- User Since
- Jul 15 2013, 2:17 AM (384 w, 5 d)
May 10 2016
Bump. This is a pretty simple fix that would improve the quality of the game.
Agree, especially when viewed beside the Neophron (which actually has a wreck model), the undamaged A-164 doesn't look very good.
It would be cool to see this functionality used to make functional ammo displays on guns, like the Eridanus Insurrection (Halo-universe mod) is hoping to do.
My apologies for the late response, I was unable to access Arma 3 until now due to a Steam-related issue.
The cause of the bug appears to be the mod "Helmet Mounted Displays MOD [metric]". The training course works perfectly in vanilla and with all of my other mods enabled.
bump, it would be cool if this could get fixed
Please vote on this, it won't impact vanilla Arma 3 at all (because you get to choose what helmets you use), but it will give mod and mission makers more flexibility in what they can make.
Perhaps they (person who voted this down, not BI) want modders to do everything.
A plunging indicator would be useful in my opinion (just like in Tao's Modular Realism, where an indicator says where your gun is supported), but it depends on how (if) the devs implement this.
The attached image and description is good danczer, but like shredthesky said, it would be very difficult/performance-intensive to have the shadows be available the instant the scope is pulled up, since that would mean knowing when the player is going to scope in before the player does.
That said, an optional feature to quickly load in shadows once scoped in could be useful for those with highend computers.
I vote yes, but there should ideally be less traction on salt-flats (reflecting their real-world characteristics). Apart from that, there should be no speed cap on the flats.
Yeah it's all part of the same overlying problem I believe.
Huh, looks like it may be a problem with the density of the smoke.
Interesting, you'd think that it would be the case in all views, not just in first person.
Bump because it still seems to be an issue
bump,bug still in effect
Bump in the hope of increasing visibility
Agreed, especially bad for me are the wheeled APCs like the Marshall. I find that not only are they unrealistically slow going up hill, they can be outperformed by the tracked IFVs on the same slopes. This indicates how unnaturally slow the APCs are if tracked vehicles many tonnes heavier can outperform them on slopes of 30 degrees.
Agree with AJSarge here. I used to hate the ridiculousness of the breathing sounds utility I realised it was intended more as a situational awareness tool than as a realistic feature (if they were intending it to be immersive, the devs may have tried to blur or dim the screen in addition to the heavy breathing).
Ah, ok, my apologies. Edited.
The MOWAG Piranha 5 8x8 (probably the closest analogue to the Marshall) has a hp to tonne rating of 22 hp/tonne, putting it in the realm of most MBT's and APC's. It has 1850 Nm of torque, and is capable of a top speed of 100 km/h [http://www.gdels.com/brochures/piranha_5_eng.pdf]. Yet, in Arma, it slows to a crawl on slopes of 30 degrees, when in reality that same speed would be achievable on 60 degree slopes (1 min 15 secs in the above video). This is why the ingame Marshall has to have its hill-climbing ability improved.
@ProGamer: Good idea, then once the damage passes a 'critical' point, the boat would sink.
And that attitude is what causes games to stagnate in mediocrity. Especially ironic in this case, considering that there *are* things you can do to mitigate this effect (and no, it doesn't have anything to do with physics Death).
Bump. What is the current capacity of the Ghosthawk vs the CH-49? If the latter also has a reduced passenger count,then it could be BI just trying to reduce the number of passengers that can be carried by air in general.
Completely agree with this. If it is possible for the devs to do this without causing further problems, they should totally do it once they have the time.
Bumping this for visibility, because this would be a huge improvement over the current implementation.
May 9 2016
Could we atleast get a dev response on this issue? I know its 'reviewed', but have they changed their minds about its priority, or do they still plan on implementing it way down the line? The issue is obviously important enough to warrant an official response of some kind.