I was waiting a question like this.

No of course but I don't understand why they are working on rope and not on fast rope in the same time.
You tell me : it is normal because they have to do the rope first.

I agree.

But if they work on fast rope with physX that mean they will create the rope. So they can only tell us " we are working to integrate the fast rope".

At the moment it give me the feeling that developers works on their game not for players but for other developers. This is the kind of stuff which should be add by themselves not by the community because the community do it since arma ( maybe since operation flashpoint ?).

This is the kind of stuff which increase the immersion. And make this kind of stuff into the game without mods will bring more people on arma and make less script working on the server for big or role play team.

it is funny to see that developer are working on physX rope but not on adding fast roping on their game.

Hope they will wake up and add few stuff like this one real needed for the game and would be 10x better if it is done by developers rather than users.

Fast roping with rope using physX

Upvoted +1 for you, but i've to say to have this into the game they have to solve several basic aircraft problems :(

You don't have smoke at the start-up of the missile or you don't have smoke for all the trajectory ?

Sorry you post isi a duplicate ... Use search formation before creating a new topic to avoid duplicate. :) .
But happy to see other people noticed it.

any news ?

lol funny. Car destroy bridge but bombs are not doing it !!! I will switch bombs by car under my wings :p

Edit : Other reporter have the same problem ? Feel free to answer.

it is hard to decide with this kind of simple description. IRL you can fall, you will be tow by the parachute if it is windy etc ...

You need to be more precise about what you want.

i agree when you land on dust surface, there is not lot of dust. But maybe the cost of CPU /GPU is too high to have this kind of effect at the moment.

up voted

@AJ77777 : If you want to know what people think go on BIS forum and open a topic, here it is a FEEDBACK TRACKER FOR DEVS, to help them to IMPROVE the game. You should change your ticket in solve or at least change the resolution "status".

@arziben : i also disagree you don't need an alarm to eject, in the real life it is the pilot choice to eject. Several alarm / failure add could be better for the realism.
More over it is OFF topic and there is the fixed wing feedback tracker. I just say that in order to don't create a new problem on this thread.

Maybe effect of several ammo could be adjust to have something more realistic. But you can't tell AA is too effective because you die.

I mean, AA, and all AA missile have several range.

1. is no escape zone. What you do you will die.
2. No effect zone, what you do you will survive.
3. Alternate zone, you are closer and closer , hard manoeuver will be needed to avoid missile trajectory.

But, the two point to work on are : as other reporter said, maybe adjust the effect between all kind of ammo. Secondly it could be the way how flares / jaff are affecting the missile trajectory. I think for this second point we could really improve the game.

Flares are well working and AA missiles are great. The only problem ATM is the range of Aircraft is below the range of AA so AA are a real danger.

Upvoted ! Where is the ejection seat ? :)

Simulate a real lift for each wing please ! It will increase the realism.

Ok I understand now.

There is something to do to improve it. Up voted.

I think you should write again your description text to have more visibility.

For my part i'm not sure to understand what you are requesting for.

i vote Down because IRL pilot can't eject from helicopter except for russian attack helicoter as scorpion wrote.

But i want to tell you that user are working hard to improve the air part of arma, and you will be able to do perfect autorotation.

Do somethings BI use the tool that you have implemented into the game !!

You said "game is using physX" OKKKK : USE PHYSX NOW !!!!!!!!!

"3D realistic clouds" : OK ! Use more realistic weather with several kind of clouds.

The list goes on...

Bi use tool which you have implemetend into the game ! Thanks !

+1

You can also sat, if you are in standard hangar with rain, you won't see the rain because of the false rain. =/

nice idea. Better life time and range for weapon is nice. Just it should be interesting to see how cpu laod is increased by this setting ? Just for big MP server :)

if it 6sec for all munition ? Because with an aircraft , 2400m is not a lot ( ok it is a lot, but some times not, it depends of the situation )

Yes sunglasses protection like with ACE should be very good ! For exemple for pilot even if you have sunglasses at the moment it is not helping you to see better.

It is to easy to say mod what you want.

The guy is feedbacking the game. He want to help to improve it. So what BI can't do few tips to improve the game ? I think there is a lot of little thing that BI could improve.

With few time, few cost of worker and the feeling would be really increased.

