@Blu3sman: oops, brainfart. I confused the weapon with the older Gépard M1

I'll edit the post to reflect this. Thanks for the correction.

Could you edit the title to signify that this is also an issue besides the SOS? Moderators have closed several tickets as duplicate of this one that deal with other scopes too.

St. Jimmy: I meant there are implementations possible without PiP. BIS chose to use PiP for the mirrors and I'm sure they had their reasons (maybe because the work was already done on the internal displays?), but reflections can be handled in other ways. (which one depends on the rendering method used)

As for the scope, there's no need to render a second time (like in PiP) because the POV is exactly the same. So it'd actually be the same image with a zoomed-in fraction overlapping the first one.

Anyway, our discussions in the feedback tracker about whether something is possible aren't really constructive in any way. The devs are better placed to decide about that.

St. Jimmy: are you a troll sir? Variable zoom does not *need* PiP at all, neither do mirrors.

@Bis: please remove the zoom on peripheral vision.

It would be nice if people that get hit center mass with a pistol wouldn't instantly die, but would bleed out quickly (30s max).

"For me in sustained level flight with the ka-60 with zero wind and 23% overcast at 15m above the sea the top speed is ~ 305kph repeatable in all 4 principle directions consecutively negating existence of wind factors etc."

Yes that's true. However, when executing a return to target maneuver, the speed well exceeds 300 km/h after the turn. (like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRJYu9clZF0) This makes it hard to aim accurately.

BTW, about never-exceed speeds, the Ka-60 in game can exceed 500 km/h *at sea level* without spinning out of control after a dive.

Top speed is clearly listed as 300 km/h, cruise as 270 km/h. So hitting 300 km/h should take a while. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ka60-kasatka-helicopter/

Engine upgrades that make a 300 km/h design hit 400 km/h in less than 10s? Unlikely.

Personally I really dislike arguments like "It's 2035, let's move away from reality as we know it and just take a wild guess as to what improvements might exist." There could just as well be lazer-weapons on gunships...

Duplicate of 0007219

I see this killing all performance...

Related: remove the lock-on icon. It enables to quickly scan a huge area for enemy vehicles that may be hard to spot visually.

I think you mean "physics" and not PhysX. Limiting this to nVidia cards would be quite weird.

This is a tactic that is used in FIBUA. Example at 2:00 in this video:
http://youtu.be/nn9v4LUYJVw?t=1m50s

Agreed. There's enough proof of this.
Suppressed M14 with both supersonic and subsonic munition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=socgmULGVOA

Suppressed 9mm pistol with both supersonic and subsonic munition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1Qdq2Szs_Q

@Traxus: Yes, the Russian PBS series uses wipers too. You're right baffle strikes don't occur very often on well-made suppressors.

I can confirm this issue. In game an unsuppressed 6.5mm kills 99% of targets with one shot center mass, a suppressed 6.5mm kills most targets in two center mass hits.

The poster is right that suppressors do not reduce bullet velocity, although I disagree about the increase in accuracy. The reduced turbulence is a minimal benefit compared to the disadvantage of the contact with the baffles.

While wingsuits are very interesting things and would certainly be fun to play with, I can't see any reason why a milsim should have them. It simply isn't a feasible way of inserting someone with over 35 kg of gear and isn't used today. For long range stealth insertion, I'm sure you'll be able to use HAHO (which is obviously way more useful for the military).

Duplicate of 0005042
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=5042

Great ideas, I hope they contact you.

I would also like decent breaching charges, that don't necessarily blow up half a building.

Downvoted. While the armour system is indeed not very accurate in ArmA 3, the proposed changes are far worse.

Kevlar helmets are very inefficient at stopping bullets, and almost no *general issue* body armour will stop either a 5.56x45mm or a 7.62x39mm at any standard range.

Ok, I've tagged this one with duplicate.

@goldblaze: ah, did a search before posting, but couldn't find any. The search isn't really very thorough.

Agreed, when advancing on a position while suppressing, you should be able to draw the pistol (if magazine runs dry) without making yourself an easy target.

In issue 0010355 Mariner said:
"And as far as Arma is tactical game it would be just great to have a possibility to make a complex plan of attacking or defending, ambush (maybe) by using of multiple waypoints. I know It was possible in Arma 2. But i mean to make it scale of squad which under dirrect command of player. Its like i splitted my squad into pairs and made first pair to flank left,hold possition for a while for observation then proceed and enter some building, second one - to flank right and so on.."

