ah I see what you mean. But until we get some better jets, I'd just like to see some better AA capability.

exactly. Ideally, there would be a simple way to completely customize the jet's loadout, but at least for now we need a more effective AA cannon.

stonestriker: there is an AA variant as well. I feel like it should be more anti-air effective.
AD2001: that was my thought exactly.

haha the A-143 Buzzard can't go enough to exert any real force on the wings, nor does it have afterburners. But when faster, more powerful jets are released, both of these things should definitely be implemented. I am hoping strongly that they will put the A-10 in the game, because it's service life was extended to 2040.

have a friend point a laser at something. it is difficult, but you can actually lock with the GBU-12, and they track quite nicely if you are flying above 300 meters and are at least a kilometer away to give you time to track the target and position your aircraft. It is hard to tell what to lock though. See my feedback post 0014561 about this problem.

I disagree. Maybe a separate helmet with NVGs should be added, but the standard helmet should not have NVGs.

Personally I have no problem flying at night as long as the moon is bright enough. Maybe you guys should turn up your gamma?

damn those are some beautiful-ass videos
please fix this bohemia.

It's not meant for direct fire like a tank. Yes, howitzers can use direct fire trajectories, but it is for the same ranges you would be using indirect fire for. It's just less accurate. If you want to shoot straight at something, use a main battle tank.

This makes spotting targets in bad weather or from great distances almost impossible, you never know where around the box to look.

or even better, bohemia: give us some way to adjust them in the editor. even if it includes .ext and .sqf files and lots of burdensome scripting.

bumping for visibility. just spent a very long time en route to the AO, told my drone (AR-2 Darter) to meet me there. Arrived to find it landed in the ground with 4% fuel. Couldn't complete my mission.

And hopefully add some batteries so that we can actually use them for more than 10 minutes :P

I mean, if you are in the editor, just place one that isn't empty... problem solved. The only issue I can see here is if a mission maker wasn't aware of this, they may place an unusable UAV, but besides that, it's intended situation.

I have tried blastcore, but one grenade caused a bigger hit than 3 vanilla ones
It could be that those kinds of particles would cause a hit whether mod or vanilla, but I stopped using mods a while ago

It's too bad, strong particle effects is the one visual thing that is really lacking (tiny fires on vehicles, wimpy missile trails, etc).

This issue is still not fixed. I consider it a game-breaking bug for the helicopters to spontaneously explode upon rolling over. So far we're seeing great things in terms of better crash survivability, realistically so. But the random explosions when you roll the helicopter (quite common) are extremely annoying and frankly I think this should be top priority in terms of work to be done on the Helicopter DLC.

The main thing we need to see is for the helicopter to not explode upon rolling over. this would greatly improve the survivability and realism of crashes.

It would be an option. If you don't want it, don't use the feature. Downvoting an option is silly.

I think you should upload some less stunning pictures actually. Yours are very nice, but I think the reason this ticket has so many downvotes is because the people think those pictures are what you want in game perhaps?
Just add a few that are more toned down, like these:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Night-sky-milky-way-galaxy-astrophotography_-_West_Virginia_-_ForestWander.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Summit-lake-wv-night-sky-reflection_-_West_Virginia_-_ForestWander.jpg

I don't know why this has so many downvotes.

1. It's not going to look like the picture, it was just an example.
2. Stratis and Altis are in the middle of the Mediterranean, with no major cities on or around them. If any of you have been camping and hiked way way fire away from any civilization, you will know that the amount of stars you can see is shocking to say the least. There is definitely visible color in the milky way, currently it looks like a piece of paper with holes in it. And when you zoom in, the holes are huge. They should appear as points, having no definite size.

