situation calls for it.

Nintendo arcade kids can give this a million down votes if they want, but anyone with a single ounce of common sense KNOWS this is a perfectly legitimate complaint, regarding a real world military tactic.

I'd like to point out, that some of the faction specific vehicles have camo textures for other factions. For example, the Pawnee has an AAF camo texture. This texture now becomes redundant, as if you destroy it as a member of Blufor, you go renegade. Although I understand the logic behind this issue, I do not think it is a good addition. Perhaps, there should be an option to make an empty vehicle neutral...

This is not a bug. Each vehicle or ammobox is faction specific. If you destroy object of the same faction as you this will be considered friendly fire and your rating will go down and then your side will switch to side ENEMY and then you will get attacked by friendly. If you however destroy objects of the enemy faction your rating will go up.

default faction relation:
blufor vs opfor - enemies
blufor vs independent - friends
opfor vs independent - enemies

Keep this in mind when blowing up assests. Sorry have to downvote your ticket.

related to #5806

related http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=13304

Confirmed, but this concerns 2S9 and M5 as well.
I vote it up if you edit your ticket and include those.

The bullets shouldn't affect the bodies that much. I don't want CS style bodies flying 5 meters into the air when hit by a 9mm.

I disagree simply reducing the range of motion for free look would probably fix the problem. especially in the up and down axis, right left is fine.

This is a clipping issue - also dependant on whether you're using a custom field of view or not.

Needs clarification.

Duplicate of 14047

Duplicate of/related to http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=14047

Yup can comfirm this. It actually saves the "state" of the vision mode for each fire-rate setting individually.

My apologies.

it was overheating processor.

It is not possible download these files, because:
Not Found
Error 404

arma3_2013-09-22_01-25-16.mdmp
arma3_2013-09-22_01-25-16.rpt
arma3_2013-09-21_23-14-41.rpt
arma3_2013-09-21_23-39-07.rpt

I'm playing on the highest difficulty. And I feel that if you fired three or four pistol rounds into somebody, wearing combat fatigues and a vest, they'd do more than just... well... flinch.

Also, try using a silencer on a 9mm weapon. Perhaps that's when it's most obvious. At close ranges, a silenced 9mm round would still be lethal if well placed.

It's far to weak, 1 round headshot is not possible with a pistol. Also, the pistol cant even penetrate glass in this game, I don't see how that's even close to realistic.

What difficulty are you playing on? Try veteran or higher.