http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11075

Duplicate or Supplement? idk. I forgot to attach tags to my thing, no wonder nobody finds it :(

Hold breath while using binocs helps. But it could be a little less intense, but not much.

This would still be a neat thing to have. Anyone?

Much easier to implement than the 3D interiors, and a better stop-gap solution than the Arma 1 style solution we have now.

HOLD should be supplemented with TOGGLE, ideally.

Then this should also extend to armored vehicles. Can't go from turret in the AMV to the drivers position, for example.

I can confirm that, though that's been happening for me occasionally with all parts of the game from OFP onwards, didn't think to report it because I guess I am okay with that and it's a BI game?

Upvoted though.

Issue seems to pop up under some circumstances when alt-tabbing out and back into the game.

The AAF Officer is still not reskinnable. I wanted to use the model for a mission I am working on, but I can't put my new texture on it :(

Edit:

Also, is it at all possible to open normalmaps/smdi/as maps to hidden selection texturings? That would be fantastically awesome, since it would allow for wholesale rework/look overhauls for Units. You could, for example, add reinforcements to civilian clothing to make them look like makeshift combat clothes (camo arms sewn to sweaters), or add differing sewing lines to make a shirt look like a different make without changing the model.

You might as well shoot play-doh, the result would be the same. You need a powerful pyrotechnic charge to set it off. Smacking it with a round will just make it fly in all directions, which is probably not the definition of "going up" you are looking for.

Nearby explosives should either vaporise the thing, or set it off, depending. I am not sure, I wouldn't trust my gut instinct on when these things explode, and rather consult somebody with an EOD or building demolition expertise.

Yes, 5.56 is so devastating that ever since the war in afghanistan began, troops have been complaining about taliban getting up after being shot multiple times and running away.

It is not too underpowered, general damage handling and the health system are problematic right now.

Damage handling right now is indeed a little off. All rifles apart from the 7.62 and up take two shots to the chest from point blank range against a target without armor too often, and pistols take between 3 and 5 shots into center of mass at point blank range.

I think this could be addressed with a more sophisticated health system, rather than just upping the damage.

Well, realistically, you'd need power to run the drives. Most modern combat vehicles have an internal APU for that purpose.

Related to the stupid action menu, in fact.

This still is a problem, using the release version 12.09.2013

Yes, those are the default Uniforms as supplied with the beta, no mods.

That´s the depth of field.

Been looking this way since Armed Assault times. I´ve thought about making a ticket on this, but I thought that they wouldn´t change it anyways and didn't bother. Instead I just turn depth of field off completely.

I doubt there's a way to fix this, really. No matter how high your settings, everything will look square. Even the particle effects are square when looked at from above.

Yes, please add another buggy, unfinished, Red Harvest style campaign. That would be delightful thx...

Seriously, they decided, and I agree with their decision. Setbacks are better than cockups. Not good, but not the worst either. The worst outcome would be another broken wreck of a campaign in the game.

Nope, I want Uniforms for Blufor that are not obviously hacks from previously used Arma 2 models.

Look at them, they´re BAF Uniforms with new kneepads on them and changed normal maps. Even the shoulder pockets, with the warped velcro and brown-coloured flag tabs are identical. On the BAF uniforms the tabs had the UK flag in place.

All factions apart from Blufor have new, stylish Uniforms.

No they look great.

Also greenfor Uniforms are basically current US Army ACU's in green with USMC helmets (current issue).

In fact, my very important and highly esteemed opinion is that the blufor look teh worst evar right now compared to the rest, so pls replace them bi, etc, etc, etc

People in real life survive being blown out of the hatch of a hit tank. Videos are on liveleak if you care.

As far as I could see, the incidence of casualties in open vehicles is too low because the blast from Explosions only affects the vehicle, and not the occupants directly.

