@Iceman- I am happy to report that the problem does in fact seem fixed. I have started multiple User-made scenarios, saved my game and exited, and the resume option is back where it used to be. I can't thank you guys enough. Now I can finally enjoy some of the longer SP missions.

@Boowman: Yes, it is the same for me. Official BI content seems to have no problems saving. However, user-made content is still a no-go.

*Not fixed in latest update.

Please, for the love of Arma, please let this happen.

I can agree that this needs to be fixed. It completely ruins the fluidity of MOUT combat. While clearing buildings, etc, that hesitation is definitely noticeable.

I mostly agree with b101uk, however I still agree with the idea of using it to create effective kill zones, etc. Also, I would appreciate seeing it in-game for pure immersion reasons; indestructible trees and realistic simulation are not good bedfellows. Also, LZ's can be created quickly (if a unit is properly equipped-such as an engineer unit) with daisy-chained explosives on the trees etc. Either way, it would add more options and I would definitely enjoy seeing it added. I noticed the invincible trees for the first time after watching a particularly large and devastating artillery barrage on a forest with no impact on trees heh.

Uziyahu made a valid point; there are other ways to adjust balance without going to that extreme. The weapon could be made to be heavier, hindering the ability to hold the weapon steady for long periods of time while standing or kneeling- It could be made to be more unwieldy in close quarters (as mentioned by Uziyahu). There are things that they could do to adjust it, but I fear that you are correct pops; they will probably go for game over realism. However, as an 11b I can attest that most of us do not roll around with suppressors on; not because it would be too expensive, but because there are plenty of drawbacks to constantly having a large suppressor on a weapon that is generally unnecessary anyways for conventional troops.

Glad to hear that I am not the only person who is consistently sickened by this "false handicap". Hopefully this gets fixed.

I have had multiple different optics attached to my issued firearm over the years, and I can personally attest that an optic such as an ACOG WOULD NOT be adjusted in the field. An ACOG is not designed for long range engagements past 800m (In truth, the hash marks don't even go out that far but you can use the bottom of the line in the middle to allow for some "Kentucky-windage"). Switch optics if you want to be a sniper. However, there are some other optics that should be adjustable in the field, and that is scopes. Some of these do not currently allow for adjustment.

Well, *unless otherwise argued with directly*, I will back out now as well, as I agree with Major Mole and SGTIce that this issue has been pretty much talked out. It has been.... interesting haha. Major Mole, hope to see you in game sometime. The rest of you take care.

@Kumeda: No, you understood me correctly. I guess I should be more clear as to what I have meant this whole time. I do not wish to see women, employed in forward operating infantry units, in the main campaign. Absolutely no issues with female characters in multiplayer, or even in the campaign as pilots, etc. My reasoning is mostly for believability during main campaign game play. In fact, I would not be opposed to a mission where you are linking up with a downed female pilot who knows the location of a hidden cache and leads you there, etc. I would have no problems with females in support roles in the game, such as on the FOB's that are in the game, etc. Just not embedded in an infantry squad. Females medics at aid stations? Why not? THAT would be believable.

@Emualynk: Dude... I beg of you. Do some serious research into the "ban lifted" thing. I live here. I serve here. We still do not allow women in the infantry. However, this could change. It has not changed yet. Each service has approx. 4 months to decide on this, then congress gets a final say. However, each service has been ordered to begin planning on how they would receive females (obviously if they decide for it then the military will need to be ready to accept immediately). Positions that ARE looking to possibly become open to females is Artillery branch, possibly armor, and (more than likely) admittance to Ranger school. Infantry currently isn't on the table. Our media here have a way with words that sometimes skews public opinion with terminology that is somewhat hard to see through without the necessary lense. I have dropped the angry tirade of before (just so we can avoid the ad hominem I thought I would mention that) so that communication can be fully open. I still will be OPFOR though lol.

ItFrankie: I am not for females being placed into forward operating infantry units in the campaign game at all. However, I will say this: Females typically shake less than males, and have steadier hands than males do, on average. So, in a situation in which shooting is key, they would actually have an advantage... until all of the aforementioned stamina drain, gear loadout, etc.

Yes Apo, lets do it to spite that crowd. That makes sense. P.S. would it not be internet virgins who are the most vehement about it? From what I have seen of the internet, it is comprised of quite of few things; some of which are men who love ponies, and internet virgins who (I would guess) would be the most FOR females in a game such as this. Considering any lack of real life perspective, and their probable real life desire to get laid, would they really have a problem with it?