And just to finish i understand some point that are requested because, if some are made by BI it will reduce bug, latency , etc... on MP mission. So everybody win something in this way.

BI has just open a website to give $ to the best modder.
BI could request help from some modder to improve the game with all the feedback you have and to add content and just improve the mod by a "professional check" from BI team.

Sorry terox, but this is not what we request here. It is different from the general view distance.

@Semiconductor : you are right sorry i didn't noticed it into the video. 1min40 is what is needed to see. Sorry mate.

i would be happy to know why 1 vote down :)

To see the tank at 5Km you need to set also object distance to 5km or above.

But if dynamic range is included into the game you will be able to see it with a scope (even if you only have 3km of visibility plus 3km of object visibily) .

it is totally different i'm not requesting to set our view distance in-game, watch the video.

Dynamic mean that you have for example 2KM of visibility but when you are scoping or using a FLIR and zooming, you will be able to continue to see into the artificial fog (limited view distance by the game even if you could have 100km of visibility ) and to see with objects.

I don't know if my sentence is enough easy to understand due to my english. But the video will give you the idea of what i mean.

give your spec.

i think it is a duplicate but not sure. Upvoted

i think it could be interested to improve this for vehicle with fighter helicoper or aircraft , in order to allow them long range shot like in the real life ?

Awesome thing :).

1 voting down without explaining ... pff ...

+1 vote for you dude.

I'm interested to know why you have voted down ? Because IRL when you are flying in clouds or walking in moutain through an overcast you don't see at 1km like in the game. :)

But it is not due to the aircraft. It is due to the "clouds from the game" .

I said FA-18 because it allow to fly at 1100Km/h . That show the lake of clouds by missing fog inside clouds.

You can use the original aircraft you will have the same thing.

Into clouds we should have several level of fog. For exemple during thunderstorm into clouds you have 100% fog. When it is very thin clouds like a setting of 10% of clouds in the sky, fog into clouds coulds be around 40%.

It is the meaning of my request.
So using mods and addons or vannilla chopper and vanilla terrain won't change anything. It is just to show the limits of actual clouds.

If i wrote go in clouds and make a close formation flight then increase your distance to your leader to see this limits would you do it ?
I'm not sure this why i also used extrem example -> F-18 , dbo_afghanistan or clafghan.

No probs for me in MP

Upvoted

Duplicate mate.

+1.

Time to solve this kind of old problem with arma 3

I know it is a spam. But this is very simple to solve the problem i think and it is very important if you are flying in fog.

I don't understand why they don't solve it, it is like a none finished helicopter :(

Ok IAS and TAS are different but linked.

How many people here know TAS ? We are not a lot ...

I think if IAS is used it will be a hudge improvement for most of common people.

Of course if effect of altitude is implemented it is cool. But there is a lot of thing to do before (by using simple and basic things)

The script is not mine and everything i understand in the script is fine.

This is why i have reported this information.

HUD information are the reference so at 0 km/h with the aircraft or below the stall speed you will stall ...

Compare to the reality when GS is just the GS, IAS is the only important speed to continue to fly.

Yes, because :

For team in mission "air" part of the game is also important. Having wind effect increase the realism and difficulty to make some way of attack with bad weather.

So if the wind is strong and if you have a light aircraft, you will Stall (compare to just advance with a low ground speed).

So it limit your way to fly in the game.

It is like the NO AMSL INDICATOR in the game.

Both things give a lower interest to the "air" part of the game because scriptwriter want to improve the game and when you use it, it doesn't increase the game but it give you penalty.

In the script you can see also vortex effect.

The air way of the game can be 10 time better with few improvement.

1)Using Indicated Air Speed AS THE REFERENCE ( why not having both information ? GS and IAS ).

>will give to use wind effect on air object with no penalty.

2)Using AMSL (like arma 2 , we had AMSL + AGL ).

3. Cloud ceiling could change.

4. More Fog in clouds ( vertical and horizontal plan ) to give a stronger effect of flying in clouds.

5. Maybe the flying model for aircraft could be increase if both wing had their own lift.

I think some part are not very "hard" to increase compare to some other report. And the gain would be amazing for few cost.

edit of the original topic because it is not just affecting Aircraft.

Thank you progamer for this request !
It is SO horrible to see how helicopter and airplane are flying.

