Its not that the huron cant sling. I tried the huron on taru boxes and it does just fine. This is not a problem with sling loading, it a zeus only issue.

Confirmed! Also have the same problem. See attached mission pbo.

It is a pity, but 1.36 didn't do that.

In my opinion, options should allow more flexibility

Like each options can take a number between 0 and 3

0 : Not active (forced, can't be changed by players)
1 : Active (forced, can't be changed by players)
2 : Not active (can be changed by users)
3 : Active (can be changed by users)

Why ?

Because something like "Show Gauges" options should be free to choose by players

there is a similar topic about this here:
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=21550

more control over RTD defo needed

I don't know when this bug was fixed, but in 1.48 and 1.50rc it is working correctly. So I think this ticket can be closed.

Thank you very much!

2 more recent dumps at 22:42 and 23:14 6/11/2014 https://www.dropbox.com/s/974ebsc17ztc8w7/arma%203%20dump%202.zip?dl=0

2 more recent dump files, date 6/11/2014 time 21:44 gmt/20:01 gmt https://www.dropbox.com/s/ljq2o4281tt4sj9/Arma%203.zip?dl=0

even got DEP turn on fully

ok ill have a look for my crash dump files and see if i can zip them into zip files and upload them somewhere

Arma 3 dump 16/11/2014 https://www.dropbox.com/s/wgdofwtew0492dg/Arma%203%20Dump%20Ross%206112014.zip?dl=0

arma 3 dump 15/11/2014 https://www.dropbox.com/s/lxnmbxso82gq8uh/Arma%203%20dump%20ross%205112014.zip?dl=0

Arma 3 dump 15/11/2014 https://www.dropbox.com/s/65fr1bnkeu1y7jq/Arma%203%20dump%20ross%205112014%20%282%29.zip?dl=0

I think one or two of them where relating to stackhash_0a9e error i was having before but turning on DEP seemed to fix it, now iv got a random crash error with arma 3.exe

Hello,
Thank you for reporting the issue.
We need crash dump files from this folder for solve your problem.
C:\Users\<Name>\AppData\Local\Arma 3\
Can you upload somewhere in winrar package please?
When the archive is smaller than 5000k, you can attach it here. When it is bigger, please use some free sharing service and post link here.

How to find correct crashdump file:
Try to make the crash happen
Look into crashdump folder
Upload crashdump with latest date in name (crashdump is rpt + bidmp + mdmp file with same name). Please try to provide as many crashdumps as possible, it helps us investigating the problem in a big way.

Thank you.

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

I totally agree on this. Squads should be able to 'force' all rotorlib difficulties so being a pilot really becomes a skill that needa to be trained. Instead of the 'everyone can hop in and fly'. Especially the autotrim not being forced to be disabled is a killer for that.
For PvP I can see why this is an issue aswell. Eveeyone will go autotrimm enabled and fly arround like crazy.

I dont see why the forced disabling option was never there...?

Sure, but before aeronautical considerations, i didn't find any mean to force simple difficulty as "map" (to decide if player can see units on map (extended map info) or not, and when (conditions).
Difficulties are too much hard coded.

Or even better, allow controlling it by script (though default value should still come from class difficulties as that's where it fits best).

And, of course, on Elite all the tough stuff should be enabled by default.

Really needed!

In my opinion, options should allow more flexibility

Like each options can take a number between 0 and 3

0 : Not active (forced, can't be changed by players)
1 : Active (forced, can't be changed by players)
2 : Not active (can be changed by users)
3 : Active (can be changed by users)

Why ?

Because something like "Show Gauges" options should be free to choose by players

more control over RTD defo needed

Apologies! PLEASE CLOSE

Immediately realised my mistake.

NVGoggles_INDEP for indy
and
NVGoggles_OPFOR for opfor

Duh.

Hello,
Thank you for reporting the issue.
We need crash dump files from this folder for solve your problem.
C:\Users\<Name>\AppData\Local\Arma 3\
Can you upload somewhere in winrar package please?
When the archive is smaller than 5000k, you can attach it here. When it is bigger, please use some free sharing service and post link here.

