https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9U3xtNMOp_8TFRrU2k4dy1YYnc/view?usp=sharing

Another one from this morning, same modset as before.

Another one, this one with mods.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9U3xtNMOp_8bjVrWS12VEI2bE0/view?usp=sharing

Why? What?

Flags are both facing stars forward, which is the correct way to apply the flag during wartime for the US Army last I checked. I've never seen anybody wear the flag stars backward, apart from vintage pre WW2 photographs and maybe late 90s pictures.

Another zip added with Dumps and RPT, not using any mods. Identical Symptoms.

Confirmed on my end. It should say "burst" mode, not "Semi auto" in this feedback headline, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB7FlBRm6_o&feature=youtu.be

Uploaded an example here, with the MH-6

Edit: Just noticed that the others in the helo do not have animations as well?

Helicopters DLC is now in pre-release state in the beta branch, and the issue persists, in the new helicopters as well as the Taru bench pod and transport pods.

It would also be nice to be able to directly export setups to editor without pasting to wordpad and back ingame, as OP said. It's especially important because the constant jumping back and forth is confusing. Having some kind of drop-down menu would be nice.

You're also unable to assign side specific uniforms right now, for example FIA uniforms are always bg and not ig/og for example. This causes problems when assigning FIA loadouts to opfor or indfor soldiers.

Hi,

Two patches ago the issue was present with mods disabled. With the bootcamp patch I have reenabled and disabled the mods a handful of times, and now that I am running completely without any mods whatsoever the muzzle blast has returned.

I am suspecting that I left something enabled by accident or had something misplaced in some addon folder. I am looking for the source of the issue now, but because of a handful of other errors since bootcamp, I am suspecting that CBA is the culprit.

I would also be interested in hearing if anybody else observed this, even with mods enabled. Tanks seemed to be the only vehicles affected.

Edit: I can't seem to reproduce the issue anymore. I have a ton of mods that may be the cause, now that I have tested CBA and the next best thing I remember having turned on, but both do not cause the muzzle flash effects to disappear again.

Possibly something temporary?

Problem is both textures aren't up to scratch, probably leftovers from the pre-change Arma 3. The woodland one isn't even properly segmented.

I have added a Video with this exact Issue, tested deliberately.

I am using todays Dev-branch, the problem persists with and without mods still. Note that also no audio distortion is present. This problem exists for all guns, but is most apparent on rapid firing weapons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvOW4-g0dZE&feature=youtu.be

Crews are trained to stay with the tank. You -never- abandon your vehicle unless it is positively unable to continue to fight.

In game terms, that means only if it is extremely badly damged and about to blow, or if the gun is rendered non-functional. Otherwise, you are better protected inside the tank than outside.

Also, I already ticketed this problem here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=12806

What, so you want to replace a reliable, proven aircraft, refitted with new IR profile reduced, more powerful engines, more advanced avionics and an existing weapons architecture with what is probably the worst "fighter" since the Navy's flying toaster in the 50s?

The F-35 is a disaster, and the in-universe USAF did the right thing with upgrading the A-10 instead of replacing it with that pig. All it does is look cool (and even that, it doesn't quite to, being fat and all...).

In german we have a term for what they are trying to make the F-35. "Eierlegende Woll-Milch Sau." Egg laying, Wool producing, Milk giving Pig. It can do everything, but it's also shit at doing everything. Doer of all trades, adequate in none.

So, no. No thanks.

I'd rather have a pair of fluffy dice dangling from the cockpit frame. Or maybe a rainbow dash sticker on the tail.

Already covered here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=17107

They already have an attack helicopter. Also, do you have any Idea how expensive proper gunships are? They invested in tanks already, which probably bankrupted them enough to prevent them from getting any other fancy equipment. Pretty much all of their equipment is surplus by 2035, Warrior IFVs from either british or middle eastern stocks, Leopard 2s with armor kits purchased from the Asian market and Helicopters refurbished from ex-british army stocks.

EC Tigers are probably not within their price range. If anything, I could imagine them having bought one or two seriously old MI-24s from some libyan scrap-heap to have something to throw bombs at insurgents with, but they have CSAT air support for that, and their own fighters, so why bother?

And on an Island 20 kilometers on the side, what do you need Arty with ranges in excess of 50 kilometers for? They have mortars for that.

The gun doesn't break into a tank, it bashes their outsides to pieces. It whacks optics off, destroys hatches, ruins the tracks and wrecks the engine where it can get into it. Also, the top armour of most tanks is relatively thin. You have to hit the top of the engine deck or the turret roof, though...