What we really need is a better system for explosives, timer, linking, etc.
What explosives were you able to explode by destroying them? I am unable to get neither satchels nor charges to detonate, it's really annoying.

exactly, I don't see why this decision was made. The game was obviously designed off of the same engine as Arma 2, and I assume some portions of functionality were just copy-pasted. Why are things like better flares and more realistic wounding removed? How much harder could it possibly be to carry over another feature (like the action menu) *and* realistic flares?
And I use realistic very loosely. The chaff animation that showed up in arma 2 was removed, and in real life (at least on some aircraft), flares can be popped *one at a time*, not even in pairs.
It's perfectly fine if you guys are going to sell them back to us as DLCs. I'm fine with that. Then you can all just shut the f*ck up and take my money. I will by any and all DLCs you guys produce. But please don't just leave important features like this out of the game. We want an improvement in gameplay since arma 2, and it's definitely happening. But certain things (like the medical system and flares) that are really great features have been left out, and we need them back. Sorry for the text wall.

why was that decision made? semi-automatic flares worked great in Arma 2, it was the default option and allowed the pilot to have much more control over their countermeasures, allowed him to decide between conservation vs. safety with how many flares he popped per missile. this is particularly relevant if MANPADS launchers are ever implemented as they were in the previous games. if a passive infrared missile is launched at an aircraft, there is often no warning, making popping a pair of flares or two after a gun run an important precautionary measure. is it a complicated thing to implement? why was it left out?

yes, but can the actual issue be fixed? there is still no option for semi-automatic flare dump.

Still not fixed. Please, someone mark this ticket as unresolved. This is a critical issue, and needs to be addressed soon.

has this been fixed yet?

yes I agree. can someone do this please?

I would be very interested in seeing how this works. Do you increase your chances of evasion for every pair you dump?

maybe they broke it with the new update, but it works fine for me in stable and always has.

I agree that it should be possible to "eject," but it shouldn't be a midair bailout sort of thing, it should be to make it possible to jump out of a helicopter that is out of control extremely low to or on the ground.

Sounds like you guys need to practice your autorotation. Yeah, a pilot can "eject" by bailing out of the helicopter. But especially now with the helicopters DLC, helicopters are *extremely* resilient to crash landings, I hardly think an eject feature is required.

But don't beg for a feature just because you don't have the ability to properly autorotate a helicopter.

@Dr_Death - sounds like you haven't played the game in a few years. Much earlier on in development they fixed that issue; it is now quite easy to land on water and then bail out safely before the helicopter sinks and eventually explodes.

I agree about the points, but perhaps it could be a difficulty option.

Now that autorotation is possible, in higher difficulties helicopter pilots should be expected to be skilled in autorotation and then they should be responsible for the lives in their helicopter.

related to my ticket here: 18811

It's called the "Cosmos Mod" or something along those lines

Surprised this is so downvoted, it's not as outrageous or difficult as people think.
It would also be a great feature for saving performance, etc and would make the landscape feel much more real. +1

add this please. would make door gunners much more useful as observers.

I have not bought TrackIR yet (something to do this summer), but I have watched videos of 6DOF games and it looks amazing. +1 for this.

ingenious! +1.

Yes, If you look up a few comments you will see I had the same point, I think subsonic ammo should only be implemented for 7.62 rifles and below. DarkSideOfficial had a good point, he said that there would be suppressors available for .50 and .408 rifles, but not subsonic ammo. You would get just a little bit of lowered volume, and the effectiveness wouldn't be affected as much.

I think it would be possible for subsonic ammo to be supported. If the config containing the sonic snap of the bullet (I assume it does, rifle rounds create very different sounds than .50 HMG rounds do as they fly by), you would just set it to 0 (or very low so that it still made a zip sound), and then decrease its ballistic effectiveness.

yes, it's .408 but that's not the point. I suppose if they were to be supersonic suppressors it would be better, but are any suppressors in arma 3 subsonic? You can still hear the crack of the bullet pass, even if the gun was suppressed. It would be pretty cool if they added subsonic ammunition, made suppressed but not supersonic guns more damaging, and more audible. Would add a whole additional dimension to the mechanic.

I don't think the current .50 cal snipers in game should have suppressors. It's just not practical. However, I think in the marksman DLC, they will probably add smaller sniper rifles (for example, the M40A5 and M21 rifles), and these should most definitely have suppressor options.

