@izaiak:

(I'm using F/A-18 Forea, a flight sim made by Graphics Simulations, 16 years ago, as a reference for most of this.

http://www.gamespot.com/f-a-18-korea/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcyXz9JmxBw

I think the youtube video should showcase most of what i'm trying to say)

C) Both, really. In the game as well, it's the engine that seems to take damage first, just that there's no separate stat for it, like in helicopters.

What i'm basically saying is, you could hit the engines without causing damage to the cockpit area, and missiles like the Sidewinder would target the engines.

You can't fly the aircraft with all engines down, but you could have a few holes in the hull or wings but still get home if your engine's ok.

E1) (sorry about two E's and D's!) I dunno, always happens. I place it on the start of the runway, increase the speed till it takes off...the plane keeps veering to the right, even after i correct it.

E2) I don't really like the idea of bringing up the map in flight (or while driving), as you can't really see what's happening. I mean...it's a bit jarring. Something like working on the desktop and bringing up the Metro UI...if i could bring that up without losing a sense of what's happening around the airplane, that would be better, imo. Again, see video.

F) Yup, both would do, i understand km/h better anyway :P

G) Ah i'm not sure I stated it correctly. For example, in F/A-18 Korea, if you were on the ground, you couldn't fire weapons, because hey, it's dangerous. In Arma 3, you can drop a bomb on the ground while you're on the ground. It'll explode and you'll kill yourself. Sort of illogical to allow it.

So weapons can't be armed unless you're off the ground, is one part of what i'm saying. The other is, even if you've got bombs armed, you shouldn't be allowed to drop them below a certain altitude (say, 200 feet, for example). Again, this is something from F/A-18 Korea, not a noob feature. Just logical safety. ;)

Aircraft might get caught in the blast, etc.

H) Again, not a noob thing. Taken from F/A-18 Korea. Actually, i'm not sure if it was altitude or airspeed that triggered that behaviour. Again, probably done so that the aerodynamics doesn't get messed up.

I) Didn't know that, i thought all jet fighters have it. Sorry!

J) I meant that there are a set of controls in Arma that are common to all situations, infantry, ground/marine vehicles, helicopters and aircraft.

I'd prefer some of them (if not all) to be duplicated again in the helicopters and aircraft section, since i've found i need to keep them different for both.

Something like the action menu, for example. For helicopters i may need the buttons near my right hand's thumb on my joystick, but for fighters i may want something else below my thumb.

I think this could be one of the quicker and easier things to implement.

L) Yeah buut zooming in sort of...yeah you can't see too much. Again, i'd prefer something like F/A-18 Korea. You had two modes, a fixed HUD ( the initial one that you see in the video) and the free-look one.

So i'm not necessarily saying "decrease FoV", just saying draw the HUD bigger, and make it something like F/A-18 Korea...but with free-look enabled.

True, more contrast b/w the HUD and sky will be nice, especially at night.

M) oooh i dunno about this, are you sure? I've seen airbreaks used in domestic commercial/passenger aircraft as well, while landing (or during the approach)...and again, the F/A-18 Hornet has them.

Didn't get the key part, i'm sorry. :/

I'd add:

A) The white cross-hair doesn't align with the one on the aircraft's HUD

B) The white circle for the bomb is useless, the indicator on the aircraft's HUD should be used.

C) Add failure points for engines, instruments, navigation, etc. Currently it's just HULL. Usually, engines are the first to get hit by anything.

D) It's not a car. Let us control engine power/thrust instead of speed/acceleration directly.

E) While taking off, the plane veers to the right.

D) No night mode? We're flying blind at night. Even if there isn't a night mode, at least make it possible to viably fly/attack/land at night.

E) Need a proper radar for targeting, a map for navigation (A heads-down display or a working instrumentation panel would be nice), altimeter and a fuel readout.

F) Airspeed *should* be in knots.

G) Weapons should be locked before a certain altitude, especially on the ground.

H) Gear should automatically retract after a certain speed.

I) Afterburners don't seem to exist/i cant get them to work.

J) Aircraft controls should be completely separated from everything else, even at the cost of duplication.

K) Rain doesn't fall inside an open cockpit...though i'm not sure if this is actually worth the bother.

L) If you implement a heads-down display, bring the HUD closer to the screen (and hence make it larger, useful).

