I'd like to see addactions removed that have a dedicated key assigned to them. Like inventory. Or does anyone else here see a reason why it should be in the menu?

Dev branch had a fix today. The weapon is now prioritised ove inventory as it should. However I am not sure about the rest of functionality.

when weapon is in weaponholder among other things, it is possible to individually pick up other items like headgear, firstaid kit, NVGs from action menu without going into Inventory.

however when weapon is removed, everything becomes just a pile and you need to go through it via inventory.

Intended or still a bug?

fixing this bug completely ruined the AI action menu (the '6' menu). Now you need to scroll through a dozen pages of "Take xxx" commands just to get to the action you need because the "Take" command is prioritized. It's not worth it.
If you guys insist on keeping this fix, better remove all the "take" commands from the AI action control menu, or limit them items located in a close range to the AI.

I made a related ticket - http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=24552

"I think every time there is a new "set" command there should be a new "get" command to accompany it."

aye aye captain

I think every time there is a new "set" command there should be a new "get" command to accompany it.

should be in tomorrow's dev https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/getObjectViewDistance

This might not be a "sexy" issue that gets much attention, but I think a Drop_Zone_XX marker is a much needed feature for a "drop sling load here" mark to display on the SLA gauge.

DZ-marker_01
DZ-marker_02
DZ-marker_03
Etc.

Duplicate of http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15268

You don't get what I'm saying.
I'm trying to point out that a Soldier Editor would be the same as VA because it would still have to run the code on the units initialization.
You might as well use the EXPORT function in VA then put it in the units init box yourself.
Putting a soldier editor inside the mission editor would end up just being drop down menu's on the unit creation dialog.

I do get what you're saying. And from what you just said, you don't know enough to even be commenting.

One does not simply add a bunch of stuff to an initialization field in order to outfit 30 guys when building a co-op mission.

Go and take a look at LEA - it's buggy as hell but works, it does not edit an initialization field and creates 3 seperate files for each single player, server and multiplayer to edit soldiers for each contingency - why?

Well, because of JIP and various other client-server issues which can only be gotten around by coding the game for at least a couple of weeks - to know what you're doing.

That's CODING the game for weeks - not playing it.

Sorry, but if you think the initialization field and an export from VAS is the be-all end-all of loadout editing, you really aren't in a position to be saying much on the issue. You don't even realise what the issue is.

Here is exactly what I'm talking about in a dev-blog:
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15268

I'm sorry but VA is not a fix for when you want to create a mission and limit the equipment to a particular set...

Getting people to add their equipment through VA is an incredible break of immersion also...

Seriously, wtf are you even on about ?

Its true that the arsenal is there. But you still have to put code into the init field. Even though it already compiles it for you.
Even If they add a "Soldier Editor" it will pretty much work the same as VA. It'll would run code at the unit's init.

"it takes days and even weeks to get enough time to learn enough scripting to deal with such a fundamental issue"

This is simply untrue. They added the arsenal for those who want to avoid scripting.

@Shields: Your point is not valid because the first rocket does not disable the MRAP, the engine only takes about 35% damage and the vehicle keeps running perfectly fine. It's an anti-<b>tank</b> missile after all, it should have no problem blowing the crap out of any MRAP.

Unlike the real thing, <b>the Arma 3 NLAW is configured specifically for direct hits, as evidenced by the game config showing it has a very low splash damage value</b>. The airburst barely does 2% damage max, which is much less than desirable, and was only implemented so the rocket isn't wasted in the air if it misses the target by a couple inches.

Also, in this case, 2 rockets are not enough to cause a delayed explosion. A single hit to the engine only causes 30 to 40% engine damage, while that in order to cause a delayed explosion, the vehicle either needs to sustain at least 98% overall damage, or over 90% fuel tank damage.

Finally, how do you explain the Strider getting destroyed in one hit regardless of the impact location? Wouldn't that be grossly unbalanced compared to other MRAPs?

It should also be noted that this <b>bug</b> was introduced with a recent update, and did not exist when the game was released.

Confirm. I checked it as well. This problem only affects NLAW.
RPG and TITAN have no such problems. It's killing Ifrit with one hit.
So, I think the fix need influence of NLAW-weapon, not Ifrit.

The author of the ticket, you should fix the name problem. "incorrectly high damage resistance against NLAW-launcher" (not AT-missile) Because AT-Missiles exists in other weapons also.

Arma 3 does not take fuel or ammunition into account when deciding if a vehicle should blow up or not. Everything is hardcoded in the game engine, according to the vehicle's simulation type. A delayed or instant explosion is only triggered when either specific hitpoints or the overall structure reach a specific amount of damage.

In my testing in the editor a single rocket killed the engine. AT rocket will not nessacerily blow up a vehicle unless there is ammunition inside that would ignite, nor does it have a lot of splash damage as it isn't mean to.
What comes to the strider its probably just built a bit less resistant considering the wide driver view and short length of the vehicle. Lastly arma does not aim to balance vehicles and weapons so every faction would be equal. They have their pro's and con's.

Thanks for the video, Upvoted.

Everything in A3 is indestructible unless you get a direct hit with a nuclear bomb.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about here. Both Ifrit and Hunter can be exploded with a single rocket if shot from the sides or the back. Obviously the front is the strongest point and even then it only takes a single rocket to DISABLE the vehicle. On the video your shots were also low as the PCML rocket drops abit after launch and rises afterwards. Also it might take a while for a disabled vehicle to blow up so 2 rockets will do it when shooting at the front. The reason the PCML does not use a direct hit because its designed to rise above the target and strike down at the last moment. As you can see in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIVtB-8fQ7E

To be fair, the Ifrit probably had its windscreen wipers on, witch brushed away the explosion ;-)

Thanks for taking the time to make this clear video, upvoted.

