I agree with Humay that we may not agree with 'what' each animation may be, but I certainly agree with the general idea. The stepping over is good for tactical pace but there should ideally be a quicker leap or vault (or something) for running/sprinting.

Duplicate/related issues:
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=13724
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11725

I've always been for the idea of more dust and smoke from explosions (among other things), partly for a more 'realistic' feel, but also having to deal with it in a tactical sense. However, I couldn't back it unless it can be done without a resource hit. People with humble systems play and one way that's possible is to keep the requirements for these kinds of effects low.

"The reporter vote system is not a personal prioritization process on behalf of Bohemia - it's more one of agree/disagree with the issue." - You can actually use it as a reflection of what you feel should be prioritised. You can agree with an idea but feel it is in the "nice to have" category yet shouldn't be prioritised. I vote like this a lot.

That's partly how I feel about this issue. The only part of it I would vote up is "it should be difficult on the player to move". But this is a different issue to the cosmetic stuff that makes up the rest of it which should be low on the things-to-do list IMO. The ticket is really two separate issues - physics/movement and graphics - with an apparent emphasis on the latter.

I'm down-voting because I would prefer real significant gameplay issues addressed, particularly at this stage of development. If there is a separate ticket addressing just the movement side of this issue, I will up-vote that.

I agree that a greater variety if for nothing but ambiance is needed, but I wouldn't aim for release as a priority. Maybe target the SP campaign release or wait for the modders to inevitably do their thing.

When familiar with ARMA AI could this technically be classed as "unexpected" behaviour? ;)

But being serious for a moment, it may be necessary to clarify if this is a random rooftop or one which is specifically accessible to units and AI. The former creates an unfair expectation and the latter is a real issue which I can imagine will never be fully resolved with how AI seems to work in this series.

I assume this is Altis? Might be best to clarify in the title or description.

This kind of thing was what I loved back in my IL-2 days. If this can be added some time after release and important fixes it would be very welcome. I don't see it happening, but I'd like it all the same.

If you move the camera then obstacles between you cannot obscure your vision. I'd acknowledge there's a bit of an issue, but shifting the camera isn't the solution.

I logged a similar job some time ago about locking onto rabbits while in a helicopter. It was closed with the indication that it wasn't a bug, so I assume you're supposed to be able to lock onto rabbits...

The problem with the pilot in back is that the view is restricted, probably more than it would likely be in real life. Manoeuvering low and slow around trees and other obstacles is a nightmare. I'd be more than happy to remain in the rear seat except for this. It's why I made the following ticket a while back to adjust the seat height or the instrument panel.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10317

Fri13, I'm not knowledgable enough in this area to know if what you are claiming is accurate, but the way you need to present this kind of claim is with evidence, resources and a sound argument. Saying what you have and supplying a couple of pictures conveys the idea of what you're after quite well, but it doesn't explain whether it's accurate or, approaching from another angle, whether it's a greater benefit to gameplay. Doing this and/or countering the claims put up as opposition to you would work better.

I certainly wouldn't want that changed because scrolling up is more the norm and the way I personally like doing it. But an option to invert the scroll probably wouldn't hurt.

Duplicate: (Dslyecxi's linked to this, by the way...)
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10726

We're not prioritising BIS's work - we're giving input on what we think should be in the game, regardless of the reason. That reason can be because a person doesn't want BIS's workload spent on issue A, B or C. The vote represents this opinion. After this point BIS can then prioritise their workload as they see fit based in part on the numbers in the voting system - if they so choose.

"because there are some serious retards on here." I totally agree. In another ticket I saw a guy post "WHY THE FUCK IS THERE A BALANCING SECTION FOR ARMA WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS". It's really not the place for it. That kind of talk really needs to remain on forums, or better still playgrounds. This is supposed to be a proper feedback tracker.

But my little dig aside - no, there shouldn't be a requirement for a comment when down-voting in the same way there shouldn't be one for up-voting. When you up-vote you shouldn't have to explain why you think it's a good idea or what parts of it you think are best. Same with down-voting. It simply means someone doesn't like the ideo or thinks it's a low priority.

But if an explanation is required - fine. I down-vote because it's a waste of dev resources when saying or typing "All in" will suffice. Whether this feature is added doesn't worry me one way or another, but it falls so low on the list under so many important issues that really do require work that I'll do my part to make sure the prioritisation of this issue is appropriately diminished.

Duplicate:
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=3002
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9214
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11078

Yeah, I was posting in haste before and should have added some details. I was playing in the editor. It was when it was alpha though, so whatever build it was around the date the video was published will be the one.

The bouncing was exclusive to choppers with landing gear. Skids didn't have the same effect, although when I landed a Littlebird there it did kinda slide a little on occasion.

What you didn't see in the video, which I cut out to keep it short, was that the helicopter eventually backed off the edge of the pontoon so the rear wheel was hanging off. At that point it was pretty much stuck in place.

I just happen to have made a vid of this very thing a while back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGP3PKTMWD0

I'm in bed ready to lay my weary head, so I can't test this right now, but I definitely experienced this at one stage. Not sure if it was with my previous or current PC. The mission I noticed it on was the Special Ops night time Showcase mission where you have to create distractions. I was testing various video capture programs and settings for night time/fog capture quality so I was loading the game and playing the start of the mission over and over and I noticed this, however I thought it just a random occurrence at the time. If I remember and have the time I'll give it a test in the next couple of days. But I can confirm I've seen this even if I can't yet corroborate the cause.

"Since we can't customize the Xbox 360 controller scheme" - You may have to expand on what you mean by this because you can customise the 360 controller. I use it for helo operation and have everything remapped. I admit I may be missing something from your explanation.