I wrote something that I intended to post on the forums but still haven't decided whether I actually should or not.
However, I thought you guys might be interested: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zC7mBNniNNiUsNRVyVJJTJ0bJBeRASjk_ne_acxrksA/edit?usp=sharing

If only there was a section of controls where you could select possible action menu events and map them to controls. Mapped actions would not show up in the menu, only perhaps in a secondary menu that shows available options (but cannot be interacted with).

if they made it so that the lines of bullets would intersect closer to the helicopter, you could actually hit things instead of hitting on either side of them. and yes, spread would also help a lot.

still not fixed. miniguns are really choppy on the AH-9, and the fact that the cannon convergence is so far away makes killing infantry impossible in one run.

It's not realistic. To be able to fire in the opposite direction of a target and hit it is unrealistic.
By the time the missile is going fast enough for its fins to allow it to turn at its maximum turning rate, the target will be at an angle behind it that wouldn't allow for proper tracking.

I agree that once fired, the missile should track its target, but (as those of you who know how a Javelin works or have played DCS: A-10) the missile still needs to be able to point its seeker head at the target, and be programmed to seek the target by the CLU (or in the case of the A-10, have its gimbal manually steered) before any sort of homing will occur.
Yes the missiles have a gimbal in the head that allows the missile to be fired off axis and hit the target, but the gimbal has a limit too. I don't think the missile should track if it is fired more than 20-30 degrees off axis. Anyone who has used the AGM-65 Mavericks in DCS: A-10 will know that the travel on such seeker heads is actually quite limited.

Part of the issue is that to swim with your head above water, you must angle your view up significantly. The problem is then you can't see where you're going.

@arziben no he does get it. Having a spotlight enables a pilot to scan his landing zone from angles and at distances where normal landing lights would not reach. I think this is a great idea.

haha poor kittens.
what issues would come from having retractable gear? is that also why we don't have manual door control?

just thought it provided a good visual.
and a few people were kind of torn (like twistking)

if you think for some reason that the flashlight shouldn't be brighter, than watch this video: http://youtu.be/Vj7_Dv1xz2A?t=2m48s

and you will immediately see how pathetically weak the flashlights are in comparison to a modern flashlight.

I know they need to be fixing these issues, but everyone needs to lay off of Karts for once. It wasn't even supposed to be a DLC, they only made it because people seemed to want it. It's also being done by one dev, so it's not like their team is tied up by it or anything.

the sound in arma 3 is inherently broken. get the SpeedOfSound mod (beautiful 3d/positional sound, especially at extreme distances) until the vanilla sound is fixed.

whether game or scripting based, it would be really cool to have a spot (similar to a rearm/repair pad) where such things could be customized. would make a vehicle a much larger asset (especially in a campaign where equipment is persistent between missions), as it would have both GMG and HMG capability.

I love this idea, but I also really like how much thought and effort you have put into this ticket. +1, I really hope this gets implemented.

I can't see how it would be possible for a one-seater jet, but john spartan and saul's F-18 gunner seat has the ability to aim down the sights of what is basically the Blackfoot turret, except its only weapon is a laser designator. You can lock onto your own laser and drop a bomb on it. It's simple, but really well implemented. worth a look.

What we should really have is a system to customize vehicles. Part of picking flares would mean sacrificing another option (such as smoke grenade launchers as found on tanks; could be used to cover LZs etc).

although mortar gunners are completely exposed, AP FFARs fired from jets do negligible damage to them, while an explosive rocket hit within 10m will destroy in one hit.

If you think about it, the claymore (already in game!) has almost exactly the functionality we're looking for. All it needs is to originate from the back of the launcher, and have its effect be a cone (if it's already not; it might just be an angle), so that someone could lay underneath the blast and not be hurt. Tone back the damage, change the effect, and that's basically all we need.

Another thing to note is that it should be less damage oriented and more confusion/disorientation based.
Yes, putting yourself right below a rocket launcher is a bad idea.
but if you're back 20 or 30 meters, it'll mainly be dust kicked into your eyes, ears ringing, wind knocked out of you, etc. Maybe if you're close enough, cause the player to go into the "roadkilled" state (the one where you lie limp for a few seconds after getting run over non fatally).

