#8209 is a duplicate of this ticket but since it has more details I'll close this one instead.

3rd POV can be disabled in difficulty settings, so it is simply a configuration issue. Not a bug.

i like that new players are getting into the ArmA community.

i hate it when these new players like you ask these kind of questions. the title makes no sense, its not related to the description of the ticket, and you can deactivate the 3rd camera view option in your menu, if in MP, that's up to the server-side settings

it's a question of difficulty settings
it's not a problem and certainly won't be removed

Mass closing ancient tickets with no activity for > 12 months; assume fixed or too trivial.

If this issue is still relevant in current dev build, please re-post.

I'd say around 5 feet and every once in a while one of my troops gets injured.

you say hovering. at what height?if they are low enough to the ground it shouldnt be a problem.

This issue was processed by our team and will be looked into. We thank you for your feedback.

Please keep the issue monitored to see when it is fixed.

This is related to the recent hacks, which I'm sorry to say are not to be tracked publicly. Therefore, this ticket will be closed.

Some fixes for these issues have been released in the dev build, but restarting your game should before you create your server should normally do the trick.

Also, see here for more information: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?149411-How-to-change-between-stable-Arma-3-Alpha-versions-amp-release-candidates-STEAM-client

Closing. If you wish to discuss this issue further, I would recommend using the forums.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=7586
Requested already.

Customizing vests would be great, especially for campaigns, where you have to acquire equipment and then carry it from mission to mission. But it's Alpha release and the primary reason is to have more realistic infantryman loadouts + more varied and interesting inventory system.

The keywords are:

Duplicate of #7586

Yes, it is. Sorry. I don't think I can close my own post

Closing dupe.

Mass closing ancient tickets with no activity for > 12 months; assume fixed or too trivial.

If this issue is still relevant in current dev build, please re-post.

Mass closing ancient tickets with no activity for > 12 months; assume fixed or too trivial.

If this issue is still relevant in current dev build, please re-post.

You never stand in a combat zone. The problem with combat and stealth behaviors is that they move slower than the player. Maybe if they just allow the players speed to override the AI's position it would be fine. The AI's #1 priority should be to stay in formation.

Yes, but how to tell the AI, if it's in the combat zone or if it's in a safety of airbase? Also on long missions, taking place on the whole island, when you have to travel on foot significant distances between objectives, it would be extremely tiring to crouch with a backpack all the time. It's up to leading player or mission designer to set the correct behaviour for the situation, and as such, standing and Safe have some uses.

In the post above I only made a comment about stances. The slow motion of AI under Stealth and Combat is another matter and can be a huge problem, when you have to actually move, for example breaking contact or assaulting position dynamically. But on other occasions, this extra care on AI's side saves their lives.

If only we could have two variants of Stealth and Combat: careful and dynamic.

I was thinking about the same issue. Whenever I look at a map and automatically take a knee, my digital buddies just stand there happily and enjoy the beauty of Stratis.

My proposition would be a little different, in that any AI representing trained army should:

• on Aware behaviour: always crouch when stationary (and prone when player lays down or when enemy was spotted, but this works already)
• on Safe behaviour: stand when stationary (like they do it now)

Stealth and Combat stances are generally fine, they either run, lay down or crouch behind cover.

well, i was searching on the forums before posting for something similiar but didnt found anything. sorry for the repost

If it's a dupe, it would be nice if you could post the ID. A quick search didn't turn up any previous requests for this functionality.

I do have reported this though...
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=6412

This suggest was processed by our team and will be looked into. We thank you for your feedback.

DUPE!

Firmly believe this should be a script suite. There were some community ones for ArmA 2

This should be possible now.

Indeed a duplicate, thanks. Closing.

Duplicate of #7337

Show us the location of the window on map on a screenshot?
Would apperciate that.

Known issue, not just you: #436

Thanks for pointing it out. Closing as duplicate.

Duplicate of #6740, closing.

I can confirm that it's the civilian module that is causing the error msg.

I just deleted my Civilian modules from the mission and the warning msg don't show anymore.

Spezialkrafte.Stratis.7z [^] (9,628 bytes) 2013-05-04 10:23

Duplicate of http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8007

I shall tell you that this error message pop ups for me usually in the road between agia marina and the airstrip pathway

this always happens to me when i use a civilian settlement module. I get the error along with a hint that says "auto jede"

Would be nice to know what that Error means exactly, so that I can check for bugs in my missions.

Mass closing ancient tickets with no activity for > 12 months; assume fixed or too trivial.

If this issue is still relevant in current dev build, please re-post.

Confirmed.

I distinctly remember trying this with two hunters in the early alphas and the engine respected the "disableCollisionWith" between two of them.

The documentation and neokika's comment on the forum also leads me to believe that this is a bug.

This commmand doesn't disable collision between PhysX objects. I changed to feature request.

Added astaroth comment to wiki http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/disableCollisionWith

The command does work but not in the way you'd expect.

it only seems to disable soldiers and vehicles and not vehicle to vehicle / object to object collisions.

Vehicle to Vehicle would be useful when using attachto command to stop damage.

Vehicle to Vehicle would be useful when using attachto command to stop damage.

Which is exactly what I was hoping to do with this command. Tired of vehicles blowing up because the attached object collides with it. ;)

Guess it's not really a bug report but more of a feature request, then.

Duplicate of #1036 and #6889.

Please search before posting and read the how-to-guide before creating tickets. Collecting multiple reports/requests into the same ticket is not helpful, for example.

Another recoil myth presented by someone who has never shot a rifle?

C'mon, stop it!
Please, go get a real rifle (huge differences of the recoils) and a shooting instructor and spend some hours on a shooting range. At least, you guys at BI.

Reading the rubbish about the "Weapon Sway" in the "Bootcamp Update" implies rather clearly, that you do not prioritize realism, but gameplay...

This issue was processed by our team and will be looked into. We thank you for your feedback.

Please keep the issue monitored to see when it is fixed.

0002425

I'm pretty sure that this covers the issue. Also: guns do recoil pretty consistently in real life, back and slightly upward and right (or left if its a lefty setup) mostly has something to do with bolt orientation or something like that. Don't totally understand it but i know its mostly the bolt. Point is when you have mass-produced (nearly identical round-to-round) ammo firing from the same gun over and over, the behavior is gonna be pretty consistent.

Rifles recoil up and to the right due to the rifling of the barrel, and this has nothing to do with whether you're right-handed or left-handed. I'm a left-handed shooter in RL, and which way do AR-15's recoil when I fire them? Up and to the right.

Updated the ticket description to better reflect the reported problem.

You also have to take in mind that most rifles in ArmA 3 will fire the new 6.5mm Grendel caliber which has a higher recoil than the 5.56mm NATO.

i think you are misunderstanding what i am trying to say. I am trying to say that the recoil should not be as consistent as it is. Right not it is going up and to the right in the exact same spot. fair enough it may move that direction the majority of the time but that has to be a chance that the weapon will move in another direction.

and yes i was wrong about putting this issue under animations.

there is like......... around 40 tickets just like this one, and what does the recoil has to do with the "animations"?

To reproduce this in real life:
1: Obtain an assault rifle.
2: Fire said assault rifle right handed.
3: Observe that the barrel climbs consistently up and to the right.

sigma, what if i am left handed?