The side rail slot would, in my opinion, be the best way.
When you want to use a laser or a light, there is not really a point of having a camouflaged marksman/sniper rifle. You will stand out a lot more when using those, not to mention the foliage getting in front of the light/laser.
@Stalkel2, I would say that it depends on the reason why it crashes. It could be the mission or Arma3.
But the ticket title doesn't help to point this out though, as it makes it seem like it is the mission.
@Iceman,
I've done some searching, and it's not a game crash. When the game is loading it just takes a bit longer, and windows doesn't receive any information from the app(Arma3) in that loading time. That's when it displays the "stopped responding" message. Then when the game has finished loading (the Addons part, lots of files) windows receives information again and it removes the "Stopped working" box and continues on like normal.
so the best way to fix this for me is to tell windows that it should give ArmA3 more time before windows deems it unresponsive.
If you want I can make a new issue, but I have looked through the RPT files myself and showed them to a few of my friends and we couldn't find anything wrong with ArmA3.
I have this issue as well, and for me it shows the "stopped responding" message just after receiving a mission file in MP as well.
In both cases I just leave it for +/- 30 seconds and it will continue on it's own.
I don't think it will help you much, but I thought I'll share this.
up voted. But don't forget the IR laser attachment as well, for those who use sidearms together with NVG.
Its not really needed, I agree. But it would add a lot more value and diversity to vehicles.
And on top of that. It would create the opportunity for modders to make weapons or modules for vehicles, instead of an entire new vehicle.
Edit:
I also found this picture a while ago in the A3 helicopters pbo
http://imgur.com/a8FHbsM
They were pretty clear, but some illustrations could not hurt. ;p
I think this would be a good addition as well. but I would like to see a modular solution.
Just having the base OH-9 and being able to add items to it, like you attach sights and rail attachments to weapons. Simply being able to pick benches, doors, weapons(DAR,DAGR,ASRAMM,M134,HMG,GMG), countermeasures, FLIR camera and add them to the base helicopter. This would also work with other helicopters and land vehicles.
And if you want to take it a step further, make them changeable in the field. This would make for a better sandbox experience by adding more value to a single vehicle. The vehicles will be able to use or switch specific loadouts in the field. Having one helicopter that can switch weapon systems can be a much more valuable than having three separate ones.
This is already shown in several mods(John_Spartan & Saul's F18,SU35) only with weapons.
I just read all seven pages, and I really don't have anything to add. I'll be waiting for a forum topic link and a feature request. :D
Good thing you had an 11 hour train ride :P
No longer present in 1.28. Can be marked as resolved.
Agreed, But has an acknowledged duplicate.
0020108
Wheel brakes are also very important when landing on slopes. Without them you just roll down the hill.
"For instance, wheel brakes, while perhaps useful occasionally on helicopters, are extremely useful for fixed wing aircraft"
you should place dawn a helicopter on stratis airbase and put wind to max. leave the engine off and disable wheel brakes. the wind will push you right of the island.
I agreed with this idea, +1.
It's already a feature.
Had the issue as well.
and it's not in water, it sinks trough the ground.
I also tried auto rotating down which works like a dream, landed softly without damage, then the heli tilted and the rotor hit the ground. instant explosion.... which makes auto rotation still more or less impossible....
Would it not be and option to have a Module to change it. And it being up to the mission dev to set the amount of fatigue suitable for the mission.
keep the current settings as maximum fatigue and use the fatigue system we had before as a minimum.
True, though every soldier goes through basic training so there physical fitness should be about the same. Of course every individual is different so there could be a random factor with it, say 5-8%.
The Module could also include different settings for different groups, say you have basic infantry, recon teams, and sniper teams. They can all be set differently, this could also give the recon role a significant advantage over regular infantry depending on what the mission dev chooses.
Bots. They should by default have the same settings as players (I believe that is the case right now). Making a separate module for bots would work, this module will by default mimic the settings of the players but can be freely adjusted.
As your request is about the configuration of each individual unit, in my opinion that would be bad. With that option it would be possible to create super soldiers, and we all know that Captain America does not really exist. Plus, I would not want to configure all 60 playable slots individually.
what exactly is the question here, do you want it removed or is there something else?
when I read this I see a statement not a question.
Agreed, was wondering myself why there is a wreckage of it, but no actual vehicle.
here are some screenshots for those who are wondering what the wreck looks like: http://imgur.com/LDscovR,ybgcVKF,2ltkKYf
haha, that is the best ArmA 3 video I've seen so far!
though, it still needs to be fixed, upvoted
@LordHeart, Agreed, but the crew sits inside a separate compartment if I'm not mistaken. So they should be able to access there own inventory, but not the vehicles inventory.
upvoted, though I would suggest that only the people in the passengers seats should be able to change gear. Driver, gunner and commander are are occupied with other things.
So I updated the issue, the problem stays the same only the information was updated.
My friend and I we tested it a bit more thoroughly and I updated the info because I founded the information not clear enough.
Should be fixed now, look at the dev branch changelog, date 02-04-2014: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?149636-Development-Branch-Changelog/page26
In my opinion all of these options, flares, FLIR camera, doors, benches, etc, should be available. It's just up to the missions designer to decide which ones are being used.
To implement this you could just use the base mh-9 model in the editor, and then have ether tick-boxes/second drop-down menu so you can add what you want. or do it by means of scripting, which I personally do not prefer since it has to initialize and is not in engine.
Why not make it so that you need to hold your fire selection key for two seconds? This method has multiple upsides:
And if you want to put in on fire, you press F once to switch it back. Or maybe to make it more safe, hold it again for two seconds.
Soon, soon this will be reality....
@Goose, You can take down a building with the minigun. I've tried it when I crash landed a UH-80 once, the MROT was stuck on a house and I just leveled the house with the minigun so I could take of again.
As for the rate of fire, I'm not sure if what I'm saying is correct. But I believe that the Orka has a rpm of 4000 and the pawnee a rpm of 2000 per gun.
The Orka has only one minigun and the pawnee has two, so the amount of rounds being fired should be the same.
To get on topic here, I to find it hard to hit people with the miniguns, they really are accurate. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, especialy at close range (say 50-200m). they should be accurate at close range, but at long range (say 500-600m) I do have the feeling that they are to accurate.
If this feature has been implemented. Why is the status still on reviewed?
Just wondering.