This should be fixed, however, a nearby explosion should not be an autokill unless it goes off directly next to you (even then, people can in rare cases be lucky, or their protective gear works exceptionally well)

A bug of intended behaviour, I assume, since they are intended to investigate destroyed vehicles and bodies they find. The civilians are especially apt to exhibit this behaviour.

Either this, or fledgeling indications that vehicles and wrecks will be able to be used as cover by the AI soon?

When reloading the GL, the bolt moves also, as a sidenote.

This is a problem on the AMV-7 too, where you can see parts of the crew on the underside of the Turret and the turret bustle-ring it is sitting on.

On the AMV the problem is worse, though, because the crew is clipping outside of the vehicle. I think you can even shoot them.
Edit: Nope, can't seem to shoot them. Crewmember is only visible under the turret on the left, back side, apparently.

The balancing is about AI versus player performance, not PvP. The devs have stated this before, it was mentioned here in comments twice.

You are complaining about something that's not even happening. Force disparity is already taking shape, and where it is not occuring it is because time and manpower lacking (also confirmed by the devs on the forums.).

Arma is a game that physically cannot be balanced. Even if they were to make carbon copy forces on every side, modders could easily break everything. There is no standard. This game is so open and so dynamic that you can't even found a mathematical basis for balance in the sense it is used in MMOs and conventional cardboard box shooters.

And I doubt BI's devs know so little about games design and game theory that they fail to see that conventional MP balancing for PVP/Tournament purposes is impossible. Some weapons are terribly alike, but this is much like real life, where physics and not the make of a gun make or break it on the battlefield.

A gun is a gun is a gun. The back-end is where it counts. And idk, but from looking at it right now, OFP doesn't seem terribly realistic to me. It understood itself as a game first and foremost. Even back during Armed Assault times, the leadership said that realism was not the sole object of the game, but rather a channel to produce a unique kind of gameplay. The primary realism of OFP was the deadliness of combat. Not the 3 round burst AK-74s, Vz.58s labelled as AK-CZs, the ten-hit-taking T-80s, Czech RPGs for the soviets, etc, etc. Same with Armed Assault. Even Arma 2 lived and thrived not because of extreme realism, but because of the (by then at base grossly outdated) gameplay core.

ACE addressed many of the perceived lackings in realism, and I think it is overdoing it in many situations for a game. You can´t put those features in because people do not expect to jump through hoops for ten weeks prior to finding out how to have fun in the game. Arma 2 was way too punishing in that regard too.

There needs to be a balance, and Arma 3 already is very realistic in many respects. In many, not enough for my tastes, but my tastes are not the tastes of the average joe who will pick this game up based on no research, off of the trailers and games magazine advertisements. The community will sort out the wheat from the chaff as far as newcomers go, and pick the addons and missions it desires I am sure. Some great addonmakers are already starting to do great work on the game.

So, this balancing thing you complain about, if BI is doing it, is so stupid as to be asinine. And again, I doubt they are trying to go for mmo/competition shooter style balancing, since they themselves have said this balancing is about making the AI perform more closely to what players can do.

The conclusion is that you are complaining about something that, in the form you complain about, doesn't even exist as a problem.

And the question about which features get picked and improved and which ones are checked and then discarded is a subject of BI's internal analysis pipeline regarding the tracker. No clue about how they do this, but I certainly hope it isn´t by votecount only, because some of the things with high votes have not as much gameplay impact as some other things, or community impact even, that are noted in the tracker.

...what

how has the open alpha nearly killed the game
and with what "nonsense"

how was the spirit of the game lost?

And why are you guys so disconnected from reality? Seriously, this post is giving me a toothache.

What exactly are you even complaining about? That the terrible grenade throwing from arma 2 was good?

That you are the white knight "True Arma Players" who are trying to "save the simulation" in vain, against a tide of twelve year old achievement hunters, and that BI is abandoning you?

I don´t mind constructive criticism, but you are just as bad here as the "xyz from cowadoody/baddulfield plz" posts. Complaints, Whining, and no feedback. If you want something changed, STATE CLEARLY what the problem is, and how you want it to be.

