Sure. I would close it, considering you say it's acknowledged, but I'm not sure how. Consider this a closed issue, though.
May 10 2016
Yep. It'd be nice to see some kind of innovation.
@Raoul1234 Untrue. Check the change logs. The reason the beta has very little content is to ensure we are more involved in the development process, and rather than making game changing features, they are more likely to fix up bugs to ensure that the launch of the game s as smooth as possible. If you really desperately want all these features, more often than not, the modding community has got you covered.
That being said, the developers want to improve the engine, and it's likely that some of the visual things you mentioned will be implemented on full release. Like I say- beta content is very limited.
This is an extremely huge ask. The Arma team are not gods.
Helicopters aren't like planes. They aren't designed to glide at all. The video you used as an example showed a helicopter dropping incredibly fast. The only reason it looked slower was because of the distance. I agree with @MulleDK19 on this one. Helicopters work on a basis of constant upthrust and angle it to change direction and speed. Without the main rotor, there is nothing keeping the m in the air, and so it is likely very realistic that they would drop straight down. That being said, it is still unrealistic that the rotor should lock straight up, and should it continue functioning, the results would look a little different.
This is fixed in the latest dev build.
On top of this, armour piercing rounds could actually kill crew, making them infinitely more useful.
This happens with the Scorpion too.
Still, if that was the reason, you'd sort of expect more pyrotechnics. As it is, the heli stays 100% in tact.
Not too into this as an idea... Whilst maybe the size of this, you could handle, the fact remains that the battles created by this would be huge. With maybe 70 people on a server, they wouldn't use nearly half of Altis, let alone Altis and Stratis at the same time. It's a cool idea IF you can get enough people to play. I just don't think the developers should be spending time on something as trivial as this when modders could easily implement this idea -as they did with Sahrani and Rahmadi. To me, however it would just seem like a waste of space and CPU.
May 9 2016
If there was an option, then people would still be able to use the feature in Germany. A lot of sales come from Germany, so it isn't viable. The Arma series, however has always had excellent mod support, so of course it will be modded in eventually.
I did a bit of research into gore for the Arma series. Most of the time it isn't implemented (by BIS at least) due to legal restrictions in countries like Germany. It flat out won't be implemented to ensure they don't have to make a separate version of the game to sell in countries like Germany.
@ShotgunSheamuS Making it AI only would ruin the immersion, though. I'm all for an improved wounding system would be great, but dismemberment is just adding excessive gore where it isn't needed. On top of this, guys who want realism play the A.C.E. mod which is undoubtedly coming for Arma 3 on release.
@Crierd Basically. I don't think dismemberment should be a thing,though because how would you be patched up after that? How is surviving uselessly in a hospital better than waiting to die in action? That's why I say an improved wounding system to get you back into the fight and encourage medical care wouldn't go amiss, but going as far as dismemberment wouldn't be wise.
@fragmachine @gotmikl Regardless of all this, you're sort of missing the point. The original poster didn't even suggest dismemberment. I also very much doubt the game will simulate dismemberment? So what, you get you leg blown off, you lay the and stay there after being patched up by a medic. then you go home? Live a nice life with you family, fully aware of the fact your life will never be the same again? No. This may be a military simulator, by Bohemia will never take that much away from the game by simulating something such as.
@Demongornot Dude. That isn't anywhere near as realistic or as demanding as what the original poster is talking about. He is referring to a realistically simulated body which is correct down to independent blood vessels. The system in sniper elite consists of several major organs that all result in death. For Christ's sake, you can kill someone by shooting their testes. Whilst I'm not a programmer, I certainly know enough about the human body to tell you it's quite complicated. A simulation like that would require millions of calculations per second. Impossible. secondly, you're describing a dynamic system, not a system where models are added to the inside of a body to look flash when shot. Sniper elite's bones and vital organs all result in a kill shot and do not take into account, as you are talking about blood levels, adrenaline etc. etc. Sniper elite is not a simulation, rather a shoddy job with extra models and bullet holes in them to look flashy. Even then, if you script it you lose what is characteristically Arma. This is not to mention the amount of abuse this would receive from script kiddies. The fact Arma is also a highly dynamic game working off of several people even means that if you end up with more than a handful of people the amount of data packets sent will result in unbearable lag. A better wounding system? Sure. Simulation of individual bones, blood vessels and organs? No. I might not be a programmer or scripter, but I sure as hell know that PhysX causes your CPU to take a dump so the number of calculations you're talking about sure as shit will too.
Down voted because this would be impossible to implement. Would still like to see wounds where people are shot instead of the default head. leg or torso wounding textures.
@fragmachine But a fully modeled, fully working representation of the human body? On all characters? In the sort of scale battles Arma has? RIP to everyone's CPU. Dismemberment, sure; improved wounding system, sure but no anatomically correct human bodies.
@motorizer If someone chooses to make a mission, and chooses to place down exclusively female units, people will play as female units. I didn't say females would be unpopular, I'm saying it's a pain in the ass to both develop and release. Given the option, there is certainly a considerable percentage of male gamers who would play a female character.
@Leah Have you ever played an MMO? Terra? An FPS like Planetside? Boobs and ass galore.
@jovan Whilst it doesn't apply to you and your realism unit, I sort of have to play public servers. Just because they're in a shit state already, doesn't mean they need to be encouraged to be any worse. Besides that, you are pointing out how female models won't be used by your unit so the issue doesn't really apply. The game deserves time allocated to polish to make the game as fun to play as possible. On top of this, female gamers, especially in the Arma community are a minority, plain and true. As someone earlier said, horses for courses.
@motorizer It's hardly popular. You people are voting in a rough 1:2 ratio. The fact you're trying to tide me over by telling me voting against it would be "counter-intuitive" just shows how weak your argument is. I'm putting across a personal view point, as is supposed to happen in a balanced argument. I'm just stating my point of view on the situation is all.
It's not an issue of gender equality. It's just the Arma team should not devote time and effort to modelling a female counterpart to each and every class, as well as implement new animations, hit-boxes and even clothing and stances. If you guys didn't already know, the male model for Arma is what everything is based on in the game so far as far as all these things go. Adding a female equivalent would not be simply, rather time-consuming and incredibly laborious. I personally would like to see new content from the devs, as opposed to re-skinned content. Female models are not needed, they are not a priority and judging by the fact only one dev has responded to this "issue" I'll be damned if females are in on release day. This is also not taking into account issues like will the females be separate units? Because of the way Arma is set up, a new system will have to be implemented to change anything client side other than my face. So what if I join a server and want to play as a female, but the mission doesn't have female units in it? Something like this is best left to the modding community so the people that want to use it can, and the developers can concentrate on bringing us new content over re-skins.
As true as OP's point is, the devs simply do not have time to make a new fricking model for every single class. If the were female models, you all know full we there'd be servers literally full of female soldiers because men "would rather stare at a bird's ass". Not practical, not worth the time and doomed to fail.