so, in real life they have 1 exhaust but in-game model uses a mirrored texture?

i dont use real life as refference, but the textures/model in the game, the Marshall and the IFV uses the right exhaust but they have the same texture for an exhaust in the left side

thanks for the fix

Thats because "instruments" is the whole front part of the chopper

i dont see the problem here, the quad UAV its not light, or an RC toy

Please bear in mind a suppressed gun is not completelly silent.

But this is true, in case a squad wants to leave 70 meters between players in a low-visibility low-sound place to search for something and you take one of them down, the others have no way to see what happened, same if an unit over 400 meters away from their squad with no radio is engaged in a firefight

While we are on the subject, many things with the engine should change.

Sky should change with the seasons, same with the wind

how is it that there are so many downvotes? (unless this is actually a dupe)

this has been an issue ever since the start of the saga.

this is EVERY SINGLE vehicle in ArmA ever since OFP, no one ever complained about it, my only complain is with sea vehicles, then its annoying.

But north korean might aswell dont carry them because they can't buy them.

so..... USMC don't use patches at all? or they use Velcro?

Really Laqueesha? USMC dont use flag patches?

CSAT is a mix out of russia, china, and arabs countries, not just iran.

ProGamer, i know that BIS is shitting on realism so far, but this is just an minor detail to add inmersion.

cant be done, armaholic is JUST a webpage, unless they do a Six-armaholic-steamworkshop combo its not possible

i confirm diz

funny, but i never asked that, i just wanted to see some more random things that could happend, like the mission being succefully completed instead of always having to go trough the same routine.

and the US army and USMC rifles have standar issued ACOGs x4, even though Greece its not iraq or afghanistan, if a rifle max range like the MX its around 500 meters, i'd like to be able to see that far, the current ACO sights are somehow making it harder to hit, at least for me, i end up trying to remove them and using the iron sights

same was said with Physx, so, either BIS have to make a new engine or re-modify it, besides, the engine barely got tweaked after the alpha relase.

There is no shame on making a new engine after all, this engine is 10 years old and the changes from OFP to ArmA 3 are giant, but BIS needs to make a new next-gen C++ coded engine and make it even more flexible

id be glad when the ArmA uses realistic Air Alttitude-Speed visual relation, like in real life, when you see 100 meters from above the ground you REALIZE you are 100 meters above the ground, in ArmA 2 this number is 1/4, so if you set up to be 2500 meters above the ground in the game you will see you are 10 000 meters above the ground, this was possible turned into 1/2 for ArmA 3, but its still unrealistic, and using a more realistic Flight simulation for the planes would help that

agree, you could pick up a standar chopper and bring down an UAV wich is flying at around 150 meters from the ground

but the companies are american, also, i have not even heard of the agreement of EA and bell

Indeed, but of course, "money makes the world go around"

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

Oh, and pro, sorry if this is a doublepost, but the logic that EA used works everywhere because its about where is Bell located, not about where is EA located. So yes, BIS can (if they dare to) do the same thing (and maybe succeed).

astaroth i though the visual enviroment would only mean things from the ArmA 3 maps

Woodpecker, Tholozor and General scott:

In the ArmA verse of everything before ArmA 3 every name was real, even weapons, and the vehicles now are around 80% real, besides the RAH-66 wich no one knows how close is compared to the AH-99, or the enemy fusion of a Hind and a Black shark. so its nothing more than a small namechange, they dont need to actually change the model or textures, the PO-30 Orca is pretty much the same as the real counter part (wich name i forgot)

Progamer: if the name doesn't matter then we should call the Mh-9 an "F-14 Tomcat"..... but names DOES matter, after all, they are IDs, and EA won the lawsuit, wich would affect the whole gaming industry so no one pay licence to use the name and image of vehicles and weapons, the point of the ticket is to suggest that we use the same reason to use real names.

I dont hate this close future of ArmA 3, i hate how BIS devs thinks that mean they can do whatever they want with the names, structure, and equipment.

"but the real question is how this would work in the other major countries unless EA has done that too."

sorry, dont understand what you mean.

And yes, i am sure mroe than half of the community wants the real names, finding out about one way to avoid paying licences for names and models, because the fake names break inmersion.

Actually, you pay licence only if the model AND the name are alike the real product, if the M9/A9 looks like a MD-500 more than a littlebird, and we name it littlebird, or if we pick up the Ghosthawk and we name it black hawk, there would be no licence to pay

confirm this, but isn't the cammo ver. just green by default? AFAIK it had a hex cammo design before, i think the camo is the green skin

so, is this a bug or its just how it should be?

same, i couldn't reproduce it, but for some reason it happened once.... please close this ticket, i will open a new one if this repeats

in the comanche both the pilot and the gunner can drive it, so there is this dumb and useless fight about where should the actual pilot seat be at

Wakrein, i am the one who insults wasteland players, and still, negative mood or not, your comments are not related to this ticker.