Now, what did we receive just the last two weeks:

ACE-style Ballistics for RPG-42
New Turret for the AMV-7 with MG where it is IRL, as well as Commander with CITV.
Corrected Helicopter speed and handling settings.
New AI settings to make them behave like people under fire, not terminators.

On top of the already existing things like the new loadout system (though the weight system is lacking right now, but I bet people will start complaining about that too if it gets realistically implemented, so nobody wins.), 3D scopes, Movement system, revamped penetration settings for all surfaces, AI being able to snipe, mines, etc, etc.

A lot of promises weren't kept, granted, but BI has a history of trying to do way too much with too little, so as someone who has been with the company's products since 01, no surprise here. And you maybe should consider that apart from rivet counting damage models and grenade throws, there is a whole game back there that needs to be finished, so be mindful of that.

Jeez.

Now please try to be constructive, and stop whining. This like 2010 all over again when they announced the future setting. MANY people were upset, and the mature ones voiced their opinion politely or didn´t voice it at all or through humour, and if they were really unhappy, they cut their losses and stuck with Arma 2. BI cannot do wonders, and with the release date fast approaching, we as testers need to check what we can seriously affect right now, and what is just wasted time and effort.

I for one -am- hoping to see AI work, a working armor penetration system for vehicles AND ballistic protection gear for soldiers, a proper health and aid system, working rangefinders and FCSs, but I also acknowledge that lots of these things will not be implemented at the release.

Then I consider what new things we ARE getting, and realize that Arma 3 is a much bigger step forward than Arma 2 was from Armed Assault. I daresay it is almost as big as A2 and OA combined (and OA and A3 are still in synergetic development, too.).

So there.

What even is this "Realism" everyone is talking about?

What exactly do you expect?

This thread is full of fuck and derp.

You`re getting upset about a developer saying "nade" instead of "M67 fragmentation grenade". Do you not have any actual issues to report?

And what is with this incessant community vs community bashing. Herp derp some other people are finding my game good, I need to get really upset about this and complain on the internet about it.

There are many people out there making good points, and making suggestions how to address the problems.

Instead, crying over nonsense. If you have a problem, speak it out, make a concise ticket, and say how it could be addressed. "Balancing" with this game is not about asset vs asset, but AI vs player. The devs have addressed this multiple times. For example, look at my complaint about the wrongly placed MG on the AMV (that was anal rivetcounting on my part). They addressed this promptly.

Or the firing rate of the GM6 was de-nerfed too (which now results in the AI using it as a machinegun rather than as a sniper rifle, but at least the players are happy). Broken AI? No problem, but at least the cyclic rate is correct.

I understand a lot of the problems people have, but what I do not understand is how one can also be so dispassionate about the underlying mechanics of the GAME, which can be completely broken by overly realistically implemented systems.

Srsly

EDIT: Also, grenade throwing was NOT fine in Arma 2, it was not fine in Arma, it was not fine in OFP. Now it is fine, because you can throw grenades with similar precision as you can in real life (almost). The only problem is the spamming, the ONLY problem. That can be addressed. Wishing back the stupid animation-locked don't-know-where-I-am-throwing-shit horror system from Arma 2 just makes me think you didn´t think your post through.

As of the most recent patch, this problem persists for me. Does anybody else see this?

Note: A couple of test runs done, and the current patch makes the AMV use the MG more liberally against Infantry.

However, he overshoots consistently with the cannon: in pretty much all kills against targets standing up, the hits were glancing headshots. He also overshoots vehicle targets by a bit (Ifrits are often hit in their RCWS rather than the hull when they are level with the AMV and closeby. At longer ranges, misses are more because of bad leading and not waiting for the target to stay still.)

