http://www.wikihow.com/Use-an-Analog-Watch-as-a-Compass

I just use the watch in an opposite way (I align the hour hand with its own shadow), so that the half of the angle between the hour hand and 12 o'clock points at the north. It's easier for me to do it that way. Never owned a digital watch ;)

But the HUD map is small and not scrollable, while the "M" map is.

@Grezvany13: Not "the paper map itself", but it would simulate having a GPS with a moving map, which would be used instead of paper one, when having a GPS.

@Kid18120: I'm trained in cartography and navigation and sometimes I put a ruler or protractor against the screen. I have no problem with your method and I can navigate accurately without a GPS. I don't even need a compass, a sun and watch is all I need (it works also in Arma btw :)). But I just want something more modern and fitting year 2035.

My real GPS has moving map and is accurate to 2m. It allows for marking things seen on the map and reading accurate coordinates of them, along with distance and bearing from me. And it's a rather basic model of a GPS receiver.

For me, the only inconvenience with the SDAR are its sights. They're enough for underwater combat and honestly I don't see using a reflex sight while diving. But on the land, they are difficult to use. It's because the 30m zeroing forces manual compensation by aiming higher, while the thick front sight effectively obscures the target at medium distances, where 5.56 bullets are still very effective.

I was able to beat SCUBA showcase with SDAR alone, some kills made from about 200m, but it required more ammunition and was less convenient, than for example MX ironsights would be (with thin front sight). The sights alone limit SDAR uses on land to that of 5.56 SMG and a lack of suppressor limits its usefulness in covert underwater infiltration scenarios even further.

Also I've noticed, that SDAR has double purpose flippable backsight. It would be nice, if at least we could use it: the current two point, zeroed at 30m, for underwater combat and the ring type, zeroed at 200 or 300m, for on land shooting. It could be toggled with the same function, that allows for switching between a scope and a backup relex sight mounted on top of it.

Human's eye is the least sensitive to red light and the most sensitive to green light. That's why you have red light filter on the Vietnam-era flashlights (to conceal it from enemy) and green light in NVGs (eye can distinguish the most details out of a green image). Blue and yellow fall somewhere between the two.

Yellow lenses on driving glasses work on the same principle. They filter out blue and near-UV part of sunlight and "turn" it into green, which improves contrast and allows for seeing more details.

Edit: We need IR chemlights also.

The real night sky always is dark blue, near the horizon line it's even lighter colour. The sky appears to be black only when there are lights in your field of view (cars' headlights, streetlamps, full moon etc.).

Maybe there should be some tweaking done to ambient light value, slightly shining on objects when moon is under the horizon, but the sky dome itself is fantastic.

Originally, I was thinking about customizable vests as well and had a paragraph about them in a first draft of the ticket. Some vests would have slots for different pouches, which in turn would provide storage for different item classes. Other vests would offer only the basic design, like on the manipulated screenshots I've made.

Customizable vests is a feature related to other requests of more options to customize your soldier, as it seems, that face, voice and glasses are no longer enough. Adding personal touch to my ingame character, is something I would really like to see in Arma and Stalker has proven, that you can succesfully join FPP gameplay with RPG inventory/equipment.

I've removed the paragraph about customizable vests, because:

• I tried to stick to the original issue I had: filling a vest with items, like if it was an ordinary bag and not a vest with specific design;
• I didn't want to request too big or too complicated feature;
• I wasn't sure how such more expanded features, traditionally associated with role-playing games, would be accepted by the Arma community.

Defining any armour added to a vest or provided by it by design, is really nice idea and doesn't collide with more complex vests nor customizable vests. How about additional armour-only slots, which would leave it up to player, to choose if he wants to carry heavy plates or additional protective gear (upper arms, side armour, groin etc.) or if he wants to stay light and mobile, at a cost of smaller protection? Armour plates themselves could represent different levels of ballistic protection.

And knowing the scale of Jagged Alliance fanbase, there is a point in having a more appealing inventory.

As a side note, the Arma 3 inventory system and the ability to customize the equipment, was one of the two reasons, that convinced me to buy it.

Ugly, but cool. Modern, futuristic, high-tech and unusual :)

@AgentRev: I'd adapt to conditions and revert to the old method of counting the ammo used by myself, with a help from the inventory view. No HUD please.

Just because a bunch of people play Arma like if it was GTA, doesn't mean we all should do the same. Play withSIX servers aren't the whole of the world. You can't tell how many private servers are out there or single player guys, who actually play without HUD and enjoy proper ammunition management, tracers at the end of a mag included. Having a more lifelike gun is still far from simulating a "military structure".

Then secure a tank or some other heavy equipment, or count your ammo and reload before tracers. Arma isn't a typical shooter, where hordes of enemys happily run into your crosshair, just for your pleasure and adrenaline rushes, no matter what certain mods let you believe. Arma is for smart people.

" in a situation where you are outnumbered, and want to stay out of sight"

My advise would be not to fire at all, tracers or not.

Arma2 UH-1Y and Arma2OA Wildcat helicopters had camera pods capability and it was good for multiplayer. However, for some reason, it never worked with AI. Some mods allowed for using the FLIR pods, but it was a bit complicated: enter autohover, launch a missile as a pilot, switch to copilot, turn on the FLIR and guide the missile with a laser.

So yes, vote up + please make the AI actually use the pod.

Good old CAS without the pod is still possible, but it requires opening the map and marking spotted enemys with "Shift+left mouse" marker, which has its obvious limitations.

It was fixed in Alpha build 0.56.104778.

Thank you! :)

I did another screenshot, from a different perspective. Copilot also doesn't hold the collective.

As an afterthought, maybe it's the collective, which is in the wrong place? Can't tell without looking at it from better angle.

I've experienced it while playing offline as well. In one mission so far, community made "Black Sheep" coop version (for some reason I've chosen to play alone a coop mission, with AI as teammates, despite having a dedicated single player version). Everytime I got hit, the screen froze for a second or two, no matter if killed or wounded only. After the freeze, the game was running normally. It hadn't happened in other missions so far (including coops played offline as single). Maybe it's some missions scripting specific? I have Arma 3 Alpha (no dev build).