That is, if BI did use realistic values for the top armour.

Problem is that AI are too accurate against aerial targets with non-AA weapons. Leading and hitting an aircraft without radar assistance or a proper radial AA Sight is extremely difficult, but the AI does it with any weapon nontheless.

It has very sensitive elevators and high elevator authority, so what? Both have nothing to do with turn rate, only initial turn rate is affected. Turn radius for the rl A-10 is as follows:

Sustained turn radius at 1500 meters/5000 feet with 6 mk82s
No flaps

            200 398 meter/1305 feet

less than 400 meters radius, speed is knots, not mph or kph. Instantaneous G-load at low speed is 2.34 G, an above 5 G at high speed.

The plane has a -very- good instantaneous turn rate and a mediocre sustained turn.

As such, the sensitive elevators and initial turn seems to be realistic. It should -not- turn worse than the neophron, especially at low speeds.

Source: http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_052a.html

Edit: Tested, turns too tightly, but that can be tweaked. Slightly less elevator authority, slightly more aileron authority would be nice.

Screw balancing.

This needs to be a true MRAP, otherwise it is pointless to implement. If it has an open cargo space, it is just like the Zamak. It -is- functionally completely identical to the Zamak right now, in fact.

Remove the current cargo variants, and use the properly armored variant with a functional cargo space instead.

Needs to be addressed. I suspect the unprotected cargo compartement is a modelling shortcut to get the truck ready in time, but it's not really the best of choices.

Upvoted.

6.5 coax cannot reach that far. Once you select a range it cannot physically reach, it defaults to 200 meters.

A visual indicator of that would be nice, but otherwise this works as intended. Unless you want magic space bullets for the 6.5 that can somehow reach further than a .50 cal.

Turrets are horizontally and vertically stabilized. Stab means that the turret maintains its orientation relative to the hull. Ground tracking is pretty advanced to ask for, but proper gunlaying would be nice to have.

Good example are Reyhard's T-72s, which use laser targets and scripts to range the gun, apparently.

Non-scripted solutions would be preferable in any case, though.

Not fixed. Can we have this addressed prior to the release of WIN? The Uniforms were intact prior to the release of the patch that brought the M2A4-UP, at least as far as the flag was concerned. Can we have a rollback on the models for that?

This flag is made of stiff plastic :( can we please get it to stop warping again? If there's not enough space for the new ID patches, why not re-model the shoulder pockets altogether...? The texture underneath wouldn't be affected by removing the pocket and replacing it, as far as I can discern from the texture. It's just not nice to look at

The camo swatch for their woodland uniform is from this site: http://bgfons.com/download/782

Likely the reason why they are not releasing the uniform proper, they don't have a camo sample of their own.

The texture is also not very finished, it's not even trimmed at the seams of the uniform. It may have been a test sample from earlier in development left in the files. Maybe a cleanup is in order?

Is deliberate, I think. I dunno what kind of screen the Merkava uses in real life, so unless there's a pic of it being any other colour than green, I'd be fine with this.

AI firing too early is a problem. The slow slewing into the target depends on AI skill setting and is not so much a problem with high skill AI.

It should be scaled nonlinearily, ie, slower at the start, and about mid-point they should have the accuracy and speed at aquiring a clear target of your average player. At higher skills, even faster speed and aquisition accuracy.

That, and wait until the crosshairs are over the target before firing.

I've found you can dodge them rather well as long as you react quickly and stay out of their zone of no escape and exploit the terrain.

I try to keep a distance of at least 1 kilometer around any area where I suspect AA Launchers, either in altitude or horizontal distance. Another important thing is to frequently switch positions and don't fly over your target.

The A4-UP fills a different niche than the A1. Its an infantry support vehicle, while the A1 is an MBT that happens to be able to transport infantry. It should be regarded more like an IFV in this regard.

Confirmed. It reads the neutral position as that in which empty vehicles spawn, with the gun elevated. Pointing the gun horizontally thus turns into a negative value.

The indicator also reads beyond the limits of the gun as OP said.

The Namer type vehicles have a variety of small problems like this, such as the commanders optic being linked with the rotation of the RWS, making it impossible to use.

It would be neat if that and these visual issues also would get fixed.

Fair enough. What'd be rad would be some kind of battle-weary look for the tank, if you're going with the rugged field kit look already. Like some backpacks hanging from the sides of the turret and camo netting draped over the turret and the front of the hull? You already have these nice switching hidden selections, like with the camo covers for the Kuma's heat fences at its back.