Electronic Flux Attenuation Modulation System

Evaporation Fabulation Apparatus (Money Sucker)

Eccentric Flying Abbreviation Manual Syntax

This is not a clear ticket, do you really expect the devs to google everything you can´t be bothered to write out, just because it makes you feel so knowledgable and "simulation fevered" that you know an abbreviation?

No offense, but this is not helpful.

hurrrrrrrrrrr... no.

Check before opening tickets, and be constructive. This one is just nonsense.

RPG-42 uses a modern tandem warhead. It will go through an MRAP like a hot knife through butter.

There are videos of RPG-29s (using less advanced warheads)destroying T-72s in Syria. These are also reported to having penetrated older Merkava variants armor in Lebanon. Edit: Also confirmed as having penetrated the armor of M1's, which are just about the most heavily protected MBTs you can think of. RPG-42 will use more potent warheads.

MRAPs are built to protect against vintage threats like RPG-7s and heavy machinegun fire, not fully blown, heavy AT weaponery.

These weapons should be one hit one kill weapons 3 out of 4 times against all threats bar the most heavily protected vehicles (Namer, Merkava, possible Opfor MBTs). The problem is that hitting for player and AI is -too easy-.

Nerfing the AT weapons is not the solution to this problem.

NLAW is a top attack weapon against tanks, but I advocate multi-mode settings for weapons that allow such. The Titan should thus also include top and direct attack modes.

The RPG is okay too, it is not meant for long engagement ranges. It should compensate with a more powerful direct attack warhead.

We need the PCML to be disposable, with the sight mountable on it instead of it being integral, and we need it to handle more realistically. Same goes for the magic Titan missile.

Addendum: Instead of making the launchers less lethal (which they are now), make them more difficult to use. The challenge for these weapons is not to kill, the challenge is to hit.

Also nice if you manage to hit a tree with a vertically falling mortar round. It will explode continoously as it falls down the tree, often with hilarious framerate drops and particle clipping.

The point is having a clock for knowing where the vehicle is pointed and where you are looking, and from where you are being attacked. These vehicles should provide threat sensors, so I don´t think this system should be completely removed.

Wat. This already happens. Rarely, but it happens.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool

and

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArtisticLicense

for reference.

BI made this decision even prior to release of the alpha. The SDAR was shown as the underwater weapon at the first E3 demonstration three years ago (Has it really been that long?). People complained then, but they stuck with the gun. It's not great, but I think there are more important issues, or other minor issues that are more easily adressed that have a much bigger impact on the game.

A gun is a gun is a gun is a gun.

Edit: Changing it to 7.62 would be simple too, however, that would make things complicated for the other weapons that use the 5.56 DP ammo (Tavor, MK20)

Actually is intentional. The SDAR is a modified rfb to fire supercavitating rounds underwater, in 5.56 (this is the UW ammo on the hud, I think).

What? The Animation is working, the only thing that´s incorrect is the bolt not staying locked back during the reloading sequence.

Is this what you are referring to?

Also force all crewmembers apart from Commander to stay turned in on combat mode, otherwise turret will be locked forward.

Turn out as commander in the AMV-7 and you will see what I mean. Panther does not have this problem.

Still persists in most recent beta devpatch.

I think that would overcomplicate things. This ticket is just about renaming the goggles section into facewear to broaden the spectrum of items to be placed there. It´s mostly to clarify what this part is intended for, since goggles are a very restrictive term.

For example, it wasn´t immediately obvious to me that the addon I linked above used the Goggles instead of the Headgear section in the inventory. A shemagh isn´t a pair of goggles.

Adding more categories for items to wear would be troublesome because then you could arbitrarily expand to seperate pants, shirts, boots, gloves, etc...

DayZ is doing that, but there it is a sensible part relevant to gameplay. In Arma, all the Uniform is doing is change your thermal signature, add a little protection, and camouflage you. Just renaming the section for goggles as described above should suffice, I think.

All I can agree with is the wristwatch thing and an animation for lowering/raising NVGs, and maybe attaching items to the weapon (Animations are already in the game, btw, just not used).