I've added an unmodified screenshot from Dev build 0.57.105210. The feature isn't completed yet, but nevertheless it looks very promising!

Light shafts are very nice! I hope this technology will be applied to other light sources as well, f.e. flashlights.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?119512-Arma-3-Confirmed-features-info-amp-discussion

"NOTE Pettka has confirmed that PhysX in Arma3 works fine on systems with ATI/AMD cards. PhysX will be handled by your CPU(processor) and not your GPU (video card)"

PhysX is there anyway, so why not to use it somewhere else, apart from vehicles?

It's still in Dev build 0.61.106195:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSXC5zTJzVo

It happens, when reloading an already loaded underbarrel grenade launcher, like when changing round type. It happens to Katiba-GL as well.

Getting a bullet in your face, because you had your weapon auto-lowered at the moment, is even more annoying.

Look at the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcRDtexQa9k

There is a possibility of a collision between a rifle and a doorway, but it's exactly like in a reality. You can't move sideways with a rifle, that is longer, than the doorway is wide. You have to move with the rifle held diagonally, be it with a lowered muzzle or put the muzzle through the doorway first and the rest second.

In standard FPP shooter you're just a flying camera, with 2D animated weapon sprite put on screen and you can hug the walls as much as you like. In Arma the camera is tied to a 3D body, holding a 3D rifle. Because of that, you have to leave as much space in front of you, as possible, and aim with the end of the muzzle, but move with your back.

Collisions were exagerated in Arma2, which called for some mods. Arma3 has this issue fixed. Maybe there is a specific doorway with bad geometry, in the movie I seem to have some problems in one door only, but that's a specific point, not the whole collisions system, to look at.

It could be an issue with the AI's vision and how it handles using non-NV scopes at night.

This is somehow related to:
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=625 Bullet-in-chamber accounting
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=6657 Tactical reload & Speed reload
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=2638 Ability to repack mags
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=5093 Jamming / Malfunctions of small arms

All of these issues revolve around a single feature and improvement: to take account of ammunition and magazines separately.

Currently the ammunition is strictly tied to a magazine and not a separate entity, which has the following effects:

• a bullet in chamber automatically is removed with magazine change

• only a single reload method

• no repacking of partially used magazines

• no use for empty magazines

• in weapon and inventory configs, there is a strict magazine type entry, which often prohibits from having interchangeable magazines, for example between two mods with M16/M4 family, because of different mag names

If we had separate ammunition and magazine count, it would improve the game in the following manner:

• after loading, the bullet in chamber (a separate entity, not a value associateg with a mag) would be "attached" to the gun, rather than a magazine, so it wouldn't be extracted along with magazine change

• another function for chambered bullet extraction would be more feasible

• the same for jams and clearing them

• two methods of reloading, one with empty mag going back to the inventory and another with dropping it to the ground, would be easier to introduce

• repacking of empty mags could be done manually in the inventory, instead of artificial time counters or automatic systems (by dragging bullets item onto empty magazine item, 1 drag = 1 bullet of that type added; bullets item would be either carried separately or "dragged out" of another mag)

• repacking could include manually selecting magazine loadout with mixed ammunition (two different bullets items)

• dropping an empty mag and forgeting to retrieve it, would have certain consequences, as all ammunition sources (ammo boxes, vehicles etc.) would have only ammunition within, not the mags; there is a reason, why it's an "ammo box" and not a "magazine box"

• it could be possible to dismount automatic rifle belt and use the bullets to refill empty mags (by dragging the bullets out of the belt)

• it would also support bolt action and pump action weapons better; even if they are obsolete in 2035, there will be mods with different time periods for sure (a single "reload" press would add only one bullet/shell to the internal magazine of the weapon; after each shot an empty bullet would be manually extracted with the same function, as "clear jam/extract from chamber")

Opening the inventory doesn't change your stance and it takes 3.4s to check out how much is your loaded mag "filled" with ammunition. Time was measured from combat ready, through opening the inventory, till I was again combat ready.

Even with polymer see through mags, I'm doubtful, that anyone would be actually conting the bullets. One look at the general state and change or not. Also there are mags without even a small inspection window and then you can only approximate the amount of bullets remaining by their weight.

No need for a "check mag" command. It's enough to open the inventory and see how many mags you have, along with a "fill meter" next to each one of them.

I agree with removing ammo counter, but I'd like to retain selected fire mode or zeroing information - unless I can see them on weapon's model itself. I'd like to remove "mag empty - reload" icon as well, a click from an empty rifle is enough.

Disabling the HUD entirely doesn't solve playing with AI subordinates, when I prefer to have some more tactical information at hand, to make up for their, not always the brightest, decisions and actions.

Having the reflections modelled is good and yes, they can be a pain in real life. But in Arma3 they behave in unexpected ways. Please have a look at the video I made:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JjXgfbKxdY

The reflection I will be referring to, is the main reflection in the center of the windshield. It represents light reflected from the vertical strut situated between pilot's seats, along with a reflection from a red fire extinguisher, mounted to the low part of the strut (the extinguisher itself is currently not modelled). This is important, because we have to consider, how much light is actually being received by the strut, during various parts and maneuvers of this test flight.

My conclusion is, that the reflection algorithm ignores cockpit being self-shadowed by the rest of the fuselage and takes into account only the positioning of the sun (or moon) relative to the windshield's surface. That's why pointing the tail towards the sun and diving, produces the most visible reflections, because it sets the windshield to a position the most perpendicular to the light rays.

When hovering in radar dome's shadow, the situation is somehow reversed. The reflection appears to properly react to the lighting on the strut, but ignores the fact, that the sunlight is being blocked by the radar altogether.

Obviously, the reflection is really an image baked into the windshield glass' texture, but it's lighting model should be tied to the strut and cockpit interior, rather than the glass itself.

I believe it is a similar lighting issue, to the one I've accidentally discovered while investigating this ticket: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8082

I found there, that it appears, that plants' lighting is inherited from the terrain's lighting, instead of plants being lit separately, like objects are.