Even vehicle range compared to realism is in another ticket

View distance is another thing. I downvoted this because it would just kill FPS. Id rather ask for dinamyc view distance (like VBS2)

No, it was meant to wakrein

mp has more fps issues, in sp everything maxed out i get 40-50 fps with 2500 distance.

Using i5, ATI Sapphire Hd 6950, 4 gb ram.

Stupid people wont notice the mp-sp fps change because they only play wasteland

preloading the terrain would be the same as increasing the visibility, and it would make the same performance impact, you would just make the game preload terrains before time but also not looking at the same distance, something wich i find completely stupid.

/D-voted.

"5000 meters is not a long distance especially when flying the soon to be added jets."

LOL WUT? the max render distance is 12 000 meters.......

Lol, darkwanderer, that glass is more like the bad quality swimming goggle kids use after a few minutes underwanter.

Is that how BIS thinks a military optic sights work? if that's how they will work in 2035 no doubt they will use LMG with iron sights and riflemans with the red dot.

i think the problem is not the brightness itself but the fact that stars dont provide enough lightsource and that the sky itself is little populated. I also agree that in terms of illumination with or without NVG in clear sky or not, the illumination is fine

Vlad, what's your village elevation?

Gugla, how hard is it to make stars actually illuminate?

can you change skyboxes without changing maps?

No. if its a simulator the company can use that as an excuse to throw all the shit away. But yes, nights are not pitch black.

Not quite, stars are distant suns, remember that, even in an eclipse a clear night can provide enough light source for the NVG to work.

Talking about that, i am surprised NVG works when raining and when using optics (for rifles, not for snipers) when they shouldn't

yeah, the colors of the universe are only seen in around 4 k meters from sea level or around above that, as the atomsphere is too thick below that level like to see them. I have also seen clear skies, but the light from the stars compared to real life to the ArmA 3 nightsky is an universe of difference. Besides, i think its pointless to just make up you are from greece to boost the ticket up.

The problem is that, i think that the stars shouldn't be just some white dots but also a light source, like in real life, and they should make it so that the higher up you are you can see the space better.......

But this is not KSP, BIS would have to waste some money to put that from VBS3 to ArmA 3, and we know that they dont want to spend money when talking about upgrading the Real Virtuality 4 from ArmA.

if you suggest goblinbutt, i dont think he is just irrationally arguing, he is making a good point, but the statement that nobody that comments here lives on greece is just about a little bit less possible to the chance that there are people that lives on greece that commented about this ticket negatively.

still my theory is logicall, BIS is known for being greedy and its something they can do.

Besides, if you think this is right just because people cant prove where they come from then you need a little bit of faith, as much as that sound stupid, you dont need proof for everything, otherwise i wouldn't be able to prove i live in southamerica when i do.

because we have also people in the comments who lives in greece, and its not the first time i would see BIS using old assets, they may think that remaking a whole skybox for a game was too much so they used the same one as in arma 2 (lets be honest, i think its the same skybox)

the sky should be even darker, but with a brighter sky

i think so, it increases the NVG light and it makes nightsky FAR more realistic, night time its a flaw in ArmA graphic realism

sorry, nod. mistoke the first and the second image between themselves

what?.....

Nod, the sky doesn't turn black just because there is a light that comes from a flashlight and smoke from your car, the sky needs a shit ton of smoke and light from a city to be unable to see the stars, if like i said, you live in an island, surrounded by sea, where the only present things are an barely used airport and a small town, you are 99% likely to see the sky just like the first image you posted.

Nod, i know startis its not the middle of nowhere.......... but stratis its not LA or NY.... its a small island with a small village, an military airport, and its surrounded by water, do you really think it will have the empty sky of a city?

i have seen clear skies on empty places (no city shit) and i can tell you ArmA 3 night sky looks like if you were in detroit or something, because you should be able to see more than white dots

i remember operation flashpoint had it, or at least had support for that since a mod had it

there is easily a towing feature with addons in arma, with Physx, i am sure people can do actual towing instead of just sticking a car in the behind of the truck

the OFP addon worked flawlessly as i remember, if you setted up a train, it would automatically spawn in the rail, there were special maps compatibles with the addon, and AFAIK the only bug was when throwing the train off tracks or mounting another car with it.

"Unfortunately this is not possible, it will be looked into for the next game."

BALLS, THERE WERE OFP ADDONS THAT DID THIS. I KNEW BIS WAS GETTING LAZY, BUT NOT THIS MUCH

my complaints with BIS are not limited to a few issues, if that's what you mean, and if we are talking about non-constructive discussion, you are suming up to it.

Now, about the ticket, supposedly BIS said that the armor vests are balanced in this way:

-carrying capacity
-protection
-weight

supposedly, the NATO vests have the best protection, the Greenfor have the most balanced one, the OPfor are specialized in weight, but their carrying capacity is big (and holy hell, check their basic armor vest, its like a friking backpack).

I dont know what's the FIA armor vest in any special way.