Metalcraze, What I would truly like to know is how many people actually play or own Arma that are commenting here in the first place.

Haha nice. We have a saying "Some people choose the infantry; others, the infantry chooses them". In truth though, to be infantry in the U.S. Army requires a pretty high GT score on the ASVAB these days. Their reasoning for this is because of the advanced electronic equipment we use, etc. Out of my squad of 9, 4 have at least a bachelors degree. But, playing dumb is part of our specialty for sure.

I've always enjoyed the term "Bullet Sponge" myself. Lol, and there is nothing more green than light infantry. It's all "leg" work.

@MaJoR Mole: The best way that I can answer this is by stating that, in the infantry especially, we thrive on such morbid humor. It is really the only thing that keeps us sane. You are correct in that there will always be uneducated fanatics, or spiteful people, who will take such things in a purely literal context. However, I believe that I will offend someone no matter what I say, and that suppressing my humor mechanism out of fear of a fanatic or ignorant person is unacceptable. Far better for someone to take what I said out of context (or literally) than to act in any other manner than seems fitting for myself out of fear. Fear cause horrible things in and of itself, and while we can agree that "eating small children" is pretty morose, it is humor. People will always take what is said and edit it, etc. The international community as a whole will be this way for some time, as some cultures simply do not mesh well with others. A cannibal in the Congo may see my statement as a plus, where a civilized person (by whoevers definition of the word) would be horrified of such a thing. The truth is that many of our soldiers are family men (the type of guys who cringe and get angry about "dead baby jokes" etc). We hear the term "baby killers" (a remnant of Vietnam that some people still favor I guess) used against us all of the time, so instead of pleading for mercy, we embrace it and make jokes of it. The typical infantryman loves anti-war songs, purely because we like to "fight against the power" in a sense. Metallica "One" for example, is a favorite of many of our guys. Many would see this in the community as "proof" that soldiers are anti-war as well, but it is a lack of understanding that gives them this impression. I guess what I'm rambling is that, I cannot in good conscious NOT be myself, out of some sense of fear of what an international community will think. I know what you are saying, but if people are getting their news from an Alpha Tracker, then they can easily be manipulated into thinking whatever their government/family/friends think anyway, and my comment will do nothing for them.

@MaJoR Mole: I will tell you the units I was in, and where I was each time. I guess there is no options to post pictures, but if you give me a site or place that I can post some really quickly I would be more than happy to. I joined the army 18 Sep 03 and did OSUT at Ft. Benning, GA. I am currently an 11B30G, (laymans terms I am an E-6 infantry squad leader). During my tours to Iraq in the early days I was with 10th Mountain 2-22 INF (Triple Deuce baby). I was only a PFC - Specialist during those days. My deployments to Afghanistan were with 1-501st Airborne (I'm not airborne, just a dirty leg) as a Sergeant, and then as a Staff Sergeant. I did a small stint as Mechanized as both a Bradley driver and as a dismount while in Iraq (weird tradeoff between an attached battalion). I'm now in the 1-121 INF (Light). While in Iraq I was (luckily) stationed on Camp Liberty/Victory Complex. Our battlespace covered from Ramadi area to South and Eastern Baghdad/Abu Ghraib area. In Afghanistan, it was always in AR-SIC East (covering Khost and mostly Paktika province with the occasional air assault into Omna district). If nothing is cancelled, I await yet another deployment in this fiscal year. As such, that is my background. I can go into detail with my schools, training, etc if you still so desire. I could mention my college career path but I won't, as I have not finished my dual major as of yet (and harping on being a current student is akin to saying your military when you are not). I am also quite a bit more sober now than I was when I was posting before today (as I was finishing some nice convalescent leave and mead is not the best choice for rational debate or emotional fortitude). Anyways, would love to continue this conversation, and I will try to refrain from Ad Hominem as much as possible in the interest of possible enlightenment of yourself or myself.

@MaJoR Mole: For once I actually partially agree with you. Only in regards to people spouting off "I was/am in the service". This is found on the internet and every bar I've ever been to. However, as for my missions overseas, I can tell you that there is nothing wrong with being "cannon fodder" as you say, as the VAST majority of missions do not require SF or SOG. Cannon fodder is also laughable, as our military (U.S.) is so safety minded it isn't even funny. PT belts worn on combat outposts at night where no vehicles can reach? Yeah... so, I wouldn't say we are fodder. This isn't warhammer 40k. The truth is that small unit actions that would generally be given to Operators are increasingly given to line infantry units. During the transition from battle space owners to an Embedded Training Team mission, we fell in on an 18 man SF group to assimilate with our Afghan counterparts. We are regular infantry, nothing special.