The reflections on AH/MH-9 are the most visible, when the sun is directly behind the helicopter. Theoretically, the fuselage itself should block the light and prevent creation of reflexes. While it can be seen, that the light is being blocked and the dashboard is dark, the reflections are still there.

I tried hovering in a shadow cast by ATC tower at the Stratis airbase and it caused the small red reflection in the center of pilot's windscreen to disappear, however the lower white reflection was still visible - even with the helicopter being completely in shadow, its tail pointing at the sun.

One more curiosity: similar hovering in a shadow of Stratis airbase water tower, doesn't cause even the red reflection to dissapear, even though the water tower casts visible shadow. The cocpkpit is also being lit, even if the helicopter is completely hiden in water tower's shadow.

The red reflection is supposed to represent a fire extinguisher hanged on a vertical strut, between the front seats. With cockpit fully in the shadow, the extinguisher shouldn't produce any reflections. Matte dark finish of cockpit's interior should prevent creation of such strong refleses, as we can see now. I've also observed instances, when the reflexes would make flying difficult with NVGs at night.

Observed in Dev build 0.57.105007

CQB in Arma 3 isn't that bad. It's just different from your average FPP shooter and requires different maneuvering techniques. Try it out IRL, indoors with a long object of your choice (rifle, airsoft, broomstick, guitar, whatever), then ingame take weapon's length into account and you'll see the improvement.

Here's proof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcRDtexQa9k

If it is going to be implemented, please make it as an option, that can be switched ON or OFF.

I'd expand it even further and include in the editor an ability to set up a whole unit's inventory. Not only camouflage, but also weapon type, additional items, magazines amount, type of uniform and vest, face maybe etc.

Add to that an option to save your own equipment "variants". Then adding ordinary riflemen and changing them to your preferred setup could be done in 3 simple steps: add a unit and open it like you do it now, select variant, accept change.

With the new inventory system, custom units could be distributed as variants instead of whole troops. They all are men, just with different uniforms and weapons afterall. I like having many mods active at the same time and scrolling through ALL of them, just to find that one special operator variant was a pain in Arma 2.

There should be a small chance of surviving a building collapse, just like some people survive such events during earthquakes. This is apart from any injuries caused by the weapon, that was used to demolish the building. This would be closer to reality and would add a factor of uncertainty (fog of war) to the gameplay.

The easiness of buildings' destruction with weapons is another matter, from actually surviving a collapse. Since I wasn't shooting at the buildings much, I can't comment on how good buildings' strength is portrayed in Arma 3 at the moment.

But if you think, that standard houses are like fortresses and make excellent defence positions, have a look athis Army test video (3 parts):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSqdTLLZBWw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSebnSQdJ2k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02ECJ2Lt0cU

Buildings do provide concealment and some degree of protection, depending on construction details, bullet callibre and the angle at which bullet hit, but that's about it.

I'd prefer to have at least a notification with question, that "this mission requires mods x and y, do you want to download them?" or "mod n was updated, do you want to install the update?".

Automatic updates are nice and easy, but they can cause problems as well. For example, when new addon version brings some new features, that I don't like and takes away others, that I liked. Also I've modified certain addons for personal use, to suit my taste or gameplay style. Overwriting them with a new update, would be a catastrophe in such non-standard situations.

I like to control file and folder structure on my HDD, to keep it tidy, and I'm willing to spend some time on manual installations, just to keep the files precisely where I want them.

Forbid completely. In order to use a mag, you should manually put it into the vest, like it was in Arma2OA.

Suppressor increases rate of fire. Depending on a weapon in question, the effect is more or less pronounced.

I strongly prefer analog watches and can't imagine having a digital one, be it in a game or for real. I still use a wind up watch and absolutely love it. I even had a watch very similar to the one from OFP.

I propose to introduce an option, to choose what type of watch is being used in the game, but please don't take the current watch away.

This is an interesting idea, but what if the watch type item, specified in the soldier's config, is digital only? It would be better, if having a watch type item only enabled using the watch in game, but it's exact type would be determined by a preference setting in player's profile.

I like the current system, with a watch appearing on screen. It's as quick and easy as a quick peek at the wrist. If people want to have a time checking animation, it's OK, but remember "Trespasser" game - not always more "realistic" means "better experience".

It COULD add to a game like Arma:

• wet means heavy and cold - increased stamina consumption, possibility of enemy alarming random sneeze
• wet means "more smelly" - easier to be detected by guard dogs
• wet camouflage changes colours - a penalty modifier to camouflage
• maybe an effect of leaving wet trail or spots of water, like with the blood trails now?

I'm all for compass directions and bearings in degrees. By the way, it's a good practice to frequently look at the compass and check your orientation, just in case of enemy showing up out of nowhere or your leader/pointman getting killed.

I use a mod for Arma2, which gives the ability to suppress AI and gives visual effects when player is being suppressed. It greatly enchanced not only the overall experience, but also the flow of battles. Suddenly I started taking automatic riflemen with me, instead of exchanging them for more riflemen and marksmen.

Previously, a lone gunman without cover, could kill the whole squad. The bullets were landing next to him, but he was acting like a boss and picking enemies one after another, until no one left. Now I have to carefully choose firing position, so I always have a way to retreat if suppressed. Just lying there on a flatland doesn't work anymore.

Another situation is on the assault. Automatic riflemen suppress the enemy, while the rest flanks to contact. You have to think and act more tactically, instead of just running there, guns blazing. Try to suppress them and try to avoid being suppressed.

I've made an experimental uniform: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=7448

What do you think? It isn't stealth device, but it works better at all distances. Still could be a bit more dark.

Rvmat or not, OPFOR camo is fantastic. Almost no way to spot them, unless I have optics, they run around or produce a silhouette against the sky.

I'm against automatic changes, because this is confusing! If there is a problem with tracking what keys were pressed in the heat of a battle, then tracking subtle changes happenning by themselves, will be impossible. A HUD stance indicator could help, but if it was implemented, I'd prefer to have the option to turn it off anyway.