Right, this game isn't like Battlefield where 80 ping is a terrible experience; similar to DCS, you can have quite normal performance on servers with up to 200 ping.

Sure, it would be nice to have a digital watch with 24 hour time. But it's not that big a difference. You *can* just look at the direction of the sun (I know that idea was shot down earlier, but still).

okay is it just me, or was this already in Arma 2? I vaguely remember the parajump tutorial where you were walking around in the back of a C-130

The issue is that "sprint" is not actually sprint. In stead of these levels:
Walk > Tactical Pace > Patrol Jog > Standard Jog/Slow Run > Run/Sprint
we should add > "Dash" and rename the others. Holding shift doesn't make you sprint. It makes you run. The standard pace is a jog, not a run.
"Sprinting" should be a dash, not a moderately fast run. Sprinting is what you do to cross a street under fire.
Running is what you do when you need to move in a hurry. Typical firefight pace.
Jogging is what you do for normal movement, squad movements/tactics/maneuvers, typical infantry employment.
Patrol Jog is a noncombat speed; it's what you do when you need to walk to base and want to get there faster.
Tactical pace is for stealth and walking with weapon raised.
Walking can either be patrol walk, or for stealth.

tl;dr - we need something faster than a sprint.

At first was skeptical about dreads, but it would make for some extremely cool mercenaries or resistance fighters.
Also glad you approached this from a reasonable stance, and not racist this, racist that. +1

There a just a few simple things that need to change-

1. The flash of an explosion should be much brighter and larger in size. It must appear very quickly, and fade very quickly again. (Notice I say fade. The current flashes kind of appear, hang around, then disappear, making them appear weak).
2. Smoke and debris should be ejected much faster. The initial cloud of smoke from an explosion grows quite violently, almost instantly- to about 80% of its eventual size very very quickly.
3. Instead of the light source staying at the point of the blast, it should move upwards with the rising plume of smoke that comes off of the initial cloud, as the remaining burning gasses are lifted upwards.

4a. the shockwave from the explosion must be made clear. This is what will give the most effective feeling of power from the explosion. The initial concussion and subsequent shockwave conveys the power of the explosive, and this needs to be illustrated with debris and smoke being propelled outwards at high speeds.
4b. The final part of the shockwave appears right after the explosion and remains there for several seconds. This is the dust that rises up from the ground after being shaken by the shock.

Whether or not your proposed stats for the body armor is accurate to real life or not, it's more about being a proper game mechanic than emulating real life. How boring would it be if body armor would block a sniper rifle round from 500m? It would completely discourage people to become excellent snipers, because it isn't fun if just because you missed the headshot (which you shouldn't be going for anyways) you weren't able to kill the target in one shot. While we want the game to be realistic, we also have to keep in mind that it is in fact a game. If armor that completely stopped all bullets was invented in real life, would we put it in game? Of course not. It wouldn't be fun for anybody.
To be perfectly honest, I think Arma 2's damage model was just fine, and it had a great medical system to boot.
The only reason people complain about being killed too quickly is because you are either perfectly alive or you die instantly. In arma 2 guns knocked people out/severely injured them effortlessly, but another player could patch them up.

Why is this causing so much fighting :( if you can hold a rifle and have a launcher on your back, than you can hold a rifle and have another rifle or at least a PDW on your back. You'll suffer for it the same way you would with a launcher, and you have to carry additional ammo as well.

Some great potential here.
As long as we have the behavior, we can use scripts to do the work ourselves. How would the conditions for sleeping be defined?
It would be nice to have a system where you could designate a range of time or location (or other condition) and then set the probability for the sleeping behavior to begin. It would also be a great addition along with the new tents and sleeping bags that came along with Zeus. Maybe an option to only allow sleeping in a certain area (for example, only within a certain radius of a fire, or only on a sleeping bag; could be designated by a trigger)?