Also, could it be possible to fit an additional machinegun on the MG mount atop the tanks main gun? -> http://information2share.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/wallpaper-24026.jpg

Go wild!

Doubtful. Most of these were in the game from day 1 of the alpha, and have not changed at all.

Upvoted with extreme resolve

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=16024 my previous ticket regarding this, forgot I even had it.

The first one is the pleiades. Where is the problem there? Second one is not a named constellation. It's location is about 35° in declination and about 3h30min in Right Ascension, about level with Atik (Bottom-most star in this perspective of the constellation of Perseus.)

Wuh.

OFP's vanilla missions had "kill switches". Try to go to Dourdan or La Trinite in "Ambush".

Stay on target. You have a mission to fulfill. Hiking outside of your AO is not part of that mission.

What kinda weapon do you want to mount on that thing. A .22 gun? At the distance where a 22 becomes effective you can shoot the UAV down without aiming. What'd make more sense is a Laser, but I guess that's too futuretech for the arma community. (Not as in marker, but dazzler/zapper)

Looks better than the weird black texture, I think. Maybe the destroyed texture needs a randomized alpha map so the underlying paint remains visible on parts of the wreck?

Titan would be a standin, really. It´s available, everyone uses it, these tanks need more diverse weaponery. The slammer especially needs to be expanded as far as weaponery goes. Irl it´s an absolute monster, it should be ingame too.

The numbers Goose reports coincide with what I found in testing. Dispersion seems to be generally too high, in fact. This is no problem, as far as I am concerned. The AI still is supremely accurate, which was the problem I thought could be alleviated with this to begin with.

Generally, what seems to be necessary is to introduce some kind of functionality that would make the AI do misaligning the optics or misjudging distance like players occasionally do.

Curious initial finding: all weapons seem to have greatly -exagerrated- dispersion values. The MX is all over the plate at 100 meters. I am using http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?164294-Quick-and-fun-projectile-path-tracing! this to trace the bullets against the "simple target", on the salt flats.

I think what BI needs to consider as far as accuracy is concerned may not be the dispersion, but enabling "shooter error" in the AI, and allow the player to compensate for the same when using the new 3D scopes (which simulate this by misplacing the reticle as the head moves. Holding breath should center the scope.)

Possibly this is the way to go, and not tweaking the dispersion?

Duplicate, sorry!

Duplicate, Sorry! :(

Because Sniping is boring, uninteresting and dull.

No haste, it's really just a cherry for the whole cake. Thanks for taking note!

Goose: The amount of rounds stored in the Arma 3 AMV is the same as in the real life counterpart, for that type of gun and turret. I think the problem is that the GPR rounds aren't lethal enough: they apparently designed the gun to be a "sniper" rather than "volumne of fire" type of weapons system, with programmable rounds. The real GPR can be set to explode after penetration, to air-burst and ground burst. We don'T have that capability in A3.

Edit: I should note that the gun mounted in that turret by design is not the CTWS, but the Denel land systems GI-30 cannon (this is also the one modelled visually, I think), ammo count is based on that. (The systems combination is the LCT-30 turret with the GI-30 gun: http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3096.html )

It's a former british colony, the official language is english is probably why.

...that's an AH-1 Cobra. 1960s technology in 2035? Those airframes are probably 40+ years old at that point. Plus, the Kaiman is a tactically more versatile aircraft, for gameplay purposes.

Seeing as this is essentially a gamer equality issue, this should be some motivation for BI to move into the 21st Century:

http://www.dailydot.com/geek/adult-women-largest-gaming-demographic/

There are more female adults playing games across all platforms, and not representing them in the game is not just a slight oversight.

Again: this is NOT really about wether or not female soldiers in the front line make sense or whatever in real life: this is about acknowledging and representing the existence of female gamers even (That I have to use that word to begin with is a shame.) among our community (who likely are more than you think, and not making themselves known precisely because of the prevalent sexism exhibited here and elsewhere.).

Activision managed to do this. Where is BI on this?

@Memphis:

Your last point: exactly. And, unfortunately, the people who say the stupid things you also mentioned (and which are displayed in this thread) are also adults who suffer from internet anonymity syndrome and are displaying their true colors because suddenly "society aint oppressing me from voicing my non PC opinions no mo" or whatever they are thinking.

I am disappointed, which is why I am so angry. I stayed out of the previous arguments over this because I don't understand how this can even be a question. I know many females who are gamers, and really, it's a distinction that shouldn't even be made anymore. People who play games are people who play games, and each should have characters representing them in a game.

