@razazel @Dwarden possibly related? https://feedback.bistudio.com/T123848

Well, deleting existing arma profiles seemed to help one person. so I present a troubleshooting method in order:

Hmm i agree, the lock should break if the thermal signature is covered.

Thanks!

Strider can´t have NATO camo because it´s AAF vehicle

Well this is still an issue.

@razazel happened to a lot of us in last night's session. Mission was ended using a call to the F3 Mission ending component, f_fnc_mpEnd, from a trigger. There was a player controlled Kajman hovering nearby, some people were in F3 spectator.

Yes, confirmed, even default units in the editor are now overloaded (Missile Specialists, Heavy Gunners) and have no stamina from the start.

Unless i'm understanding this wrong, this is now no longer an issue..

Confirmed that it's still an issue.

Hellcat already has this feature. But it's broken at the moment.

Confirmed as long standing issue.

Yup, would be welcome considering that current ironsights are useless for aiming since they're missing zeroing. Could be an additional RPG7 model, replace the current one, or (the best option) would be to have detachable sights for the RPG7.

This issue was also raised in the Apex weapons feedback thread but ignored:

As is demonstrated in the image, it's pure guess work as to what will hit and miss. Rocket seems to fly almost straight till 1650m but irl RPG7 grenades detonate at 950m as indicated here. Just a minute before that he also mentions in that video that the iron sights are adjustable.

Zeroing's probably changed since 1.66, as indicated by changelog BUT NO ONE KNOWS TO WHAT.

BI pls
Y u do dis

Would be great to just get the direct sound system from TFAR/ACRE, i.e. adjustable direct VON volume (that then obey the laws of virtual physics).

Well, the Blackfish has fulfilled this dream, thanks BIS!

I do think it's potentially game breaking in certain cases, and I think this hitbox shifting has frustrated many of us for many years - but I think those unaware of the issue just thought we were bad at aiming or bullet drop compensation (at least, I did). I can understand why some communities have disabled it in PvP.

If you are in a helicopter when the mission ends, it's highly possible that the noise of the helicopter remains audible in the UI, Zeus, and even the next mission.

This is still an issue, in fact it's worse - no one can deploy smoke screen as of 1.60.

Confirmed. They still seem to be in the game world but are missing from the map.

I used to get this error randomly after I upgraded my PC and reinstalled windows and arma 3. Seemed to be maybe related to ASR_AI and TeamSpeak Overlay but it happened once without either of those loaded.

It hasn't happened in a week or so.

No relation with CBA, but yeah the solution for now is to remove all references to "3DEN" from mission.sqm.

There will be two references, one under addOns and one under autoAddOns. Use Ctrl+F of course.

BTW BIS seems to be aware of this issue, and a hotfix is now in RC.

Yeah, this is a known bug.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhQetF9i-6M

Yup, saw Dslyecxi's video and post, i can get behind that.

AI doesn't even respond to "Watch direction" properly, they may even look south if you ask them to look north...

Probably worthy of a different ticket, but the current lighting engine is hopelessly limited. Fire a few flares over Agia Marina on Stratis and the town's lights go off. Fly over Kavala, and only half the town has lights at any point in time.

When a lot of people have lasers or flashlights on, some hard limit is run into and other people can't turn them on.

Even IR grenades cause distant lights to flicker.

Yup, noticed this as well. I was in favour of overhauling the entire flight model so didn't report it separately. Upvoted.

Also, see:
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=14463

Perhaps they do that to avoid licensing issues?

It's single player!

Lol yes they do that.

I'm sorry, as much as i would love warships supporting assaults, i'll have to downvote this...the game is in simply no shape to expand to another type of combat.

:(

Upvoted, this should be there in all aircraft.

Good to hear that!

No the problem wasn't mortars eventually killing me (that obviously should happen if i stand in one place), it was them killing ONLY me...as in, they'd follow me, and only me, and ignore everyone else.

Standing, running, anything.

Especially true if I'd run ahead...staying with the squad would discourage this behaviour.

But, i'm merely repeating myself so i should stop. :|

@mepwaygame: Exactly. The shells follow you all around, and ignore the rest of your squad. Only worked properly the last time i tried (which was after a good 6 or 7 replays of the same stretch).

I'm not even sure who's spotting for the CSAT mortar team.

@ProGamer, please elaborate. I just downloaded and played.

I restarted the mission, and this time my squad did run when the mortars fell, though the first time i got hit again. Reloaded the auto-save and managed to get through.

