If it simulates i have never seen it.
So in my eyes it's not.
Either way 5.56 is way too weak as it is now.
which we all agree on.

BTW I agree witrh goose, but either way even in low velocities
I feel like the damage should increase from what it is now.

yeah could be right about the bulletproof vest in the future,
but than again, could be that the guns are also improved.

Anyway it just feels off to me that a deadly assault rifle from 50 meters
need 5 or more bullets to even begin effect the target, bulletproof vest or not.

And we should all remember that the game dose not simulate the AI thumble or
get knocked off by geting hit, they take 3-4 bullets and mange to fire at you
imidiatly with deadly accuracy, like nothing happened.

IRL, bullet proof vest or not, if you get shot center mass with 1-2 bullets,
even if you don't die, you will probably won't be able to be so effective
like the AI is. so it's still unrealistic.

Sorry Dr. Death missed you on that sentence:
"it seems like if you dont know too much about the contact of a 5.56 in the body, yes"

Regarding a 5.56 making a 90 degree turn inside the body I understand your doubts,
but it is very much possible (of course not an instant turn, we are talking about the entry and exit wounds specifically and what is in between them)
Also note, in my example I did not say the brain, i said the spine at the neck area (which is close to the shoulder)
Just Google 5.56 entry/exit wounds or 5.56 cavitation, or whatever, you will see.

But I think this whole debate is kind of moot since real life is not about numbers like in a game.
it's not like IRL, 5.56 do 50% damage, and 7.62 do 70% damage or vice versa.
Both bullets are VERY lethal, hell even 0.22 can be lethal if it will impact at the right point from near enough distance.

Regarding 9 bullets and not dead, well it can happen I guess.
I can tell you many more remarkable stories, but rare things can happen and they do not represent the norm.

Bottom line the game should be that one two 5.56 bullets to center mass should kill, end of story, just like 7.62 in the game.
of course distance and wind should also be taken into account.

But we both agree that the 5.56 in the game is unrealistically weak, so no problem here.
Unfortunately it does not seem that other people care about it so much :(

Maybe we can debate some more, and more people will see this ticket and vote up ;)

Yes at least we agree on the ticket :)

I don't know much about the FN FAL, but 5.56 is usually considered a more
deadly round than other calibers due to the above mentioned effect.

Pay attention, not more powerful (7.62 is heavier), but more deadly.
Of course it's not black and white, but usually all calibers will go more or less
straight through the target (humane target that is, which is mainly water let's not forget)
While 5.56 caliber usually will have a very unpredictable route inside the target body.
this will usually cause unpredictable severe internal trauma.

An example, lets say you hit someone in the shoulder.
With 7.62, you will probably take his shoulder off, while not very pleasant, you can still live the outcome.
With a NATO 5.56 you hit the shoulder (yes the entry wound will be almost a pinhole size)
but the exit wound could be at your spine at the neck area, and it would be big, very big!!!
Outcome? Dead on the spot.
(yes, there is a chance the exit wound would be the side of the shoulder, but just for the example you know)

Like I said, of course it's not black and white, it depends where you hit the target, what distance you shoot from air temperature and humidity etc.
But it can many times (I dare say most of the times) be much more deadly than other calibers.
And let's not forget it is much more accurate and have a higher velocity as well.

A personal note,
as a combat medic we actually learned about the 5.56 cavitation effect.
We did not however, learn anything about other calibers.

If you are really interested in that subject please read this.
http://www.futurefirepower.com/myths-about-the-nato-556-cartridge

Also 5.56 caliber might be smaller but it is still very very deadly
due to Cavitation, the bullet is causing massive internal damage from
its turning and going all over the place inside the body.

So actually 5.56 caliber can, many of the times (if not most)
be even deadlier than higher caliber rounds.

no, actually it was so quick i was very surprised,
maybe it updated automatically while I was not at home, but I got home
started the game and poof, it's beta, just like that, no downloads no nothing.