Technically a solution is to remap your controls. The problem really comes from traditional RT firing while as infantry and LT/RT rudders in vehicles. Ideally you should be able to have a different profile for infantry/cars/choppers so you can re-use buttons.

I've had this happen to me once, but I've not played any long enough missions since to replicate it.

falconx1, I strongly disagree with that statement. BIS set their priority based on their critea, we are not deciding that. Or vote may be one of those criteria, but our reasons for voting are irrelevant. i.e. We can vote because we think the priority should be low. This does not mean we are prioritising for BIS.

I'll agree there are certainly problems with open betas but not for the reason you are stating.

@GiorgyGR, I can imagine a move forward slow like with vehicles. You pose a valid point and it's not too dissimilar to the problem of treading lightly and moving fluidly when on foot and trying to move stealthily.

"The reporter vote system is not a personal prioritization process on behalf of Bohemia - it's more one of agree/disagree with the issue." - You can actually use it as a reflection of what you feel should be prioritised. You can agree with an idea but feel it is in the "nice to have" category yet shouldn't be prioritised. I vote like this a lot.

That's partly how I feel about this issue. The only part of it I would vote up is "it should be difficult on the player to move". But this is a different issue to the cosmetic stuff that makes up the rest of it which should be low on the things-to-do list IMO. The ticket is really two separate issues - physics/movement and graphics - with an apparent emphasis on the latter.

I'm down-voting because I would prefer real significant gameplay issues addressed, particularly at this stage of development. If there is a separate ticket addressing just the movement side of this issue, I will up-vote that.

"If you have 100 profiles it's your problem." - The thing is that this argument can be used in reverse. Housemates or a family sharing a computer and a copy of ARMA may be inclined to think that if someone has a single profile it's their problem. As such you're better off structuring your arugment to explain why you want the feature, what benefits it has and what detriments the current system has. The ticket lacks any of this information and requires the reader to overlay their own bias as the sole factor in interpreting it.

This has been an issue for something like forever with these games. Probably a big AI overhaul is needed but whether can happen with this generation of OFP/ARMA or not is another thing.

@twistking: The main problem there is that you may use the mouse or keyboard at the same time as the controller. This would be particularly evident when trying to command other units (even when using VAC which just inputs key commands).

Would you please treat this feedback tracker seriously and try to refrain from creating issues like this that potentially waste people's time? When you do this kind of thing "for adults not for kids" becomes deeply ironic.

Yes, thanks for treating this bug/feature tracker like a forum. It really helps. I guess that's what you get when you open it up to the general public though.

Chances are this is quite deliberate.

I raised a similar issue previously that was similar to this (bringing up that it can happen at night with no actual light source pointing in your direction from behind) and it was closed as a duplicate. I've never been able to find the original issue (although I have found similar ones). So it's safe to say this is a known issue at least.

Might be a duplicate:
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=2745
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8770

I haven't managed to replicate this when raising the weapon. It appears smooth. But it certainly does do it when lowering it and there is a distinct momentary pause.

Cool. You might have to wait for a dev, but it may be a fixed issue (unless it ends up being specific to your setup). Your report says you're using the stable alpha build. I was testing in the latest dev build (updated only just prior to me seeing your issue and testing) and it didn't seem to happen. I've done tests in all weather conditions and choppy seas but it's not happening on this end.

Which boat is affected? Or is it all of them for you? I've just been trying to replicate the issue and haven't been able to. The closest I've come is doing a tight turn in the gunboats where the angle is high and the water 'floods' the rear deck.

On level ground I think it's spot on. I did a fair bit of testing with this a while ago. Uphill I think the the fatigue is a touch too quick, but only a touch.

Yeah, I tended to try to find the positive in that there's less light, but it would really need to be a darker shade rather than the same grey as the fog above the waterline to make for at least a reasonable compromise. Different fog values above and below sea level would be good to create murky water or reduce the view distance to more realistic levels (should one chose to have it in their created content), but it may not be possible due to the rolling waves of the water. But it's not for to a fool like me to judge what's possible, just to suggest.

It's possible this is just a misconception because there is no aiming from the hip in this game as far as I'm aware. Your weapon is generally shouldered unless you lower it, run, etc. Unlike other games you have an actual full body in this, so you can observe this by looking down at how you're holding the weapon. The difference between sighted and non-sighted can be measured in centimetres.

Please correct me if I'm under the wrong impression about what you're asking though.

Funnily enough, if you set two AI infantry to the same waypoint inside a building they occupy the same space.

Yeah, I've been caught by this on occasion.

I think that some people forget that this kind of sandbox game allows you to do a lot more than just create realistic war scenarios. If someone wants to create a spy thriller scenario or one where a soldier can put on an enemy uniform to help him blend in to escape captivity, then this can only be a good thing.

I think a simpler solution to 3rd person would be to switch to first-person for the duration of the ducking action.

I'd imagine this could be implemented in the same fashion a gunner in an attack helo operates the main gun. Co-pilot operation would be nice.

In the current build this doesn't seem to be an issue, at least for me. If I start a game without the controller plugged in the bindings aren't there since there's no device, but when I reconnect the controller in-game the bindings I set reappear and work normally.

Unable to replicate in dev build. Footsteps and footstep sound are synchronised for any length of time I've spent walking with that animation.

Steps taken:

• Lower weapon (2xCTRL)
• Switch to walk (W+S)
• Walk (tried forward, back and strafe)

If these steps are incorrect to reproduce please provide them and I'll give it another shot.