i support this, my custom weapon uses the old sound because it was very fitting. The new sound doesnt really fit to the weapon

I dont get motionsickness from it, but it's unrealistic.
If you feel acceleration there is no wild shaking. Shaking only occurs if you have turbulences, and acceleration in random directions in short order.

Or does your entire body shake if you accelerate in a car? No it doesnt! Same with an airplane or helicopter. Remove it. Replace it by blackout/redout viewlimitations if you must.

A flag is a very simple object. Clothing, Truckcovers etc are not so simple.
I'm against it. Attention to detail is better invested elsewhere.

Instead of a fixed cone, a config value for radar cone angle would be very usefull

They should instead just overhaul the goddamn action menu. This thing you propose will not fix anything. You trade one inconvenience for another (accidentally placing explosives vs. no space in vest to put explosive in it).

Instead they should make explosives deployable from the gear menu and remove them from action menu. Placing explosives isnt something you need urgently all the time, like firing a weapon or throwing a grenade is.

i had a look at the physx source code in the hopes to maybe find something valuable, but the solver and all that is fine. It's, like i assumed earlier, the clutch that is the sole problem.
I would have hoped to offer a simple solution but adding new controll inputs into the physx framework is beyond my limited programming abilities.

BIS needs to implement a way to modify the clutch strength depending on drive situations, because i dont see Nvidia pulling their finger regarding this.

Especially not now since the code is accessable with permission to modify to nvidia partners.

I guess i was wrong to say the operation of the clutch is properly simulated with physx. I did more reasearch on this topic and started a topic on the nvidia physx forum.

It seems to me as if the characteristics of the physx clutch system are responsible for this problem. In case you stand still and give thrust the resistance produced by the clutch can be so high that any acceleration of the engine is prevented.
Here is the topic https://devtalk.nvidia.com/default/topic/764824/physx-and-physics-modeling/clutch-strength-question/

I compiled the whole thread in the physx forum as image (4MB) as i can't figure out how to make it viewable to public and have gotten no reply from the forum guys
http://abload.de/img/compiledeqsy5.jpg

Vehicle turbo does nothing but to change throttle to 1.0 (or to whatever value it is set in the config). If you do not push "turbo" you don't drive at maximum throttle. It's an illusion, the turbo is not a turbo, it's standard throttle. The regular accelerator is a retarder instead, not applying full throttle.

To have a kick down effect give you any use it requires a proper working clutch in the first place. And kickdown doesnt solve 0-speed torque. It can only improve the acceleration once you are in motion, depending how efficient the autogearbox operates. Right now all of them operate very efficient so this wouldn't have a big influence.

i think i found the underlying problem in the physx implementation of the clutch.
Let's hope Nvidia will implement a solution in a timely manner so it can be fed back into Arma 3

https://devtalk.nvidia.com/default/topic/764824/physx-and-physics-modeling/clutch-strength-question/?offset=7#4277592

Edit: for some reason my posts are hidden, will try to unhide them so you can see the discussion

no it isn't related. Faster tanks (e.g. Moira) also have this issue. With the slow acceleration it takes longer to get out of the banana-mode to higher speed however, so it makes it feel worse.

just noticed that there is a similar request
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=18434

No it's not a reason why aircrafts do turn when banked.
But yes, discrepancy between center of lift and center of mass produces a torque.
Ideally, center of lift= center of mass. If this is not the case you need to trim your controll surfaces to account for the torque (unless it becomes too extreme in which case the aircraft becomes uncontrollable/unstable)
That's why rules/guidelines exist for all (military and commercial) aircraft how much mass imbalance you are allowed to have, in which order you are allowed to fire your weapon, and in which order you have to deplete your different fuel tank cells and so on.

As we dont have trim in A3 it should be avoided to have center of lift outside center of mass/ vice versa.

Here is the proper explanation why an aircraft turns.
http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?167067-Fixed-Wing-Flight-Model-(dev-branch)&p=2793625&viewfull=1#post2793625

the banking turn of an aircraft cant be explained with centrifugal force. It's an aerodynamical effect that causes torque and therefore produces centrifugal force. Proof is the simple fact that you cant make a banking turn with an aircraft in vacuum, even if you had "lift" and gravitational force.

Torque that aligns plane with descending speed is physically wrong/ incomplete. It needs to work for all coordinates and speeds.

See here for how it could be done:
http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?167067-Fixed-Wing-Flight-Model-(dev-branch)&p=2793937&viewfull=1#post2793937

IMPORTANT

The forces and accelerations are not calculated correctly. Something is broken with it. See here for the REAL explanation, tests AND A WAY TO FIX IT:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?167067-Fixed-Wing-Flight-Model-(dev-branch)&p=2793625&viewfull=1#post2793625

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?167067-Fixed-Wing-Flight-Model-(dev-branch)&p=2793858&viewfull=1#post2793858

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?167067-Fixed-Wing-Flight-Model-(dev-branch)&p=2793937&viewfull=1#post2793937

Despite a constant gravity force when 90° banked, the aircraft has a fixed speed in that direction, doesn't accelerate. I think this is the main source for many problems that people experience.

just fly up high into the clouds with an airplane and turn your view... it's horrible and you get easily confused where up and down is if you dont look at aircraft instruments.

physx simulation only allows 20wheels at max. Tank wheel count is already high (Kuma= 18 wheels). There is no workaround possible with extra wheels.

related to http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=19183
and http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=20078

Tank tracks dont exist, they are just visual. Nvidia PhysX model is based on wheels, therefore it will behave like wheels. PhysX doesnt allow complete and very realistic track simulation.
I don't know of any other game that has real tracksimulation, and i doubt we will see one soon because realworld Trackphysics are complex and calculationintensive.

Real track physics are very likely out of scope for Arma /it's unrealistic to expect it. As long as 0-speed torque is fixed (/ the clutch system is fixed) and controlls are repaired it will be much better.

big issue... you can barely see anything when shooting because the gun dust looks solid