I agree, I just played domination using the Tavor and it was just horrible,
I couldn't kill anyone even from 50 meters.

I hit several times enemies with about 5 bullets but it seems like it did no
damage whatsoever. Needles to say, they immediately turned around and killed
me in one precise and deadly shot.

It was very very frustrating.

I have the beta for the past 2 or 3 days.
i didn't really get why they continue to say the beta will come out at the 25.

Who the hell downvoted this?
Sure, it's a duplicate, but to downvote!? WHY?

duplicate of 1228

Dr. Death why do you care that all keys would be bindable? don't want to, don't rebind them.
I personally maybe NEED to bind them to something that is more convenient to me, even more so
if they are important functions.

Edited the description and added 6 screenshots to better explain the problem.

After testing it in the sun, it is clear that the geometry to block the light
is there since it is shading the geometry of the scope, however the post process
effect of the glare is not affected by this shadow.

Come on people please change your votes, it is an obvious mistake in lighting
and if you want it to be realistic you should vote this up.

@Anachoretes what is so funny about anti reflective coating?
please look here if you think it's funny http://www.uscav.com/pdfs/acog.pdf

The reason I say they should remove is because it's not done properly,
so it's better not be there at all.

If the glare stays, it should at least take into consideration the character
body and head, ATM it does not, so even if there is a light source that
your body and head should block it doesn't.

Why would you want to leave it like that I don't understand.

-EDIT-
I edited the ticket to ask to fix the glare so it would be correct,
instead of removing it. please re-vote if you agree now.

thank you.

Look at this image:
http://qualityweapon.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/m21-sniper-weapon.jpg

It's true that the head is not stitched directly to the scope and there is some
free space between the head and the scope but if the light source is directly behind you, your head should block the light, it doesn't now, which is not realistic at all.

try it out and you will see the glare is there from all angles
even angels your head should clearly block the light.

If they want to make it realistic, they should place some simple geometry
that will block the light source so it would be realistic.
as it is now, it's like your body and head are gone while looking through the optics.

And I am not even talking anymore about anti reflective coating
which should produce a much smaller glare circle.

If you voted it down could you please explain why?
Please think about it, your head is covering the scope from the light source.
How come the glare is realistic Dr.Death?

And by OP you mean better than iron sights for long distance?
Than yes just like in real life

+1

as long as it's not global I am down with it.
it would be nice to know how am I doing after a game and see if I improve over time.

I am not up for global statistics because that mean they will have to make persistent servers,
building databases and maintaining all this which is expensive and time consuming.
Also this open the game to the competitive gameplay type (BF3 style), which I think has no place in ArmA.

but as long it's local, I think it's a good thing.

Agreed.

DEVS, it's exactly the things that people find irritating in the ArmA games!
and one of those things that I think you would like to fix
now that you reach bigger audience and want to make the game more
approachable to the general gamer public.
Your own words BI not mine ;)

fix this please.

I understand your point and the problem you are having.
however I think that your idea will not solve this.

The real problem, like you said,
is that the AI ignore (or get confused by) waypoints that are too close to each other.

What assurance do you have that micro waypoints will solve that?
Most likely it will be the same, since this is an AI issue and not waypoint type issue.
I would say open a ticket (or change this one) to address this specific issue.
Unless there is already a ticket on it.

I still like your click CTRL idea!

-EDIT-
on another note, visually I like how you did the micro waypoints,
It has much less clutter on the screen than the big circle of the
normal waypoints.
Could be that if a waypoint is marked with "No Change" it will be small.
I don't know.

If I remember correctly, now, once you set the route,
if you want to add more points in the middle of it,
you have to set more waypoints at the end of the route,
and then move all the middle waypoints according to your new desired route.
So I like your idea of clicking CTRL to add more waypoints in the middle.

But other than that, why would you need micro waypoints?
just use the normal waypoints, where ever you want.

