We need this ASAP.

This isn't added more likely due to the fact that if the user is wearing a large back pack the passenger will be clipping with the backpack.

it's going to be even more annoying in first person as the rear passenger might not be able to see.

No Meratoma its not, I work in Health and Safety (and hopefully soon game design) and I know the difference between user interface and heads-up display, A user interface regarding the graphical interface would be how you input keys into the system to get a reaction out of the system.

A heads-up display is something that is ingame, a function which allows you to understand the actions happening ingame, for example the crosshairs or the waypoint marker.

Both aren't even related its just people who don't understand call it UI.

For example another name for a Game (the concept) would be a Graphical User Interface.

@JoeOBrien its HUD not UI, UI for example would be the computer itself, your keyboard and mouse + screen.

But your right those that do use it should be able to see it, so as I said before, my opinion is invalidated.

As I say I don't use a visual waypoint to help me play the game, I was suggesting a reason as to why the opacity on the waypoint hud is higher than bright white, so that you don't notice it as much and use it more of a general direction than straight and true.

Also recently the hud is getting so cluttered in Arma, which drags the immersion right down, and unfortunately people only populate servers with easy easy easy settings :/

A lot of people are complaining about this, I don't even use a visual waypoint so maybe my opinion is invalidated by this, but I think people need to start learning how to map read.

Even using your compass just to find the direction your going in will make you more tactically aware, for example your in the middle of the island so up is north left is west down is south and right is east, then turn the direction you put your marker.

I feel that too many people are too reliant on this, so maybe thats why BIS made it slightly harder with a bit more opacity than usual, it forces you to be a bit less reliant on waypoints and opens up your eyes.

Theres been so many times when I've seen players on this waypoint march, and they don't even realise theres an enemy next to them, then they get shot and they say "where did he come from! the ai is too difficult".

this is a bad idea, let BE when it comes out make those decisions, then you can have your list if you have solid evidence.

The possibilities for hacking are far beyond what the simple eye can comprehend, for example with certain hacks you can actually spawn weapons onto other people, making that person look like a hacker.

And as SwissWolf stated its very prone to people who have grudges more than anything.

Also because youve posted this guys ID without his permission im thinking you might get a warning when one of the moderators comes along so best remove that asap.

agreed with more animations regarding the map, compass and watch, I don't see why we can't even have physical versions.

Seems like a good idea to me, might be a little difficult to implement though, even if you can't change the sides you should be able to easily manipulate the allegiances.

agreed on this just because it makes people more aware automatically, also it would be nice to force AT into a tougher position, as currently Vehicles are just targets for over AT use.

Overall if you've ever been on the frontline which I can tell nearly all of you haven't, you would know that you might not get suppression effects but you do get your head down, for those of you who compare suppression effects to BF3 are more than likely from BF3 as those who have played with suppression effects in most games come from milsim backgrounds i.e ACE, BF2:PR etc

It doesn't matter how you think you would react in a situation like this it just isn't true and for those who have been in these situations it either isn't powerful enough (bullet impacts) or it isn't strong enough to warrant getting into cover.

Currently most bullets hitting around me sound like .22 rounds, it just doesn't sound or feel like im being shot at by machine guns or heavy calibre rifles, heres an example of what a M60 impact looks and sounds like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBlZh5vsnjw

The power of that MG is just not comparable ingame as ingame the bullet impact sounds are like nothing, in dry areas such as Afghanistan impacts create a lot of dust also which you would be getting in places like Stratis and Altis.

The funny thing is those who are arguing against it are saying go back to BF3, yet suppression and impacts are more milsim than BF3 yet even they have it, how can you claim to be a milsim enthusiast when you don't even know what its like being on the receiving end of a rifle or at least let those who know tell you.

If this is the case then its an easy win for us, because the devs being devs can just take a look at the vote IP's, and then decide how many ACTUAL people want the suppression effect.

If not then we've lost fair an square, and bringing up such issues is pointless, the only way to truly fix this would be to link accounts with PlayerID's (or more precise steam), that way it would mean easier work for the devs :) and its not like we want feedback from people who aren't playing the game tbh.

Sonic I have fired many guns, and at no point while firing those weapons did I get a feeling of accuracy over long ranges, the very nature of the gun is "spray and pray".

If your on about mounted guns, then yes I agree that they are relatively accurate, but even then they are accurate only to a certain degree because as soon as you start factoring wind and skill you start seeing more difficult trajectories etc.

Also at no point am I saying that there should be deviation, where you fire the bullet is where it should hit, but while being suppressed you should start to swing and sway a bit more showing that you the character is under a stressful situation not you the person behind the computer screen.

Also at what point did the statistic state that it was taken from training?

If you are going to dispute a fact you must use more than an unknown statement.

Again stating that its a "huge average" has no bearing on the fact that currently 250,000 rounds are fired for every insurgent, if what you are saying is that some forces are able to kill more insurgents than others, the same will still be true with suppression even more so because those that excel will kill more people due to the ability to actually use suppression.

If you are doubting as to whether you yourself would get your head down when being fired at, trust me you would.

No to review the aiming quality would be to add in more deviation, which in some cases such as sprinting or being injured needs to be tweaked, but standing still even tired you can take accurate shots in real life.

