After watching the video now I know why Arma 3 sounds soundless sometimes. It's still unanswered why this was added but not really added?

1.52 still true.

This is a much missed feature from OFP.

Is there any sound feature added lately that isnt added already broken

I'm still wondering today what that even meant in the changelog.

Try moving your artillery location. This is due to the altitude difference.

Copy and paste is a very welcome if BIS doesn't want to give us drawing. It's pretty time consuming put empty dots to show route. Or just that the black dot is the first one would help a lot.

We NEED this. Please, BI. It can't be that hard of a fix. At least rotate, and an easier way of picking the type of marker, or even setting a certain one as the default.

Or just that the black dot is the first one would help a lot.

This is a kind of incrementalism.
Drawing a line,or even curved one must be further useful and appropriate for this splendid game!

Duplicate of #0014984.

I had this too, but it seems to be fixed for me now.

Had the glitch too. It disapears when you look at it from a bigger distance.

reproducable in dev-build 1.03.110511

corrupted mipmap data in level 0 in file a3/air_f_gamma/Plane_Fighter_03/Data/plane_fighter_03_body_1_indp_co.paa

Thank you for reporting, but this report is duplicate of http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15009

I am also having the same issue, arma 3 never crashed for me until the new update .

This crash was fixed in last update of stable version.

I have added my files you requested here http://bit.ly/18Gypsl

We need dxdiag and files from this folder for solve your problem. C:\Users\<Name>\AppData\Local\Arma 3\
Can you upload somewhere in winrar package please?
When package will be smaller than 2,097k, so you can attach here. When package will be bigger, please use some free sharing service and post link here. Thank you.

http://feedback.arma3.com/how-to-user.html.html

Related to issue #0012840

Thank you for reporting, but this report is duplicate of http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15009

I see a long list of files and folder there. Which ones do you need?

PRT files?
Crash Dump Files?

If so they are linked here:
http://anarchicx.site.nfoservers.com/arma3/Arma3.rar

We need dxdiag and files from this folder for solve your problem. C:\Users\<Name>\AppData\Local\Arma 3\
Can you upload somewhere in winrar package please?
When package will be smaller than 2,097k, so you can attach here. When package will be bigger, please use some free sharing service and post link here. Thank you.

http://feedback.arma3.com/how-to-user.html.html

I'm getting the same crash. Sometimes the game crashes before I can even get to the multiplayer server view.

Here is info from the Windows Event Viewer. Not sure if it helps.

Faulting application name: arma3.exe, version: 1.2.110.424, time stamp: 0x52440456
Faulting module name: arma3.exe, version: 1.2.110.424, time stamp: 0x52440456
Exception code: 0xc0000005
Fault offset: 0x00d05267
Faulting process id: 0x1334
Faulting application start time: 0x01cebd21771a471a
Faulting application path: C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Arma 3\arma3.exe
Faulting module path: C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Arma 3\arma3.exe
Report Id: 5cdc7061-2915-11e3-892e-14dae993dabc

Faulting application name: arma3.exe, version: 1.2.110.424, time stamp: 0x52440456
Faulting module name: PhysX3_x86.dll, version: 3.2.4.1, time stamp: 0x5164246f
Exception code: 0xc0000005
Fault offset: 0x0010a749
Faulting process id: 0x5e4
Faulting application start time: 0x01cebd354a8ea305
Faulting application path: C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Arma 3\arma3.exe
Faulting module path: C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Arma 3\PhysX3_x86.dll
Report Id: 1347cab1-292a-11e3-892e-14dae993dabc

I do not see an option to rate this issues severity but I would call it critical or extreme as it makes the multiplayer aspect of the game almost unplayable.

Is probably related to the issue reported here:

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10232

I need input if you guys can notice in the video, if not try test yourself or I make another video

Duplicate of #586.

I have done what you asked, but the problem has not happened yet as it seems completely random, I will report back if it happens again.

Mass closing ancient tickets with no activity this year; assume fixed or too trivial etc.

If this issue is still relevant in current dev build, please create a new ticket referencing this one and request for it to be re-opened.

Yes, they are in same folder.

Could you try it in fullscreen window and window mode?

Could you upload .bidmp and .mdmp files, if you have these files? Thank you.

Could you tell me where I could find them?

If they are located in the same folder as the RPT files, there are none.

I posted the suggestions in the forums, but re-posted here so it wouldn't get lost.