Just happened in the repro, the unassigned commander did board the chopper, but another crew took his place in the AMV. Weird.

Those are not random mouth animations though. Sure the mimics could be adjusted, but my point was that the command setMimic itself is not broken. At least on living units, but that seems to be more of an issue with the ragdolls.

I know, but they're not very useful. There is scarcely any difference between them. The only noticable differences are that "safe" allows smiling and yawning, and "hurt" favours grimacing over anything else. So far so good. But actual emotions like we had in OFP would be more useful.

Your screenshots of "combat" and "danger" just show the guy doing one of the random mouth animations. Does the "combat" one really look like the guy is in combat? Why would there be any difference between danger and combat anyway? Why would there be any difference between "aware" and "neutral"?

At the very least I think they should bring back some states from Flashpoint, namely "smile", "sad", "angry" and "aggressive", to actually control when a character shows one of those particular expressions rather than simply allowing them to happen randomly. I just fired up OFP for the first time in years to check out setMimic in the editor. You can make a unit look happy, angry, aggressive, surprised, even cynical. Of course the graphics are horrendous and the expressions can be quite comical, but they actually work.

There are new keywords for Arma 3:
"neutral","dead","danger","hurt","aware","safe","combat"

Here examples. dead, danger, combat in order:

http://i.imgur.com/IsTdmCu.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ddlmcAU.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/VCwN1YM.jpg

I have no problems with setMimic on living units. It doesn't work on dead units at all though.

Regardless of the scripting command, mimics should be implemented natively like they were in ArmA 2. This is one of these missing details that would greatly enhance the atmosphere of the game.

As above, setMimic hasnt worked properly since at least Arma 1 (I didnt play Arma 1 so I don't know). As in the Flashpoint functionality where you could set individual expressions like "sad", "happy", "angry", etc.

I don't know what you mean about Arma 2. It didn't work at all in A2 either, and the units had no facial expressions whatsoever.

+1 for this since it can't be that hard to fix and it would go a long way to making the experience feel more authentic.

This may effect other states (such as danger, safe, hurt, as well), not just "dead", with the setmimics not being applied when they should be called for.

setMimic hasn't worked properly since, what, Arma 1? In Arma 2 I guess the facial animations didn't exist, so everybody looked liked a dead-eyed emotionless android. Now the units have dynamic facial expressions but we can't apply them with setMimic.

Thanks, thought "CL" was referring to some internal place :)

CL says it is still ongoing, I guess you had to revamp the whole handler handling, haha

What version did this get fixed in? I did not see it show up in the 1.36 change log.

Edit: Just checked. In 1.36 the issue is not fixed.

If you read changelog, it says that the fix is ongoing and includes other EHs, this is probably why it didn't make it into this stable. As for this particular fix, it is ok on DEV

Yup :)
Thanks for this and for a nice repro!

Btw, the change was a major one. If you encounter any new issues in music, mission, control or display EH please report back.

Thanks a lot!

Seems fixed in today;s dev

I don't think AutoSpot = 0; Disables the ability for myself to press T and target something, though...

I am sorry but we won't be adding "Friendly Fire off" option to Arma.

I think he wants to change the attribute that says that you are a traitor. You get it if you kill friendlies.

If they do that, it should be able to be overridden by mission makers.

This problem still hasn't been resolved.
At night drones can be easily spotted because of this and there's no way to turn them off.

fres install of windows, and full reinstall of all my steam games, seems to have solved it for now, im going to test it more over the next few days. but i hope it will continue to work.

just uploaded two rpt files, the one where it worked, due to sfc /scannow and the one right after, where it failed.

okay, fresh install, everything has been removed, and installing now, but cant test it until tuesday.

i just tried again, since i had some issues with updating a driver, and ran a SFC /scannow, and i was able to install the driver, then i decided to try running arma 3 as well, just to see if it would work, and now im able to get in the game, not sure if i missed an update, which fixed it, or if the sfc scannow fixed it, but im able to play now.

sfc /scannow seems to have been temporary, not sure why, but now it does the same things, as before, it launches, shows the loading bar, and just sits in the taskmanager.

running SFC /scannow, seems to have fixed the issue.

Could you please try to unplug all your USB devices (except mouse and keyboard)?

will try as soon as possible, post post whether it fixed it or not, if not, i will add the new RPT files, and dxdiag files. since pictures would be the same.

no change, still turns to be background process, added 4 RPT files, to with and two without controller connected, labeled arma 3-2.zip

also, is there a way to try and revert to before the 10th of november? just to be sure its the update, not something on my computer.

also, dont be afraid to ask for any info you need, really want to play arma 3 again, and try out the new flight model, and helicopters

just tried switching to the DEV build, just to try and see if it worked, and it did not work.

will do, as soon as possible, will once again post here if it works, or RTP files if it does not.

it still does not work. uploading RPT file.

new graphics driver is out, installing it and will see if it works, if not, no harm done.

new graphics driver did nothing, still not working, must be either hardware or software error, doubting hardware, as it works fine for other games.

Hello,
we released a small update (enabling Visual C++ Redistributable 2013) on the 10th of November, the problem is most likely connected to it.
Could you please try to uninstall them and install again manually?
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=40784

Thank you very much.

Push - So it will be recognized by devs. This is a MUST for Marksmen DLC.
-RedPhoenix

There is a general lack of character-weapon interaction when it comes to animations, hopefully we'll see this attended to for the Marksman DLC.

close to same problem, though mine only happens if i try to change config, or pause the game, not while playing.

but maybe add the RPT files? and as much info as possible, what joystick, anything specific you keep doing, or any other will help.