Didn't try to reproduce but,
if you ever tried to walk down hill with a heavy load, well,
it can be tiring.

I think FeralCircus is correct, though I didn't check it myself yet.
Also what HDR do you use? Standard or low? I highly recommend using the Standard.
I don't think it's making such of a performance hit anyway.
when I have time to fire up the game I will look at it for sure.

To be honest, I didn't see anything weird about it,
but could be I just didn't pay enough attention to it.

but, but, I see reporters like you and me posting with bold,
or even posting a link (but not the whole address link, you know what I mean right?)
I am sure there is some format here, right, someone? please!

Dr. Death: "you dont, you wait until someone tells you"

LOL, true that! the search here is a bit funky,
sometimes I don't find anything, then someone will come and tell me
I did a duplicate...

anyway, upvoted for sure!
If I remember correctly, I think it was possible in ArmA2,
but I am not sure anymore :/

-EDIT-
What I am more interested in is how do you fromat text here?
BOLD, hyperlinks (with out the full link adress), ITALIC etc...
I mean what is it BBcode? html? ...?

BTW Dr_Death, i like spec ops missions :)
And i am sure i am not alone.

@Dr_Death, yeah, you are probably right, but it's just me you know, I like spec ops missions :)
And yes AD2001 is right stop spamming the update button, it's annoying like hell!!!

Coop would be great.

It would be nice to play with friends some top quality long story missions
and not just domination, insurgency or looking for a good coop missions on
armaholic or some other site.

it is perfect the way it is, with scoped weapons there is enough sway imo

And why is it not possible?
Raven shield had liquid stance and that is an OLD game.

Like AD2001 said, not necessary but nice, so i upvote

^^
What Ben85 said.

If you don't like NV while in 3rd person, just switch it off, problem solved.

If however you mean that they should remove the model of the NVG from
the character head, than what you are asking is even more not realistic
since the character obviously wears NVG, so why should it be removed?

Would be cool,
but I doubt it will be implemented.
upvoted anyway

It should work, you just have to make sure you have enough room in your backpack

it's also on the Quadbike like that

Everything that is written here is true, also about the doors.
need to be fixed

upvoted ;)

I don't know if it's related, but it's also annoying
that you try to open up the inventory and all you get is the weapon.
Then you find yourself running around the corpse trying to find the sweet spot
to open up the inventory, could take a while...

happened to me too many times.

The TAR-21 rifle is actually designed for ambidextrous, so you have a point.

But I don't see the point of the devs actually doing this.
You are not really affected by it ingame do you?
I mean you still use your mouse with your left hand right? it is mere aesthetics.

True, nothing is wrong with aesthetics,
but I rather they use their time for more important aesthetics than this.

Unless I am missing something here gameplay wise?
-EDIT-
OK true would be nice to switch to left hand sometimes in CQB
But still too much work.

Duplicates of
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1819
and
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1899

I don't know, Could be :D

Yes it's possible,
You should just pay attention to:

Overcast
time of day
Which month
What day of the month

Note that even IRL the moon is sometimes not visible at all since it's below the horizon
or it's barely visible for different reasons (mentioned above).

No problem finding the moon here,
and to be honest I think night time is very well done

lighting depends on overcast (if stars light the ground or not)
Full/no moon (obviously full moon will make night much brighter.
The month (january will be much more dark than July for example.

With all that Info I can make the night as bright or as dark as I want.
and in the darkest nights, I can't move an inch without NVG

See my attached file with the moon present in the night sky

sorry mwnciboo, but you should know that a flashlight
is in the kit of every infantry soldier.

If you think an infantry soldier is always on the battlefield well I just LOL.
I have more time washing dishes at base and guarding the front gate than actually being on the "battlefield" in my 3 years of service as an infantryman.

And we all had a flashlight btw, just in case.

+1

In general the whole flashlight idea is just a gimmick ATM,
I don't see myself using it gameplay wise, yet.

