Why not take it one step farther and tap into NASA rover control as well and switch it with Take On Mars? Doubt they would notice!
May 11 2016
For the human model and controls, do something like Take On Helicopters did and use the model and controls from an Arma game.
Kerbal has you build and launch your craft from earth, this does not.
It is still possible, not as easy as TOH but still doable and possible.
May 10 2016
These are the rules for Dayz standalone. You can already report servers who have their own rules to get them black listed but we need a more streamlined reporting method.
Severs enforcing their own rules are shutdown or blacklisted.
Why not make starvation match the current time cycle?
@izaiak So you expect fast roping to be added without rope?
This ticket here is for a Physx based rope: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15658
We cannot have fast roping without a proper rope. Then scripts, mods and the developers could make a proper fast rope.
TOH had fast roping: http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/BIS_fnc_wpFastRope
We can dream arma will one day! :)
Eject into the blades? I've landed all red helicopters before.
This can be modded in. Wouldn't it be better to try to mod this in a then create tickets for the show stoppers if there are any that you can't get around?
Are you sure that is the correct coordinates?
Arma actually negates latitude, so east is negative.
The Altis map should be set to the location of Lemnos. And could you also explain what you mean by the longitude and latitude parts of the ticket?
Try contacting them directly: http://www.bistudio.com/english/support
Or contacting steam support.
Have you tried merging it to a new mission?
Check the Wildctas real life weapon system whether it can use either or only just the one.
Check the real life weapons they use. War isn't balanced. Take a look at what they are shooting at and research to determine if they are as powerful in real life.
@Bkyu google the Merkava Mk4 tank. It is an Israeli urban combat vehicle. Before you claim anything, you need to understand the developers require credible evidence to support claims like that.
It's a 120mm cannon. The T-100 based on its real life version should have a higher caliber. It would not be realistic to change the caliber if the Merkava down.
I think people are down voting because the think the ticket is about making helicopters quieter for gameplay reasons which would also make them less realistic. They do not realize you are taking about a 3rd person sound bug.
Is this ticket for a trophy system or for the commander gun? Both issues have tickets already.
What exactly has changed from the video and the current state of Arma 3?
Can we see comparisons?
I believe the current armor system is still WIP and things are constantly changing and getting better.
Doesn't say it will be in service. Just says it will be marketed to the military.
Edit: Finally some weapons on the VTOL!
I was replying to you statement referring to battlefield.
Russians have always been a part of Arma. Why care what battlefield or COD does?
I would much rather have BI allow Take On Helicopter content to be ported like Arma 2.
Though I doubt BI would just port things from Take on helicopters, but you never know.
@AD2001, he is referring to an AI related issue.
Sure this is not just simulating that vehicles to not float on the ground surface?
Why should the bullets not be passing through the billboard? Is it armoured or something?
It should be fixed.
Closed because it is a duplicate of this ticket: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=13455
How would adding a new option make mission makers jobs harder?
And it's not like everyone would use this. It affects the unit and all of their weapons, so the intended use is more for AI.
Down votes are pretty meaningless in this situation with no reasons why or discussions why.
Surely adding a scripting command would not affect anybody negatively.
They were light related for weather. The crepuscular rays technology is a separate technology created by a developer in his spare time.
Why the down votes? It does not negatively affect any players negatively to have additional scripting commands.
Could you please make a ticket for VBs2's add force command then?
Why the down votes? Is there something that already does this?
That command only sets the diving level for soldiers. You cannot get diving depth or set diving depth for submarines.
I don't think it's possible to put some thing under the map, so try a large negative number with elevation.
It's a MRAP. It would not make sense to have easy access to the fuel tanks in the first place. It's supposed to keep the occupants safe when running over mines or during an ambush.
You van read about MRAPs here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP While it is Wikipedia, I think it does a good job of explaining exactly what a MRAP is.
Can anyone else confirm this? They are supposed to be armoured vehicles, why take damage like they have no armor?
This feature would be abused by giving it to all aircraft. They would be no longer authentic. This is best left to modders and not used on BI's jets.
They haven't said they don't... They just added more arcade features for the arcade players. But we need more realistic features now too.
It should be but I see no harm in options that could be considered less realistic. But we should be getting hardcore Milsim options as well.
It would be a library of player chosen animations.
Like for example having animations for mods that feature older warfare with WW2 style weapon holding. And adding in more reload animations for unique weapons, inside vehicle animations like pedals, and pretty much anything that is doable in a MoCap session that modders need.
Use setObjectTextureGlobal and you can use them already.
@rogerx Can you explain what you are talking about? I think I may be misunderstanding what what you mean.
@rogerx what are you talking about? The mission maker would design things in knowing they are using the scripting command.
So this could be one of the issues that people blame on "bad net code"?
I believe there is a logical reason behind VBS having these commands and not just the one.
The other commands compliment the "remoteControl" and make it more useful in scripting.
But doesn't Arma already have a "remoteControl" command?
If it works like setObjectTexture and setObjectMaterial, then there is nothing that would prevent it from using custom models.
What would be the purpose of the command?
Another fun use would be making a realistic "skyhook" system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_military_ballooning This physx class would be for modding.
The Areoscraft is currently undergoing testing:
You could use to create a "vehicle on rails" that will drive or fly on a set of rails. The player could operate a gun and shoot at targets.
You could create vehicle shooting ranges were a player ride in the gunner seat.
You could use the TrainX class for transporting aircraft around on large ships like aircraft carriers without using towing vehicles and instead using towing vehicles built into the deck.
Railways are a source if supplies and assets for militaries. Additionally the TrainX class could be used for weapon systems that move around on rails, UAVs launched from angled rails on a trailer, boat launches from land and on large ships that use angled rails, ect...
Railways would be more centered on user made maps that feature railways.
No, but that is not the point.
The point is for modding, if someone wants to mod a railway on Altis, then he/she could mod in a train as well. This is more centered towards user made maps and content. Currently, the few trains we have seen in Arma games are horribly scripted nightmares. Modders could also find many uses for a TrainX class outside of the standard idea of a train.
Commands for getting the weapons attachment location would also be nice.
Like optic position, magazine position, attachment position, ect...