The lack of any response to this issue by BI staff is really disheartening. What does the future of Arma hold if its technological base is basically worthless? How come BI are so careless about this?

I'm curious if this is getting worked on. Any news?

There's a difference between the gun cross, the flight path indicator and the nose indicator. I get the feeling you're mixing them up?

I agree

Fixed in jets DLC

works these days by adding the other half of the range, can be closed

Same with Sari's Dragons CTI server :/

It's time that gaming comes into the 21st century when it comes to networking. IPv6 is happening now. New IPv4 addressing is no longer available, and soon games will have to make the jump.

confirmed

Me neither. It also lists the Helicopter DLC as a vailable in the main menu, but when I click it, it's not available on the steam store page. MAtbe a pre-purchase option would fix this somehow?

Yeah, the engine should really bump the precision on the numbers used in scripts and do a conversion if this gets translated to the graphic environment.

It seems to me that there's no AP in the mix. Can you make a combat mix magazine for the (fixed wing) aircraft's guns?

It's really annoying in jet combat. The new netcode clearly can't handle the speeds involved for 2 jets slugging it out. When a frame drops, there's a 'hang' first and then a huge warp.

Server port hosting the game AFAIK

I can confirm this as well. The weird thing is that you'd expect the server to be max'ed out on CPU, but the task manager was showing none of the cores maxing out.

Does that same mission yield the same result on different server configs? How about user configs?
Missions can be set up in different ways making the load they put on servers very different. Maybe under low load situations it resolves itself, but under high load situations it might not.

I haven't seen the improvement happen that Terox is reporting. Might be down to individual missions and configs.

I would say no difference, but our server doesn't fill up to this level every day, so I can't just go on and verify this right now. The times that it happened we were using side/com most of the time.

I can confirm this as well. The weird thing is that you'd expect the server to be maxed out on CPU because it only happens past a certain number of players, but the task manager was showing none of the cores maxing out. We run a heavy mission: "BECTI0.97 (modified)" and it starts acting up for some players at ~ 15 players on a 4 core 3,2 GHz / 8GB / 1GBit server.
Server frame rate was ~ 8 to 12 fps at the times when it occurred.After the 1.18 patch I had expected that the multi threading might increase load in order to up the frame rate to something acceptable (20 fps+). One would expect that the load would to go up to ~ 90%, but it was running at ~ 60% CPU load.
It might be that it's the clients that have the problems transmitting, not the server relaying. On the whole I'm a bit surprised that Arma 3 is not running a bit more greedily to aid performance after the MT update.

BTW, it's not just global, it's all the channels on our server that send to one side as well. (commander and side)

While convenient, it would not be realistic.

IRL the co pilot uses this screen to operate the FLIR unit.
There are of course obvious gameplay reasons for the optics screen (size and positioning). Besides that, the game can't stream high res textures at 30+ fps to make it practical to use this screen as the main targeting device in high load missions.

I would really like you to read http://floating-point-gui.de/ and then understand that FP arithmetic will not ever return precise decimal results. That being said, I would really like to know the precision used in the game engine.

The Int calculation is somewhat puzzling though. That should not happen.

I have one slider for the throttle and another for the brake. It's a TM tarthog. I previously has a TM cougar set up in A2 in quite the same way. I set brakes to max and then slowly throttle up. wait until it spools up, then release brake.

Yes, the analogue control is more precise. And in this case, it also enables you to spool up without rolling.

I've done a small test this afternoon. I haven't actually tested with a script to output the actual thrust- and brake force values, but putting a wipeout on the tarmac and spooling up with full brakes applied will keep you stationary. If you release the brakes once the engine has reached 100% power, you will accelerate at full power immediately. The engine sound seems to indicate that the engine is running at full steam prior to brake release. (But of course, that might just be smoke and mirrors)

I think joystick users are at an advantage here. They have the ability to do this. My K&M using buddies have complained about this as well. It makes take-off from cramped runways very hard.

Putting the analogue brake on a separate axis, and engaging it while spooling up works for the start-up. The differential braking would be nice though.

I'd like to be able to run unit tests and use a TDD style development cycle that doesn't take 2-3 mins of warmup time for every test run.

I think this can be done faster than what's currently possible. And I suspect that most of the code is already in BI's libs, but not used in the way proposed.

I mean, most things don't involve targeting specific art (art being all maps, models, etc)
You could have a simulated test terrain/canvas that can be used for unit testing code. I keep running into run-time errors that are vague. Unit testing and debugging is one of the key ways to get around such problems, but it is not possible to do that in an efficient way at the moment.

I might consider starting up a community effort if this hasn't been picked up by BI in a couple of months, if I still have the time by then.

I'm currently using ArmaDEV. I've mailed the creators if they want to cooperate on improving it, but they remain silent.

Useful info. thnx :)

If I start a project, I really do want to make it a community effort. I'll probably never get it done on my own.

But for now I'm busy with some other commitments.

Maybe BI will wake up and realise that spending .5M on a contest is kinda useless if the tools are lacking. I'd spend that .5M on the tools instead.