How to find correct crashdump file:
Try to make the crash happen
Look into crashdump folder
Upload crashdump with latest date in name (crashdump is rpt + bidmp + mdmp file with same name). Please try to provide as many crashdumps as possible, it helps us investigating the problem in a big way.

Thank you.

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

@KillZone Kid okay sorry, i created one already but noone answering it. Thats why i looked for other similar threads.

As far as this ticket is concerned, this was not a bug.

@LeaKS123 your issue seems to be different. Please create new ticket and attach detailed repro.

I added "global" commands, but now my friends can see it but they can't put it on it " picking it " in the ammobox, and if they manage to do it by taking it in the bag , putting it on the floor and then putting it on them again, i can't see it on their character , its like they are nude. And i can pick items from ammobox if i put it directly on my character but if i take it in my inventory then try to put it , it does'nt work

Thank you TakeHomeTheCup.
This was not bug. I had to use global commands.

You have to use global commands.
For example : clearMagazineCargoGlobal this;

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/clearMagazineCargoGlobal

Pretty much add "global" to the end of the local command.

exactly, currentDriver command is needed because of copilot enabled vehicles

Many thanks for the script, providing further insight into the addAction and it's usage!

I'm no pilot, but the flight boards appear duplicated between pilot and co-pilot. And from hindsight, the co-pilot should be able to perform such tasks alongside the pilot. So I personally do not think there's a problem having both pilots having access, except for the fact you might get a psychotic co-pilot whom might like to play with the lights. So it might need some final fixing detecting the "unlock controls" function, but I would be happy with this if it were published as is, along with likely many other people.

But from what I'm guessing, you might also be trying to explain the co-pilot cannot be given this feature/function unless he's detected as a the "driver" or the pilot with the controls. (ie. No function to check for the co-pilot seat occupant, unless he is driving/flying.)

Here is a kind of pseudo work around

this addAction ["", {
_this select 1 action [

		["EngineOn", "EngineOff"] select isEngineOn (_this select 0), 
		_this select 0

];
}, "", -10, false, true, "User1", "_this == driver _target"];
this addAction ["", {
_this select 1 action [

		["CollisionLightOn", "CollisionLightOff"] select isCollisionLightOn (_this select 0), 
		_this select 0

];
}, "", -10, false, true, "User2", "_this == driver _target"];

engine is bound to User Action 1
collision light to User Action 2

unfortunately there is no way to detect if copilot is current driver so this will not be available for copilot. Also it for some reason adds actions with no text to scrolling action menu so you will get 2 non selectable items added

Yes, in ACE3, you cannot use Titan launcher in manual mode, and this sad. But you can capture other small targets, not only Tanks, vehicles (such as infantry for example)
Despite the cons, I think TL in ACE3 implemented better than in vanilla game

Still no function mapping for Collision lights, for mapping to a joystick button. Collision lights could include flashing lights for vehicles, such as police or caution lights and placed within the same category as the common lights/headlights key.

Should also be a spot light key, which could also include head light high beams. (Shrugs.)

Is there a key in controls for collision lights even. Atl least I'm missing it so if there is I'd be happy to know :) If there isn't BIS should add it.

I agree with you.

Boggles the mind why they put this in a context menu and never gave it a proper key binding and now it lives buried and unloved on the feedback tracker.

@Lex, unfortunately this question is not interested in BIS/ try ACE3 mod, I have not seen any problems with stability in this mod

The strong kickback fastened to the launcher the Titan wrong. The direct trajectory at rockets in ACE is realized only for the antipersonnel rocket. From strong kickback of installation, the rocket doesn't manage to be deployed when you try to shoot at a short distance to 500 meters. or it is more. To execute a shot and precisely guide the rocket it won't turn out.
The second. Anti-tank missiles in ACE have no direct trajectory. There is no opportunity to make a shot on equipment without capture, in manual control mode on the laser. If the tank stands behind low strengthening from bags with sand, it is visible only a tank tower, the anti-tank missile gets to bags. Without MOD ACE, I can in these conditions put the tank out of action the anti-tank missile in the manual mode of targeting on the sight laser., but at a distance it is more than 500 meters.
MOD ACE the realistichny was presented by the Titan as analog of M98 Javelin. I don't like strong sensitivity of capture of the purpose to trembling of hands.

