Compass is huge now. Watches have much better both size and position. Compass can be bigger than watches because it is more important, but this is too much.

It would be great, right now is landing on specific spot trivial in third-person camera mode and very difficult when using first-person camera. This could really help.

I'd rather see those bugs fixed than wildlife to disappear. I don't think any of these bugs is unrepairable and will persist in the final version.

@Radioman It may be, but that option has to be tied to specific mission. It just have no sense do that as graphic option.
Large wildlife groups on a small area sure aren't good and should be fixed as well as other problems. But I still want to have few well-programmed animals (so no one actually needs to disable them for mission to work properly), rather than have bad ones left in the game and said "turn them off if you don't like them". The game would look unnatural, empty and dead without them.

I think some of what you suggest can be implemented, but not as real tree climbing. Here why:

1. it would be really buggy. All the textures collision, unnatural animations, etc. Your character can't even open simple door and don't look stupid (and don't get stuck sometimes) while doing it, can you imagine him climbing a tree?
2. it would need lots of work to adapt the trees. They should not restrain your view, they also should not restrain completely others view on you, yet still look realistic.

But, even man on your image actually didn't just climb the tree, he has special equipment that allows him to do so and be able to shoot from that tree. And that can be key. Theres two ways:

Simple: Create small tree stand object, that is not as big as ArmA 2 one and therefore less noticeable. Like this: http://www.huntingplans.com/stand02.JPG or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_stand.jpg . During the development of the mission in the editor it can be placed where it will be meaningful. It has an actual ladder, so there is no need to make new animations nor deal with textures collisions.

Complex: Create an special item which can be carried and deployed on the tree. And it would create small ladder on the tree. Something like the one on your picture, or http://img.diytrade.com/cdimg/204877/14826713/0/1283922174/Tree_Stand.jpg
http://img.diytrade.com/cdimg/204877/15845994/0/1286674165/Hang_on_Tree_Stand.jpg
It's more complex, because all the usable trees would have to be labeled and probably adjusted. And I don't know how to make the stand rotated to right direction.

I like the simple variant because it should be relatively easy to implement. Second variant may be too much work right now, but maybe it can be nice feature in some future expansion.

Simply, you should want better tree stands, not tree climbing.

Tested it, they killed me after destroying empty (Side: Empty in editor) vehicle.

Video, include reproduction in editor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-D6Se2bAEk
Using the stable build.

Hehe, nice video :o)
But there are already reports for that: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=3692 for weird upside down little bird crash
and http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=3734 for that bouncing.
Vote them up and post your video also there if this gets closed.

Yes, it looks dumb never wait for grenade to explode, immediately wasting another. I'm not saying it's always bad to throw two grenades, just wasteful when they throw out all their grenades on first occasion if just one can do the work. And if they know that first one didn't land where they wanted, they should probably aim the second one more carefully.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beOTNAnF84s&feature=player_detailpage#t=40s
Along with other problems/bugs shown on this video, there are AI soldiers throwing two grenades in a row, some of them not even in right direction.

It actually looks like more wide problem. AI (including BLUFOR) can attack vehicle of type which belongs to enemy side, no matter there are friendly units inside (on passenger seats). I'm not sure if I explained it right, so here is an example: BLUFOR AI attacks car Ifrit even though there are two teammates siting on passenger seats.

Video showing this bug and its easy reproduction in editor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f55NoMR_4_w
and also third try here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beOTNAnF84s

Edit: more I think about it - it isn't AI problem, that vehicle is simply incorrectly marked as enemy and that should not happen at first place. AI is just attacking what we all see as enemy.

This report is duplicate of http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=322

This report is duplicate of http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=322

Well it's not the same situation, but title describes it well. I saw AH-9 many times hit the ground from high altitude when I shot pilot and it don't explode, just cause little damage to some of the systems.

Here is video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hpjdivof1k
(At 2:25 it broke due to another bug when I got in - http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=322 )

While I don't like helicopters immediately explode when hit something at low speeds, I think this is the situation it should explode or at least totally break.

Besides video, when I hit something with rotor blades it's more likely that it destroys the rotor rather than whole helicopter just blows up, isn't it?

Sexist jerks that don't want to shoot women, right? Right?

First, I would just not enjoy game the same way if I had to shoot women.
Second, it would cause in-game balance issues, most importantly due to different hitboxes.
Third, (it's simply my opinion, not really important for the game) I actually think women should not serve at combat-exposed military posts, due to physical inequality and psychical effect (even subconscious) they have on male soldiers, both resulting in lower combat capabilities of whole unit. While there sure are exceptional women who can take some combat tasks better than many male soldiers, statistically it would be very small number. While their training cost the same, they often spend less time in active duty and has limited deployment options. It's simply unprofitable. The only real advantage I see is the political one.

But let's get back to the game. For those who argument with realism, if there are realistic women in game, they should also have e.g. lower range at which they can throw grenades, lower carrying weight capacity and most important different recoil handling. Arma 3 is not an RPG, think about all balance issues. Would be different play style beneficial for this game? I think not. On any MP server that will not allow woman characters you would have to relearn different play style.
Players always tends to choose character that is easier to play or more advantageous and that actually devalues effort invested in the development of the other one. Arma 3 has really large set of animations, moves and stances, bags, wests, helmets, weapons, vehicle seats - it all have to fits perfectly. Should developers invest time to adjust all that for character of different size and shape? Well, I'd prefer if they had time for actual game features.

@ ghostD0C - this requires much more work than "just add models". There must be another set of vests, bags, helmets and uniforms which fit the new model. Then you have to adjust all animations. And try to balance different hitboxes and playstyles (if it should be somewhat realistic), which is nearly impossible.

@ dpoakaspine - is requesting the addition of female models in a PC game the right way how to show them appreciation for their work? How about write them a letter? Or tell about them in local school?
First of all, game should be fun, not anyones merit award. And if developers want to use it as an appreciation or gratitude to anyone, it's solely their decision.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4hpjdivof1k#t=140s
I didn't know why helicopter broke, now I see it's this bug.