Also I was evaluating combat pace and found only a one special use for it. For the most of the time it's enough to jog (default movemement mode) or slowly walk ("walk or run temporary" option) with weapon simply aimed with right mouse click. This alone allows for quick and efficient CQB, with weapon always at the ready. Accuracy is enough for indoor or thick vegetation distances. Suppressing a position while assaulting could also be done, if we had suppressing effects.

The only one real use for combat pace, is for IR laser. This way I can move like the rifle was aimed, but it isn't and the ironsights or scope doesn't obstruct my view, when I aim with the laser. This gives more situational awareness + quick movement. In Arma2 I had to move slowly (with the walk option) in order to use the laser without aiming, but now, with the combat pace, a quick and efficient movement is retained. And since I love lasers, it's a big improvement for me.

Check out my video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcRDtexQa9k
Only the night segment with the laser aiming was done with combat pace, the others were standard moving mode, but with the gun aimed all the time.

Some time ago, in the beginning of the age of computer games, I was working on a design of a squad tactical game. I have used a simplified concept, where different weapons and armours were given classes. For example, class 1 weapon would be 9mm pistol, class = 2 5.56, class 3 = 7.62 etc.

Class 2 armour could stop class 1 bullet without trouble and wouldn't work for a class 3 bullet. But when class 2 armour was hit by class 2 bullet, it would stop it, but the armour class was then reduced to class 1. Subsequent hits with class 2 bullets would pass the armour and degrade it even further.

Wounds system was also greatly simplified. Depending on a weapon class and location (limbs, torso, head), there could be one of the following outcomes: slight wound, possible to be "cured" with first aid kit in the field; serious wound, which would incapacitate the soldier hit, so that he can fight no longer, but isn't killed yet, this could be cured only after the fight was finished; and a fatal wound, which would kill instantly. The higher weapon class and more important hit location, the worse the hit effect.

No hitpoints, no life bar, just a comparison between bullet and a vest. It was a rather primitive system, but during test plays it worked surprisingly well, leading to very dynamic and unforgiving firefights, with believable outcomes.

I've posted this, because it could serve as an inspiration for the Devs. For a start, replace weapon class with bullet energy, as calculated on impact and replace armour class with armour level performance standards.

@boid:
MG isn't the best example. In Arma 2 OA you can't have MG + AT, not even a backpack for MG gunners. So there is a thought behind these limitations, that MG gunner carries enough and can't take more. This is correct and we'll see how Arma 3 Beta will handle MGs. But I agree with you, that putting 6 boxes of MG ammo on the gunner isn't the best idea and that the MG's weight should have influence on gunner's movement ability, speed, tiring and so on.

Most of the ATs and RPGs, as well as various individual weapon systems out there, were designed to be man-portable afterall. Sure, they're heavy and uncomfortable, but no one said it's going to be easy. In the end your MG and PRG guys did walk those 10km, even if that made them unhappy. What Arma needs, are limits linked to fatigue, tiring and combat (in)efficiency, rather than not being able to carry equipment.

This is broader issue of Arma soldiers being extremely fit and very hard, if not unable, to tire. Sure, you can't sprint forever, but jogging across the whole map, over the steep hills and whatnot, with insane loadout, is very possible. A3 Alpha introduced fatigue, but this feature still needs much work, to make it perform like it should, and I really hope, that at some point in Beta this will be presented in a more finished shape, to be evaluated by testers and the community here.

You've mentioned lack of real life handicaps in Arma. I agree, but take a note, that Arma, because of how certain things work there, puts a different set of handicaps on the player. A digital world, as seen on the screen, won't replicate the reality, at least not until complete VR, like in Matrix movie, can be achieved. Maybe you know this, but it's often much easier to fly a real aircraft, than it's simulated counterpart and even multimillion dollars professional, full motion sims, have many limitations, which can and had contributed to accidents and incidents in the past.

Last, but not least, Arma is a game afterall, even if a realistic game, and it has to provide entertainment before anything else, which means compromises. You may not like some consequences of this statement, as much as I don't like them, but it's how it is and I think we are fortunate enough to have Arma at all, even in its current shape.

Ah yes, I had the "pleasure" to carry a real MG for a couple hundreds of meters, without a sling. Even if it wasn't 10km march, I know what you mean. This, and other experiences, are the source of why I have issues with super-fit Arma soldiers. A man can be fit, but sooner or later he has to rest, no matter what. Try a demo of Combat Mission: Shock Force and observe fatigue there. That's more like it!

Carrying a rifle and an AT launcher, also means carrying two large and bulky weapons at the same time. Apparently no one has problem with that, then why the opposition against two rifles? I did a quick research and compared weights of 11 RPGs (launcher + rocket). Weights ranged from 2.7kg to 19kg, with median 10.3kg. With it's usual length, AT is a good piece of gear to haul around and we do it regularly since OFP. It's about time, to be able to hang smaller and lighter secondary rifles from these shoulders.

@DarkWanderer:
It was meant to be a boolean, but after a bit of thought, I've changed it, but the name remained. Treat this as false, true, very-true ;) Since this is only a proposition to resolve the issue, it could be "bulkType" config entry, with three possible values.

Regarding unreal-exploit weapon combos, like the mentioned .50cal + MG, remember Arma2 OA. Having certain weapons, precluded carrying AT launcher or a backpack.

In Arma 3 it would be enough to add an "isUnwieldy" entry in weapons' configs, with the possible values:
0 for small, light, short weapons - SMGs, breaching shotguns, maybe carbines and bullpup rifles too;
1 for long OR heavy weapons - sniper rifles, marksman rifles, ARs, AT launchers, maybe also grenade launchers (both standalone and underbarrel, when attached to otherwise class "0" weapons);
2 for long AND heavy weapons - antimateriel rifles, MGs.

The following combinations would be possible (weapon in hands + weapon in AT slot): 0+0, 1+0, 0+1 with a handicap to movement. Trying to combine 1+1 setup or having a class "2" primary weapon, would lock the AT slot down.

