Go grab a pair of binocs and try and look at something 300 meters away. It'll be pretty swimmy. It could be toned down a bit, but doesn't need to me. If anything the issue is that the movement isn't right, not that it's all that intense.
Also, someone said that they don't imagine it's harder to hold binocs straight than to hold a rifle straight, but it's much easier with a rifle, especially with support. You have multiple points of contact along a long body, and as a result you can get it pretty steady in good circumstances. A pair of binocs on the other hand have basically one pivot point and depend on your hands (not especially stable) to keep steady.
Seriously. Grab binocs with a high power, and go look over a long distance. It's harder than you think if you've only ever looked 100 feet with cheapo binocs.

Maybe we should just have a big ol' sway adjustment meter in the difficulty options, because I don't want to lose that stuff. Part of firing a rifle is timing the trigger break with unavoidable sway, especially when you're talking about precision rifles and long ranges. We shouldn't lose that. And the sway of the binocs makes it so you don't have a crystal clear image of what is occuring on the battlefield, especially at a distance.

Some sort of RTT on a screen for the front passenger to see would be pretty cool if it showed friendly vehicles in the vicinity with semi-realtime updates. I wouldn't want it to be some sort of pocket GPS.

I think tanks are a pretty silly example, as they should have limited fields of view.
Just hop into a freakin' 4x4 in A3 and you can't even see the mirrors. It's silly. The really frustrating thing is that while on foot, I can basically lock myself to a wide angle view very easily by double tapping - on the numpad. But in the vehicle, I can't. Even just letting us do that would be so much better.
They absolutely need to fix that. If you can't even see the mirrors out of the corner of your eye, something is wrong. Pull the view back, please!

As soon as I played that Spintires demo, I instantly wanted it for ArmA. It'd be awesome to have any level of this kind of depth in ArmA 3. Makes going offroad much more sensible than "oh god this tank goes so slow on hard pack earth."
I know it won't be as sexy or in depth as Spintires, but even just from a gameplay perspective it'd be an awesome feature.

I think the best way to achieve this would be the way most NVGs work in true darkness: IR Illumintion. If there was a way for the engine to create a "flashlight" effect from the head, that was only visible from NV, it would mean that anything past a certain distance would be much darker, and as a result much harder to make out. Especially with reduced contrast, a good grain effect(greatly needed), and more realistic bloom, the NVGs would be more aesthetically and functionally realistic.

Absolutely agree. If anything, I kind of think that they should just use this to replace the new fog but I'm not sure how good that would look with some of how the clouds render. But being able to set the cloud level would allow for really cool mission conditions, like having heavy cloud cover at the top of a mountain instead of 5000 meters up or whatever it is.

I think this is more of a larger issue in which AI just don't respond to being shot the way they should. But there are a lot of things the AI don't have to deal with that we do. They seem to suffer from very little pain, very little recoil, etc. But 3-5 rounds against a trained member of the military from a 9mm isn't all that unrealistic.
It'd be nice if AI was a really lousy shot after being shot themselves. Usually when "perps" take a couple of rounds from a 9mm, they run screaming and firing blindly behind them, they don't stay still and calmly place a shot into your cranium.
As for the energy of 9mm, it's a high energy, high velocity round with very little drag in the body, so they tend to cause less actual damage despite having as much energy behind them as they do. Penetration is a weird thing, because you can actually have "too much" of it. The best possible scenario when you're trying to inflict damage is to have a round penetrate much of the target's body but stop in a large cavity created by the round driving through the target (or even better, tumbling). Too much penetration, or too little volume/mass makes for a smaller cavity and therefore less damage. And the 9mm, despite usually having nearly the same (often more) muzzle energy, and much higher muzzle velocity (Approximately 1200 vs 800, for example) just doesn't cause as much damage.
And just for comparision on the energy of a 9mm vs a 7.62, it's the difference between approximately 500 joules for the 9mm and 1700 for the 7.62, to give you an idea of why the 7.62 is so potent. Interestingly, it's actually a fairly slow round at least at the muzzle compared to the 9mm, but obviously the lack of mass makes the 9mm lose that much faster at range. A lot more than how fast and wide a bullet is goes into the damage it does. It's all about the cavity made by the round passing through flesh, it's likelihood to strike organs/bones, and how well it stays together. And those are all complex mechanics that depend on a number of different variables.

A million votes for you sir.
Well, no, one. Also sorry if you aren't a sir, that must suck. I bet being a knight is awesome.
But... yeah, stencil shadows were cool back in the Doom 3 days when they were the new thing, but now they are inefficient and ugly.