@arizben: Oh they're terrible when you're controlling them. Wish there was a way to adjust them.

Separate issue (again may be a random AI bug) but the second motorboat doesn't leave at the end.

@rogerx: You somehow think it's acceptable to incessantly make sexist comments, and then deflect all blame saying that "oh joking obviously! don't you have a sense of humour!".

Dude, stop, really. Constructively add to the discussion, and refrain from the "jokes". It doesn't come off as intelligent in any way, and they're not even funny..

@Leah said:
"A large majority voted for the inclusion of female soldiers, yet most "selected comments" are negative toward the issue? I guess BI's opinion on this topic is leaning that way?"

I noticed this too, it's unfortunate. At least they acknowledged it, finally. Whether they do anything about it remains to be seen.

Can't believe Call of Duty will lead the way in this, seeing how Arma is considered to be an intellectually superior series.

Oh yeah i noticed this post Altis. Annoying indeed, since it causes stuttering.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Even check this out, 208 mph = 92 m/s, those poles are about 100m apart, and the car crosses each one in just over a second.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-KjdX3C5v8

Ok, but are you sure a simpler solution isn't simply to fix/re-check the speed being reported? I'm just saying that 100km/h doesn't seem like 100km/h. Not suggesting replication of real-life FoV.

Like this video is less than 100 km/h (around 86-90), but it also feels like that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIRyE1cVvaw

If you take a vehicle and ride it through Altis (towns, etc.) you'll see that what you see in the video is what you'll see at 135 km/h in the game. FOV is similar in both, too.

I find that racing games have the same problem, you'd be crawling almost and the game tells you that you're travelling at 100 Km/h...

I'm not sure how they calculate speed anyway, the predator drone apparently reaches 300 km/h and so does the jet, yet the predator drone feels like it's much slower.

Yeah, try looking at the objects close to you as well (i looked out of the side window as well). Game says you're doing 40 but it feels like you're at a stand-still.

Also, FOV reduces as you go faster in real life, and no, Arma's FOV is much lower than real life, our FOV must be closer to 180 degrees, in Arma FOV is around 70 iirc.

p.s. Do you drive? I don't mean this in a snarky way.

edit: i also tried third-person.

Hmmm i didn't test the new patch that long, but it was ok...

@izaiak:

(I'm using F/A-18 Forea, a flight sim made by Graphics Simulations, 16 years ago, as a reference for most of this.

http://www.gamespot.com/f-a-18-korea/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcyXz9JmxBw

I think the youtube video should showcase most of what i'm trying to say)

C) Both, really. In the game as well, it's the engine that seems to take damage first, just that there's no separate stat for it, like in helicopters.

What i'm basically saying is, you could hit the engines without causing damage to the cockpit area, and missiles like the Sidewinder would target the engines.

You can't fly the aircraft with all engines down, but you could have a few holes in the hull or wings but still get home if your engine's ok.

E1) (sorry about two E's and D's!) I dunno, always happens. I place it on the start of the runway, increase the speed till it takes off...the plane keeps veering to the right, even after i correct it.

E2) I don't really like the idea of bringing up the map in flight (or while driving), as you can't really see what's happening. I mean...it's a bit jarring. Something like working on the desktop and bringing up the Metro UI...if i could bring that up without losing a sense of what's happening around the airplane, that would be better, imo. Again, see video.

F) Yup, both would do, i understand km/h better anyway :P

G) Ah i'm not sure I stated it correctly. For example, in F/A-18 Korea, if you were on the ground, you couldn't fire weapons, because hey, it's dangerous. In Arma 3, you can drop a bomb on the ground while you're on the ground. It'll explode and you'll kill yourself. Sort of illogical to allow it.

So weapons can't be armed unless you're off the ground, is one part of what i'm saying. The other is, even if you've got bombs armed, you shouldn't be allowed to drop them below a certain altitude (say, 200 feet, for example). Again, this is something from F/A-18 Korea, not a noob feature. Just logical safety. ;)

Aircraft might get caught in the blast, etc.

H) Again, not a noob thing. Taken from F/A-18 Korea. Actually, i'm not sure if it was altitude or airspeed that triggered that behaviour. Again, probably done so that the aerodynamics doesn't get messed up.

I) Didn't know that, i thought all jet fighters have it. Sorry!

J) I meant that there are a set of controls in Arma that are common to all situations, infantry, ground/marine vehicles, helicopters and aircraft.