LadyBrecky: If they posted it with a headline such as "This is why women are stupid" then I agree, an attack was made. If they posted it as "Here is insight into the minds of people who are both for and against women in the infantry" then there should not be a problem. However, I don't really see how this post belongs anywhere other than right here. Having said that; You would just quit because of it? That's the most damning testimony to a woman's fighting spirit you could give. In the face of personal adversity you quit? Not helping your cause there. If you want to quit, just say something like "This post is full of hatred, immaturity, etc, and I am done with it"... at least that would sound less cowardly.

@Bigbigcheese: anyone who doesn't oppose women being on the "frontlines" has obviously never been to them.

Hi Emualynk: I've been gone eating small children for the past few days. I have missed our heated hate exchanges. How are you this fine day?

Well said Major Mole. What an astute observation. I sure do hope so..... Is that what you wanted? You prove my point; If you did not wish to continue this conversation thus, you would not continue (especially with a cry for help disguised as an offer of it). Do we need to take your shoe laces and make you wear an orange vest?

My my how this has turned from disagreements to pointless argument/insult. Lol, therapy.. because I differ with your methods and opinions. Hate to tell you people, but we have not "figured out the way that things should be" in the past 100 years of the world. There is a reason for male dominance throughout history, and this applies mostly in areas such as combat. Men excel at it. This was about Arma initially, then real life, now I don't know what this is other than two very different sides of a strange debate that you see as practical, and I find to be ludicrous. K, now, lets see all the "two wrongs make a right" statements begin.

Just sad? Sad is how pathetic you sound. Mewling... I really do see you having a Justin Bieber crush. Yes, who gives a shit. As in, it does not matter what I say on a posting on a feedback tracker; if feelings are hurt, you need to get outside of the house more where I would probably act a lot more civil.

Major Mole: There is a reason for an up and down vote on here. The notes can be used to voice the reason for the note. Besides, lets not BS... you knew damn well that if others could not end the flames, you could not. Therefore you knowingly posted and all you accomplished was to add fuel to the fire. It is now for pure merriment that I continue to sit here in between game rounds. I think the points have already been expressed in this thread to the point where it doesn't matter anymore. We disagree, and that is a right we all have. Just like stupid opinions or over-simplified attempts at rationale.

If you read the debauchery that is the notes section in this all the way down, and STILL post your two cents, admit it; it is for no other reason than to continue it. Otherwise, why should it bother you? I began this thing civil, and then after ignorance and insult, responded in kind. Why? Why not?

Ladybrecky- please, lets not fool ourselves; you are just as guilty as any of us for personal attacks. Can we not agree to be uncivil about all of this? Obviously our logic runs completely perpendicular to each other. I say you are wrong, you say I am wrong. In the end, this truly is pointless. But, if this is simply a debate on the merits of men's superiority to women in the realm of combat, i'm game for continuing. Your sister Emualynk is free to join<--- personal insult.

Emualnyk: what is really funny is imbeciles such as yourself. Sexism? Who gives a shit. The only people who worry about such things are those who don't have much else to worry about. Realism is a better term for it. I'm glad I do not live my life whining about PC bullshit. I know this is probably an incorrect assumption, but I picture you wearing skinny jeans with Justin Bieber posters all over your house. Oh, and just like you did me "not to insult you" and then insulting me, is still insulting. Amazing, other people can turn things on you as well o_0. P.S. no need to apologize for insulting me, civility is out the window between us. I prefer rationality, but arguing with you is almost as fun as a facebook debate (and about as pointless). Needless to say, if ever I find myself on the same server as you, I will be OPFOR......as a male character I might add.

@naizarak: good observation. This fellow must exist simply to irritate. I'm sure I am irritating to him as well, but who cares? The point is he is an idealist of the worst kind; irrational, quick to take pot shots at gaps in comments rather than face the topic head on. He has no personal experience to base his unfounded beliefs on, yet feels that his opinion is still valid. Oh I know, everyone's opinion is valid right? Yeah......

wow... not much for freedom of speech or expression are we? but yeah, I agree... a bit on the nose with that name, etc. I post sexist statements, but.... damn. Still, he said nothing of the game nor how it should/should not be added... Just a troll giving a bad name to sexists (yes..... yes it was meant the way you first took it.. as a joke).

U.S. hasn't changed yet. P.S. Canadian infantry does have females, but not as forward operators. Besides.... Canada? Really?