I too am a big supporter of BI, and in some areas my support stays strong
but I am having a lot of trouble accepting Arma 3 for what it is because of massive problems like this, sound issues, etc.
And you're right, the feedback tracker is a joke.
Sure, sometimes they'll actually assign some people to follow it - remember when Zeus was released?
Moricky himself was plowing through the tracker, personally responding to tickets, and fixing every little thing we suggested be fixed. It was impressive, to say the least.
And yes, large game breaking bugs are often targeted using this tracker.
But 80% of the time we're stuck with this crap. Anything that doesn't render the game unplayable seems to be of little importance to BI. The worst part is when a ticket is marked as "acknowledged." That's literally saying "yep, you're right. and we don't care enough to do anything about it. we'll just let it sit here, 'acknowledged,' and hope you forget about it."

Seen a mod that tries to fix this problem. Does a pretty good job, but we need this to be in the game.

Yes, that was the one I was referring to. They look great, but BI really needs to put something similar in on their own. There's no reason they shouldn't. You could always turn them off or something if performance is an issue.

relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWqS4A1kVKY

Now that sling loading is confirmed, rope physics are in the works (I heard BI even got a 3rd party to help them with it), all we need now is a confirmation from BI that they'll implement this.

We also need to update the sounds for the attack helicopters and SPAAG. They both sound very weak compared to the new small arms samples.

AH-1W cannon, filmed by the target: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPMA_SdoZhI

AH-1Z live-fire exercise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUzRGQmsZyE

AH-64D live-fire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpPMbbuSOuA

SPAAG:
http://youtu.be/nYQ74qnTato?t=50s

http://youtu.be/4RaBEtb3LWw?t=50s

Here are a few videos of missile lock sounds
AIM-9 (IR): http://youtu.be/Tl0mAWYNaw8?t=41s
Pilot knows to fire because the tone rises and becomes steady in (high) tone.

FIM-91 (IR) [faint at first, but you can hear it increase in volume and pitch as the missile acquires the target]: http://youtu.be/uH0idEAYl7I?t=2m28s
Essentially the same as the AIM-9

Air-launched radar guided missiles such as AIM-120 AMRAAMs and AIM-7 Sparrows do not have a lock tone, acquisition symbology is all visual. The AA LRange missiles on the Buzzard already have this behavior, so nothing needs to change. The pilot knows to launch because typically the boresight circle will grow in size, an asterisk/star will appear, and/or a light will come on. The range cue will also tell the pilot whether he is in range or not.

AGM-65 Mavericks are IR, Electro-Optical, and CCD guided (varies). None of these produce a lock tone. The pilot knows he is locked on because the crosshairs in his TGP collapse and touch the target.

GBUs obviously don't have a lock tone either, and I believe this is properly represented. The pilot knows to launch because the CCRP system says he's near the optimal point of release.

The FGM-148 Javelin (correct me if I'm wrong,) does not have a lock tone either.
The shooter knows to fire because the box he's "drawn" around the target will stay on the target.

From this we can effectively see that only passive-infrared guided missiles such as the AIM-9 and FIM-92 have actual "lock tones."

Personally, I find that sound is by far the biggest issue with arma 3. I have been using JSRS from the start and am eagerly awaiting ACSE.

hire this guy, bohemia.

No jumping. Climbing and leaping (to clear short gaps or a low obstacle such as a small fence or fallen tree trunk) are fine though.

I think BI should abandon all DLCs and dev branch and get on this major issue immediately; It has caused the game to be unplayable.
I'm joking of course. But it would be a nice place to hide I suppose

when I do it fast, the command lags, but no matter how fast I press, the commands always execute.
Even if I press "~, 5, 5" (you guy's § and ½ is my ~) extremely fast, in game I will still call "SITREP," even if it takes about 1/2 second for the menu to progress from each step to the next.
*presspresspress*
*all units selected*
*step through first stage*
(½ second)
*selects SITREP*
(½ second)
"SITREP"

(on an unrelated note, what countries are you guys from? Just wondering what kinds of keyboards have ½ and § as their key to the left of 1. I have ` and ~)

https://store.bistudio.com/images/screenshots/a3_tactical_guide_print/a3_tg_print_5.jpg
there it is, if anyone's interested.