I hope it will be in futur release ( also developper told use that they would use TOH flight model for helicopter ... and helicopter still unrealistic :( )

I have creat a topic for this kind of problem also : http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=13263.

Upvoted.

+1 for you

some duplicate of : http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=14194 (please up vote it also ! thanks )

Upvoted even it is a duplicate because it is very annoying. NO AMSL indication and NO possibility to set constant level flight for AI.

Free DLC could bring more people on ARMA.

Find your friends to vote up this topic. Aircraft have just a very bad physX !

Close formation flight are more difficult because Aircraft piloting skill needed is closer to star wars than FSX !

More over, the maximum altitude is so bad created. At 10k m with the f-18 or 5k meters with the aircraft into arma 3, all of you control are blocked !

Please BI, improve the air physX it is just chaotique and the game could be really better in the Air if it was corrected !

If you play the f-18 the limitation is 10 000 meters. It still few when you know that fighters are often flying at FL420 or a little bit more !!

Please you use physX, use physX for good things and find a solution. Thanks !

Thank you heyvern69.

I would be more precise with some things.

@heyvern69 : i disagree about a key to change the HUD color. IRL you have 1 color and you keep it. Few new HUD had more than 1 color but it to have better readable information, not to change the colour as you want to see better.

@exxuDex :

1. IRL, your will loose speed by turning, and more over by hard turning, so the game need a G-effect to have a realistic loose of speed during hard turn.

2. ok

3)I think it is ok now, you could update it ?

4. "i can not see anything" it doesn't mean that it is a game problem. In my opinion HUD light is not good and information are not well sized. Lights / gear / flaps should be cockpit information ! On the HUD you only have flight information and weapons information. DEVs could get more space to adjust information size if they change few things.

5. ok

6. i'm not sure is about the thrust. it is more about game engine.

7. You already have it on the HUD ! it is not realistic and it is not a good choice to do something like that but you have it.

8. can say nothing, i didn't test it.

@DEVs / @oukej : Will we have feedback , or devs will read our thread ? People are hard working to increase flight model etc ... The game need just few basic change to be 100x better in the AIR part.

Wo ! it is a real surprise for me to see a answer from you.

So thank you for you answer.

We know that you are not making a flight sim and we don't want a flight sim like dcs etc ...

Things we don't like is the very few possibilities in aircraft / helicopter.

1. Throttle is not well working ( it is close to pushing a key to accelerate and another to decelerate ). A real axe with a precise control of throttle would be very nice.

2. The ability to separate engine / brakes / air-brakes. If you perform a landing on grass with a C-130 for special operation, you can't take-off because you are not able to have full throttle on brakes (in order to reduce the take of distance).

3. We are unable to taxi with heli and link to the 1) we are unable to use the power to well taxi with airplanes.

4. A BIG PROBLEM : you reference for the speed is GROUND SPEED. So when we have wind effect on helicopter and aircraft we came to wrong situations.

Example : Strong head wind at 180 km/H. Spawn in flight with your aircraft and reduce speed to 200km/h .
You will stall because the reference should be the IAS ( indicated air speed) and it is the GS ( ground speed). The game understand that you can't flight at 20 km/h . Ok but is is 20 km/h of GS so we are still flying IRL.

In heli strong cross wind, you should perform a flight at 0 km/h, but here the wind will push you and at a moment you will be forced to turn (the wind will come from the back) and you will have a speed of xxx km/h. IRL the move with the air mass, so there is no this kind of thing.

5. Maneuverability for helicopter and Airplanes could be improve. In fact with airplanes if you turn via ailerons you should turn due to the higher speed over the higher wing => more lift.

At the moment you can flight at 90° of turn, straight ahead.

About heli, i'm not the good one to speak about it but for real heli pilot it seems to be too arcade (really too arcade). Maybe more maneuverable ? I don't really know.

6. NO AMSL ! It is not possible to flight without AMSL altitude... Because At the moment all of your level flight depend of the surface below you. Over the sea you can easily maintain 2000m of level. Ok.

Above the north West of Altis it is not possible and it is a PAIN.
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=14194

7. HUD are not always well working. Information are not readable during the night without NVG or when you have sun in front of you.

Firing help on the hud are not where bombs or canon will hit the target.