Also, Coyote, here is the deal. I see your point about "if you don't like female characters, don't play them". True. All I am saying is that, in the campaign, I do not wish to see female characters in an infantry squad. Let them be support. You wonder why this bothers so many people? Because, we feel like female characters are being forced into the roles currently held by male characters (yes, this was meant to have a comic tone to it). Seriously though, I do not want it as it is something of an immersion breaker if I see a female in an infantry squad. Plus, I know it was put there to appease a group of people who are only now asking for female models. Why do so many downvote? Because not everyone sees things the same obviously. This is not a problem. See? We are not equal in thinking either.

Well stated mercenary. Who said it? "In trying to please all of the people, you will anger most of them". The market for Arma and DayZ are obviously good enough. This is why the console crowd is the way it is; games are made to please everyone, and in turn are labeled as "too easy, shallow" etc. This is why if only half the people want it, then the majority does not.

P.S. Sorry for the venom there, but you have to understand; it is like being a rocket scientist and having a 3rd grader explain how the space shuttles fly to you. Sure, it would be great if we could "all do the same things" but the military (and a game simulating said military) should not have it. We are not a social experiment and Arma should not be one either. If females were to be incorporated, it should be in realistic roles. NOT in an infantry squad in the campaign game. FOB types, people on the radio, etc.. sure, females. Cooks, signal, or even ooooo Medical people, etc could be female. But don't screw around with a good game by implementing something so unrealistic.

@Emualynk: You either have the brain capacity as a mentally under-developed snail, or you intentionally did not catch the joke there. I state that it is not sexist, then state that about field kitchens..... You did not see where that was a bit on the nose? I mean, obviously, I was making an intentional contradiction... oh well, this is the internet.... Right then..... You dare tell me that the cohesion thing is bullshit, without showing me proof of either stats or your own personal experience. So you are calling my personal experience a lie, or saying that it is stupid. Either way, I think i'm more a subject matter expert on combat and infantry/military functions than you if not. Rest assured, many of you people are arguing that "women are in combat" without any real knowledge of what that means. Women have ALWAYS been on battlefields. It is the capacity in which they function on them that differs. Have women fought? Sure. In the American Civil War, did 13 year olds fight and take part in battles? Sure. Did Nazi Germany use men, women, and children in his Volks army? Yep. Does this mean shit to the overall picture? No. There is a reason males have dominated the arena of combat for the majority of nations throughout history; the truth is, we are not all equal. Anyone who would argue that men and women are 100% equal is a moron. There are things women can do that I cannot. There are things I can do that women cannot. The field is a god-awful, rough, unsanitary place. Currently, women do not go out on long missions (such as aforementioned air assaults), or spend a long amount of time away from shower facilities due to health concerns. 8 nations in this world currently send women to war BUT ONLY IN CERTAIN JOBS. Even France. America has had a pretty decent military on her own (therefore comparison to nations that have militaries I may deem as being lower standards than our own matter why?) Never, in any of my deployments, EVER, have I seen females who were used in a sustained capacity... women in combat... EVERY soldier has the right to self defense... defending yourself in combat and infantry operations are TOTALLY different things. You sound like one of these POG's who use the "we all do the same job" line... Utter blasphemy. Why not speak to infantrymen and see what their opinion on the matter is and why it is a bad idea? Even Israel does not use women as forward infantry operators, and they have the "last stand" mentality. No, I never saw any females (from ANY nation overseas for that matter) out on ambushes, air assaults, etc. Know what I did see? Tax dollars spent on females who got pregnant while on a FOB or in the back of an MRAP by 1 out of two guys. Females pulling the sexual harassment card for benefit and then joking about the power they held. But worst of all, I have never seen any of my infantry brethren clam up in the moment of truth, but you know what I did see? A fucking female (CPL Jessica Laurenz for the world to know) cower under fire on a checkpoint, causing my buddy who was NOT EVEN A PART OF THEIR UNIT to move in and take her place. She was pulled back sobbing while a medic... A MEDIC consoled her, while my buddies face was removed. Where was the medic? Still consoling her until my then squad leader picked him up and threw him towards the wounded.. yeah.... I have a huge issue with it. I have seen enough combat to know the difference between what REALLY constitutes a combatant and what does a non-combatant and despite how much you want a fantasy vision of what combat is or should be like, you have no idea...............................................

