Good idea! I sometimes cloth civilians as an opposing force ... this is great to create sneaky missions. At the moment it does take a long time so to create such mission because you can not copy units as they are ... but only as what they are.

Ok I did a quick pre test on my system.

1. I tested again the G35 with 7.1 sourround in the editor. This time on Altis with some troops fighting each other. Again I didn't notice any substantial soundprobalms, besides some stutter in the beginning - im not sure so this was related to the sound problem and might be just due to loading the mission.

Then I went on an empty zeus server and tested through taking control over the units Hunter and Hemmit-Truck both showed the stuttering and lagging.

2. I swapped to a studio headphone with a normal audiojack (so onboard chip and stero sound) and did a fresh restart of Arma. Again I tried first the editor and than on an empty zeus server (Official zeus server!) And this time there were no problems at all! This indicates that there is a problem with the sourround sound and probably the drivers concerning it.
3. I swapped the headsets again. This time I changed the default driver setting through the windows setup found under replay audio devices -- and deactivated all speakers that were possible. So in the end only the 2 front speakers were left. After that I went through a similar matter again. I quickly checked in the editor - seems ok. Then I went on a multiplayer server and tried the Hunter and Hemmit-Truck. This time there was nothing really noticable same as in Editor. However after that I tested to fly arround in a Hummingbird and at least for some time the problem of laag and choppy sound appeard again. Some time later I tried flying arround with a hummingbird on an empty zeus server again (same G25 settings under Windows) and this time it did not happen. Just to make sure I also swapped to the Studioheadphone to see if maybe the problem appears in the helicopter in zeus. But as aspected the normal stero is not affected.

WIN 8.1
64 bit with 6 GB Ram
CPU i7 920 series - so it is Intel
GPU GTX 560ti
Using G36 Sourround - 7.1 emulated by the chipset of the Headset.

It seems like the "linespacing" is the problem here if it isn't scaled with SizeEx.Still multiline text seems kind of buggy. More useful are Structured text as it seems like it can make an automatic linebreak. The problem however with this is that most controls cant take structured text :(

wow cool .. so it is time to work on my skripts again ^^ ..if I find the time XD

cutRsc is what you need

I dont think AH is able to do that. And BI has properly their reasons for not doing their own ressources exange system. It would need a totally different system of distribution and upload.

All armored seems by far to small...

1. just stand in front of the back doors and have a good laugh
2. stand right next to some tanks and think about where you would fit into.. this is very apparent with the MLRS armored vehicles as they dont have any tower...

Im not sure if this size problem is caused by the factor the island is proportioned to the reality while the human models are too big? If the tanks would get bigger there might be problems with them fitting on the streets .. for example, otherwise it should have been quite simple to just scale the moddels up already...

If there are weapons in arma that shoot bullets subsonic (maby pistols??) and they dont make a hissing sound yet it should be added at some point. Is there any confirmation that this is the case?

Im not playing this problem down. Im trying to figure out what this might caused by... I would not do that if your report ticket would not be so vague to begin with! First nobody knows what settings you use -> nobdy knows if this is setting related as you havent giving any feedback on that yet
Second nobody knows where you notcied that-> you did just say world wide and this makes it hard to reproduce
Third consider the possibility that your problem isnt apparent for everyone .. as you dont give steps to reproduce nor give some proper feedback (instead takeing something said out of context) this is espacially cruical if you have bug/grafical glitch as this can be caused by many things...

Most Games are not Arma ...

Maby try to make a series of pictures with different terrain setting. I have seen that also on occasion where you look at things mostly more far way .. like i said floating stone, trees, objects.

Are the trees also submerged if you are at the location? If you look at objects far away it might be due to safing faces at longer distances from the viewer. If you look through a scrope and the number of faces are not increased where you looking at it might give the effect of thinking trees.

Could be fixed if there would be some algorithem that takes your view area or fov into count and increases the faces of your landscape accordingly..maby that would help

What Terrain setting Do you use? More faces are beeing renderd on higher settings if you have low settings objects can float over ground or might even think into the ground.

Would be nice to see this solved before the official release.

I didnt vote yet. But i dont see the advantage of some sort of selection.Either you do it this way or that way. Giving many ways will mean each server might have to run in a specific mode as modes might not be compatible with each other gameplay wise. In general there shoulndt be more than2 modes if needed. Everything else is to complicated and means extra work for devs.