Which is pretty much what I meant with this. A squad leader should not always micro-manage the soldiers in his fireteam, but send the fireteam as a whole to perform certain actions. (like in the high-command module) Same logic applies to platoon leaders that should command straight to squad leaders.

The ArmA 2 high command module allowed this, *BUT*

1. it was not enabled by default
2. everyone included in the chain of command (except the lowest level) needed to be played by a human, because AI didn't "translate" the orders to its units.

I would like this to work with leaning to. For example: lean+sidestep is quite useful to shoot around corners. However, when you need to get quickly away, you can't run in this position so you need to press Q/E (to get out of lean) and ctrl+A/D (to get out of sidestep) before you can start to run. Just double-tapping ctrl or something could be very useful to reset to default.

Reiber (and others who complain about the ballistic model):

You have not the slightest clue as to what you're talking about and probably never even touched a rifle. To show your complete wrongness, I plotted the trajectories of standard ball 5.56x45mm NATO and 7.62x39mm Soviet. The fictional 6.8x39mm caseless would have a trajectory between those two (the velocity would be slower than the lighter 5.56mm but probably faster than the heavier 7.62mm):
http://tinyurl.com/c8b3vrb

I agree that foregrips should be an attachment, but not with the ability to swap an under-barrel grenade launcher with a foregrip. Under-barrel grenade launchers do not use picatinny rails, but are often complete modifications of the handguard. Removing them would require to have a separate handguard with rail system, something which just isn't done in the military.

Duplicate of 0009890 [http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9890]
(yes, this one was earlier, but the other one has already a longer discussion and votes)

Contrary to the MX, the Khaybar is a bullpup weapon, meaning the recoil will be more in line with the shoulder pocket compared to a traditionally shaped rifle.

"I think adding bullet weight into the factor would be nice, and might impact game play in facts of maybe wanting a body to fall in a certain direction to avoid detection"
It is *NO* factor in real life, so why should it be in game?
m_bullet * v_bullet = (m_man + m_bullet) * v_man

>

v_man = 0.004*900/(0.004+70) = 0.05 m/s velocity difference of a 70kg man after getting hit by a 5.56mm

That's 5cm per second, while the body would be falling down at an acceleration close to 9 m/s².

I've seen footage of soldiers being killed by multiple 5.56mm hits to the the torso and I've spoken with some of my friends who witnessed combatants being shot. According to everything I've seen and heard, people just collapse, like johncage said, "drop like a sack of potatoes".

This is actually one of the best animation-improvements in ArmA 3 over ArmA 2, where humans had ridiculously overacted (Hollywood-like) death animations.

They seem overpowered against buildings though. You can level most houses with one short burst.

@NathanRyan: shooting RPGs from the side of a little bird sounds like a sure fire way to fry half your team. (and it shouldn't be possible in-game)

100% agreed with this.

Not only is the current system not realistic, it also doesn't help situational awareness very much. Without unit markers on the map (in veteran etc.), it's almost impossible to keep track of how many enemies are in which direction.

I think we can safely close this ticket? In recent ArmA 3 versions penetration seems pretty accurate. 9mm and 45 ACP are mostly stopped by stone walls but pass through soft wood/plastic plates, 5.56mm and 6.5mm have a fair chance to penetrate walls, but only at direct angles and close range, 7.62mm retains a lot of energy through walls, and the high-caliber snipers can reliably kill targets behind walls from long ranges.

Anyone has more bugs?

@Zeloran: I did some more tests in the dev branch today, I'm able to shoot through a brick wall with the 12.7mm Lynx now (probably the same with the HMG?). The Lynx also shoots through several civilians.

However, with the EBR and Mk. 18 I failed to shoot through any civilian (and I tried around 500 in total...)

At point blank, a 7.62mm weapon should almost always exit. The 6.5mm and 5.56mm would be more likely to deflect, but should also have a very high chance to exit.

At http://www.brassfetcher.com/ you can find values for the penetration in (simulated) human flesh for most common rounds.