Or make the teams available from the quick ingame menu, like on the screen attached. To unclutter the menu, let's display existing teams only, but with constant numbers, so for example command 3 is always team blue.

Try them at midnight, they should be OK then. Dawn/dusk lighting has some issues and has impact on the sights as well. Watch and compass also doesn't illuminate during certain hours.

But yes, having an ability to manually dim/lit them up would be really nice. Real sights do have such features, as well as a special NV mode.

That could be one approach to mitigate the bunnyhopping problem and have the jump command at the same time. It's just that I never had the need to actually jump in Arma, and very seldom for real. As for climb over the wall or fence, I could have used them on many occasions in Arma. I think, if jumping is to be implemented, only tests could tell, if it's needed and how it's actually used.

Regarding the original issue, let's imagine that we have the jump function. Now, how would it be used?

Jumping over streams - we don't have any. Jumping over mines - you're kidding, right? Jumping from one roof to another - "arma's creed" anyone? Jumping out of a way of a car trying to run you over or maybe jumping away from a grenade - not a chance, the moment you compress the legs in preparation for a jump, it's over. Ah yes, bunny hopping - yup, we could use that! Nah, not really...

The ability to climb over fences or onto roofs (if possible - the stacked boxes in the Benson's movie are good example) could have some uses in certain situations and conditions. It should be done with more clever and context sensitive "vault" command, not jump.

The animations on the movie are nice, but too quick and arcade, it's not that easy to climb a wall with a vest, armor, and a rifle. It's not only about weight, but also about the bulk of these items. The range of your moves can be limited or you can get stuck on the fence. But yes, a nice to have, just in case. Also our current vault is too slow and should be upgraded, to be on par with Arma3's increased mobility concept.

Then there is AI, which also should be able to use the new features, but that would complicate things even more.

The same is true for cars. When AI driver hits something (rock, tree, house etc.), he tries to push forward with turned wheels, instead of using the reverse to get out of trouble.

Use the reverse in the open terrain is fine (most of the time, with the current pathfinding system in mind).

@Zeloran:

Thank you for information. I much appreciate the work you, and the other developers, are doing. I understand, that the inventory system is still work in progress, and I just want to throw in a bit of feedback and a couple of ideas, to help you out with that.

Maybe there should be two values associated with items? One describing weight (influence on soldier's stamina drain, speed restrictions etc.) and the other one describing the volume of the item (where it can be carried, how much does it influence movement etc.).

I see two solutions to the problem of volume:

1. Classical inventory with grid-filled "areas", similar to Stalker http://tinyurl.com/plb8db7 or High Callibre http://tinyurl.com/pzu7pnw

Backpacks would have config entry with their capacity, for example 15x25 and carryable items would have entry with their size.

There is no need for the actual "grids" to show up in the inventory screen. All the calculations could be performed by a simple subroutine. Upon dragging of item into the backpack, two checks would be performed. The first one, if the backpack is larger than the item, which would be a comparison of two values: backpack capacity and item's size.

If this was passed, the second check would determine, if there is enough free room in the backpack, to hold the item. This would require to have a local variable, which would hold the current value of free space left in the backpack. For example empty 15x25 backpack would write "375" to the variable. Adding of 5x6 item, would call the "375", subtract 30 from it and write it again, to the free space variable, as 345. Arriving at less-than-zero free space value, would reject putting the last item into the backpack, because it's full already.

2. Another approach, would be to limit how many items of certain classes, can be put into a backpack, for example "carryHelmets = 1". This would allow for light helmets, that can't be stacked up in a backpack, just like it is now with the rifles.

Personally, I only have an issue with how you can stuff a vest, regardless of its design and number of pouches, but I've made a separate ticket about it: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=7586

Since then, I've made the following observations regarding weight system:

1. An uniform can hold only two MX mags, with a little more room left, only for a first aid kit. ACU trousers easily hold six M16 30-rounds mags in their thigh cargo pockets, probably more could go in, but it would be too bulky.

2. While it's true, that excess weight fatigues soldiers sooner, the effect isn't pronounced enough and it could be calibrated more accurately. I made a test, in which I ran (sprint, then jog) 200m with various equipment.

With underwear only, it took 31 seconds to cover the distance (average speed 23km/h).
With 30% load (standard BLUFOR rifleman loadout), it took 42 seconds (17km/h).
With 70% load (rifleman + full carryall backpack + full inventory + NLAW + MX GL with suppressor), it took 44 seconds (16km/h).

The only differences were, how soon I wasn't able to sprint anymore, hence differences in times, and how soon heavy breathing sound effects appeared.

In another experiment, 70% loaded AI was happily jogging at the same speed, as my lightly loaded rifleman, while for real his speed should be limited, with the possibility to limit it even more, if jogging for an extreme distance. Not even jogging the entire Stratis airbase runway up and down (2km) would tire the encumbered soldier (9 minutes, 13.3km/h, no sprint was used).

It looks like increase in load doesn't influence soldiers' speed, nor ability to jog. Only sprint is affected. A guy in underwear has the same jogging capability, as a heavily loaded man. Straight and level runway is easy, but it's the same for walking around hills.

Jogging uphill over 30-40 degrees inclined terrain, with 70% load, is perfectly fine. Breathing sounds and blur are there, but they don't have any tactical impact. You can storm a hill all day long if you like, which is wrong and lessens the strategic importance of holding high terrain. Also currently it makes little to no sense to drop backpacks and not needed launchers, when storming enemy's positions, as you do for real.

Personally I have completed all-night-long marches (with running and jogging stages within them) with weapon, gear and full backpack and inevitably our pace was slowing down to a walk, while at that time I could have run 8km under 40 minutes, without all the gear (average speed at least 12km/h). This is (or used to be) US Rangers standard run, yet in Arma 3 fully loaded soldiers, with bulky NLAW, backpack and all the stuff can run even faster and without further tiring.