If they can pull it off, I'll be pretty stoked, but I foresee them overdoing it (it's not a terribly dramatic effect in reality and only noticeable when rounds are quite close to objects). I also wonder how well the engine will handle this sort of thing, both in terms of performance and the limit of dynamic light sources in the distance.
It would look pretty awesome, I just don't want to see 5.56 tracer to behave the same way a .50 and I'm a little concerned as most people here are posting videos of MGs firing tracers. Remember that MGs generally fire larger rounds with more potential to put out light.
Hope it gets in, but I don't want it to be a priority honestly. I don't see it being a huge deal in the long run. It just looks awesome :D

I think this would be much more sensible with Occulus rift, but my ultimate issue is I do not have confidence that it will be as natural and easy as in reality. Even with very little practice I've been able to acquire a decent sight picture very quickly on rifles. But that's because I have far more feedback and can achieve a good cheek weld. Track IR cannot give most of that feedback, and cannot offer me a good cheek weld. I think that it would probably do more harm than good. But, if someone can prove that it'd work in the game without any issues with tracking getting in the way, I'd be stoked to see it. I'm just not optimistic about this and it seems like a very small thing to push for when there are much larger issues with weapon handling at the moment.

I was wondering why the shadows freaked me out. Dear god.

I think the biggest needed change is to post processing. There shouldn't be a "post processing" option. All of the post processing features should be seperated out as makes sense, and none of them should be under the blanket term "Post processing." Especially when you want motionblur to help mask framerate issues, but don't want AO to CAUSE them (especially with how little AO does in the game, you barely see it) and don't want the overly strong bloom or the really poor "DoF" which barely does anything for the image and if anything makes things look worse.
I also think grass should be separate from objects, but not trees. Turning down grass density would help a lot, but trees I feel should be the same as objects, as they can actually be used as cover, etc.

Anyone using the "I have eyes, not lenses!" argument clearly doesn't wear eye-pro. I agree, as long as it's done right, and is based on wearing eye gear, and isn't in focus. Do it like Fallout 3, where it's blurred out and not in focus. Go wear safety glasses outside in the rain, run about 40 meters, and tell me if your vision is crystal clear. Or look at a very bright flood light directly wearing scratched or dirty or wet safety glasses.
If you mean in real life, Jack, it's probably because it's out of focus. But if you can't notice the water running off, I don't know what to tell you. It should be pretty obvious as the water flows down for a brief moment.
Another thing that'd be nice is to see more hud elements for things like diving goggles. Having the edges of the goggles be visible would be a nice touch, and help give context to effects like water coming off of after surfacing. Plus it'd remind you to put em on/take em off, and keep them from showing up on soldiers by default (seriously, what? lol)

And there should be one for divers as well.

As long as there is a way to just bust that door open by default, I fully support and dig this idea. It's always been silly to me when to throw a flash bang in a game like ArmA, you first have to kick down the door :p

Some addaction to grab something and pull it around would be awesome.

This exists already when aiming down the sites, it just needs to be expanded so that you can look further to the right and much further to the left and potentially allow shoulder switching. It also needs to handle the same as normal aiming. Right now it's just ridiculously sensitive compared to normal aiming. Also, for anyone syaing you should be able to move your head around seperately, you're correct to an extent, but when your weapon is in a ready carry, ie not down pointed at the deck, you should always point it where you are looking so you keep awareness. The idea of running around with your gun pointing out in front of you with no awareness of where it's pointing, is kind of odd. It's just not a good idea to do that in real life. When the weapon is up in a high ready carry, freelook bringing the gun with would make sense, be realistic, and not really limit you all that much.

I've had AI stare at me at CQB ranges and either not fire or miss completely, giving me enough time to reload or switch to a pistol and kill them without even worrying about a thing. Odd considering that they are wicked precise and quick at certain ranges, but up close they just fall apart.

Grenades are really, really weak. By comparison, any other explosive is liable to kill you even if you have a sturdy structure between you and the blast.
Hand grenades and 40mm grenades are both ridiculously easy to survive.

I don't really care how they do it, if they have bridges, they should be freakin' functional. It's one thing if there aren't bridges in the core maps, but the damn things are right there, bohemia put em there, there has to be a way for them to fix the problem. I'm guessing that it's just further down the line. Hopefully.

Huuuuuuuge problem for anyone that wants to make a mission, especially in the big town on the west coast. They seem to see it as an obstacle, because they will not drive over even when their behavior is set to not need roads. They do eventually try to pathfind around, but seem to get stuck on surrounding obstacles.