8. Flaps have no effects on the stall speed.

9. Mass of the aircraft have no effects on landing distance, fuel consumption etc...

10. For FLIR the ability to have the dynamic view distance ( also on screen of the pilot, to see what the copilot is watching ).

But it is not flight model.
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=16434

At the moment it is all i remember and 1) to 7) are mains problems.

Thank you !

Edit : with heli when engines are down, it is like you are IDLE so you have no control to perform a good autorotation ... Huge pain to try to tuch the ground alive in several examples.

+1 with the demongod.

@SuicideKing : ok maybe it was a very good game ( i watched video ). But few things

G) IRL, yes there is safety but it is not with height but with speed. I still disagree with height safety. But ok for a safety with speed.

H) it is in the game ok but it is not realistic ! Like helicopter in the game nowadays , it is not realistic you can't control the gear.

j) +1

L) 2D cockpit is not good because radar fight are not real in ARMA =/
For close formation 2D cockpit is so horrible !
For VMC flight also.

GO check Falcon 4.0 BMS.

This is not because you saw few aircraft with, that mean all aircraft have ! :)
B

Vote here also ! http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15960

@SuicideKing : you speak about the L-39 in the game, try the F-18 also ( user creation but better than BI work for the moment).

A)B) you are right, it is not possible to fire fire on target with all weapon of the aircraft.

C) You mean in the game engine are always hit in first, or you mean IRL ?

Your both D) +1
E) It is not veering to the right for me =/
E) More realistic engagement yes. A real radar i think it is not possible actually in the game ( it is not lock-on or Falcon 4 BMS). But a more realistic radar range or missile range etc... WILL BE GREAT ! +1 for you.

Map navigation you have one, you have a watch it is enought for those little map =/
I'm not sure one map module would be great. There is a lot of thing to improve before ! But the idea is good.

F) Or not, depend of the aircraft would be better ! ( Russian in km/h, NATO in knots ).

G) I totally disagree with you. You request more realism and you request a noob thing. A safe mode (like on the F-18) Could be a good idea but NOT AN AUTOMATIC LOCK OF WEAPON BELLOW A CERTAIN ALTITUDE.

H) Same as G, you request more realism. So why are you saying that ??? it is so noob ! Do you think fighter pilot are in their A/C "i forget the train shirt ! Oh no it is an automatic retraction, easy ! " lol.

I) All aircraft don't have Afterburner ! The f-18 has. The l-39 not. => it is realistic !

J) What do you mean more precisely ?

K) ok. minor bug. but it is not good i agree.

L) the HUD is in good position ! it is just a FOV vision. Zoom and you will be able to read you HUD correctly. Zoom and you won't be able to do a good close formation flight ! SO i DISAGREE with you. Increase maybe the color between HUD and SKY to get a better visibility of information? Or sky color correction .

M) Again, all aircraft don't have air breaks, and they are in the game since arma 2 if you are IDLE.
So just, put a key to use air breaks ! :)

@DaveZember : You are right, i would mean, maybe the l-39 don't need one, but future fighter could !

Find your friends to vote up this topic. Aircraft have just a very bad physX !

Close formation flight are more difficult because Aircraft piloting skill needed is closer to star wars than FSX !

More over, the maximum altitude is so bad created. At 10k m with the f-18 or 5k meters with the aircraft into arma 3, all of you control are blocked !

Please BI, improve the air physX it is just chaotique and the game could be really better in the Air if it was corrected !

Add : You can already taxi at around 25 km/h put you need a very precise throttle :s.

I'm not sure that all informations should be in helmet because it is only in very few aircraft in the world.

Also, the weather engine change the wind direction very very very very often ( maybe 3-4 times per 5 minutes) .

So it is very hard to shoot with a sniper or to land with helicopter (wind effect activated ) with this kind of wind.

+1 for Xeno.

Upvoted.

2035 = 350 km/h for cars ? Sorry, so 20 years ago you were driving at 10 km/h ... huh ?

+1 , vote up it is really too fast.

PLS DO Something for pilot in the game !

@maxwell : sorry for the wrong category

that's so bad still no news from this problem. This is very difficult to maintain flight level with AGL. On arma 2, arma, OF we had AMSL ! why it is not include in the game now ? :(

ASFC = Above surface

Flaps Speed Behaviour

Zero 190 kmh On the ground still.
One 207 kmh Feeling a little light but still on the ground
Two 235 kmh Flying.