Proposed implementation: make the "step-over-key" context sensitive, so it'll trigger step-over function before a small obstacle and climb function before a medium obstacle or window. While at it, make a soldier scale a ladder when pressing the step-over-key in front of a ladder.

Absolutely a must, and for other "soft" vehicles too (Humvees, pickups, assault boats,...)

Right now, hot insertions are absolutely ridiculous. Without covering fire you're sitting ducks and have no way to influence your survival chances.

Test results in latest dev build:
Nose and all glass: impervious to everything up to 7.62x51mm. Depending on angle it may even stop .408 or 12.7x99mm.
Lower door: impervious to 5.56mm and 6.5mm from assault rifles. It takes 34 rounds from a 6.5mm LMG, 7 rounds of 7.62x51mm and 1 round of .408 or 12.7x99mm to kill the pilot.

Not only is it near impossible to kill the pilots, the armour of the Ka-60 is inconsistent.

SGTIce: the NATO is being portrayed, and of the following NATO countries I'm sure they allow women in combat: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania and now also the United States. And according to your own sources, a non-negligible amount of females occupied combat positions even *before* it was officially permitted. I'm not saying there should be many female soldiers in-game, but *some* females would certainly add realism.

SGTIce, you're making no sense. This is a feedback tracker, that means people get to suggest things they would like about the game.

While I do agree that this should not be a priority, I think it's a great opportunity to be a step ahead of other FPS. Let alone that ArmA claims to be the most real-to-life game.

Several armies do allow women to serve in combat, some examples: Norway, Israel, France, Belgium, Germany, Canada, New-Zealand, Denmark, Russia, Venezuala,... Many of which are NATO members. Taking into account the setting is a full-blown war between NATO and an eastern power, it would only be logical to see female soldiers.

Some of my fellow male colleagues really make me sick with these senseless, misogynistic comments. First of all, *it's not just now that women can serve in combat roles*. It's just the Americans who only got it now.

Women have been fighting in a large variety of wars as infantry, tankers, pilots,... you name it. I could give you a full list of examples, but frankly, this is not the place and you could find them all by yourself. There are some very well known Russian women sniper aces, fighter aces and tank commanders that served during WWII. The Vietcong and IDF might be other prime examples of the successful deployment of women as infantry.

The *ONLY* thing this debate should be about is: are female models worth the extra work ,as they would provide only a cosmetic change, but would take a considerable effort to make. I can't believe there even exist other reasons to oppose this.

Issue solved for me. Apparently, DirectX doesn't update to DX11 if certain system updates are not installed on Windows Vista. Although I was already running SP2.

Apparently the game tries to start with DX11 instead of DX10... Anyway to force it to use the latter?

"I find that it is impossible to shoot anyone long range[...]"
Recoil has no effect on the accuracy of your semi-automatic fire.
"It is so big that I can't even manage the kick with my mouse."
Just like you can't just "manage" the recoil of a fully automatic firearm with your arms in real life.
"This makes using any machine gun pointless."
You're using it wrong.
"The standing recoil should be more like the prone recoil."
No. When prone, a weapon rests with all its mass on the ground and will only move slightly compared to a standing situation where the only thing stabilising it is the soldier's arm.

Duplicate of http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1112

I don't understand why mirrors need to be PiP. Various older games already have perfectly working mirrors (Il-2 1946 for example) without this incredible FPS lag.

Agreed. I was surprised too when a single RGO fragmentation grenade blew holes in buildings. Should be fixed.

An delay until the vehicle is completely filled with an animation would be nice, but absolutely not a priority IMO.

So, as we have the full game released already, I can only state how disappointed I am with the way BIS handled feedback.

This issue has been marked important by over 2100 people. In the ArmA community this is an awful lot. Other major issues like the inability to fire out of vehicles have also received no developer feedback at all.

Are we only good for finding bugs in Bohemia Interactive's eyes? Almost every ticket that is not a straight bug report but provided feedback about features that are absolutely necessary in the game has been ignored completely.

This is an issue with the newly introduced gunships too.

Really important. I believe making the HUD aim point behave like a collimator (parallax on infinite) would be the most realistic solution. That way you could still look around, but only see the reticle when looking at the target.

Having a floorplan with indicated positions would be nice, but it would be even better if we could just place characters in the right position on the GUI. The code method is not very noob-friendly.