I understand certain gameplay-wise limits and design decisions, but currently the weight system doesn't do anything significant to soldiers' movement abilities (you can sprint for so short distance, that you can entirely forget about it) and doesn't force players and mission designers to take soldiers' load into consideration. For example, vehicles would be very useful for hauling the gear around, even the ATVs, but now they are used only as quick means of transport and additional firepower.

3. Weight balance between various items could use more tweaking. Assuming, that 100% load, as indicated by the bar in the lower part of inventory, would be 118kg, like carrying a wounded teammate for a short distance (mate 80kg + his gear 19kg + carrier's gear 19kg). It's supported by the fact, that you can't fill the load bar up to 100% with equipment alone.

Gear means (kg):

• uniform with shoes (3.5),
• helmet (1.5),
• light vest (3.9),
• NVG (0.37),
• rifle with a mag (4),
• 8 rifle mags (3.8) [loaded 30-round 5.56 mag = 0.48kg],
• pistol + 2 mags (1.1)
• two hand grenades (0.8),
• FAK (0.1), and I have researched all these things, based on similar currently existing items.

A comparison of certain Arma 3 items with their real counterparts:

M320 rifle weighs 9.7% or 11.4kg, which is less than Cheytac M200 14kg (both empty and without scope).

The ghillie suit weighs 6.3% or 7.4kg. Real ghillie jacket with standard pants and shoes, like used ingame, weighs about 5.1kg total.

Standard rifleman uniform weighs 5.7% or 6.7kg. By my estimates, two piece uniform + shoes should weigh about 3.5kg.

Loaded NLAW weighs 9.7%, which would give 11.4kg versus real NLAW 19kg (launcher 12.5 + missile 6.5).

Loaded MX without attachments weighs 3.4%, which gives 4kg. Close to SCAR-L 4kg and M4 3kg (both loaded with 30-rounds mag).

ECH helmet weighs 6.3% or 7.4kg! Compare that to PASGT helmet 1.4 - 1.9kg or MICH helmet 1.3 - 1.6kg. No radio gear would be that heavy, not even with NVG fitted.

Carrier Lite weighs 3.4% or 4kg. This indicates, that it isn't fitted with any additional ballistic plates, which alone add about 7 kg.

Katiba weighs 2.3% or 2.7kg. Real Khaybar weighs 3.7kg (both with empty mag).

OPFOR helmet weighs 8.6% or 10kg. Supposedly it contains some crazy electronic package, but that's a serious overkill, with regards to human comfort and ergonomics. Maybe it's Russian computer there? ;) One Russian aviator told me, why Su-27 is so much bigger, than MiG-29 - they had to install fly-by-wire computers in there... :D

EBR weighs 4% or 4.7kg, while the real thing weighs 5.1kg - this is close enough.

Lynx GM6 weighs 13.7% or 16kg. Real one weighs 11.5kg (both with scope and with empty mag).

Just out of curiosity, community addon Colt M4. 2.8% or 3.4kg loaded, real is 3kg loaded. Close.

% were measured from screenshots, real weight in kg was researched. Certain items in Arma 3 are close to their real counterparts, which indicates, that my estimation of 100% load as 118kg could be more or less correct. Caseless ammunition is lighter, than standard brass-enveloped cartridges, available sources for smaller callibre caseless ammunition claim about 50% reduction in weight, as compared to 5.56mm NATO rounds. I think that 6.5mm caseless *could* be calculated as 55-60% weight of 5.56mm NATO (=0.3kg per one 30-rounds mag).

4. About the parameter, that combines mass and size. It's a very good concept, however it works in an unpredictable way inside Arma 3's inventory system. Unwieldy, standard layout M320, is lighter, than it's real counterpart, but compact bullpup Lynx is heavier, than the real one. At the same time, bullpup Katiba is much lighter, than the Khaybar, upon which it was designed. Ghillie suit weights more (=more unwieldy) than a real one, but so the standard uniform, which is supposed to be extremely comfortable. Bulky NLAW is so much lighter, than the real one. And the helmets aren't that much uncomfortable, to make them so heavy.

5. Resistance to fatigue could make a difference between different character classes, like civilians, guerilla, poor army, trained army, special forces etc. It would make sense to choose for example SF operator, because of his abilities related to strength and stamina. In Arma 2 SF guys were just different models with cooler toys, which killed some of the mission design and gameplay possibilities there.

A book I have offers a description of a Spetsnaz sniper and spotter during the Afghanistan war. Both of them were carrying (in total) SVD + 400 bullets, PKM + 800 bullets, 2 x APS submachineguns. Add to that unspecified amount of 9mm SMG ammo and grenades, as well as water and possibly food for a couple of days. The book describes them as "walking heavily encumbered like if they were camels".

What we need, is not necessarily weight tuning, but a volume consideration. Right now you can't put a rifle into a vest, but 14 mags is too much. 6 (LBV) or 8 (modular) + 2-4 grenades looks like a good default value. Add to that 2 pistol mags, a personal first aid kit and the vest is full. In the old days, you could have a canteen or two on the belt, but nowadays there are camelbacks anyway. Anything more would require a buttpack or a backpack, maybe cargo pouches on the back of modular vests.

I have an idea about even more milsim inventory system and will be posting it in a separate issue.

Same here, have to use X to surface. Otherwise I can drown, even if technically having a head above the water.

That's up to personal preference and could be switched accordingly in the game options. I am used to paper maps and my real GPS is set to "always north up".

You want a military RPDA :) This would make a very nice addon, but I wouldn't throw the map completely away.

RPDA could be an item, like a map or GPS:

• map just gives you a fullscreen paper map,
• GPS just gives you your position (grid), with maybe a very basic, non-fullscreen, map (like the current HUD GPS minimap)
• map + GPS gives you a full map view, with your position marked on it,
• RPDA gives you an electronic map, with your position and positions of friendly forces equipped with RPDA, as well as vehicles with similar system of position data exchange. The screen would be bigger than pure GPS map, but somehow smaller than paper map.

Such electronic map could also include additional dynamic elements, like marked enemy positions, waypoints and route to follow, POI.

Most of this features already exists in the game, on lower difficulty levels. It's just they could be arranged differently, in a more modern and believable way.