M) Almost forgot, airbreaks!

Ok, i see. No clue what's happening...according to me, you shouldn't be seeing much (or anything, really) on the screen if the GPU isn't being used...

Even if you have 5 or 10 fps, your GPU should have some utilization reported...

Not in a position to verify this, so will withhold my vote...but doesn't add up. Quite possible that there's a reporting issue (the monitoring utility isn't measuring properly in multiplayer, etc.).

I dunno, i dunno. Arma 3 has some of the weirdest bugs and glitches i've ever seen, so maybe this is another new one. :/

EDIT: Is this issue specific to AMD cards?

@ST. Jimmy: I believe it's like that for most of the community.

@Slurppa: Do you get any FPS? What are you using to monitor usage? I haven't played multiplayer yet, so i haven't checked myself, though i'm not sure how you're seeing anything on the screen without the GPU being used.

How are you monitoring GPU usage?

IMO they need to implement a generalized flight physics system that applies to all aircraft. That system would calculate aircraft behaviour based on the aircraft's physical model in-game, and other inputs like wind speed and direction.

I think X-Plane does it like that.

Now that I've tried it, i think the whole flight model is flawed in Arma 3...ignoring the fact that a drone can fly at mach one... :/

@RushHour yes i think you're right, sorry :)

Though, i remember playing a flight sim (F/A-18 Korea) where i could takeoff with max flap angle as well...though i went through the game's training videos and manual, i think max flap angle is indeed used only for landing, as it's not mentioned anywhere else.

But other points here are undoubtedly valid, higher angles should reduce ground/air speeds not increase them.

To add to what prykpryk's said in the end, usually aircraft automatically retract flaps and gear beyond a certain speed.

Um if i'm not wrong, during takeoff, both lift and drag are pretty significant, but only when the flaps are deployed.

However, i believe that with flags deployed, you should be able to takeoff at a lower airspeed than without them, as they generate more lift at lower airspeeds.

I just read your ticket again,
"Then in regards to lift i don´t think the plane should take off at all with highest flap angle because drag will overpower the lift being generated."

That's absolutely incorrect. You need flaps for both takeoff and landing. Lift and drag are proportional to the angle of the flaps, and as i mentioned before, higher flap "angle of attack" allows greater lift at lower airspeeds, allowing you to takeoff sooner.

Lol terrain also warps.

But LAA isn't the same as true 64-bit support...LAA only extends till 4GB, if i'm not wrong.

Can't we get native 64-bit support post launch? Once you guys have all our monies...

@Dave: true, if they compile for 64-bit then 32-bit users can't run it, but then:

1. They can barely run the game properly anyway, and the 32-bit install base is quite small now. Dropping 32-bit might not be a bad idea, they could always install 64-bit operating systems.

2. They could compile two binaries. Crysis does this for example, there's crysis.exe and crysis64.exe.

Yeah this has been my impression too...here have a look at this too:
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716

Seems fixed as of 1.48.

@stonestriker sorry! I was actually wondering because your second para seemed in support.

^LOL @ dark matter cores. XD

@GeneralScott: "One-hit kill" is different from "makes two-ton truck somersault through the air".

Here, see this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG

You're looking at around 20kJ of energy. Penetrate through armour, concrete, multiple people, but it won't do that to a truck.

And yes, as stonestriker says, a Dragunov uses 7.62mm.

What seems legit? That truck must weigh over 2 metric tons! That bullet weighs 52g at the most! (this was a .50 not a .408, which is lighter)

Here, see this stuff: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3E6DE22E2AB0FB54

A 50 cal can make a hole through a layer of concrete, sure, it can't do what it's doing in the video.

Anyway, issue's been reviewed so i hope it's fixed eventually.

Yeah, probably could happen to any vehicle, but as you say, that's the physics engine messing up.

Lol true. Force = mass x acceleration, after all.

When the truck went somersaulthing in the end i just stared at my screen in disbelief. :D

WHAT?! How!? WHAT?

Did you watch the video?

This is still not fixed. :(

This is by design...

Related: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=13447

Yeah, could do. Though wouldn't it be more universally valid to use compass directions?

It's not like the AI bother looking at the appropriate direction anyway...

Yeah this would be nice...

Fixed as of 1.48 as far as I can tell.