I found a preview page of Dslyexci's ArmA 3 Tactical guide. If you guys don't know, he is very "in" with BIS.
There was a page that had pictures and descriptions of two shotguns: the AA12, and a semi auto one called the "Bulldog." Perhaps there are some shotguns on the way along with some of the next campaign episodes?

For modules at least, there is at least one tool if you didn't know: if you select a module and go to the bottom, there is a button that says "Show Info" or something like that. If you click on that, it opens a picture that shows all the possible objects/gamelogics/triggers etc that you can sync to them, and if you click on one of them, it will explain what they do. Just a handy trick for learning at least the basics.

1. This is practically impossible right now, because AI are about as close to All-Seeing as possible. They would spot you even if you were 50 meters behind them, stationary, in the dark.
2. As long as it isn't OP it would be fine. Meaning - it has to have a long animation, it shouldn't work 100% of the time, it shouldn't be completely silent, and you shouldn't be able to do it unless the target is unaware of you, and you are behind them. We don't want any COD hack n' slash nonsense.

If it is kept to these restrictions, it will be a great addition to the game, and will add a whole new element of stealth into the game.

Actually, this ticket can be closed now. The 3D editor has been confirmed by Bohemia in their development blog. found here: https://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/460-arma-3-roadmap-201415

like @defusl, I would totally pay for this too.
EDIT: and we don't even need it now BI. Just tell us if at some point you're going to allow saving in Zeus, or a 3D editor, and we'll be happy.

I believe this was fixed. I had this issue as well, but it went away.

yeah, perhaps this should be closed?

if nothing else, allow people to fire out of completely open vehicles, like uncovered transport trucks

For those who have ever fired a gun, you will know that modern guns are built to recoil directly backwards, not up. There is going to be a little bit of upward recoil just because of the way the gun is held (and the fact that the barrel is on top), but the majority of the recoil is back into the shoulder. This is why you do not see shotgun like stocks on rifles as you did in older muzzle loading guns like this: http://www.thespecialistsltd.com/files/Replica_Charleville_Musket.jpg
a gun like this would recoil upwards because of the orientation of the barrel as compared to the stock.
Now compare it to the M16A4:
http://www.thespecialistsltd.com/files/replica_m16a4.jpg
it is clearly built to absorb the recoil in a manner much more conducive to firing multiple shots far more quickly without straying too far from the point of aim.
I do not have a huge problem with arma 3's recoil, but it could use a little tweaking.

This is a great idea. We definitely need this. +1.

^ although this guy is kind of obnoxious, unfortunately he made some good points. Bohemia, you guys NEED to pay attention to problems like this. Actually check the feedback tracker for once. This is a much bigger issue than you guys are aware, apparently. This has got to be fixed asap.

why isn't this assigned yet?

There is already some blood clouds
go shoot some divers, the blood definitely stays in the water longer than in the air
there just isn't a huge cloud that slowly diffuses.

That's interesting, It only affects the Compass and Watch for me. I did not know that.

To be honest, I don't see why this is a "major" bug. If you have time to type something via chat you have time to double tap o to close your compass again. Yes, it shouldn't happen, but the fact that it does doesn't cause any problems.

"Any crosshair is unrealistic?"
You know what's unrealistic? having no idea where you're gun is pointing without aiming down the sights. The crosshair is a great representation of the sense called proprioception, which is what allows you to know where your body is in space. It also is the sense you would use to know generally where your weapon is pointed, even without aiming down the sights. If you use a laser at night, you will see that your weapon is always pointing somewhere in the area of the crosshairs at all times. This is realistic.
Knowing exactly where your gun is pointed without looking down the sights is not.
If you can't remember, the A2 crosshair is actually *more* accurate than iron sights because the reticule is extremely fine, allowing for pinpoint aiming where it should not be available. Devs, please put your energy into more important issues than this.

Unfortunately, many games have this, including the other armas, and battlefield 4. It would be nice to see it fixed, but if it is too formidable a bug to be fixed quickly, than I would much prefer if BI turned their attention to more important things.