AI turning to the sounds is a correct feature. What's wrong and the real problem, is that sounds alone give the AI the exact description and localization of the soundmaker, allowing the AI to recognize it's an enemy and to shoot accurately even where it shouldn't.

I can sneak from behind, upon max skill AI, up to 15m, before he hears me. It's OK. But at the same time, simply hearing me for a second shouldn't enable the AI to kill me during moonless night with full overcast, without even having NVG.

My suggestion is to:

• remove the possibility for the AI to shoot at targets, that are only heard;
• make the sounds to be only a general indication, that something is there (a man, a car, a boat - northeast close, for example), without pinpointing the location and without any other specific information (especially which side it belongs to - footsteps are the same for everyone);
• the sounds should put the AI into increased awareness state towards the source of the sounds, instead of turning to Combat and engaging;

• tweak the vision of the AI, so that it doesn't see when players can't, especially during difficult daytime/weather conditions.

There should be a timer, for how long an object must be in AI's FOV, in order to be spotted. The timer would be different, with regards to which part of AI's FOV I'm in, as well as with regards to the conditions. I have no issues with the AI looking straight towards my location and spotting me after a second or two. But I don't feel it's right, when I get spotted and precisely pinpointed, while being in the corner of AI's view for a split second.

An example:

I was walking with AI team through a thick forest, during a moonless night, with full overcast above. My AIs were able to spot enemies at 75m, as soon as line of sight was established. We stopped, I used max zoom and saw nothing. I switched flashlight on and yes, there are enemies ahead. I switched it again off and tried to find them with NVG alone. Now, when I knew where they are, I was able to see a very faint silhouette. Too faint, to be instantly seen at this distance, while walking. See the screenshots for a reference.

The observation is, that the presence of line of sight, shouldn't be equal to seeing things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcRDtexQa9k

It's not that bad. I did a bit of CQB for real and Arma's model is more similar to what I remember, than any other more user-friendly shooter. It's just you have to move a bit differently and take weapon's length into account.

For Arma2, I've tried automatic rifle lowering mod and quickly got rid of it, as the lowering usually happened in the worst possible moment. I do, however, use reduced collisions addon, which makes Arma2 very similar to vanilla Arma3 collisions.

But he wants an ability to blend in dynamically during the mission. With the current setup, you can stick to one version at the time and can't change it in the field. Having a backpack with several ghillies in it, is not the same...

I was thinking about it and there is no need for two separate movement commands. AI has similar problem with executing any order, when in combat mode.

I propose to make player's orders surpass any current AI behaviour and force it to execute immediately. Only after the order was executed, the AI should return to its routines.

"How know who are friends and who are opponents? (without 'friend-signs')"

• learn the differences in appearance of uniforms and equipment;
• learn different weapons' sounds;
• try to move in such a way (=cautious, =look around), that you have as much as possible time to identify seen units;
• try to keep track of where are your friendly forces and where is the frontline;

Additionally:

• try simple and small scale missions first;
• train offline, before jumping into (sometimes) crazy multiplayer environment;
• search for available and unclassified resources about how modern military works.

Don't worry, this will come with time ;)

Duplicate of #0001219.

Encountering heavily armed car without proper weapons should be absolutely fatal. But now, all what is needed, is to shoot the tyres. The crew bails out right into the fire and they're toasted. They don't even deploy vehicle's smoke screen before abandoning it, which should be a standard procedure!

There is more general issue with AI's awareness, as described here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8204 Silencers can be finetuned only after AI behaves properly and doesn't use unfair tricks.

Also AI seems to be able to incorrectly shoot at targets, which it only heard - remember, currently we shoot supersonic bullets only, silencers or not.

I've just performed a test on the 0.59.105679 Dev build. With suppressed MX, it takes only 2 bullets to kill AI rifleman, from 550m. Without suppressor, it's between 1-2 bullets, depending on whether I score headshot or not. Detection time and AI behaviour was more or less the same.

But: I was playing a mission in one of the previous standard builds. It took 7-10 "suppressed" bullets, before AI pinpointed my location. Without suppressor, they knew after 1-2 bullets. Also the time required to find me, was visibly longer, when I used suppressor. So there is something to the suppressors, we jut need to have AI's general awareness fixed first.

One of the reasons behind purchasing Arma3 was all this new futuristic, yet believable, gear. I like how does it look and "feel". When I miss my beloved M4 (no SCAR, please) I launch Arma 2, which with 20+ GB of mods is still very enojable and immersive. Besides, there is already a nice M4 mod for A3, with different paints and attachments.

I voted up, however there is one thing to think about:

A flashlight itself doesn't have a friendly/enemy tag attached to it. It could be an enemy stalking on you or a lost friendly team, trying to orient themselves in the dark and accidentally lighting at you.

Upon seeing a light, AI should become aware, that something is there, but there should be a measure included, to have the AI to first determine who is having the flashlight and to shoot only after identifying it's the enemy. Of course, bullets flying at the AI from the location of the flashlight, should automatically resolve the problem of identification.

The same applies to AI being blind to IR lasers, even if equipped with NVGs.

I've found some real reference:
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_18/374777_ACOG_NVG_MOVEMENT_.html
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=478473
http://www.nightvisionforums.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1271
http://www.weaponevolution.com/forum/showthread.php?1283-ACOG-and-NVGs

Summary:

• you can look through a scope with your NVG on, but it's inefficient and produces more harm than good;
• ACOG tritium illuminated reticle is VERY bright, when viewed through NV.

Another thing is, I've recalled reading about dedicated NV scopes and NV attachments, that they are generally used up to 300m. I assume it has something to do with NV image quality and resolution, prohibiting clear view of targets further away. I can't remember, where did I read it, so I can't point you to the source.

I've made a repro mission and filmed various AI's "achievements",while driving in a convoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1MrM8LiDCs - Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FFLF-U2xTo - Part 2

It's worth noting, that after recording of 33 minutes of video, I thought to myself: "no one is going to watch this for half an hour, let's leave only the quirky parts and cut out the good driving". To my surprise, I had to cut only 8 minutes, which gives 25%. For the 3/4 of the time, AI is goofing around and this is even without enemy around.