1. what T-Bone said is right, today you can find some small powerful LED based flashlights that light better than the ingame one, and we are playing at 2035 right? so yes, it's a weak flashlight.

2. No underwater flashlights, make diving at night kind of pointless unless you have NVG. (yeah, NVG works underwater but not the flashlight)

3. No filter for flashlights, Soldiers have color filters to their flashlights to mark each other if one does not have infrared and NVG, or to help them see without compromising their location http://tinyurl.com/mgrzh5n

4. No head flashlights, especially useful for people who TrackIR or people like me who like to look allot using free look.

I know this might be too much to ask, but I do feel that flashlight are pointless ATM.

I didn't say there are no ghillie suits like that
I merely said you have also ghillie suits that cover the front.

It's not such a big deal to take out a mag from under the ghillie suit.
I will find the image, can't find it now, it's somewhere in the closet.

It really depends what are your needs. you have many types,
That is all I am saying.

sorry AD2001, but how can I say this, not true at all.
I don't know what is going on on other militaries, but I am sure
most modern armies operate more or less by the same doctrine.

Here in Israel, while we still were inside south lebanon, (a dense flora environment)
making 100 hours (or more) ambushes to Hezbollah soldiers was a routine.

It was typically done by sitting inside a bush camouflaged and just waiting.
most of time you were just observing, actual engagements were pretty rare.
you could lie down but it was much more comfortable to sit.

people would sleep in turns, you would pee in a plastic bottle and take a dump
inside a burlap sack with a nylon inside it. you would stand sometimes to stretch
your legs. you practically lived inside a bush. you really think you would lie
down without moving for so long?

and lets not forget that one have to move from a position to position,
having a frontal cover will help the camouflage also while on the go.

Why people continue to argue?
different armies/units have diferent Ghillie Suits.

All you people think that it should not cover the fron part
because it will get stuck in the vegitation while prone.
while true in a way, those snipers still need to
walk and they want to maintain camouflage also when crouche/standing.

In any way, you have so many types of Ghillie Suits,
to say that front covering Ghillie Suits are not realistic is
one big BS.

I will find a picture I myself took of a sniper in my unit back in the days
and will show you all, not a picture from google.
a personal picture of a realistic real life sniper during training.

Actually you have many kind of ghillie suits also full body ones.

Would be nice to have both and since they already have the models
from prior games, it wouldn't be too hard or time consuming to implement.

Up voted.

-EDIT-

A bit more time consuming I guess but would be even better to have ghillie suits
as clothing, that you can take off like any other uniform.
Don't know if it's already like that, if it is disregard this edit :)

Haven't watch the video yet since it's still being processed.

Anyway I really don't think this is the place to post this
as well as naming someone in public.

this is an alpha bug tracker not Battleye support.
Also as far as I know Battleye is not working yet in the alpha.

I expect this post will be closed soon.

-EDIT-
just a tip for you, if you upload a video don't advertise it
until it's ready. you just lose potential viewers like that.

I agree with you up to a point, let me expand please

In my opinion lighting in ARMA 3 is more realistic than most games
where it's falling short is the shadows, that makes it look not as realistic
as modern games, but lighting in itself is impressive in my eyes.

Now, comparing ARMA 3 engine to BF3 engine is not really fair.
While ARMA 3 engine have many new features, it is not a brand new engine,
it is a patched engine which is more or less using the same technologies
for some time, while the new Frostbite engine has been redesigned from scratch.

I agree with you that ARMA 3 can look and feel better,
I can give you a long list of things I think are not up to par with modern AAA games
but it would probably require an engine redesign from scratch,
and to do that to a game like ARMA, would take much more time than a BF/COD game would.

I admit that when they announced ARMA 3 with ragdolls and Physx I thought
YAY, we gonna get a brand new engine, sweet!!! So yes I am also a bit disappointed
that it's not the case, but I am afraid, that now nothing can be done about it.