But the rest is just over the top. You want to look down at your weapon when reloading? Hold alt and move mouse to look at your gun. YOur head doesn´t magically move in real life to look at what your hands are doing either. And a well trained soldier should be able to reload his weapon blindfolded anyway.

The weapon is already being slung over when switching to the secondary weapon. Not perfect, but there is already an animation.

If your fellow "shooter" is so anal about these seriously negligible and/or already implemented items, then I feel sorry for him missing out on what the game has to offer. Smookie has already done magic bringing this 2001 gen animations system into the new decade, along with the rest of the team responsible for the anims and physics implementation. Now you´re just being silly

Nope, these are already ingame. The multipurpose rounds for the SDAR are supercavitating.

It is better now, but I think it needs stabilization too. Right now it is like the viewer on the old T-72s, so every time the turret moves, your view flops along with it, making it difficult to scan whithout locking the turret.

Not bad, actually, because Tanks should be able to traverse water when submerged, using snorkels (Afaik most soviet Tanks and many western ones such as the leopards are able to dive trough water up to 4 meters deep.).

I think this isn´t a bug, but just a non-adjusted feature.

The gunner's camera should be auto-converging to the range the gun is set to. I will provide an example drawing.

The zeroing is also off.

Found out where the problem is. Pretty much all height data for the merkava found online is wrong when the MK IV is concerned. 2.66 meters is only for early models of the merkava.

MK.4 is -3,35m- tall. (Edit: 3,36 meters.) I've based this on the conversion from this model: http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/WTI0001P?I=LXAVAP&P=8

Small companies producing scale models are usually more reliable than frontpage, broad resources because their whole business is producing models that are accurate to the last rivet, to a demanding customer base.

I humbly request that this be factored in, and the height of the Merkava either be adjusted or the turret replaced by a new, more advanced version.

I guess the best solution would then be to downscale the humans a little bit, and upscale the vehicles a little bit. Average western citizens are 5.6 ish, not 6 foot. I think the US American male average is 1.76 meters. 6 foot is 1.82 meters (-very- tall.)

The Merkava will also be too small ingame if scaled like the Panther. I hope BI will change this, right now the Panther feels like a toy...

It´s really not a -major- problem, but it certainly feels a little bit off, especially since I´ve seen MBT's in real life (Leopard 2 and Abrams), and these things are -huge-. The Merkava is even beefier than those, and the Namer makes people look tiny next to it. It is a monster. Size is a major part in being impressive.

It does not in the game, it had one during development (The first shots of the vehicle show it with a CITV on top of the turret), but that was not put in for some reason.

Check that you do not have a mod conflict somewhere, this shouldn´t happen. The sight works for me in this and the dev version.

Nope.

From Army Guide, describing the GI-30 gun that´s supposed to be mounted in this turret:

"The GI-30 is a unique externally driven electro-mechanical cannon, utilising a drum-cam to cycle the breech to chamber rounds and extract spent cartridges, thus minimising gasses in the confines of a turret and facilitate for controlled firing rate. DLS designed the GI-30 to fire link-less 30mm x 173 ammunition through a dual feeder – a world-first for this kind of weapon.

As a single-shot weapon, it is also unique for its sniper mode of operation. It is fired from a closed breech position, which offers more accurate fire due to no movement taking place immediately before the round is fired.

Another unique feature is that of ‘next round selection’. Having two feeders, with general ammunition on the right-hand and specialist types in the other feeder, the weapon allows the operator to select a specific round, without first firing off or ejecting an unwanted round."

The 40mm CTWS can -also- switch ammunition freely from one round to the other, without ejecting or firing a round of the other type. Both guns have dual feed systems, and have two types of ammo ready at all times. Both weapons systems (of which the latter weapon seems to be modelled) work as shown in the game.

Again, this works as intended and is not a bug.