I'd prefer some of them (if not all) to be duplicated again in the helicopters and aircraft section, since i've found i need to keep them different for both.

Something like the action menu, for example. For helicopters i may need the buttons near my right hand's thumb on my joystick, but for fighters i may want something else below my thumb.

I think this could be one of the quicker and easier things to implement.

L) Yeah buut zooming in sort of...yeah you can't see too much. Again, i'd prefer something like F/A-18 Korea. You had two modes, a fixed HUD ( the initial one that you see in the video) and the free-look one.

So i'm not necessarily saying "decrease FoV", just saying draw the HUD bigger, and make it something like F/A-18 Korea...but with free-look enabled.

True, more contrast b/w the HUD and sky will be nice, especially at night.

M) oooh i dunno about this, are you sure? I've seen airbreaks used in domestic commercial/passenger aircraft as well, while landing (or during the approach)...and again, the F/A-18 Hornet has them.

Didn't get the key part, i'm sorry. :/

I'd add:

A) The white cross-hair doesn't align with the one on the aircraft's HUD

B) The white circle for the bomb is useless, the indicator on the aircraft's HUD should be used.

C) Add failure points for engines, instruments, navigation, etc. Currently it's just HULL. Usually, engines are the first to get hit by anything.

D) It's not a car. Let us control engine power/thrust instead of speed/acceleration directly.

E) While taking off, the plane veers to the right.

D) No night mode? We're flying blind at night. Even if there isn't a night mode, at least make it possible to viably fly/attack/land at night.

E) Need a proper radar for targeting, a map for navigation (A heads-down display or a working instrumentation panel would be nice), altimeter and a fuel readout.

F) Airspeed *should* be in knots.

G) Weapons should be locked before a certain altitude, especially on the ground.

H) Gear should automatically retract after a certain speed.

I) Afterburners don't seem to exist/i cant get them to work.

J) Aircraft controls should be completely separated from everything else, even at the cost of duplication.

K) Rain doesn't fall inside an open cockpit...though i'm not sure if this is actually worth the bother.

L) If you implement a heads-down display, bring the HUD closer to the screen (and hence make it larger, useful).

M) Almost forgot, airbreaks!

Ok, i see. No clue what's happening...according to me, you shouldn't be seeing much (or anything, really) on the screen if the GPU isn't being used...

Even if you have 5 or 10 fps, your GPU should have some utilization reported...

Not in a position to verify this, so will withhold my vote...but doesn't add up. Quite possible that there's a reporting issue (the monitoring utility isn't measuring properly in multiplayer, etc.).

I dunno, i dunno. Arma 3 has some of the weirdest bugs and glitches i've ever seen, so maybe this is another new one. :/

EDIT: Is this issue specific to AMD cards?

@ST. Jimmy: I believe it's like that for most of the community.

@Slurppa: Do you get any FPS? What are you using to monitor usage? I haven't played multiplayer yet, so i haven't checked myself, though i'm not sure how you're seeing anything on the screen without the GPU being used.

How are you monitoring GPU usage?

IMO they need to implement a generalized flight physics system that applies to all aircraft. That system would calculate aircraft behaviour based on the aircraft's physical model in-game, and other inputs like wind speed and direction.

I think X-Plane does it like that.

Now that I've tried it, i think the whole flight model is flawed in Arma 3...ignoring the fact that a drone can fly at mach one... :/

@RushHour yes i think you're right, sorry :)

Though, i remember playing a flight sim (F/A-18 Korea) where i could takeoff with max flap angle as well...though i went through the game's training videos and manual, i think max flap angle is indeed used only for landing, as it's not mentioned anywhere else.

But other points here are undoubtedly valid, higher angles should reduce ground/air speeds not increase them.

To add to what prykpryk's said in the end, usually aircraft automatically retract flaps and gear beyond a certain speed.

Um if i'm not wrong, during takeoff, both lift and drag are pretty significant, but only when the flaps are deployed.

However, i believe that with flags deployed, you should be able to takeoff at a lower airspeed than without them, as they generate more lift at lower airspeeds.

I just read your ticket again,
"Then in regards to lift i don´t think the plane should take off at all with highest flap angle because drag will overpower the lift being generated."

That's absolutely incorrect. You need flaps for both takeoff and landing. Lift and drag are proportional to the angle of the flaps, and as i mentioned before, higher flap "angle of attack" allows greater lift at lower airspeeds, allowing you to takeoff sooner.