Let's hope BI would make enough money from ARMA 3 to give us a brand new engine for ARMA 4.

Nice,
Thank you smookie!

Really, you can't reproduce it?
Note that switching from main weapon to sidearm while prone is OK.
it's only happening when switching from sidearm to main weapon and only while prone.

Overgrowth have features in it's animations and movement
ability ArmA does not have, and it for bunnies and wolfs.
Anyway, I can't compare the two, because I haven't seen Overgrowth skeletons.

I could be wrong since it could be that opening the max file I downloaded
duplicated the bones or who ever made the max file did it wrong, I don't know.

All I know it had many many bones who did not do anything to the charcter mesh.
they were just there, the thigh for example was constructed from two bones
with a joint in the middle of the thigh, but only one of them actually moved the thigh, why?
(it was hard to see with so many bones on top of each other maybe there were more then two),
And same goes for most of the body prats I have seen there.

Try to work with something like that, and you will get frustrated very quickly, on top of that try to do it
with the time constraints the DEV team have, and I am not surprised the animations are not the best.

Why do I need bones in the rig that serve no purpose?
Maybe I am wrong and they do, but compare this skeleton to a
modern skeleton from lets say UDK, and you will see what I mean.

So I have opened a A3_character_example.max (from a new download) again,
and all bones seem to work now and it's also much more neat,
it probably had something wrong in the previous file I tried because it was really a mess.

But still, look at this:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34313938/ArmA3/skeletons.jpg

I don't understand why there is a need for more bones then necessary.
Why would I need the thigh to bend in the middle?
or the upper or lower arms or the shin bone for that matter.

Probably it does serve some purpose, personally though,
it just looks cumbersome to me.

-EDIT-
With all that said, I think it is now very responsive (the stance changes) and it's really great!
And I know I can be a very criticizing, so I feel the need to say that,
BI, you are doing a great job, and this is by far your best since OFP,
it's just that I want it to be better :) because it's my favorite game ever!!!

Also, when I think about it it's not really related to the skeleton itself.
it's more of a programming thing.

@Grief if you ever see the skeleton used in ArmA,
you might take what you said back.

It is the most complex and outdated rig I have ever seen in my life.
And there is no need for it to be like that.

thank you smookie :)
good luck!

+1
But i see a different problem,
The engine which does not handle animations very good.

reminds me of the issue with the enemies in ARAM2 and below
needing to first stop their animation before they fall to the ground and die.
I don't even remember if it was ever fixed.

metalcraze, I explained why one post above yours.

@SuicideKing,

You usually also hold breath when firing with iron sights or red dot.

since an infantry soldier required many times to shoot after running, while he
breath havely and his arms are moving, there is a typical traning that is called
"firing after physical strain" (my own rough translation from my own languge).

What you do is you sprint back and forth until you need to catch your breath
than you go prone at the firing range, take 3-4 havey deep and strong breaths,
than hold your breath and shoot. it is done with iron sights or red dot as well.

So it shouldn't be removed from non scope sights,
it should be removed only while moving.

+1

I also zoom in while walking to have a better scan of the area.
While I can use NUM+ it is far less convenient than holding right
mouse button especially if you consider walking at the same time.
And like you said i have no clue why would someone want to
hold their breath while walking.

voted up and monitored

So I will change the zoom to right mouse button and when I want to hold
my breath I will still need to use a button which most likely will be not
conveniently placed since there are already many other important
buttons.

While I agree this is not such an important issue, it is also not such a problem
or time consuming to fix, also, it won't affect you (or people who don't zoom while
walking)in any way.

In general I think if I would really go into it OPF/ARMA series has allot of
buttons which probably many of them can be combined / streamlined and make this
game feel much more modern, haven't checked it though, just a feeling.

For instance almost nothing has changed in the squad commanding controls
of the series since OPF, but that is another subject.

though cheating is a problem,
it would be nice not to waste the devs time with posts like these.

if you have some real feedback go ahead, but what is the point of this?