Some people would like it but i dont. A realistic wounding system is to much for me at all means if arma would be realistic to its core i doubt many would play it

There are many posts in the acre ticket already to that but my personal view is that ACRE a mod (not made by BI) using TS (an 3rd party product) will never be part of ARMA3. NEVER!!!
Unless´of course BI licences TS and build it into ARMA than it might be possible that the ACRE makers can build it into ARMA easier... So even if BIs buys a TS licence there wont be any native integration of ACRE whatsoever.
But why should BI buy the right to integrate TS if they are already using a working (but a bit buggy) Voice over IP (VON)??? It would just cost more and bring no real gain. It is far more feasable to expand what already can be done with their VOP system .. If the functionallity is there I guess there wont be any reason to use TS for the Radio simulation ACRE anymore as long as you can achieve the same with the build in functionallity of ARMA in the first place.
That means instead of always scream ACRE ACRE ACRE.. guys you should actually ask for better working VON integration and modebillity. (MORE VON MORE VON MORE VON...) SO that people like the makers of ACRE can build ACRE with ARMA tools only. This would also make the usability of ANY!!!! COM system for example like the one im trying to build... easier to use and better.

For example if there where functions to mute players or changing the recieving volume of what one is saying for a specific player(s) and such you could probably easily do stuff like ranged radio transmitters .. and so on. Im pretty sure we will see that at some point comming hopefully with Arma 3. I would already be happy if some new functions were available and the VON system works "flawless". But then again .. if no one asked for it why would BI put any effort into it ..therfore VOTE here and VOTE any other trackers that concern this toppic!

By the way if you find any other good feedback please post it here .. i would like to expand the link list under additional information.

Thank you cancerouspete I changed the in the titel from activation to selection of.. I hope that makes it clearer ;)

ACRE is nice and such but 1) you need a TS for that and 2) if there would be some more functionallity in ARMA to what you can do with transmission in the first place (like eventhandlers that check for transmission, working removal of channels,changing channels on command ect.) you probably can do the same as with ACRE but actually even better !without the need of a Teamspeak server!. And at the very last .. not everyone wants to play ACRE hardcore like. The basics are already there the VON system just needs some polishing (vehicle bug)...the rest will come through the community with certainty, and this will have more flexibility than some specific system. And polishing is most likely easier than integrating ACRE in the first place.

I do talk about flows and currents deep under water as well as at the surface which can be due to waves or forces like tides. So your idea is part of it and therefore related in my opinion.

Related to http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=6240

I did test this phenomen again and noticed that there actually might another explenation to it. If I look from the outside I see a dense smokescreen inside I see the bubbels but can still see the outside ... maby if your standing inside the bubbels the textur isnt shown as its drawn only on the outside which is invisible from the inside? Well whatever the reason is it should be fixed.

The last time i tried it still didnt work... that's kind of annyoing as you can't create a proper filestructure. You either have to put all functions in the parent folder or you have to duplicate the files you want to include. Neither of them is very satisfying.-> makes programming less fun!

@gotmikl

If people would not collapse at all due to overdoing it sometimes .. why do you think there are always ambulances at sport events nearby?

But thats not was I was on about. I just wanted to point out that there are different ways to implement limitations. The question is just how to?

@gotmikl

Well youv got a point there. But I believe this is a designe decission. As developer you can go 2 ways. Either you dictate the player how he has to move for example by switching you into a walk pace because youre to axausted or they give you some visiual feedback to tell you .."if you run more your gonne collapse soon so step down a bit"

I personally find the other way very appealing, because in RL you can actually force yourself to go over your limit as well (coming with price of collapsing and such)

@bez

yes maby it need to be balanced but for that a bit more deeper resaerch on the toppic is needed because it very much depends if you rund 20 m hill up or down or in the flat with or without full/half/none gear

hmm .. I think the blure idea is quite nice as it tries to give the impression of fading vision because of exautiont or if your hurt badly. I found it to be a bit much as it is now while running too, (maby because im not used to it ?) ... however while beeing almost lossing consiuessnes (i was shot very bad) i found the effect very well placed. What i find a bit strange is that the blure has many squares in it?

Another idea might be giving the image some noise ... but this could be hard on some people as well as a blurred image.

Maby onther option instead of blurring vision in exhausted state would be reducing saturation of the image instead (but not to full greyscale!). I think this could work because less saturation will make spotting possible enemy threads harder as well but without losing the general sharpness..