Emualynk: Haha, you assume I don't know about history and then pull info from the Soviet Union in WW2. Look dude, much like Israel did, (and much for the same reasons) the Soviets used women in the capacity as SNIPERS for the most part. There was never an integration of women into infantry roles. YOU look up some history. I am a currently serving infantryman with multiples deployments to both Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't need to see history when I have seen it firsthand. COED units have some of the worst cohesion imaginable. They are an utter joke. Women have never been formally used in an infantry capacity in any standing professional army. They have had roles to be sure, but never fully integrated as such. Israel did it briefly, but they weren't allowed to be forward operating infantry, but rather stationary and used for home defense. Just like Russia in WW2, it was bred of a necessity for every man, woman, and some children to do their part. A 12 year old can fight in war too, but this does not mean it is effective or right. Females do NOT go out on long foot patrols, air assaults, or any other infantry centric missions. The argument that they "see combat" is moot. So have millions of civilians in the past 20 years. This does not make them effective. Combat is not their job. Before you use history to try and back a claim that women have been fully integrated into an infantry role, perhaps you should do a bit more research.. Or hey, maybe join and see for yourself. Obviously, I am being completely inappropriate by allowing my emotions about my real-world job show through in a Feedback tracker, but ignorance for the sake of some misguided since of righteousness sickens me to no end. When people hear these bs news reports (or even worse, a bunch of POG reach echelon types coming home telling their BS war stories), it gives the public the impression that women do "the same thing"... Like hell they do. You guys need to quit buying into that. The femme fatale is a Hollywood stereotype. ....... Now, again... it obviously doesn't matter what I think, but I can agree that this has turned into a typical "forum" post instead of a relevant point. I will say that if females are added to the game, it should be in a realistic manner as support. If during the campaign I have a female in my squad i'm going to be sick. oooooo, omg i'm being sexist.... No, just being a realist. Also, if women characters are added to the game then I insist that they be able to come equipped with portable field kitchens in their rucksacks.

I would say that the fact this issue is SO debated and "heated" is a good reason to leave it out. If roughly half the people do not want it, then I doubt we will see it anyways. Females do accidentally find themselves in a defensive firefight from time to time, but they are not in the infantry. It would make no sense to have females in a squad during missions in Arma. This is not a supply convoy game; it is a game of enduring long periods of sustained combat in an infantry capacity (where females are currently not residing). They do not go on 2 week air assaults in the mountains of East Paktika. There are a myriad of health concerns to think of, etc. Females typically leave a FOB on a mission to another FOB, or on a small local day patrol. Thankfully, this is not a bug, nor is it a worthwhile suggestion as it is inconsistent with reality in a military simulator. Again, if females were in the game, they should not be imbedded in infantry squads, but rather in support roles... no matter how much some of you "hug a kitten" types want to view reality, it is simply not realistic.

No, militaries of today have generally tried it, and found it lacking. Someone above made a good point; this is not feedback fit for the moment..... nor ever.

slowmixit: sorry to say, but no you do not. They are lying to you. We do not have any females acting in that capacity.

No, the U.S. military is not implementing it yet. They are "testing" the idea... in fact, Panetta stated that "If the standards in the infantry are too high for women to pass, explain to me why they need to be that high.".... idiot... either way, this is supposed to be a war simulator. I agree that females should have character models in the game, but not in the infantry squads. That would blow the realism factor for me. Besides, unless you have been to a combat theater and witnessed it firsthand, you could not possibly understand why females in an infantry unit, forward deployed, would be laughable. I know I laughed when I watched them on their little convoys that someone turned into a D-Day story when they got home....

Oh please no. Look, this whole "women on the frontlines" thing is a joke. I am a currently serving infantryman with multiple tours from 05 - now. I won't get into the debate of "should women be in the infantry or not" thing, but I can say this; women are not out on 2 week air assaults humping gear in the mountains. Not possible. Despite current popular belief, they have not decided to put women in the infantry now either. Too many bad variables there. Suffice it to say that I would approve of female characters, as long as they are not integrated into infantry squads, but rather used as support roles in the game (Mp's, supply, signal, etc).

5.56 should still impact the ground and cause dust, or something, regardless of its lethality. However, I did not know that you could switch mag types out like that. Shouldn't really matter, but it is a game after all.

I concur. I can understand that there may be the idea that a computerized aa launcher would be worthless is underwater, etc, but my M4 has been completely submerged and still fired fine. So, all in all, if it is underwater, then it is probably not an AA launcher. Perhaps have a "watersafe" inventory bag to place things in that you find underwater, as well as a sealed gear bag with your normal gear in it such as smoke, etc.