Ok it has been fixed in todays dev update! :)

Ok tried again. No mods running, files checked by steam, current dev branch:

• i've put AH9 on Stratis in editor(the only vehicle on the map)
• player was a pilot
• clicked preview
• no access to weapons of AH9

Tried with plugged and unplugged joystick.

Strange, two days ago it was fine.

It is working quiet nicely in dev patches in Arma 2:). Was also quiet suprised about this.

Still bugged in dev branch.

That's correct. Especially when you turn your optics left or right.

Agree, very important bug.

It is slightly connected to the AAA, so if possible could you check it out also: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=18139 , they had the radar in stable branch, but since the update yesterday, they don't have it anymore.

Fixed in dev.

Ok so - as the patch is official now - the radar does not work in AAA. Furthermore: Smokes are not working in Cheetah and ZSU(http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=18356). It worked in the stable branch yesterday but not in devs. It seems I wasn't too specific about the issue, sorry about that.

I agree with some of the posts above that the cannon won't be able to completely destroy a tank, but from certain angles it might at least partly disable it - so up voting

The bug about smokes for commander still present. It seems that when someone enters a tank in mp as commander then moves to gunner/driver and then the next person enters commander he is unable to use smokes(sometimes he also cannot move through seats in tank). I've never met the rest of the bugs.

JUST LOOK AT THE PICTURE! ;P It has a smaller caliber cannon... so either T-100 and IND tank should have 135mm cannon, or Merkava should have 105mm... closing the ticken anyway, it is wrong and indeed Merkava should have 120mm cannon, then T-100 should have 135mm... yeap, sry guys :P

So that means that 3d model of the cannon is wrong...

Similar situation - btw. i've got default controls + added controls for my joystick.

What also I believe you should look into is the damage from 30-40mm guns. Currently AA tank will wreck a T-100. Put T-100 AI and Cheetah on map and look. Furthermore, as you don't have proper sabot simulation, wouldn't it be better and easier to make specific zones bigger so it would be easier to hit the engine or turret? As a small example, when in T-100 i've hit Cheetah turret directly from 100meters, no damage to it.

Interesting read: http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html :)

You've already got version 1.02 of Arma? :D Damn...

209092 - also floating rocks

It unfortunately is not. When my friend died and changed to different soldier, the tasks were not visible for him until they were updated.

Oh crap, didn't notice that. Well.. anyway, it's official on the feedback tracker now :P.

Also would be nice if they would work on this strange echo of gunshots, Altis is mostly flat, so it sounds imo strange.

Wrong ticket title - in need of creating new ticket concerning the manoeuvrability of MH9.

You might be right about that, that it was like that before Monday(i've based this ticket on the forum post ;P) BUT.... still AH9/MH9 should turn faster, don't you think?

I would leave it as it is, still we bend physics a bit with some of those choppers ;). At least you need to predict some things, and the choppers behave a bit differently.

Fixed, closing down :)

If we are talking about authenticity then we can talk about a thousand other things in Arma 3 ;). Simply because something is less authentic... so that means we can make something else less authentic - doesn't convince me. Anyway i know that Comanche interior is unfortunately not 100% correct... on the other hand... it's a "Blackfoot" :|.

Yes it will be much more functional(unfortunately - oh working tft screens *_* ) but having it there constantly wouldn't be authentic at all :P. Well anyway... we'll see how the voting will go:). I personally don't have issues with it, when i want to look at it i just press zoom.

I suppose in real life, such information wouldn't be so crucial to the pilot, and the main tft screens would be occupied by more important data(maps, status of systems etc). So i'm personally against that(as now it is more authentic).

Added range adjustment.

All for realism although... we've got 2035 and those are not exactly the same launchers as NLAW or RPG-32

Nope, mate. Although KA-50 has such function and agree with guys above.

Upvoted!

It seems that the radar is not working in AAA vehicles although it is written in the spotrep that they should have it:). Here's the ticket:
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=18139

Arziben - by old i mean of course marshal and merid, and by "logical", is that between "old" apcs(Merid and Marshal) and new ones the only difference is the fact that they don't have wheels anymore :P. I don't see any kind of "radar" on top of them that could justify the magical appearance of it.

Yes! About that I agree! The direction indicator(which we don't have in many other vehicles!) and thread warning(laser?) should stay, but the "magical" radar should definitely go. They did it the easy and not exactly very authentic way with the incorporation of direction indicator, missile/laser warning and radar all in one thing, so if you want one of these, you have to have the rest....