You can't use those speeds. Stage zero at 235 km/H you will also be flying ...

@Thx1164 : Thank for your tests. If you need to perform further test i've everything to pilot, so i could help you if you want.

+1 voted.

There is some script to affect aircraft or bullets. But no possibilites to have wind report.

vote here : http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15960

Nope they are using truesky... So it is possible.

Vote here : http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=13729

+1
You payed for it use it !

It will solved you problem or unrealistic rain ( NVG'S , rain inside building, etc ...)
It will allow snow !

It will allow several kind of cloud and different layers level.

You will win everything to use it at 100%.

All pilot of Arma and Sim will appreciate this tech and the game will be more realistic, more over if you achieve to do weather sync for MP.

E.g. of storm with rain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IpL8zh4hjQ&feature=c4-overview&list=UUm4QKlPwIdIiyhKJbC_wBFQ

is there any news from something to increase performance ?

+1 for tOBdavian.

MoreOver, why VBS 2.0 has very good feature it can load lot of player lot of AI with lot of scripts and it still better optimized like arma 3.
I someone has the answer i would be interested by it :) thanks.

+1 Arma3.64.exe :D 64bit improvement a dream for performance !

So why are you down voting if you say that there is a problem ?

Fly over the big city at the south West of the map,and even if you set your setting to the maximum you will see some wall poping at the last time ( 200meters or something like that very short ).
but in the same time you are abble to see buildings at 5km ...

I will try to make a screen.

@ProGamer :
If you have watched my pictures, you can see that clouds are trying to simulate fog by using white wall. This is very visible with the pictures.

Then compare to fog if you set it a 90% with the weather editor. You can see that it is totaly different. There is not fog in clouds.

@ProGamer :
As you can see on his pictures you have a missing clouds into a sphere around the player.

On my picture you can see that i don't have this effect, but a wall effect. Because on mountain i can't have the missing effects below me due to the ground.

Maybe both problem are linked maybe not.

This is why i was requesting real fog into clouds to be close to the reality on all way and increase the gameplay also.

Maybe with solving the problem of this topic you won't solve the problem about my topic.

I don't know ! Only developer know and this is why i think my topic is legit ( for the moment ).

@ProGamer : you closed my ticket it was linked to the one here but not the same.

I was not asking to remove this buble, because i don't know why we have it. But to really add fog into clouds.
Because in the future for high level map you can walk, see, shot, fly into clouds like in a good day !
Adding the fog (that already exist but close to the ground ) to cloud would perfect for immersion.

Upvoted for this problem also.

this is the kind of little detail that increase the immersion of a game.

I have 8GB of RAM + SSD + GTX 770 and i don't see this kind of limit but i feel it can be optimised.

Up voted to support you :)

+1 with others.

And this bog is not very "important" compare to other bogs, but this is a very important thing for pilots in arma 3.

Still this bog. It is very annoying in cloud flight !

+1

Sorry, the title was not updated. Now it is ok.

A frogfoot is a russian A/C

Yes , imperfect stuff make the game much realistic. You should check with a software the real Heading of the runway ! If it is really 200, so i vote YES to change the runway and the heading value :)

@MulleDK19 : it is true ! i agree to change this fail !

But i still not agree to have RWY 20 with HDG 200 ! If we want perfect world uninstall ARMA. I mean if you want perfect HDG you will want perfect line of bullet ? ( not curved ) No wind effect on bullet ? etc ...

So i agree to change bog, or fail , but i can't understand to want a perfect world, it will make the game with a bad feeling if everything is perfect.

@sarlac : Because the north of the island is the real and it don't allow to have a runway with HDG 200.

And in the reality runway 20 for HDG 195 and RWY 02 for HDG 015 is what happen. It makes the game more realistic. This is not what everybody want ?

in Real life it is the same thing.

Example :

https://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/aip/enligne/PDF_AIPparSSection/VAC/AD/2/1309_AD-2.LFES.pdf

RWY 03 -> QFU 025
RWY 21 -> QFU 205

RWY 20 don't mean it is heading 200 !!!! But it mean it is HDG 195 or 196 or 197 or 198 or 199 or 200 or 201 or 202 or 203 or 204.

Upvoted

+1 voted but only on a realistic way.