It's good to see that in Death Valley campaign mission, the remake of the Infantry Showcase, Bravo squad holed up in Girna shoots out of the building, as I suggested. However, the opfor AAF still too often wait at a waypoint up the valley after you have reached the village, forcing you to to find them and shoot them from long range with no scope. As suggested in this ticket, I think it would be better for them to return to the village after player has reached village.

Where have I seen this before?

See also
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15070

Duplicated for some reason.

You've answered it yourself - YABNON-R is not Greyhawk. The former is recon, the latter is - looking on payload options - a multipurpose strike/recon. With this in mind, having greater speed at the expence of several percent's worth of loiter time seems entirely justified. MQ-9 Reaper - Predator's strike/recon cousin - has max speed of 400 kph compared to Predator's 217. Common sense ;-)

I don't honestly see why was this ticket assigned.

@DarkWanderer: Saying "you're wrong" doesn't make me. All you're saying is that this is "possible" now, or could be "possible" 20 years later...without specifying why or how.

"i feel it should be so" was taking into account whatever info i could find, basically saying "have we hit a wall, as far as speed/engine size/aircraft weight and shape are concerned?" and if yes, then is it reasonable to assume that this aircraft should not be able to fly that fast.

@Dr_Death: Yup, that and something to do with drag making propeller flight inefficient.

Anyway. It seems i may have proven myself wrong...the Predator's information i was looking at was the older 1995 original.

The current Predator B, introduced in 2007, has a max speed of 482 km/h, and a cruise speed of 313 km/h.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RQ-9_Predator_B#Specifications

So i guess this ticket can be shut. HOWEVER:

Consider that the size of the Greyhawk (based on AD2001's link) and the Predator, along with their engine power, etc. are very different.

Dude, i really appreciate and respect the effort you've put into that explanation.

You're right, i'm not qualified to tell weather something will fly or not, i'm studying electronics engineering, not aerospace...nor am i a pilot or anything related.

The entire point of posting tickets like this is discussion and reviewing something that may be unbalanced and/or incorrect, which is why i was getting slightly annoyed by your "you're wrong" standpoint, without explanation.

Common sense is the starting point of many great things, friend! ;)

BTW: The Greyhawk's constructors are BIS. So it's an open question as to what they sacrificed, if at all they did. The YABHON-R, the real life Greyhawk, is a lot slower. Common sense (and watching Discovery/Nat Geo) would suggest that a UAV's makers tend to prioritize loitering time for recon purposes.

In fact, the YABHON-R's website states that it's a recon drone, mainly.

So i dunno. Not quite seeing the logic in prioritizing speed over endurance for a UAV.

@DarkWanderer: Saying "you're wrong" doesn't make me. All you're saying is that this is "possible" now, or could be "possible" 20 years later...without specifying why or how.

"i feel it should be so" was taking into account whatever info i could find, basically saying "have we hit a wall, as far as speed/engine size/aircraft weight and shape are concerned?" and if yes, then is it reasonable to assume that this aircraft should not be able to fly that fast.<<
You're wrong assuming that "reasonable" is an argument. For you one thing is reasonable, for other person - another. The only common denominator is (tadaam!) physics. You have also failed to provide any "reasonable" explanation except "well, look at it, it can't fly that fast".

You're right in one aspect, however, I haven't elaborated enough.

There are tens of factors which affect the fixed-wing aircraft modelling, but let's do a simple as an axe calucaltion with two factors:
1.Drag. It consists of three parts: induced drag, form drag and wave drag. For the purpose of our discussion, we're limited to first two, as wave drag is insignificant at speeds lower than 0.7M.
Formula for drag is here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/9/a/99a6015b6a230860c9b1517b238e5de9.png
Fixing all the components except velocity, we get the following: F_D = (Cfx + Cix)*(v^2) (Cfx and Cix are normalized drag coefficients, assuming constant height, same body, etc. Cfx is form drag, Cix is induced drag)
2.Lift, in the same way can be expressed as F_L = Cy * v^2.

Cy and Cix are functions of Angle of Attack; Cfx can be assumed roughly constant.