But don't other games manage this? I'm only making such an issue about this because it affects combat, especially since the nature of Arma is more "lie behind cover for a while and shoot intelligently" than run and gun.

What if i think i'm shooting over the rock, but the bullet actually hits the invisible geometry? I end up revealing my position, because the shot can be heard! I also waste precious ammo.

Seeing that people were making so much noise about hit boxes being a pixel different for female characters, a rock being 10cm more than it should seems like a big deal, no? After all, 10 bullets laid next to each other could fit through 10cm...

I'll update the exact coordinates of the rock, but i'm under the impression that it's a general issue with rocks (i've seen it in other places) Is there no way for you to develop a generalised method for rocks?

I'm aware it's useless, but this got marked as feedback, so i was wondering.

Do i have to start a new ticket about the same issue... :/

Some rocks still have the issue, look at picture 2014-01-04_00002.jpg.

Also, look at the pictures following it, you can see bullets being deflected by air as if they had hit the rock.

Used the bullet tracing script to show that bullets were indeed going right through the rock, added pictures to the ticket of the same.

Yup, fixed with version 1.08. Thanks!

p.s. Though rocks have a bit too generous of a hit box now, so your cross-hair appears blocked even though it's pointing over air, and not the rock.

OK, i take that back, it's NOT fixed on all rocks yet. Also, the second issue is confirmed (bullets bouncing off air), adding more pictures.

1. We're not far from launch, and...i've had this issue with a lot of rocks. Some seem to be transparent to AI movement as well, will report that issue too.

Low res: i'm sorry, i have a 1024x768 monitor, those are Steam screen shots, best i can do.

But you know, sorry for the bit of snide...it's just that some issues have really started bothering me (especially the core engine related ones), as i don't see them being fixed before launch...i could be wrong (hope so).

This was my experience with BF3's launch as well, i had participated in the Beta. Not much changed between.

EDIT: Well, looks like i was right. Seems we're still in Beta, eh?

2. Yeah I should have provided the rock's location, but as i said, i had noticed this was happening with rocks in general. I'll link to the mission itself in a while.

3. Thanks for the additional verification. I really haven't gotten into ArmA scripting, i probably should, soon...

4. Yup, i'm on stable.

Ok, i got what i was supposed to do to the init code.

spine3, right arm, right upper leg are being hit. I zoomed in, tilted the camera, and couldn't see the AI from those points, so they shouldn't have an LoS either.

Mission:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/45160510/test.Stratis.pbo

LOL of course i'm sure, they're at the petrol pump.

Looks fixed as of 1.48.

Related: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11636

Still happens.

Yup, that'll do too.

And your legs, arms, torso, etc. turn to stone? :P

You could pause reloading, finish moving, then continue, as well. Or just roll over.

You can do so even in America's Army, a game *by* the US Army, and they seem to think it's possible...

Point is, in real life, you have far more control. It's not like you're going to mechanically continue reloading while being shot at. Since this is a game, you have to compensate for that reduction in body control.

Ok i'm confused. The second video claims that VBS2 doesn't have xaitMap stuff?

And does Arma Tactics have this?

I have a funny feeling that Arma 3 does have this in parts, i've seen the UGV exhibit this kind of behaviour...and to be honest, even the AI at times does display some aspects of xaitment.

So i wonder, is it simply that the terrain doesn't have appropriate meshes everywhere?

"Reviewed" unfortunately doesn't mean "assigned", it's possible the devs still haven't seen it yet or are ignoring it (like the women characters issue).

I see. I guess you could draw a line when the gradient angle exceeds, say, 60 degrees, and calculate the possibility of a jump/climb (or simply detect the edge as too high for either) based on the place where the terrain becomes more flat.

This really sounds interesting, hope it's implemented at some point.

Can navmeshes provide information about ledge? Like jumping into a canal or something like that.

Odd, usually works for me :|

@Woodpeckersam: I usually have success when i upload JPEGs...

Where's the video? But yeah, rocks have issues in general, so upvoted.

Confirmed, i noticed this too. I think it's specific to the 0.76 build, (stable), because i never noticed it before. Not an issue with drivers, since i haven't updated since 320.49, which were released in March-April iirc. So been through alpha and beta with the same drivers.

I'm seeing this mainly with doors...