Safety would be a decent option, but that doesn't solve the issue of interacting with more pressing things like getting into buildings/vehicles.
ACE also didn't just have a one buttons detonates all thing either, as I recall. Each piece of ordanance had it's own det control.

This is as intended. Check your barrel before you aim down the sights. If you have the crosshair on, it will show when your barrel is obstructed by cover.

You just need to use slight adjustments like in a real aircraft. It's hard to fly with a keyboard, if you're using that. ArmA 2 aircraft were way too stable, IMO. I like the new feel.
Also, I felt the larger chopper actually felt really sluggish, but I only flew in that one very briefly.

Especially the "assault boat" needs to stay above the water better. Water isn't a soft spongy substance, it has a lot of resistence against a craft like that. It should be impacting against the water, not gliding in and out of it.

I was able to use explosive charges against enemy vehicles.

Shadows would be very difficult to pull off accurately with an overcast sky. I think I prefer without than with super sharp, clear shadows. And I doubt the engine is capable of soft enough shadows.
As someone who lives in Seattle, I think it looks fine. And I know my overcast weather. lol.

Isn't there a way to make a unit change sides? Couldn't there be a module that would detect when the opfor uniform classnames were equipped, when it would change the faction of the unit? And then when it was removed, the faction would be returned to normal.
Hopefully this ends up working soon! It'd be awesome to always have the option in a mission, for those of us that like covert, spec ops.

All you have to do is Rearm on their corpse.

AI's detection seems to be entirely based on distance, and perhaps the direction they are facing. They'll see you through heavy brush, entire hills, HESCO barriers, pretty much anything.

I do think that the suspension should be stiffer. I've never known a military vehicle to have soft suspension, which I think is the big issue here. The actual military vehicles are a bit top heavy compared to a HUMVEE so it makes sense that they aren't as stable, but they are a bit easy to roll. I think with a bit more weight and stiffer suspension they would perform much better/more realistically.

LMGs need to be deployable with the new detailed urban terrain we're seeing with ArmA 3, but the recoil is fine. Recoil is difficult at range with something like a 7.62, fully automatic machine gun. It should be, but there should also be more ways to counteract it.

The point of simulation games is that you need to learn to use them. There are flight sims that simulate completely the cockpit functions. It takes hours to learn just how to take off in some cases because they are so complicated.
I spent a few hours just learning the basics of how to fire mortars in ACE in ArmA 2, and that's the kind of thing that sims are awesome for. If you expect anything else, you're in the wrong place.
And you don't need to know much in a firefight. Get a grasp on the movement/shifting controls, weapon handling, and go from there. Commanding a squad is kind of clunky, but ArmA 2 had a really great voice control 'mod' (actually a separate application) that makes a lot of the menus in the game obsolete, so maybe we'll see another of those, and then you just need to learn what you can tell your guys to do.
The gear stuff is very, very early. It doesn't even show you what's equipped on a weapon that you don't have equipped. The gear menu clearly has a way to go, but it's really simple. Literally drag and drop. They do need to make it more clear that individual layers like your cammies and your load bearing vest have "storage" that are both seperate from one another, but again, it's super early.
This is as designed. And it's a lot better than it was in ArmA 2 if you ask me. At least the input for menus is consistent now.
If you want some help figuring things out, look me up on Steam: MordeaniisChaos. I'm always happy to give guidance, but this is not what the game is intended for. It's not Battlefield, and it's not Call of Duty. The people who play this game mostly probably think that stock ArmA is TOO simple compared to something like ACE.

They certainly need more weight. A pile of dirt on the runway can get anything airborne for a couple of seconds. Military vehicles are heavy as all hell, and are real hard to get off of the ground.

I've also had boats continue moving when in the driver seat and not touching the throttle. The only way to stop was to shut off the engine. Could be related? Something is definitely up with throttle controls for boats.

100% agree. There are a lot of basic features that they need to include instead of forcing us to use scripts, which can be difficult and troublesome. Scripts should be for extraneous features, not something as simple as "what a unit is equipped with."

I think it's a binding issue. Look at your controls and try to confirm this, it may be that some of your bindings are overlapping. A lot of the default bindings are a bit odd that way :p

I did that from the moment I started the game. Still have the same issue.
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=684

Gods I hate forced standing in ArmA. There should either be an option to prevent any forced changes to stance, or it should just not happen. Tired or random actions forcing you to stand up and have your head blown off. Never take control from the player unless it's actually realistic to do so.
Same thing with not being able to perform first aid on yourself unless you're popped up out of cover.