Then, if we're taking one aircraft and starting to increase its speed (from 200 to 300 kph), what happens is:
1.To maintain the same amount of lift, angle of attack must be reduced so that F_L remains the same (because the weight of the aircraft is roughly constant)
2.Reducing AoA leads to reduction in Cix. How much exactly depends on many factors, but roughly (in our condition), it is reduced proportionally to inverse fourth degree of speed. Let's assume it doesn't change (for now, you'll see why later). However, due to v increasing, overall drag (F_D) still increases. Given our assumption, it increases almost quadratically (to become (3/2)^2 = 2.25 times larger). This means that the thrust the engine must be exerting is 2.25 times more.

Which basically gives us the engine which (assuming the worst case - same T/W ratio) needs to be 2.25 times heavier. However, since engine weight is (usually) a minor part the weight of the aircraft, this increase is more-or-less balanced by the Cix reduction. If you're not comfortable with equation convergence, you can assume the total weight of the aircraft stays the same and the heavier engine is accomodated by the expense of some fuel.

Hence, what we get is that all we need to account for are increased requirements for materials to handle the load and increased fuel consumption. First problem was successfully solved in WW2 time (see, again, P-51), second problem is a simple tradeoff - either you have good loitering time, or you have good speed. Not both. Seems like Greyhawk constructors sacrificed some of the latter for the former.

So, let's put it this way: I've already accounted for all the factors you've named and some you didn't ever hear of, that's why I said you're wrong ;) In real life it is not that simple, of course, but, as I wanted to show, you don't possess the qualifications to tell whether something will fly or not. You'll need something better for that than just characteristics comparison and "common sense".

The reason why propeller engines cant go past subsonic speed is because the change in air that comes with it ends up in breaking the blades.

the reason why this doesn't happen with jets its because there are no external blades taking almost 1000 km/h of air to the head.

True, they could. But physics won't change...hence my comment on "magic".

I mean, consider the Spitfire...that was over 70 years ago. Correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't think modern day turboprops go much faster than the Spitfire's 630 km/hr.

(i did a bit of quick reading on wikipedia, it seems propeller aircraft are limited to about 700-750 Km/hr, after which they lose efficiency).

So yeah, i'm with you on the 250 Km/h thing. That would be reasonable, imo.

EDIT: Just saw the Mustang article Dark linked to, that flies at 700 Km/h, so basically in all those years, we're still at the same speed for propellers. So if i had to make a safe assumption about propeller/engine tech in the next 20 years, i'd limit the Greyhawk to 250 km/h at the most.

You're wrong.

Hint: "I feel it should be so" has nothing to do with physics.

The Greyhawk is, apparently based off of the YABHON-R. It's max cruise speed is 240 km/h, so yeah, it's a bit of in the game.

Source: http://www.adcom-systems.com/ENG/UAV/YAHBON-R/Overview.html

However, maybe they could just make a smaller, yet powerful engine in the next 20 years.

I'm fine with limiting it's max speed to around 250 km/h, though.

There isn't any fundamental aerodynamic difference, true, but there's a huge difference in engine size (and power output), propeller size (and the amount of thrust it can generate), weight (and thus power-to-weight ratio), materials, etc.

You have to account for all of that.

For example, if i use the information provided by AD2001 (thanks!) and compare the YABHON-R to say, a Spitfire, you're comparing a 100 hp engine to a 1000 to 2000 hp Rolls-Royce engine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire#Specifications_.28Spitfire_Mk_Vb.29

The Darter, for example, is perfectly believable (although i think it becomes too stable when hovering), this is a bit of a hard sell.

We would need to see more concrete facts regarding similar and other UAVs first.

Ok, simply saying "propeller plane" was dumb. What i meant was:

Ihis is still a drone! Small little propeller at the back, with a small engine. Again, the Predator tops out at 217 km/hr as a reference point.

2035 doesn't imply magic, you know. :P

p.s. Almost all items, vehicles, weaponry and tech in Arma 3 is present day tech, just re-named to avoid licensing issues.

Suicideking, 300km/h was slow even for WWII propeller planes, "fast as a jet" is about 900 or more km/h.

Except, again, the Greyhawk is not the Predator. I wasn't even referring to 2035, by the way. This kind of UAV is entirely possible now, with all the characteristics. Where is "magic"?

There's no fundamental aerodynamic difference between UAV and a piloted plane.

:D
P-51 is a propeller-driven plane. It has max speed of 700+ kph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-51_Mustang

It's a propeller driven plane. Will it fly as fast as a jet? No.

Why do you think it will have same characteristics as the Predator? It will not...