Works as intended. Use normal 5.56 instead of DP supercavitating ammo. Do any of you read the manual?

The DP ammo is supercavitating, and is meant to work under water (range of 45 - 25 meters depending on your depth) and to about 50 meters above water as a last ditch ammunition.

Above water, switch to conventional ammunition: this is the same as used by the TAR and MK20.

The magic charging handle moving back and slapping nonexistent bolt catches makes me wonder if this isn´t a test animation for another as of yet unintroduced weapon?

Changed the content of the ticket along the original lines. Fatigue/Encumbrance is in, but not as extensive as many wish.

I have tried to include the most critical things. Please inform me if you have other criticals that should be in, or if things I´ve picked are not as important as I actually thought.

I would appreciate word from the devs as far as the feasibility of these things, too, since we haven´t heard on the original request of the ticket, unfortunately.

I think we need some sort of standard set to test the AI at. Just by fiddling with the settings, the deviations become erratic. Some people can run circles around the AI, while others still get one shotted from a mile away, while I have my settings where the AI is at least competent in fighting.

Recently some vehicles got new HUDs and Gunnery overlays. Some of them, like the AMV, were then reverted back to the old reticle.

Can we please have the new ones for the AMV back, and new step-zoom optics for the RCWS (possibly faction specific?) too?

Uploaded an Example picture of how the RCWS screen could (should) look.

It assumes working Lasers (No Tab-lock or right click button-press-to-win mechanics), complete ingame UI (no overlay at all.) which contains all information an actual RCWS would display.

Remaining Rounds in selected Weapon, State of Weapon (Charged or Empty in game terms), Selected Range, Laser ready/permanent/off display, Vehicle heading, Turret heading, Zoom factor, selected Vision mode, and a malfunction warning at the top (which would show up if the Vehicle gets damaged.)

I used this among others as reference: http://www.murdoconline.net/pics/strykerweaponsscreen.jpg

According to the calculators on this site, sound volume drops 6db every time the distance is doubled. Meaning the further you get away, the less sharp the drop gets.

I did a sample calculation using the thingy on their page, and got for a 120 db sound at 100 m distance a value of 80 db at 10.000 m distance (10 kilometers).

This does not include atmospheric changes and terrain, however, there are calculators for that too. The sound distances right now are -ridiculously- short.

distance calculator: http://sengpielaudio.com/calculator-distance.htm

Air absorption calculator: http://sengpielaudio.com/calculator-air.htm

This ties in with this ticket: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11063

tl;dr: all Optical views on the helicopters are wrongly placed (inside the gun barrels) and optical systems are not even physically modelled in some cases, or non-functional in others.

The SMGs have their own optics now.

One holographic and one ACO sight each, labelled for use with the SMGs only. Those should not have this problem.

You do not need to look through the optics. Just box the target, and pop the missle off in a random direction.

It is not a bad term, at least for the US Army. I believe their field medical course is actually called the "Combat Lifesaver Course". Medic is fine too.

The big drawbacks of a Coilgun tank would be that it cannot use multi-material or explosive ammunition, because of the massive magnetic fields and electric forces involved in firing.

I am not sure how quickly it could fire, but I think about 6 rounds a minute are realistic. Since you´re also using pretty beefy capacitators and very, very high load electric power systems, you cannot run the tank charged up all the time. But once it is charged, you need to put the power somewhere or you´re going to ruin your capacitators: ie, if the gun is hot, you need to fire it or risk cooking your equipment.

Catastrophic damage to the weapons system also means that you basically have the equivalent of a large industrial transformer blowing up on you. Electric fires of that scale are massively dangerous: there would not be a lot of shrapnel, but there would be tens of thousands of volts strong lightning arcs licking through the air around the tank. If a charged up capacitator gets hit, you end up with the entire charged uncontrolledly exploding into the tank and everything around it.

It would be nice to get an electrical engineer's opinion on this, because the destruction effects of this alone are so different from anything else.