Well documented (and extremely ugly) issue, duplicate of:

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9713

@mepwaygame: yeah that still happens, even with planes.

/upvoted.

Yeah i reported this a few months ago as well.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=13265

Hopefully the campaign fixes these...

There's one more place they get stuck (or at least used to): end of the runways.

Where the zebra-stripes are? They couldn't cross those, at least on Stratis.

@MadocComadrin: Yeah i've noticed that too, i think it was always the case, and probably why the AI don't seem to consider a bridge as a part of the road.

Confirmed.

I've noticed that AI can't drive over the bridges easily. It's as if they don't consider it a road.

Additionally:
On the runway, they get stuck on the zebra-crossing-like markings on the side where you'd takeoff from.

@AD2001: Stop with the "cocks" thing, it's immature as hell. It's like Apple fanbois acting superior because they have an Apple PC.

@Raoul partially incorrect. Nvidia had tried to block PhysX hardware acceleration on non-GeForce cards post diver version 186, which is why people have been showing concern here. I mean, yes, it'll run on the CPU for AMD cards, but the hit can be huge b/w GPU and CPU physics (in PCMark or 3DMark there was a PhysX test in which i saw 80+ fps on a 9600GT and 15 fps on my Core 2 Quad Q8400).

"Versions 186 and newer of the ForceWare drivers disable PhysX hardware acceleration if a GPU from a different manufacturer, such as AMD, is present in the system. Representatives at Nvidia stated to customers that the decision was made due to development expenses, and for quality assurance and business reasons. This decision has caused a backlash from the community that led to the creation of a community patch for Windows 7, circumventing the GPU check in Nvidia's updated drivers. To counter this patch, Nvidia implemented a time bomb in driver versions 196 and 197 that slowed down hardware accelerated PhysX and reversed the gravity, but an updated version of the patch removed all unwanted effects."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhysX

Patch's development's been frozen since the 250 driver series.

And Nvidia disables PhysX if it detects another GPU on the system as well, so without hacking through it, you can't simply add a GT640 to accelerate PhysX while your 7970 churns through graphics.

@Dave: The engine's got PhysX integrated. You can't change that now, without going back to pre-alpha and waiting quite a while, afaik.

@Raoul: Great, could you link to it? We could take a look, so could the devs.

Thanks everyone for answering my questions!

And yes, after watching those vids, debris induced damage was going to be my next question.

Currently the building destruction is pretty horrible, you can actually see things fall into the ground when they're "destroyed".

@Raoul: Thanks. By 5 i meant that if GPU support for Apex was locked to Nvidia, would it not be better to use something like Havok which is a vendor independent engine, and wouldn't have any Nvidia specific advantages.

But if RV4 was already built around PhysX, then i don't think it would be possible to switch to Havok so late in development.

What do you mean by "power suckers back in that time"?

Fluid simulation would be useful for the ocean, you know.

Mafia 2's PhysX implementation seemed more CPU limited. Arkham Asylum clearly hit the GPU.

I guess BIS could implement APEX like SOE for PS2, they said in that video that the particles and all are the only Nvidia specific effects.

@MulleDK: Thanks, i was aware of what PhysX is, a bit confused about APEX, and i knew that PhysX runs CPU side as well.

However, what i'm asking is, for GPU acceleration, is AMD locked out? Meaning that, if there are any GPU-side PhysX effects, for AMD GPU systems, are they disabled or do they run on the CPU?

I have an Nvidia card, so i couldn't really care less, but then it may affect game sales a tiny bit, so i was wondering.

@Raoul:
A few questions, i'm curious:

1. You're saying Apex. Is Apex a part of Nvidia's GPU-implemented PhyX? Which i understand is a brand name for Ageia's physX engine that Nvidia bought a few years ago.

2. If it is, is it a part of the PhysX framework already? I understand that Real Virtuality 4, like Unity, already integrates this framework?

3. If Apex is GPU accelerated, is it locked to Nvidia's hardware?

4. You're saying performance hit is negligible, i'd point to games like Batman Arkham Asylum and Mafia II that show a significant performance hit due to PhysX. Is it the same thing (Apex)?

5. if (3) is true, wouldn't BIS rather use something like Havok for this? Or would that not be possible since RV4 is already based on PhysX?