I would also be happy to know where the DEV team stands on this issue.

I see you don't consider this a major issue, and while you might be right
I think since this issue is present for about 12 years now
it is time to fix it, wouldn't you agree?

there is nothing I would like more,
but I think it's an unrealistic request at the moment.

And since there are more game breaking issues than this
I also downvoted, sorry.

Special forces or specialized intel gathering units
also use DSLR cameras and also sophisticated cameras that you are not even aware of, other than that +1 :)

+1
totally agree with you on that!

While a better sound engine would be cool,
I think it's still possible to tweak the sounds while you are indoor
without redesigning the sound engine from scratch.

Just a bit of echo to the footsteps and lowering the volume of birds, insects etc
would be a good start,

happened to me as well

YES, i don't know why they removed that.
The animation looked nice also, sad :(

bring it back please!

Agreed!

+1

I think the player shadow is just horrible.
especially the weapon he is holding, it always looks to me like cardboard.

@ShotgunSheamuS,
you are right it's a game, like I said I feel like the "out of focus" blur is
the easy solution, but like I also said, I don't care so much about the effect
it's ok by me, it's the timing that disturbs me.

I am an ex combat medic myself, so I am familiar with the loads of infantry
soldiers, and to me it seems like the soldiers in ArmA 3 are not in a good
shape at all, but thats just me maybe :/

-EDIT-
to make it more clear it feels like the ArmA 3 soldiers are pu**ies.

@ShotgunSheamuS, disability? LOL
you have no idea what you are talking about sorry,
but it is a well known fact that some people can get headaches, dizziness
and stings in their eyes by these kind of effects, not all people but some.
especially known in 3D movies like AppLeNaToR said.

Lucky for me I am not one of them and like I said before I have no problem with
the idea but it's happening way too quickly IMHO.

Also, I think that just blurring the screen is the easy solution and not
very realistic at that. a ring of fading black around the screen
and maybe a faint double vision effect would look better and not cause
pain to people like AppLeNaToR.
maybe even turning the image sideways a little (like being on a boat but more big circle motion)
as to show dizziness and disorientation (or maybe not)

But the blurry effect is too much and not very realistic.
I don't ever remember having such a blur IRL, it looks like a camera
out of focus effect, and not a human blurry vision.

Anyway whatever effect is decided I still think it's happening way too quickly
that is my biggest problem really.

I understand this system but as it is now it's really a joke,
I walk for 20 meters (with the load gear bar half way full)
and start to get blurry vision, it's damn too quick.

Tracers are indeed a light source.
but small caliber tracers are not bright enough to illuminate their surroundings.
They would have to be very very close to the ground to actually illuminate it
(and even then not much) which in most cases they are not.

High caliber like 50 cal or minigun, could light up the environment
but I think the discussion here is about small arms fire.

Regarding rendering NVG useless, that does not mean anything,
NVG are essentially amplifying the light sources, so even the dimmest
light would be bright, that does not mean tracers are little lamps
flying in the night sky.

Source
Personal experience, and also watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq4xnRGZMOI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCsnSr6lqKM

-EDIT-
Christian_k, your videos are nice but
your first one of a LMG, is barely lighting the ground,
it does light up very very little only when in very close proximity (few Centimeters)
Which in my opinion dose not justify BI to make small arms tracers light up the ground.
unless they do it very very dim, which then again, why bother with it?

Your second and third video are of very high caliber rounds,
which is not saying much about 5.56 or 7.62 tracers really.

If we talk about small arm fire the effect is negligible to unnoticeable at most.
I will upvote only for high caliber tracer rounds, not small arms fire.

WOW this Spin-Tires is awesome,
even the tiers are getting squashed by the rocks and all!
This one even has mud simulated, EPIC!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m11cDRVG8MY
Never heard of that game, thanks fragmachine!

When they announced that Physx will be in, I had this in mind.
I guess we will have to wait for ArmaA4, or 5.