"Firing practice on a direct trajectory isn't present - badly"
NO!!! direct trajectory in the ACE3 present also! The player can choose fire mode, switching the Tab-key. Of course can be in ACE3 is not all done perfectly, but in any case it looks better and more realistic

I tried ACE3. I can't tell that MOD solves a problem completely.

• a sight - it is excellent
• capture of the purpose - it is excellent
• a rocket trajectory a canopy on the purpose - it is excellent
• the place of hit of the rocket in the purpose - is bad (in a tower it would be excellent). The equipment being behind an obstacle can be struck not in all situations.
• Firing practice on a direct trajectory isn't present - badly.
• The way of guidance of the rocket from the closed zone on the UAV laser is absent - badly.

I offer, armored glasses let remain whole. This one that has to remain on a place, after explosion of the car from the rocket. )))
Solve behavior of these elements in other ticket. Here the speech only about rockets the titan and request for two modes of flight of the rocket of the titan.
The damage to equipment which is caused by the rocket shouldn't raise doubts.
Even, if to present that glass, and the case of the car will remain whole. The blast wave will turn everything that in the car, into porridge, as in the mixer.

Arma 3 and without MOD isn't stable, on it I don't like to use MOD. But that isn't the question. Question to characteristics of the AT rockets of the Titan, as to analog of rockets M98 Javelin.

User, This features perfectly realized in the ACE 3 mod!

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=28557

Instead of having to wait years, when BIS will make the game realistic and better, play in the mods.

There is no point aiming for the windshield, its best to aim for the engine so you can disable it. Should not take more than one missile to destroy the engine.

57-58 page. In total about - curveball\fastball
http://ru.scribd.com/doc/36176275/TM-91425-688-10-M98-Javelin-Weapon-System

Maybe you're right, but today PCML can't destroy Mrap or Hunter, even after two hits in the front glass! I think, in this case, the frontal hit should cause more damage, than a hit to the armored side, because in the any case the glass should be always weaker than main armor!
Thus, i think, hardly the top tank's armor will be weaker, than the armored glass of cars in the game. Top attack? No sense...

PCML with damaging as we see now, you need to throw it in the trash

Of course there is sense to doing that, its the reason that makes it a very effective AT weapon. Like i said there is a way to buff it by using a realistic target marking system for it. Oh and of course it should be a single use launcher. You're just repeating what i said..

Well by all logic it should cause more damage if it hits the top as armor is thinner up there.

Today (v1.50) The PCML - useless weapon in the game. Even if Bis will do a vertical attack, is unlikely this will rectify the situation. The problem is that PCML has a weak damage effect.

@Shields, the PCML in the game has the most warped realization. Not only that, this weapon is not working as it should work in real life, but also it cannot destroy Mpap, Hunter or Truck!
I have create this ticket - http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=24947
Anti-Tank weapon not able destroy a car, even with two hits!
For me this is a big nonsense, but, BIS says it's okay.

Thus, no any sense to create a vertical attack to PCML, because for BIS this weapon works is perfectly/

PCML also needs this feature, all its power hides behind the TDA. The NLAW can only penetrate +500mm but the armor on MBTs is significantly weaker on the top, making the NLAW very effective rocket.

If what you're afraid of is that it would become too powerfull, then perhaps you should remove the silly lock on feature and use the system it has in real life. It is not a lock on system, it requires you to "paint" the target for 3-6 seconds and keep following untill impact.

Another advantage is that you can attack vehicles behind obstacles like trees or buildings.

There is already a mod called MHD TopDownAttack.

[quote]Attack via top, for improved penetration of tank armor.[/quote]
Not really. Top attack do not has bigger RHA penetration, the only difference is that it hits weaker parts of the tank.

"Not really. Top attack do not has bigger RHA penetration, the only difference is that it hits weaker parts of the tank."
Yes, that is what I meant. The top of a tank turret less armed.

Thank you for the report, we'll investigate what can be done about it (some mass atributes cannot be changed due to dependencies and collisions).

Hello,
thanks for the report, I have analysed the crashdumps and assigned them to programmers.

Edited to reduce text size, as well as adding suggestion to allow pilots to open doors, in consideration of solo-pilots.

Upvoted