Thanks!

For animals too. I want to see animals eating and stuff too. BIS said they had mating animations for rabbits as well, but then they decided against it because of the ESRB rating.

I wish they'd bring those back, i could open a zoo on Altis :P

upvoted, night scopes do exist after all, plus a sniper currently can't see a thing at night through the scope.

Could add GPU acceleration, though AMD would get left out.

Yup, saw Dslyecxi's video and post, i can get behind that.

I don't mind this, but i'm withholding my vote because i'm incredibly concerned about particle related performance at this point.

Well, i think this has more or less been fixed.

But, when you switch out of binocs, textures seem to reload, which looks horrible. Though that's another bug i think is related to PIP.

@ThePredator: Probably make another ticket for that.

Yeah man, just a suggestion, i'm sure they'd not use non-optimal settings.

Added video.

Ok, idea for zoom, could use +/- (already used for Zoom in vehicles) or Z for two preset levels to toggle from (like in Halo), though i find that a bit annoying myself. Advantage, however, (of a zoom-level-toggle button) is that you can quickly switch between two states, crucial for making quick regular checks.

Probably set an check-box in "game options" to "remember binocular zoom level", which really should be there, because in the real world your binocs don't reset themselves!

Well, my binoculars have optical zoom too, so do the ones in game, and it's annoying to give orders while zoomed anyway, so that needs to be reworked, i think.

If LMB will interfere, there could be another way, like holding the RMB, but i don't want "hold breath" coupled with zoom.

As with grenade throwing, i'll point to America's Army 2 for an example of this implementation.

Ok, double + wasn't a solution, too slow for combat.

I've just remapped hold breath to Z for now. Did work with LShift, just that it was conflicting with movement.

Is there any way to set Hold Sec. Mouse button + LShift? If there is, that'll solve it for me, really.

And i realise that this didn't require a ticket, probably.

Might change the topic to "allow Hold button+ combo key press" if there isn't a way already, and no, pressing them simultaneously doesn't do it.

Thanks you two...

@kylania: Will that retain holding breath when i hold RMB for scopes like ACOG or a sniper?

Except Dyslecxi's thing i'll have to read properly, because i use X for prone...isn't W+X the same as V?
Z i had bound to combat pace, but since i use a fifth mouse button for that i may use it for zoom. Had it for scoping in Halo CE so it shouldn't be too weird to adjust.

I use America's Army controls mainly for FPS games, except Halo is a bit a different. But side effect is that AA doesn't have "hold breath" , and other ones use LShift for it.

Yeah even CoD/BF use LShift.

I understand your reasoning, however my problem is that when i want to zoom in to iron/red-dot/reflex sights, to get a better view, i don't necessarily want to hold my breath, standing or not.

And my character keeps making gasping noises.

And well, you could map hold breath to shift while looking down the sights, since you won't be sprinting anyway while doing so.

No?

Yeah but for both wouldn't you at least separate the hold breath and zoom function? Since zoom with sights is simply to get a better view (like zoom when not looking down the sights).

Haven't seen the other post of yours, yet.

If you want, will change the wording.

Confirmed: Happens only for terrain settings of "Standard" lower, edited title for clarity, added additional info.

Ah. Texture's high, terrain is standard. Will see if high changes it (high was hitting performance a bit, about 5 fps).

Thanks for the links.

Should be marked as duplicate, then?

It's on High, afaik. Will check and update.

I got lazy about this, sorry, but it's done now.
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=13262

Are you sure? I mean you could at least roll over. Reloading could just pause till you're done rolling.

I kept them in the same thing because they were both related to immobility while reloading, but if you folks really think it's worth two tickets then OK, will split them.

@Fireball: what? Please be clear, i'll edit accordingly. I mean, what's multiple?

Thanks for the feedback everyone!

Well, yes i do agree that moving while reloading is a bit much, but there should be some sort of abort.

How about this: if you're reloading a heavy weapon, and you move, your reload cancels.

@KardasLT: Ah so it was prone that i remembered with small arms.

I don't know why i thought i couldn't move while reloading small arms.

But yeah, there should be a way to cancel the reload at least.

Editing issue.

I dunno man, i'm sure hoping they're the only ones...

I presume you're talking about the Combined Arms showcase? Been trying to pass that area since yesterday...