Anyway, back to topic, upvoted!

This is a good idea and it also have gameplay implications

good idea in my opinion

+1

In the new ArmA title you can not shoot while running or sprinting.
In the old days (OPF) you could fire even while sprinting.

Sure there was no point in doing it BUT YOU COULD!
Because in real life I could also press the trigger even if the
gun would be pointed to my mouth! (OK, hardcore example but you get the idea).

I don't know why they made it so I can't shoot while moving,
clicking the mouse = pressing the trigger, it should always work
it's my problem when and how I choose to use it, even if it's not effective.

And I agree that the idea of this ticket is indeed good for suppressive fire.

Also in the original OPF if you were shooting very close to your feet
you got injured from ricochets (and could die eventually),
it would be nice to have that back also.

This was always an issue in ArmA/OPF,
I thought that now that we have ragdoll it will be fixed.
Hope they manage to fix this issue.

Ho no I understood that part.
When I said I would like a feature to board ships and take them over
from the sea, than maybe I didn't mention grappling hooks specifically,
but that is why I asked for that feature, because I think it would be awesome.
And if there are no grappling hooks, well, I ask for them!
What is not clear in that?

@Dr Death, No I am not.
Unfortunately, I come from a military oriented country, I am not proud of it,
but there is nothing I can do about it. so I don't make up shit.
So please believe me what I said happens in real life.

So just because COD did it, does not mean it's not a realistic scenario.
Maybe COD didn't do it realistically, but thats another issue.

Please read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karine_A_Affair

and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid

And these are only two incidents I remember that are very famous here in Israel.
I am sure it happens more than you, or I think.

And again, I am not proud in everything my country does, (to be honest most of the time I am just ashamed of my country)
so lets not involve politics please.

Sorry I am not sure I understand what you meant,
Of course taking a ship stealthily is rare and difficult and you could be right
that the map is too small and you can't sail 10km into the sea in the game,
but this is really easily fixed by making the sea around the map bigger,
it's not gonna impact performance, it's just empty water.

personally though, I wouldn't mind taking over a ship 3km from shore, or even 1km.
It might not be ultra realistic, but at the end allot of the things in this
simulator(game) are not, for the sake of gameplay, and the distance to the ship
is really nitpicking in my opinion.

Again I don't understand what is not realistic with naval commandos (seals)
boarding ships, it could be rare, but it happen.
Just because COD did this, doesn't mean it's not a realistic scenario.
I don't know about seals in particular (though I am pretty sure they do also)
but the naval commandos here train for this kind of missions from time to time,
and I pretty sure most naval commandos around the world do. Even if it's extremely rare.
(if something is rare it doesn't mean it's not realistic)

I think it would be awesome fun and really cool, to have a ship like that in the editor as a prop
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/14/04/14046c733505c5e57c29c8418db95c79.jpg
(only not broken of course) for mission making and such, and an oil rig would also be cool.

Anyway, I don't think BIS will do it because of time issues, so you have nothing to worry about,
someone will make an addon evetually.

Agreed, demolition and oil rigs will be cool!
Also huge ships, seal boarding type, takeover the ship in mid sea, mission will be cool!

I also opened up a ticket about this.
But this ticket did not show up in the search, I tried different filters.

I filtered "diagonally" under "any" status, this ticket didn't come up.
Advanced or simple filters did not change any result.

But, I tried now something I never did before, i changed to "reviewed",
status and it showed up, with some more tickets it didn't show before.

And when I changed back to "any",
allot more showed up under this filter, including this one.

I don't why it happened, but it did.
Just thought you should know.

MadDogX, you should probably close mine, again.
Sorry mate, I hope that from now on, it wouldn't happen again XD

@Squelch, in theory the corpse inventory layout might be significantly different,
but it isn't now is it? all the characters have the exact same layout, so no, I don't agree with that.
I rather it take more screen space and I could take things more quickly than it have a small screen footprint but I will mess around.