This is something i wanted to suggest myself. This should not only be true for land vehicles but also for vehicles on water like the attac boats. In rough waves the GMG tourret isnt usable at long ranges at all! Whats the use of the main gun if you can use it only in no waves condition and not at all while moving at higher speed or in more rougher see conditions.

@Akinari-san
Well we still have to see the tanks yet :). Indeed Trophy reports the directions of possible threats incoming. Another countermeasure i could think of are reactive armor or totally different heat camouflaging "armory", some of them can also mimick other heat signatures. Would be fun having such systems in arma3 as it would make the use of IR camera more difficult. Or heat guided systems could fail ..espacially interesting if i think of fire and forget solutions... Same goes for heat reducing camoflage clothing for infantry ..somthing else i would like to see. (must be getting realy warm in these :D ) ... ok i got off topic at the end sorry.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/b/black_fox_thermal_defense_17052010.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlLqdFsMnCE

Well if we have better armorsystem we should also be able to install countermeasure systems as upgrades on specific vehicles, take the TROPHY system for example. (Arena/Iron Fist.. similar systems)

some advertisement video ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62jzAupr044

good point!

yeha this realy sucks.. i try the steal the car scenario an position myself in a good spot uphill. The range says 900 meters but i find it incredible difficult to hit the target cars in their base because at 800 m i have to hold quite a bit up and at 1000m to hold alot down with losing my target in side... this needs adjustment.

@EDcase & @kamaradski

Also i would like to see a more deeper simulation actually using physix this would already be an improvment i could live with, indeed. But than it should only be in action when your moving realy slow / stationary and as said depend on sees roughness.

@heyvern69

good point this wobeling seems strange

Addition 28.06

to make point 1) clearer the forces are caused by the wave motion. For a given winddirection and strength it shoud be easy to to add a flow at the surface in the according direction.

again some examples of "currents"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qHyiQ5U_Fo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHt9-xYgPBs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY4HLcBcRrc

and well depending on the strength it could have some impact on your bullets like with the wind, also i dont know how difficult it is to add that as well.

Im all for Sharktopus!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U87zVkIXNI0

Honestly the only dangerous thing i could think of would be some directional and strong current in the water. So swimming or diving might be dangerous at some areas along the coastline. This would also make the incooperation of underwater vehicles more usefull, for landing operations. At best the mission designers could add these currents.

I think you will find many examples..

like this -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qHyiQ5U_Fo

          -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHt9-xYgPBs
          -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY4HLcBcRrc (crazy one)

could be implemented into the stanigma of divers as they have to work harder against a current.

still present .. also houses and cities are terrible to watch for me. I tried one city on Altis with high settings the city just looked terrible as many houses had low textures applied to it. Sometimes i think they should just do a fresh start with their engine ... at these times i think of what i have seen from GeoVerse by Euclideon, also it does sounds fishy, they can at least display high detailed terrain without (?) popping textures/LOD...(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irf-HJ4fBls)

I vote down. I dont mind tweaking it maby making the stanigma depending on the ground your running ..but i didnt like the snailing up the hill thing in arma 2 because that came unatural as well ...

got my vote, this is something to be worked on. Not only the fact about endurance of armore. I realy like the suggestion also to work on, "what happens when you are hit", depending on the kind of armor. This could surely be moddeld to some extend as probably there is a hit modle for different body parts already in place it would mostly need a translation to a player feedback, like getting knocked out for a moment or losing your abbility to aim proper, or maby losing some field of view..

multi post of

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=3727
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1656
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=4039
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=2688
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=253

Yeha the transition could be done alot better! Well its a visual thing. It has no impact on the gameplay but it kind of break imersivness for a very short moment :)

The other suggestion is something for another feedback post. This is about paddeling ashore. I find that idea hot.. also it does need additional animations, if the ai should become smart enough to react to sounds.. such a function could be crutial to a coop mission!

Same as http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1934

i was wondering the same...

Or is it maby a problem with me having an onboard sound? Maby someone can confirm my last observation.