I've (unintentionally) created two similar reports(about mi-48 gunner AI)
Here's the proper one: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11849

xD oh guys....

There is not enough screens :P

To be honest, tried in-game at altitudes of 250-500 and through reading on different sites(wiki,defence journal and some others). Sure i had some warnings ;), but i suppose 20 years from now they will improve the technology, so 330 in level flight won't be a problem. Yes, I agree with the fact that MI-48 looks like a lot less aerodynamic that Ka-50 so... hmm... maybe 90* at 150/160 might be enough, with 45* at 220/240.

@exxDUDExx - i would leave it as it is, it might "simulate" vortex ring state maybe :P, anyway, it shouldn't be too easy ;)

Related: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9780

Ka-52 thanks to coaxial rotors is able to turn sideways at high speeds, so unfortunately MI-48 won't be like Ka-52. And Blackfoot is not able to turn sideways at high speed. That's what he meant.

Haha ;]

Was able to reach 310 im Mi-48 nice, Comanche - 250/260 with level flight(could be just a bit faster). Anyway, thanks :). Pity with the sideways flight :(

It was a quote ;) from the main post :P and my opinions after the "-" ;) (i've edited it to make it a bit more clear)

1. Ah/Mh 9 family, needs faster rotation. It seems to rotate very slowly ---- fine as it is now i suppose, there is a problem with controllers now, one of the axis is halfed
2. Mi-48 Needs faster rotation.(ALSO, it feels very heavy, it just keeps loosing altitude and when you think you should make it, you usually crash into ground. Not enough lift is a good way to explain it. Should be a little more agile ---- i like how the mi-48 has a certain weight to it, when you overdo stuff you hit the ground.
3. CH-49 has perfect physics, except for landing without gear ---- fine as it is
4. Need to add an option to deploy gears manually ---- not important to me much
5. Choppers need to be affected by wind ---- YES! Not only max speed, but also when for example hovering!

Nice points, but i suppose it's a bit too late :/

Definitely a good idea.

Unfortunately with new BETA UPDATE flares in MI-48 are... VERY WEAK. It's a lottery if they will hit you or not, and it seems as it is 50/50. Comanche it's a bit better.

Awesome! Thanks!

Oh I hope so! :)
Assigned xD

Any update on that? :P The dirtiness of it is just plain silly :P.

Haha... but no ;). I agree that they are simply too dirty ^^.

@dovafox: i'm laughing so hard at people thinking that other people take this seriously ;]

I like the thing about nukes, some seriously realistic stuff!

Yeah i totally agree.

It would be really nice to be possible devs :P, rly. From first person view you don't see much, so having gps on would be very helpful!

Edit. Bump!:]

Manual guidance. When you didn't lock on anything you can guide them(beam-riding as you said)

Were the skalpel missiles always laser guided? I've discovered in today's dev patch that they can be laser guided.

With new beta update... the flares in MI-48 are very weak, and hardly save the helicopter. Very often it is impossible to save yourself from a missile 1 KM away. It's a BIT better with comanche.

I totally agree with that, BF's HUD is MUCH MUCH better that Arma's. I hope they've got something hidden for us about this. What's important is not to just only say "to make something better" but also give our ideas how to do it, because saying "fix it" is easier than saying "how to fix it".

My few cents.
About missiles:
Mi-48 - anti-tank rockets(skalpel?) would be laser guided and radar guided(by clicking on stuff and then it would lock on target[tab would go]), unguided rockets will be controlled by the pilot
AH-99 - all rockets controlled by the gunner, furthermore DAGR's would be guided ONLY by laser(and it would work like that also in KA-60... or OC-30? OK-30? don't remember :P - which would need the copilot to control the laser), as they are in real life. It would balance the sheer amount of them to MI-48 having only 8, and would give the possibility to accurately target without the cooperation with the pilot, and it be more interesting and realistic.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9973

About countermeasures:

• the helicopter should detect all missiles that are currently in the air(or at least the pilot should receive a warning if the helicopter doesn't have a radar[AH/MH-9 or any transport helicopter in RL])
• if they are ir guided you mostly don't know if it is targeting you or the helicopter near you(it is important to decide by the radar trajectory to calculate where it is going... although today's system can predict the trajectory of the missile, so i'm not sure about that :P)
• you don't detect the ir locking mechanism
• you CAN defend from ir locking mechanism by dumping flares as precaution(awesome!)
• you can detect LASER warning(so we need laser guided missiles - http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9973 [^])
• to defend from laser guided missile you need to outmanoeuvre it
• for RADAR guided - detects both locking and missile - then it is needed to dispense chaffs(for ARMA's sake I wouldn't mind that flares and chaffs would be dispensed at the same time)

It would be so much more interesting to fly as the pilot!