Also please consider this,
I can open my own backpack (which is on my back mind you) and look inside it and still see the rest of my inventory
But I can't do it to a corpse laid down in front of me where everything is easily accessible.
Again, makes no sense.

But it's ok we don't have to agree.

Ho well, what can I say,
touche.

@Squelch, OK so it's possible (though me not knowing it testify for bad UI from the get go),
Nevertheless it's still clunky and buggy and I can tell you,
that many inventory item disappeared for me just because the inventory behaves differently
and you don't know what will do what next.

Now please explain me this,
Why when I open my own inventory it looks the way it does
But when I open a corpse inventory it looks like a simple crate?
Sorry, but it makes no sense.

My suggestion is not only easier to use but it's also consistent
and will solve all of the problems you talked about.
If you read my second post, you will see I also covered the weapon
issue being an extra slot on the ground.

It's exactly these kind of things that make you confuse.
I really don't get it, why to make it harder when the solution is so simple.

@ST. Jimmy, you could be right,
but I don't want MadDogX closing anymore of my tickets ^_^
but I might if I see it does not get the proper attention.

After some thought, I personally think that there is one more problem.
Too many options on any container/soldier/ground items in the action menu.

If I approche a dead soldier I have 3 actions possible:

1. Take main weapon.
2. Rearm.
3. Open inventory.

However, sometimes I open the inventory when the TAKE action is the only one possible,
that will result in the following interface:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34313938/ArmA3%20screenshots/interface/take_Weapon_Inteface.jpg

The problem here, is that many times I find it difficult to find the exact spot to open
the ENTIRE inventory of the corpse I am looting.

My suggestion here is to make ALL of the corpse area open the same inventory menu,
so players don't need to run around the corpse finding the exact spot to open the inventory up.
The "TAKE" and "REARM" option would still stay in the action menu the whole time,
but the Inventory would ALWAYS open ALL the inventory interface.

In addition it is possible to add these two buttons to the inventory interface:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34313938/ArmA3%20screenshots/interface/Looting_interface_example_B.jpg

P.S. was this ticket opened up by a moderator or a reporter named moderator?

This ticket is spot on!
It is clunky and buggy and allot of the times my equipment get lost somehow.

For example if I click middle mouse button when the hand icon appear
I am taking the enemy weapon, but if I want to take mine back, it is gone!

Also, as you can see in the current system, the opfor soldier is the "ground"
if I want to search his vest for example I need to take it off of him
put it in my inventory or on the ground and then look inside it.
This is not only NOT realistic but also time consuming and clunky, like OP said.

Current looting system:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34313938/ArmA3%20screenshots/interface/Looting_interface_current.jpg

I suggest the following system:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34313938/ArmA3%20screenshots/interface/Looting_interface_example_A.jpg
I think it would make the looting interface from dead corpse more realistic AND much more easy to use.

I also think the most important thing is that the interface will be consistent,
by that I mean that a soldier is not the ground, it should not be a simple list,
it should have the same interface as my own inventory.

At the moment it is not consistent and it is very confusing.
I hope you will consider my suggestion.

Anyway, upvoted and monitored!

-EDIT-
Fireball you said:
"Well it's kinda realistic, that you have to search the backpack etc. It's not like you can just lay down on the ground and pull everything into your jacket/backpack etc. with two hands in reality."

Well, it's true, in a way, BUT
imagine you lay down on the ground, I don't need to take your vest off of you and put on the ground to see what is inside the pouches
I can just take the stuff out of your punches and place them in mine.

And anyway, if I can take my own stuff out of my backpack one by one, it would be much easier for me to that on your backpack
and again I wouldn't need to take your backpack off of you just to look inside it.

Good suggestions, interesting read.
upvoted

@AD2001, you would probably have limits to how far you can go,
so it's not such a problem really.

It can all be solved, BI just need to be willing to do it.