Double clicked submit by accident. Proper duplicate is here http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=27120

@JustCauseMayhem
I suspect the reason why the pump action shotguns we saw the in pre-Alpha like the M4 SASS (M1014) and Bulldog (KSG) weren't added is because the current ammo/animation system doesn't allow for individual shells to get loaded, similar to how you can't replicate a round-in-the-chamber mechanic properly either. BlackPixxel's UTS-15 for example shows how infeasible it is to do under the current system without a lot of scripting.

On the other hand, it's curious as to why box magazine-fed shotguns like the AA-12 (for BLUFOR) or the Saiga (for OPFOR) aren't in game. I would think that these shotguns would be fine to have since you can't feed shells manually into them anyway.

Greyhawks/Ababils created by Zeus are affected as well.

For Status Quo, the journalist's unit class lacks a radio so you can't hear him talk inside or outside the Offroad. The dialogue plays perfectly if he gets one assigned to him though.

After tinkering around with the config, this issue is caused because the base class for OPFOR divers (O_Soldier_diver_base_F) does not have the selectionPersonality parameter defined.

A very simple custom config addon that adds selectionPersonality = "personality"; to the base class automatically fixes this issue:
http://i.imgur.com/0dqaDxo.jpg

On a side note, the vertex bug with the model itself still has not been fixed.

Issue still remains on 1.46 stable.

Issue still remains on 1.44 stable.

Both bugs are still present on 1.42.

This is still an issue in 1.40 stable. Again, it only affects the CSAT wetsuit.

Also all of the models seem to have a misaligned vertex for the left arm. Whenever the unit uses an animation that flexes the left arm, the vertex clips all the way into the model's chest or stretches into the head when idle.

Wetsuit [NATO] - http://i.imgur.com/szDY7PC.jpg
Wetsuit [CSAT] - http://i.imgur.com/Y8RUbHO.jpg
Wetsuit [AAF] - http://i.imgur.com/mkOzyU8.jpg

The current RCWS design seems to be an up-armoured version of the real life Protector turret mounted on U.S. Strykers. So if anything, NATO vehicles should retain the current model while CSAT gets their own unique RCWS and not re-use the T-100's commander MG.

On a smaller note if there isn't going to be a unique design forthcoming for CSAT UGVs in the future, at least give the Saif a unique RCWS turret so that it can stand out from the Stomper. It would make it easier to identify hostile and friendly UGVs at long distances.

Forgive me if it hasn't already been mentioned, but wouldn't an ideal solution to prevent the issue of female units wearing male uniforms be solvable simply by adding new parameters to the UniformItem class?

Right now modelSides can be used to restrict uniforms to being worn by specific sides only (i.e. a uniform with modelSides[] = {0, 3}; can only be worn by OPFOR units and civilians).

Add a new parameter called modelGender (and move modelSides from the Man class to UniformItem instead) that accepts an array of integers like modelSides but only accepts three values; 0, 1 and 2, with each value representing:
0 = male-exclusive uniform
1 = female-exclusive uniform
2 = unisex uniform (does the same thing as a 6 value for modelSides)

modelGender can accept either '0' or '1', or can be combined with '2' like this: modelGender[] = {0, 1, 2}; to create a unisex uniform.

However, '2' overrides all the other values so even if you put modelGender[] = {0, 2};, then the uniform will still be unisex regardless. When attempting to wear a uniform, modelSides will still be used to validate whether a uniform can be worn or not by the unit (so OPFOR females cannot wear BLUFOR female uniforms for example, but female civilians can still wear any side's clothing for females but NOT wear male outfits).

So with this new parameter, uniform configs will look like these examples:

• Combat Fatigues (MTP) - wearable only by BLUFOR male units

class U_B_CombatUniform_mcam: Uniform_Base
{

...
class ItemInfo: UniformItem
{
      ...
      modelSides[] = {3, 1};
      modelGender[] = {0};
};

};

• Fatigues (Hex) - wearable by OPFOR male and female units

class U_O_CombatUniform_ocam: Uniform_Base
{

...
class ItemInfo: UniformItem
{
      ...
      modelSides[] = {3, 0};
      modelGender[] = {2};
};

};

modelGender could also theoretically be applied for use on other equipment like vests and helmets if needed to prevent clipping issues with certain models.

As for scripting commands, forceAddUniform would still be usable to make a male unit wear a female uniform (even if it would look strange). isUniformAllowed should be changed to check not only modelSides but also modelGender.

Still a valid and easily fixable issue as of 1.32.127.785.

However since MultiCam is a licensed name owned by Crye, the (OCP) suffix would be more suitable as the U.S. Army just recently approved the original MultiCam developed by Natick (Scorpion W2) for mass deployment to replace UCP.