"bis don't know how to change this, if they did they would have done it already"

implying BIS would be hardworking to make the game better.

many people made tickets about this, even me, people complain that the AI takes several shots to kill, i complain that until they die they will act like if nothing happened

duplicated

they have MXC, wich are carbines, SMG are not needed

1- you could just go to sound options, lower everything but effects, increase the headphones volume and problem fixed.

2- agree

3- it was said it was gonna come back, they were just remaking it because it looked like crap

its "voalá"

/upvoted

6.5 damage its not too low, maybe is that the enemy is using a strong vest, because in real life a 5.56 won't kill somebody in 1 hit in the torso

people will stop complaining about ejecting as an CH-47 pilot when the damage model for the choppers means anything but that 1 hit with anything will make it blow up in the middle of the air

i dont reach you, you can already go from walk to run in an instant with a key

you need to upload .rar

not happening to me, instead, they open their parachutes, they hit the ground, but the parachutes cant be closed, so they end up drifting in ground with their parachutes in the closing animations for ever

do you think you can shot in real life someone in the stomach and he will die? it takes 2-3 htis (min) with an assault rifle to kill someone in the torso

your description sounds like if it was made by a kid.

try researching it a little bit more

the arma 2 jet damage model was pretty much the same as in ArmA 1

but he ran the test with civilians

yu kno wat shoul we hav tooo? A-10!!! bcause evry game had one, and we shold have black hawks with fastroping and ships and tanks and carriers and USMC bikes, btu it haz to ve for tomorrou.

but you also want a better simulation of damage physics, everybody wants them, i want better ones for planes, because in the planes either they explode or they work perfectly fine smoking out.

Hate that

so.... you dont want a more realistic damage model?

AKA:

you want better realistic simulation on damage physics

we are asking for an option to toggle this, not to completely reverse it

just make it an option and fixed

HA! 6950 weak? maybe comparing to modern cards, but still it renders ArmA 3 maxed out, crysis 3, FSX, BF3 and LA noire maxed out with 40 or more FPS, not being the best in the market doesn't mean its weak for games, mdoern hardware companies try to make expensive and powerful graphic cards even if games won't need it for 4 years just so people who can waste money buy them for no reason at all.

And yes, ATI is known for having shitty filter/AA compatibility

daw, dont be so sad, its personal opinion, but i HATE AA and all the filters, besides, in my 6950 i have problems with it in many other games too, so its not so much about having max settings but activating a resource-hog that breaks ATI cards that make objects far away look blurry so you dont see the pixels, wich, literally, does the same as lowering the textures far away, they did the same in the console ver. of Sleeping Dogs, barely anyone realized they were low Q textures.

Seriously? NO OTHER GAME? with AA on ArmA 1 would half my FPS by just looking at vegetation and GTA IV would start making my screen flicker and the sky red

using ATI and ANY KIND of AA or any filter its a REALLY REALLY REALLY bad idea, trust me, i am talking 'bout experience

i would love to see a more realistic reloading and movement like receiver did, want to go fast? instead of holding Shift you would have to move your finger and do something, wanted to reload? you had to remove the cartridge and insert a new one and then cook the gun.

this is not about buying DLC, but about just them existing, i didn't bought no Sleeping Dogs DLC, that doesn't mean i wont comply about most of them being shit, same thing here, if you ask me, ACR was a below average DLC, but i would hate, even if no one buys it, that BIS sells a DLC making the exact same thing they did before for a new price, EVEN if its remade, if its not remade, then i would see a shit storm coming into BIS offices.

Its just that people have to start to analize companies for their actions, not just for "wich game is good and wich one isn't"

"I also would pay for an official DLC even if it's "just" the way ak47mm mentioned. (no new textures, etc)
I always would prefer official content than a Community-mod, just because:
The more people are "forced" to have it the more will use it (Server)."

Corvus, what the fuck is that?

would you pay just for an DLC that makes the 3D clouds and the ArmA 3 weather inside ArmA 2 maps when besides that you can just port it to ArmA 3?

And why do you want more people to be forced to use them? why dont we just make everyone use every addon in existence then?

or better, let BIS disable every Addon content for ArmA, you know, JUST LIKE EA

HA, i dont know, BIS even if i think its a great dev company its known for making greedy choices

sort of having to monthly pay to keep servers running to the devs too? or a monthly payment in general

there was a good one in ArmA 3 alpha at i think...... nah, i dont remember what build, it was too old, before the sniper pack, i do remember it was a resource hog

nice story, perhaps Game 2 was just a try to port VBS 2 assets to Arma, wich proved unsuccefull

oh, and i'd fucking pay with my kidney to see an offitial OFP in the 'nam era, but i suspect it was most likely a game that follow up the campaign using the thing like in wargame, in wich the WWIII DID started

read it a long time ago, i think that proyect was called "The game", not joking, that WAS the name, shitty one, i know, but there was just small info, most of their assets were reused on ArmA 1