Suppression on the other hand isn't dependent on factors such as sprinting and being injured, its all about the enemy suppressing you, and that acts as an enzyme and starts a process which is fair for both sides as it doesn't matter how tired or injured you are you will get affected the same.

Going into how paramilitaries and insurgency's work is pointless, in a game you've got to treat all persons the same otherwise you get unbalanced gameplay, and in doing that it becomes bad gameplay.

The main thing to remember is that if the US Army with all their tech are engaging at 300 meters, then the insurgents are also engaging at 300 meters.

in the article I provided the reason why they want to go back to engaging at 500 meters, is because there are less casualties because insurgents can't shoot for sh*t, the insurgents have a few good shots but they move around regularly training etc so they never get deployed for long periods.

How many more times are we going to use another game for an excuse to hide behind, if you don't have a brain to provide a competitive argument, don't post.

All you are doing is providing a reason why we SHOULD have suppression, because you clearly can't think for yourself.

BTW sonic if guns were pin point accurate in real life, do you think these statistics would count?

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/01/10/gao-u-s-has-fired-250000-rounds-for-every-insurgent-killed/

If you want to shoot like a bot and have head shots all the time then sure the current system works, it requires skill, and self determination in this system.

And it is more styled to lone wolfs effectively.

Now lets take a look at the average engagement range:

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331

Skip to Page 24.

Average engagement range is 300 meters, and in general it is 500 meters, I can currently hit targets at around 800 meters.

If we were to apply suppression in Arma 3, it would cut this ridiculous system of massive engagement ranges down, as if every soldier is a sniper.

Forcing not only skill and self determination, but also teamwork and communications, effectively allowing a larger group to overcome a smaller group via methods used in real life.

if you had 8 US marines or 8 Rifles or 8 w/e bearing down on you, 4 suppressing you, and 4 maneuvering to get in closer and eliminate you.

You wouldn't be firing like a pro, you would be scared and the best you could muster would be to try and suppress back.

Currently the system we employ allows one man to wipe out a large team, even if they know where he is and are suppressing the hell out of him, he can still just peek and poke and get ridiculous shots at unrealistic ranges.

We need to give the power back to teams working together, because the game we play supports lone wolfs currently.

Suppression will make people think twice about firing that first shot at around 800 meters and bring them in closer to around 500 meters.

It will mean that ambushes actually have an effect, giving real world tactics an edge, and it will mean that if you are being suppressed you can suppress them back.

If you want to be ruled by lone wolfs then thumbs down, but if you want something that will force lone wolfs out, and allow for better gameplay then vote thumbs up.

I dislike battlefield 3 also but its not a justification for an argument, suppression effects done right would give the power back to person suppressing, currently suppression is a misnomer in the world of arma.

You might as well call it inaccuracy, as the person being suppressed just gets out from behind the rock like nothings happening and fires back.

What youve got to treat suppression like is an in game character thing, in any FPS a good developer will add ingame changes for the ingame character for things they know players sitting behind a screen don't react to, if you don't then you get unrealistic behavior.

Im not on about gimmicky effects, im on about an increase in heart rate meaning the gun is less steady, and maybe sounds effects to show that you don't like being shot at such as deeper breaths.

Also I do feel it should be choice for the server admins, or mission makers, maybe a module would be good.

This is one of those things PvP players need and Coop players don't, I think put it in the server parameters at least, as PvP is clearly a lot more present than Arma 2 in Arma 3 it makes sense to give the option.

It would be nice for this to happen, the ability then model actual planes interiors would be relevant, you could even have gun fights in a plane etc.

But this is not vital.

The more vital one is definitely boats, as currently when you disembark you jump into the water, imagine lets say that ive pulled up to a pontoon.

Why would I jump into the water lol.

It would be good as long as when theres high wind conditions it blows away like in real life, I've thrown smoke grenades in heavy wind before (thinking it was light wind), and the entire lot has blown off.

agreed not enough thought went in to this by BIS regarding the attachments, you could have so much fun with this regarding the pros and cons of attachments, which would add a lot more variety to the game.

This includes BiPods, underslung grenade launchers and barrels (RO2 beating Arma on realism regarding barrel changes :/)

In SMK Animations you can vault over walls while running up to them, as long as you weren't wearing a back pack.

Same guy is making the animations for arma 3, so theres hope yet, just as long as it isn't dependent on a turbo key it will be good.

"It reminds me the movement of counter strike, and i didnt like counter strike."

Great argument there.

I think its kindergarten time for you sonny :)

Even if it is dark ingame its because its dark in real life, if there's full cloud and no moonlight coming through you can't see anything just like in game, try playing at night with no cloud and youll find it much easier to see.

Voting down.

This is actually very important now that we have a more realistic lighting system.

as an option I could cope, but currently Arma is too dependent on the scroll wheel, if Arma 3 was to develop a commo rose then this would make sense.

Yeah it sounds different but its still not at that stage where when your standing next to the heli you get that loud boom as the rotors go round faster when lifting off and straining, its just louder overall.

What ive noticed is that ragdoll happens until either the player is back on the ground from being blown off it, or after a few seconds once being shot, it seems to set the player.

I know this is due to some ratings which would not allow the game to be sold in certain countries if there was body manipulation, but this doesn't mean the body should just set in place after a few seconds, doesn't make sense for a start.

Voting up