What downpour? It barely rains! lol The weather needs a lot of work. I don't expect L4D2 levels of rain, but the rain is pathetic in the alpha. Hopefully placeholder, because I feel like I'm walking around in Oblivion when it rains. The player should move through rain, not take it with them.
Also wish I knew how to get Lightning working. I feel like I saw a video with it working, so I dunno.
I think over-all they need to make the inclement weather a little more intense in a lot of ways, especially visually/audibly. I like the waves at sea, but the rain is disappointing and the sound needs work.

Sound is pretty placeholder-y. I don't think the Alpha is really the place for this kind of stuff to get fixed. I agree that it needs work, but a lot of the sounds are pretty familiar (IE, they are ripped out of A2) so I'm guessing sound is at a pretty early level. Personally, I'm not so sure about the weapon sounds, but they are better than A2.

You have to remove it from the device with scheme category, I believe you click disable to do so. Have you done this already? I was able to access deadzones after doing this, and bind the inputs on the device.

Agreed, the UI is too big even on small but the compass is tiny and unusable.

First command I gave to aAI, it was uinto a building. They did just fine.

I survived 5 40 mike mikes detonating very close to me on the infantry showcase. Only died because it happened one after the other and forced my view up.

Did ya not read the description duder? I have the settings as high as they will go, I did that from the moment I started the Alpha. I never played with low sample count.

It looks to actually be about 25 seconds.

You can control full auto recoil out to about 50 feet on an area target. Point targets require a steadier stance or more points of contact. Real rifles cannot fire full auto by a standing shooter at a point target at anywhere near greater than 100 meters. Slowly move your mouse down to control some of the recoil, but it will not be and should not be effective on point targets beyond CQB ranges.

This is a result of the Parallax effect on ground textures in ArmA. Something I really would like to be able to turn off... It's pretty janky and I can't imagine the performance is worth it. No idea how much performance is hit by it, probably not, but it rarely looks all that great and is really dumb when you're down on the ground.

What do you mean not supported? You just have to switch the device to "customizable." That will let you bind the various inputs on the device to helicopter controls.
Unfortunately, if you launch the game after without the controller connected, that is wiped, but it does work.
If you mean that it should be in the default 360 scheme, I'd agree there assuming they do it right, which is questionable.
Wouldn't call this "urgent" though.

Water for me is actually not that clear. In fact, I can barely see myself just under the surface from the 3rd person camera... Unless I look straight down. Sometimes, I'm completely impossible to see. And even when looking straight down, you don't stand out. There's not a lot of contrast and because there's no color contrast under the water, you're pretty well camouflaged. But the boat that I can only see by pushing the camera up out of the water, and even then only VERY occasionally when the waves allow for it, knows exactly where I am from 200 feet away. I was never spotted before the boat spotted me. And I've been following the ocean floor when I wasn't swimming up to take care of mines.

Wait. What? Like, a human cannonball? I'm confused by exactly what you mean.

That or at the very least, be realistic about who has a freakin' grenade launcher in the group. It's usually just the fireteam leader, not the entire squad.

I like that they use them, but it's way too much. Especially considering a grenade launcher should be something you only have one maybe two of in a fireteam/squad depending on the make-up. Certainly not 5. And firing 5 M203's at a single target is just plain wasteful. It's not realistic at all. In fact, I'd say it's pretty unusual to use an underslung against an exposed enemy, they are intended for indirect fire. But the AI just uses them willy nilly.
I agree that the accuracy isn't bad, but it's pretty frustrating to have 5 grenades hit you all at once knowing full well there aren't enough troops to realistically have that many grenade launchers. Just because you have something doesn't mean you should use it. In real life, operations tend to last more than 5 seconds, and you don't usually go into the field with 30 grenades, 5 M203's, and 15 40mm grenades, and you certainly don't use them all on the first fireteam you encounter, because you're more than likely going to be in the field for an extended period of time. Constant explosions around you can be cool, but not terribly realistic when it's a few guys with grenade launchers.

I think part of the issue is the new armor system seems to make everyone really resistant to any kind of fire. But it's hard to tell, I haven't really tested it and the infantry showcase sticks you with god awful optics so I have no idea if I'm missing or my rounds are just being ineffective.
To be fair though, those rounds should be pretty lacking in stopping power underwater. That's a hell of a lot more resistance than air. Still, I popped up out of the water to shoot guys in a boat and they took a LOT of shots. One guy jumped out and just would not die no matter how many times I shot him.

The bloom is HDR. Make sure that is set to standard. Honestly, I don't know why the low option even exists. It looks awful and it's just HDR. If that's enough to break your performance, you've got bigger issues lol.