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10297

About the radar: The only idea i have now is to disable the difference between occupied enemy vehicle and unoccupied enemy vehicle and maybe increase refresh rate(5 sec anyone?)

It doesn't have radar, but will have equipment to detect AA launch.

Oh don't worry they are working :)(most of the time), although you need to be a bit far from them, but still.. personally i think they are not perfect:
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10297

yeah agree with that, ill delete the topic about flares.

Who is raging? O.o

On the other hand.... i suppose in 2035 the communication between friendliest would be quiet strong and their electronic updates on their position. I suppose the friendliest should be still recognized but the empty vehicles and used ones should have the same color. Bloody hell.... what would be the perfect balance between realism and game...

Ok as a pilot that's ok, because you need to command your gunner ai somehow, but when a gunner, that's a big no unfortunately. Launching missiles like that is wrong.

yes there is a warning when we are being locked by manpads which (i suppose) are ir guided.

Then what will be the purpose of the compact version?

Unfortunately im against, it will create a situation on mp servers where a guy with titan will be both anti-tank and anti-air, now at least you have to think a bit, what might be more useful. Btw, the at/ap and aa might have also different dimensions so using them in non-compact titan might be impossible.

Yeah that I agree, ACE had it nicely. When you've turned on the laser the AI slowed down and tried to point the helicopter into the direction of the laser.

Mi-48 - anti-tank rockets(skalpel?) would be laser guided and radar guided(by clicking on stuff and then it would lock on target[tab would go]), unguided rockets will be controlled by the pilot
AH-99 - all rockets controlled by the gunner, furthermore DAGR's would be guided ONLY by laser(and it would work like that also in KA-60... or OC-30? OK-30? don't remember :P - which would need the copilot to control the laser), as they are in real life. It would balance the sheer amount of them to MI-48 having only 8, and would give the possibility to accurately target without the cooperation with the pilot, and it be more interesting and realistic.

Moreover about countermeasures: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10297

That's quiet obvious, logical and realistic. I'm surprised that they've done it this way, because in Arma 2 in beta patches we have it the proper way.

The rockets ih AH-99 are fine as it is, it's got plenty of them. The gatling guns... might need just A BIT more punch to the infantry.

Edit. tested... nah, fine as it is.

Important things which are connected to this topic:
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10297
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9973

Or make it even more realistic :P(like someone said - infra-red guided missiles - only launch is detected - radar guided - locking also).
Furthermore dumping flares would have to interrupt ir locking mechanism! EVEN BF has that!

Would be strange if they would leave it like this, Arma 2 is better at it.

Hahaha.... if it's intended, then it's funny ^^. I hope it will be fixed.

Holy crap, definitely step into right direction! I like that when you accelerate to the ground with full speed and you want to straight up the helicopter is not on rails anymore, it feels that there is momentum that is dragging it to the ground(although i don't feel it yet when turning around). Ah-9! Feels much better! Acceleration... oh so better BUT the choppers are a bit too slow, it's hard to get comanche to 250kmh. Btw. the spread of miniguns in AH-9 and OC-30 is definitely too low. OC-30 was perfect before! Ah-9... well was indeed horrible before but now it is a bit too extreme.

Edit. "although i don't feel it yet when turning around" - i feel it. Damn guys, did a good job. Sure it could be a bit better in some areas, but overall you're heading in good direction. Autorotation - works! Although you could give us a bit more randomization with those AA rockets, now the hit means 100% destruction. I suppose MI-48 could be more resistant to those rockets. The comanche with it's rear rotor should still be more agile in turning sideways, mi-48 should be a bit similar with that(coaxial-rotors)

Unfortunately I agree with Cykyrios, although acceleration might seem a bit more reasonable. AH9 still is a slow, not-very-agile helicopter. Unfortunately they've messed up flares, especially in mi-48. It's 50/50 chance that they will work even from 1km away.