The road I chose to follow is not accidental - this is exactly the same road, I had to travel during "Coming through" downloaded mission, only with 4 Hunters. In the end, in order to finish the mission, I had to personally drive 1 Hunter and complete objectives with a help of only 3 AI soldiers. After finishing with enemies, I ordered the remaining Hunters to drive to Camp Maxwell one by one and even that wasn't without problems. I had to switch to two of them and personally get them out of trouble. One was stuck on a building and the other felt into the forest near Mike-26. This story is to show the real scale of the issue and it was only a small and simple (although very nice and well thought) mission!

Sadly, the videos above didn't caught the moment, when one of the Hunters literally blew up, after hitting a rock at high speed (this was a rehearsal drive and the camera wasn't running).

Laser rangefinder can be detected, so sometimes it's better to use manual zeroing. I'd prefer to have both methods. It was in Arrowhead already.

Ifrit is excellent. A car like that isn't designed to look cool on the battlefield, but to be as much effective as possible.

CROWS turrets should be gyro-stabilized also.

This ticket is related to:
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8713 Make more enchanced rangefinders
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=4834 Modernize vehicle gunnery

https://www.youtube.com/watch?edit=vd&v=bnV2jNU_Y_k

Here is a recording of the issue, my dxdiag is attached to the issue here.

Forgive the music, I'm not a filmmaker and freeware software installed for this occassion added it by itself.

It appears to be linked with issue #0002929. It happens at the same times at dusk and dawn. On default editor day, 6th July 2035 it happens at 00:30/01:00 (gradual change) - 03:01:45 (sudden change) and at 21:06:45 (sudden change) - 21:20/21:25 (gradual change).

It is a bug, have a look at issue #0002929. I had clear skies, full moon and still pitch black night, during certain hours at dusk and dawn. Not even flashlight or street lamps could have lit it up.

I've uploaded two screens. They show, that it's not that easy to spot enemy at 200m, if the lighting and the background is just right. This works exactly as in reality. After the shooting started, they were running and were easy to find, even against the brown ground. At the same time, guys standing farther, but on a wrong terrain, are clearly visible even with naked eye.

Expecting, that a person standing 500m away on a well lit hill, will be invisible, is against real experience. There is a matter of matching the camouflage to the terrain, shadow on the ground and self-shadow, light reflections, type and properties of the background, plus a few other things not simulated in Arma. Only if at least the majority of these factors fits perfectly, the camouflaged object evades detection. It's not invisible by any account - it just blends in, by not attracting the eye. With that in mind, I see a big improvement, compared to Arma2.

On the other hand, I had real trouble with finding the enemy on the same hill, when we were ambushed by marksmen lying still on the ground. I've pinpointed them only on two occassions: when my AI friend engaged with tracers and when the other marksman was running to change position. If not for that, I'd have to throw smoke and retreat behind the ridge. It was midday and strong sunlight was effectively masking muzzle flashes, OPFOR camo is really good (unfortunately, BLUFOR camo is another matter) and the current "grass" simulation was working as advertised. Distance was about 500m.

Having said that, there is still a room for improvement when optics are used and a proposition from another ticket, to render grass limited to scope's FOV, is just excellent.

Speaking from real life experience, it's not that hard to spot a standing or walking person from several hundreds meters afar, even if the spotted person wears camouflage. It just depends on the light, surroundings and background. Spotting someone lying down on the ground is another matter. Ten meters could be too far with plain camouflage uniform and a bit of grass and leaves attached here and there (not a ghillie suit).

Arma 2 solution to the problem was a step in the right direction, which could be improved by adding a bit of blur and/or transparency to the lying person, just to make it stand out less from the background, when wieved with a naked eye. When wieved through the optics, the effects would be removed and grass added only to the FOV of the optics, to keep framerates intact.

It is also related to the date. The hours mentioned work on default editor day, 6th July 2035. Try 6th January 2035 and the "bugged hours" will switch to around 5am and 17:15.

Another thing: set clouds to 100% overcast and look at them through NVG. They are colliding with sky dome during the same hours, as the weird darkness appears.

Also, the compass, watch and red dot sights are impossible to see (they appear to be very or completely dimmed).

FLIR works by having a thermal contrast between objects. It's easy to imagine a situation, where there is little to none heat sources and everything is cooled down to a similar temperature. A winter night perhaps? I remember reading about Desert Storm, that tank hunting was the easiest right after sundown, because the sand was initially cooling faster then the vehicles. As the time passed, the vehicles "caught up" with the temperature loss and they were harder to distinguish from the terrain.

Having a realistic FLIR is more than just the heatmaps. For now, a manual "sensitivity" control would be enough, so +1 for that.

I think that every element should have it's own setting, which could be adjusted, to match personal taste or computer's performance. It could be done by UI or by an easily editable config file.

It is a bug, it's linked with #0001606 and it works as followed:
Notice, that when reloading a weapon, the first used/empty magazine goes to the uniform, rather than the vest. This happens even if the vest has empty space to accomodate it!

Since diver's uniform (wetsuit) has all of its storage space filled in by default, the reloaded magazine has nowhere to go and is dropped to the ground as a result.

Take Diver - explosive specialist and throw away toolkit from his backpack. Now try to change ammo type. The magazine is no longer lost, because it goes to the backpack.

My Arma is 0.54.103957

It's a very common and annoying issue. How many times, while playing as a leader for an AI squad, I managed to acquire a number of armed vehicles, to increase our firepower, and getting anywhere with them was a nightmare.

It was the worst with the most useful (in theory) formation for this purpose: column and compact column. The most problems were encountered when making the turns. Instead of following the tracks of the leader, AI drivers were cutting corners and creating havoc in the process.

Suggestion:
Make AI follow its predecesor in formation, rather than all following the leader OR make leader to be dropping automatically a series of invisible waypoints along his path, for the AI to follow precisely, instead of homing onto the leader at all times, like it's doing now. Think of real GPS track feature here.