That said, this gun could theoretically produce -much- larger ranges than your run of the mill gun, and combined with some sort of AT missile launcher or RWS station, a tank armed with such a gun could out range any chemical-based gun on the battlefield.

You could also use the guns massive magnetic field to wreak havoc on the battlefield. Every time the tank fires, metal will be drawn up to the gun and tossed forwards. You could create supremely lethal anti-personell shells, like the canister rounds used in western tanks, except with a lot more force and shot in them.

The problem is power requirements. Such a vehicle would probably have a massive generator, and might even be entirely electric. That means that every time the tank fires, it will drain power reserves away from the motive system until the power levels have levelled again. That means if you decide to move, your gun will not re-charge. Only stationary tanks would get maximum recharging times, and the faster they go, the slower their gun will charge up. The lesser the charge, the weaker will the shell be.

Essentially, these systems are terribly complex in their behaviour. I think if the tank got removed, this may be the reason for it, rather than a lack of realism.

I´ve used a calculator to see what kind of energy requirements a coilgun would have that´d fire a 5.5 kg projectile with a muzzle velocity of 1800 m/sec (about the velocity of a soviet made KE penetrator) and an energy efficiency of 66,6 %.

Av. Power output is 668,250 Megawatts
Av. Power input is 0,045 Megawatts

Muzzle Energy is 9 megajoules. This weapon has roughly 2 megajoules of muzzle energy over the best chemically propelled KE penetrators today (~ 7 megajoules, roundabout.).

This means you need a power source that can generate the above stated power. We can build capacitators of that size today, and we can fit them into an average sized room. I am making an assumption here, but if they are subject to moore's law like most other electronic devices, these will be small enough to be fitted into a tank.

A Railgun can theoretically produce much higher muzzle energies (the naval gun the US is testing now apparently has 39 MJ of energy on target, and roughly twice that at the muzzle, but it also has humongous energy requirements.

These things are not impossible in the 2035 timeframe. If you don´t like them, don´t use them. As far as tactics go, they are only different in the sense that they cannot fire non-magnetic projectiles. IE, these guns will likely not be able to fire HE rounds.

Destroying such a tank is also much different. It would be like a massive electric explosion in a powerplant, going on for minutes until the capacitators are discharged. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QlWDpD9-gM

These would be super fun for the effects people. Also getting zapped by lightning from exploding tanks would be amazing. Not putting these in is missing out on a great chance of putting in some unique Units.

Doesn't the Rangefinder/Laser Designator need a battery to work?

Parallax free and depth of field have nothing to do with each other. Neither is the sight "co witnessed" with the Ironsights.

The engine cannot do DOF blur very well, and to co-witness a sight with the ironsights mean that point of aim, point of impact is identical when looking through either optics or irons.

This needs to be in. Tanks are too vulnerable to Infantry right now, especially at large distances (1 km out), where tanks often are unable to spot and/or fire at AI that is hitting them with missiles.

The smoke also does nothing to deter the rockets.

This is intentional, and was asked for by the forums community. The Idea is that nobody will carry around an NV set during the day on their helmet, because these things are heavy and uncomfortable to wear in the stowed position.

They appear when being used, so I do not think this is a major issue.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8785

Already have this ticket for this, and maybe more.

The sudden stopping is only part of a bigger problem.

DM_light is a 3rd party addon, not an official part of Arma 3. Ask the responsible Modders for a fix.

I'd also still advocate giving them fireproof coveralls, maybe in multicam.

Also, add a light variant of the crye cage, possibly, using maybe only one or two magpouches, map pouch, admin pouch and maybe a dump pouch for binocs or something.

Have a ticket for that here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11728

This one and that would be nice, thx BI. Crew plate carrier + Coveralls

My suggestion would be to make the scope align (stop idle animation and reset it) when holding your breath. That way people have control over the optics aligning, but the animation doesn't need to be removed (which I`d hate)