I know this is an alpha but as i dont know whats going to happen until final i wanted to give a better idea of what ambiente sound should be about, as most topics i have seen were not very clear what they expect, or very general about sounds.

some example , not of very good quality, some cicades singing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aFfU_ER9xo

you could find more..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicada

I know cicads singing can become anyoing and is very very loud. Well for the game it shouldnt go on and on.. it should stop from time to time and beeing
leveld so that it mostly gives you the impression of a nice dry and hot summerday:D in greece

Some very nice bird sounds of the peloponnese

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugfygbi6c9E

as many gamers use headsets with "3d" sound simulating sound directional would be nice

Some rain sound
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKxyM2FcACE&list=UUDd45BYN5zfLKQII08gy1Jw&index=11

PS:
i just was in game and checked if i maby missed some of the sounds. I noticed if i turn up my volume alot...alot! Dont shoot!, i actually hear wind and some frogs or so.. but this isnt at all on a usefull level at the moment ..far to quiet.

Well weight is the one thing. But as this might have impact on the physics i do think instead of weight the size of things should determine what you can pack into your gear. And weight what can be carried. Instead of making things havier you could reduce the max load and additional the space of your gear, like backpacks. With those two indicators you could very well adjust the balance.

You got my vote for this. If you have a big bagback you can carry 2 missiles 2 weapons and all the additional stuff.

True, including the fact that you have waves this would need alot of efford to simulate :>, also i would not mind to see this i dont think arma is this kind of "simulator" :D

good thinking.. it was already hard to fly a jet in arma2 with a mouse :D, this could make it easier!

also i dont bother with not real shadows. The shadows should be somehow related to the real shadows and time of day. But i would very much support this. Depending on the perfomrance hit it could be turned of if needed.

i have just seen there is another topic about that please close again sorry... did the spelling wrong in the search before.. snake and sneak i have to go back to school, honestly :D

I realy would prefere an ingame solution rather than a third party software too, because all rights will belong to BI and secondly it likely will have a better support of the done scripts (any VON scripts). But as rogerx pointed out there are some possibilites of com interaction missing and what is even worse it is still buggy. The most annyoing bugs are well known for a long time already but havent even be recognized by BI!
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11105
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8316
Same goes for basic functionallity
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10757

But maby there are more deeper problems with the VON system in ARMA we just dont know of ... also there are some security problems with it.. i can only vague remember so this might be false.

client!=server im talking about able to start the client from within Arma. And PwS Software as doveman said supports that already... why shouldn Arma3 be able to do that.

@rogerx
:> i think we are talking about something totally different things. Integration TS into ARMA will ofcourse need a license and therfore plain integration of ACRE is not possible without. Thats right.

What im talking about is allowing to start the normal TS client you have installed on your pc and you can legally downlowd for free from within ARMA via a link that is posted next to the server you wanne join in the mission search view. Even for allowing to start the external application from within the game you must check for legal issus. But i dont think that there has to be paid much for it if anything at all. Does Microsoft pays TS for the possibility to start their software from inside IE or does Mozilla pays TS for beeing able to post such a link? I rather think so.

@doveman Thanks for the tip with i didnt know that there is such aplication.. Still if they can do it why shouldnt BIs!

Here a sugestion i posted giving 2 additional links to problems with VON
-> http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10757
Some options for description
->http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9624

what i havent seen yet is a wish for changing reciving volume of an specific player .. (maby i will add that today)

TS will most likly always be superior but i think what the problem with VON is that the bugs are kind of gamebraking and maby as some say that its quality is bad ..but i personally didnt had the feeling that this is the case.

I dont get it?? what legal hurdels are these you are talking about what i posted up there is a simple string. You can put those on your website for everyone to join with on click... and I never heard you need a licence for that? And if Team Speak gets bankrupt well than you probably dont have the possiblity to join via this link anymore.
And why would it be bad if you can start a well spread aplication from within the game? This is not a mod nor integrated TS im just stating the possibility of a simple feature for the game itself.

Still im agreeing with you on VON 100%

by the way how does it come that some people that do mods can take donations than? If mods should be made without commerical use, you still get a monetary gain of donation by using BIs tools ?

hmm i think i have seen internet sides where you can easily join a TS via a simple link. I dont mean integrating TS. I dont believe you need a license for sending a task (start and join "this") to an external aplication....

Works like that
ts3server://ts3.hoster.com?port=9987&nickname=UserNickname&password=serverPassword&channel=MyDefaultChannel
&cid=channelID&channelpassword=defaultChannelPassword&token=TokenKey&addbookmark=MyBookMarkLabel

Adding some new options to your description.ext and allwoing to start the TSclient software if you are already in the game should not be a big problem and make it alot easier for people to join your server. Then you also dont need to integrate ACRE anyhow .. as long as you have TS and the ACRE mod installed and running

@doveman

Thats a valid point but in what way are you thinking of replacing the TS than? Thats just not possible i believe. There will always be an external VOIP chat (TS) where people can meet. If you are using TS and you start playing Arma you still can mute yourself inside TS and using VON instead. Of course that means VON must work properly.So rather discussing ACRE integration it should be discussed and ideas made how to improve and integrate the existing communication ways inside and outside the game.