As far as the voice acting, take on helicopters had full combat voice acting for the female voices too, and occasionally assigned female voices to squad members (no female models, so you had male soldiers with female voices, which was weird.).

So, it is possible. I don't understand BI's reason why they are objecting to this, if they are, which I hope they are not.

"no smart male's a feminist" <- Uh, no. We're talking about two different things here, I am talking about the restrictionless equality and non-preferential treatment of women, you are thinking about anarcho-feminist misandrist gender abolitionists.

Doesn't surprise me that you make jokes about sex slaves too. Revealing about your attitude to your fellow human beings. This whole thing is embarassing, -because- there even is an argument.

This should be no question anymore. The only reason I can imagine for females to not be in is cost considerations (voice acting, twice the amount of body models for uniforms, etc), but any other argument is downright hollow. PLUS people being ignorant of the female population among gamers, OR being sexist towards them for no other reason than their plumbing is so prevalent that standing up against it should be the given thing for anybody who gives a damn about equality.
Quite a lot of my female friends who play games do not reveal online that they are female, because if they would, they would immediately be demeaned, hit on, or otherwise treated disrespectfully.

Your snide question wether or not I might be female is also rather revealing. Would YOU be embarassed to be called a female? Telling.

I really don't know what to say to you, or anybody who brings up this question and even argues about it, suggesting that there even might be a -question- here. There is not, females should be included in the game, and female characters opened up to be played as participants in main gameplay, and period.

Oh look, juvenile sexist twats.

You're not being helpful.

-The option should exist simply for the reason that female gamers exist.-

Also, the ratio of female to male soldiers would be roundabout 2 - 10, so a handful females should have been present in the campaign, especially sicne the place was on drawdown and you'd have a bunch of engineers running around fixing stuff up, not frontline units. If they'd been included. But they haven't.

Flares should be fully automatic anyway. Modern aircraft have sensors that automatically launch flares when they pick up something that could be taken as a missile launch signature and notify the pilot to execute evasive maneuvers.

But this goes into defensive systems in general, which are not implemented. At the start they wanted to do tank defense systems (ie, trophy on the slammer, for example), those aren't in either.

I don't mind the AI pilots flaring. Just make sure you got good angles.

Possibly easy to change. Worth it? Idk. I`m in favor of adding the proper weapons, ATGM and Mortar.

Well, by that logic the strv 122 is not a Leopard 2. Thing is the vehicle should receive its additional weapons.

Aw fuck, uploaded the wrong picture by accident
fixing

Because scripts are tack-on. I´m opposed to their use too, especially because I know how badly they can impact a low end rig like mine.

I see that the system is standing as it is for now, with tweaks, however I think that in the future and as the game matures, systems like that may be worth considering.

This goes along with infantry body armor. Individual tanks with more detailed damage modelling would make fighting them and fighting from them more interesting, because you can make the individual vehicle tougher without making them overpowered. Nice to know you are having an eye on it, though, the armor penetration systems is really getting good at the moment, and I really appreciate your hard work!

I read the config guidelines, and I am not quite sure it is the same. However, if we're really that close already, wouldn't it be worth considering working on damage behaviour and adding more different components?

Compartemented Ammo storage (So when a Tank blows up, if it has an ammo compartement with blowoff panels, the explosion takes place but doesn't destroy the vehicle or harm the crew.), Damageable optics and sensors, things like that.

Also re: probabalistic simulation of spall, shock, heat, etc is unnecessary. Simulation is generally doing overkill simulation where you could use a simple system that looks like it is actually much more complex. All vehicles need is some kind of crew compartment hit zone, and some rule that asks what kind of weapon hit me, what's the effect, then apply a value from that effect to the damaged area. Base the damage value on research findings. Actually doing live armor penetration calculations is a waste of cycles, as far as I am concerned: as long as the system -feels- realistic and enjoyable, do we really care about what it does and doesn't do under the hood?

The damage system right now is still unsatisfying, which is why I am advocating for chänge :>

Sound doesn't range far enough period. The main gun of a tank should be audible out to 20 kilometers on a calm day in the countryside. You can't even hear it at 500 meters. But you can hear the impact noise of the KE round, because that is so loud you can hear it over the entire map, for some reason.

The whole sound configs are out of whack right now, unfortunately.

Confirmed, happens in all vehicles that have 3D cockpits and optics for me, such as the MRAPs