<i>"If I start a project, I really do want to make it a community effort. I'll probably never get it done on my own." </i>

Thought about it and have come to the conclusion that it would require the help of BI or a lot of hacking and other illegal stuff, so I'm not going to do that.

All is fair in love and war.

Deal with it.

Jets destroy bridges without fail, but tanks weighing ~10x more will cross them without problems

Any chance we will get a true flat bed truck for Tanoa?

With the added box models, this would be the new way of doing things for repair/ammo/fuel/etc. Please add!

The floating rocks are a good example of the problems with the LOD system, but it is more a case of it being overly agressive, and thus causing issues like very noticeable pop-up.

You need someone to point a laser designator at a target and then turn on the laser before you can get a lock with an LGB. It's not clear from the description if you have followed those steps. Modern planes can 'self designate' through the use of a target designation pod or built in hardware.

1¾ years later, this still seems to be overlooked...

@AJ77777: A2 was childsplay and totally unrealistic. Dispensing flares in that game would guarantee that you would live. This is very much unlike real life or some of the more realistic flight sims. Show us your logs in DCS:FCS or Falcon 4.0 or other relevant sims before claiming that you're a great pilot.
I'll have to assume that your lack of experience as a (virtual) combat pilot is the true issue here. That is, unless you can prove that you have the experience to dodge missiles. Most average joes can't dodge missiles at all without using flares. It's quite easy if you know how it's done in real life. In A3 it is still relatively easy. (on unmodified servers)

Still present in current version.

It seems to me that the external model is missing completely, as there's no turret or shadow.

This is something that has always been a problem in the Arma series, and it has always bugged me. +1

BIS could also opt to vastly improve the HUD code so it becomes more interactive, and solve it that way. I know that would mean a HUD implementation for th esights of many more types of weapons, like launchers for example. On the other hand it would also improve realism a lot.

Oh, I thought those were for the management of AI when you're not in the group. They seem to disconnect from the group altogether when you issue those orders.

Confimed. this is the same issue as I reported with this ticket:
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=14011

I know what you're talking about. I've been a long time sim pilot also, and have many hours in Falcon 4.0 (RP5, FF, BMS) and the Flanker/Lomac/DCS series. The A-143's flight envelope just doesn't support sustained high G very well, which is what's needed to evade missiles consistently. If you deplete your energy, which is all too easy in the 143, you're just a sitting duck and very vulnerable. As for dispensing chaff and flares at the same time, I already noticed that. However, modern jets can differentiate between R and IR guided missiles, and should act accordingly. (Hell, automatic countermeasures programmes and RWR should be available, they've been available on real jets since the mid 90's and late 60's respectively) That's why I'm asking for separate control over the chaff. At the same time CM effectiveness should be turned down a bit in order to reflect modern day missile effectiveness. The era that the game portrays isn't the 60's.

I agree on the missile aspect of this ticket. The LR AAM should have at least an 8k autonomous range, as that is what is like the minimum active range that current missiles like the AIM-120 AMRAAM and R-77 are able to guide themselves with using their on-board seekers.
I can't imagine that BIS would model antiquated missiles like the AIM-7 sparrow or R-27, especially when they also model the asraam, which hasn't been in service for that long.

Also, BIS might want to think of modelling chaff separately.

Awesome idea. I really would like something like that Norwegian PB for BLUFOR, and perhaps a OPFOR and independent counterpart.

The fix was to not set formation. (minor PEBKAC issue :/)

@oukej: I first reported it back in september. The latest dev build seems to have it pretty much fixed now.

I think that this issue has been resolved for the A-143. This issue can be closed.

fly lower then 200m and the difference becomes very apparent.

The white reticule (game) is accurate, but the green one(HUD) definitely isn't.

It's supposed to do that due to the airflow over the vertical stabilizer (tail)

I noticed this as well. As our squad shield is not symmetrical, this is very noticeable and slightly annoying.

Would be nice if we could compose our own vehicles :)

"this could go with a radius around vehicle ammo crates and ammo and/or repair truck" I'd make that dependent on scripting, not a game feature.

You do know that the workshop is a massive turnoff to most modders, right? Valve takes over the rights to your work. They don't take a license, they take ownership. Big no-no in my book.

"I think this is currently something that "play WithSix" (http://play.withsix.com [^]) can help you with for now, at least concerning missions which are currently playing on servers."

This thing should have been in Arma 2. I don't understand why it wasn't in the base release of Arma 3. Many other games have this feature. (All Source engine and Unreal engine games for instance)
I don't like download managers such as withsix. they screw up my settings and interfere with things I install outside of them.

As for a technical solution to the download location of the mod: include classes in the missionfile with the proper urls (possibly alternates as well) and server keys for download. Then extend the mission editor with a mods logic module or a new tab and specify the download location in the mission. any included mods can then be downloaded automatically. You can always add the option to present a 'ask before downloading mods' dialog option in the options menu.

I think that this problem has been inherited from arma 2. It was present in that game as well. Back then, it was dependent on CPU load and syncing problems, and it could marginally be solved by having a script running which would coordinate time and weather changes. Is anyone who has reported seeing different weather having performance issues?