For example your suggestion of a premission chat is a nice idea, but I dont see that happen because it would need 1) some sort of server(s) run by BIs and 2) some sort of network where you can join a specific group but wouldnt that be the same as using TS.
I would rather see an option for every server available where you just push a button "Join Server TS" if you have TS installed. On push TS becomes opend and/or connect to the TS address. Would be easier than always typing or copying the TS address from server name or server disrciption. Also for people who have already TS installed it would make it easier to join unknown servers including those which do use ACRE.
(There are other ideas on this tracker on how to do improvent for example VON, but unfortunately they still dont get as much attention as this toppic here.)

@doveman

As Arma3 is Steam Only you could as well use steams chat system to get in contact with your friends..an external TS is not an needed option to play this game. For all people how are playing in a clan and have their own server they still have the option to play with the acre mod (when working properly). If however you are just asking just for something acre like ... why not just givning VON more functionallity so that something acre like can be done in the first place.

I noticed one thing while working on my coustom channel script... before BI even thinks about integrating any stuff like acre ..it should first get the problems with VON solved and should get far more functions for scripting with these available.

Just as example
->http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8316
->http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11105
->http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10757

well ACRE is for TS use mainly. I rather would like to see the possibility to use somthing like an "Advanced Radio Protocol" that can be used if wanted ingame for MP session with the voip function already in the game, as i find the channels as they are at the moment very limeting in coordination of bigger teams. This Advanced Radio Protocol can be very basic (communiaction device,digital channels, signal positining, range..) but should give the nessecary tools and functions to create something like ACRE inside the game as additional script or mod with clientside content. Would be a big plus for Arma. I still upvote this.

wont harm having an auto detect, 7.1 and 5.1 option

..oh i wouldnt mind some visual diversity as well

This will be fun to watch :D

hmm what happens on a ground with some bushes and half your body is out of the bush zone? would i see the not covered half with masked on ? It realy must be done acordingly to the sourrounding, elsewise there could be dirty glitches.

indeed something that can be worked on in the long run..

I think it should be changed somehow. Or taken out.

additionaly your aim in standing is pretty bad in comparison...I do understand that you can aim better if you sit and support your weapon with your legs or if you lay down, what i dont see is why you can shoot more pecise in bending down your top half also you dont have a much better stance and its more stressful on your back even with a big backpack shoulderd?

As @Make Love Not War said i agree it should be more demanding on your stanigma and beeing influenced with the weight your carring on your back aand holding in your hands. And i would say actually also influencing your aim to the worse or at least be as bad as...

they do exist ..

http://www.nivisys.com/en/products/night_vision_systems/dvs_100

well at least if you dont dive too deep. Could be a nice feature, in addition to underwater lights.

couldnt reproduce it just yet

what about swap weapon side ingame instead :D, super arma3 operator can handel both side equally well :D

well as we have seen in some cases an integrated feature of melee action can come in handy for mission designers. Take as example hammer, axes, knives, fists .. some animation of slashing, stabing, punshing, hammering might be used for different sort of things. Just as an example, building something could be shown by someone using a hammer. If there is some sort of survival game mode using a knife/sword you dont need a new animation and to akwardly integrating melee as shooting and realoding your axe as it was done in DayZ for example. If the developers have time on hand i think this will be a good addition to the sandbox kind of game Arma3 is.

Up Vote

I am not an expert but what I have seen in 1.22 looks a bit strange. On auto fire mode the gun now goes more and more into the shoulder and after some rounds jumps forward again and so on .. do that with 100 rounds ..looks strange..maby thats the "jackhammer effect" Anachoretes talks about ? just saying

I want to be able to do that in Arma3 as well :)

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

If he had not put the shaft under his arm he would probably shoot in his feets :) in Arma you would shoot yourself in your head :P

@SirBond thats a reported bug already known

@runekn

i dont mind that the game doenst do everything but in my last game i used tha zaphyire (or how its called) lying in full auto on a range around 400 to 500 m this was absoutly useless. Its like hammerying your mouse down on the desk every 2 secondes to not look sky high and keeping on the target. In the end i shot single with a gun supposingly used for supression ... something is defenately wrong here. I like the fact that arma tries that shooting is not laser tagging like in some other games but it should be reasonable.
I mean if I want my soldier to walk i dont have to press two keys for the right and the left foot i just press w and he walks, simple as that. If i want to shoot i press a key and he shoots accordingly. Its ok to make it not too simple and losing aim while doing so, but what i dont like is that its so much that you have to reposition your mouse with a kind of jumping motion every time you take a new aim (you have to go down and down with your mouse every time you shoot!). For me thats more annyoing than fun. The mouse should be kept in a distinct perimeter to not feel uncomfortable but with no other active reset motion of your gun level this is just not possible. And thats what in my opinion the real problem is.

All those that think its ok.. observer yourself and either try playing without repositioning your mouse upwards or count the times you have to do it over a given time during generic firefights... As stance changes or movments dont change your wepaon alignment you will have to do it quite often ..would be nice
to know how often.
(My guess is maby arround every 2-3 minutes or less didnt tried it yet)

hmm why should the recoil change much in lower stances? If your lying you can stabel your weapon on the ground and dont have to hold it anymore. To my understanding thats the reason why you can shoot better because you only have to hold the gun to the ground. But if your bending over or standing up I dont understand why this gives you more stability? If you bend alot as it is shown in the game you actually put more stress on your body (your standing straight because its the mechanical evovled stabel position). Quite the opposit your aim could therefore be even worse while lowering your body, especially while moving! However if you kneel down and dont move you can actually support your weapon better, that is true but in ARMA3 there is no such distinction made. I find the idea of increasing acurracy just by lowering your body kind of unreasonable, As well as the fact that the weapon climbs every shot...

This thing with no grass in the distance is indeed quite anoying sometimes. But most when using some sort of optics.

Im asking myself if it would be possible to adjust the area where grass/bushes are drawn depending on what fov is used and where im looking at. For example you look through scope on the oposite hill. As you probably can calculate the rough area you see grass, could be drawn there.

So additional to render by position there should be something as render by view.

well it does need extra calculation but a very simple one question is how this performece if there are many sources in your area, in MP this could create funny effects of stottering sound if there is lag..however changing the speed that soundsamples are played at shouldnt be so hard

1+ either for Goz3rr or JAMIEL suggestion to handel this problem.

The same with not able to move/ change position while in reloading animation!

Noticed as well, shooting from indoors through window. I do hear some glass breaking but no bullets seems to get through. And window is intact.

It acctually might not be such a bad idea see all youv got at once espacially if you are looking for something. But on the other side its good to know where which item is stored and keping the overview at the same time. Maby there could be switch between options. Lets say you click on a "see all" button you see everything in the middle colume. Doing a left click on any of you items the place where it is stored gets highlighted. Clicking on the item where things are stored or clicking the the "see all" inventory menue button again you swap back to the destinct overview.

@Reiber
Pay attention this is an uncontinued mod! ... honestly, also it was surly put in a great deal of time, i would like to see BI doing it properly for consistent design (behaded male torsus?), voice acting(chipmunks pitched voices), rigging (no face movements) .. like with the male models.

wow so developers do read this thread :D

@Jazon

I do understand your concern but I think the hitbox argument is just something that should be accounted for but must not be overated. For example if a player shows only his side to you this will reduce your hitting area bei almost half.. thats far worse than small changes in the hitbox in general.. but still you will hit your target. Than models in Arma are realistic.. that means that your avarage woman doesnt nessecarily has a very tiny frame to begin with (like in some comic like FPS) it could even be an disatvantage, as women have wider hips :). And third as pointed out above it must be taken into account that your shooting mostly at long ranges where small diffreneces in the shootingcone are practiacally neglectable. Other things like recoil, weapon movement, attached sights, latency are the real key factors in beeing able to hit something in Arma.

TOPIC: Hitboxes

1. Hitboxes might be modeld so that they are the same for male and females models
2. if there would be a small difference dw in the width w of models

the dispersion of angle dA/dw (A=angle) your shootng at will give you something like dA=(R*dw)/(R^2+w^2)<dw/R where R is the range your shooting at. So given that dw is in the range of cm and your shooting range in Arma normaly at 100 m the difference in angle given dw is of the factor 1/10000

Conclusion: Unless you can shoot with the precission of 1/10000 (or even 1/1000 at R=10m) at all times, the model width wont matter at all (much).. so stop the nonsens about hitboxes making an big impact :>