This has to Happen... We've too long tolerated this, BIS given us little tweaks but ignored many of the Elephants in the Room like the UI Menu and the Squad Communications.

Chiefly because there were too many requests for Nice to Have's, and the glaringly obvious stuff has been overlooked in the culture of over-extended Optimism (they don't have enough resources to solve even 10% off all the things on the Alpha!). Another good reason not to have a PUBLIC ALPHA, but selectively get a group of testers like DSLYECXI and other community leaders, rather than Joe Average who knows nothing of Game Design and Coding or the Military.

The good stuff on this tracker is obfuscated, by idiots saying "Melee" or Copy BF3 or COD or whatever. We've ended up with a beautiful looking game that hasn't corrected the major flaws in itself.

@simp1y@hotmail.co.uk "While female soldiers are a contentious issue" - It's not contentious at all, we have Females in the Military for well over 100 years (Nursing units in WW1 were military units) since the 1980's Females have been taking up Combat Roles . What this actually is, is immature chauvinism from alot of people who don't know what they are on about. Just like people who get all angry about sexual orientation, I served for a longtime and hand on heart anyone who has served doesn't really care about Male / Female, Religion / Sexual Orientation. All we care about is professionalism. People who try to muddy this with "Women cannot carry or aren't as strong as men" if this was the sole requirement of a Soldier we wouldn't have Women in Uniform.

This is about as Contentious as Women having the right to vote, which is a complete non-issue because obviously women deserve the same rights in any modern, free thinking and open society.

Dev's lock this one, and don't waste your time. Plenty more important things to get on with.

In reality Military Explosives is a very exact science. The problem comes that in a came like this, you cannot Tamp, shape, time or sequence explosives. For example you don't bring down a Bridge with a Satchel Charge, you don't rig a house for demolition with a Satchel Charge, although you can blow one to bits with one! Satchel Charges are for sticking in Fortifications and Blowing them / killing everyone inside with an Over-pressurewave.

I would love to see some real Physics for Explosives but it's far to complex to accurately model.

Military Engineers, EOD and others do not throw explosive around, they carefully and deliberately place them. C4 might be stable, but the Detonators that initiate the C4 is not, you chuck a C4 block down with a Detonator in it into the ground and it lands funny, you can initiate it (as it is a primary explosive) and this will high order the C4. Net result you are "pink misted" over a large geographic area.

So no military engineer will argue that C4 isn't stable, it can be thrown around - Ask them if they would do it with a Detonator in it...

There is no problem which cannot be solved by a suitable application of
high explosives.

• William W. Hughes

Sound has been this series Achilles heel, especially when you see the quality of some of the modders, who have expertise but little resource and they can still do better than the Studio which has both expertise and resource.

The worst is the terribly "Clunky" Fireteam communication.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=2139

I keep going on about it, but I feel like I'm taking Crazy Pills like Mugatu in Zoolander.

Here is the compelling reason for doing this....

"It means all the Hundreds of thousands of hours put in to building ARMA, A2, A2 OA and all their vehicles and environments is not discarded. It will live on, continue to be used continue to be relevant, continue to be improved upon and refined. Community content is brought forward, many of the original authors will redo skins and models to make use of newer features."

Think of all those hundreds of thousands of hours of work just thrown away, because we wouldn't do a few hundred hours more work to resolve the issues that KJU highlighted above, it's frankly crazy not to do it. The Sandbox is huge, the Palette is huge, why throw a huge portion of it away to just re-invent the wheel?

Honour the Coders and Gamers who went before, keep it all, make this game the Ultimate in Military Sandbox games.

C4 does not explode if you shoot it, neither does it explode if you set it on fire (it actually makes a pretty good fuel if you run out of Hexamine!).

To explode C4 you need a Primary Explosive e.g a Detonator.

Shooting C4 will do nothing except deform the block and waste a round.

Oh and Explosives do not "Go UP".

They usually "Low Order" (slow explosion) / Low Explosive or "High Order" (fast explosion) High Explosive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_material

So that's what supposed "Realism Nuts" (as the OP put forward) go on about.

Placing two blocks next to each other, then the other would probably (there is no certainty in this world) sympathetically detonate when the 1st Charge high ordered.

So to Recap.

1. Shooting C4 does nothing.
2. If you successfully "High order" C4, any other C4 Close by (within a few metres) would probably high order as a sympathetic detonation.

100% Agree with OP. The open Alpha nearly killed this game with all the nonsense, and the really important spirit of the Game was nearly lost. Luckily the community is just about strong enough to stop the game descending into an "X-factor" popularity contest and to stay true to itself. This Game is a MILITARY GAME not an FPS.

Apologies guys I've got problems with Firefox 22.0 update "multi-clicking" switching to Chrome, didn't mean to piss you all off.

Hmm on my works machine on a River bed Encryption might be a Browser issue..

We have got very blazee, about transmitting Signals on Radio. Believe me if the Balloon had gone up (e.g the Cold War had kicked off) in the 1980's and early 1990's if you transmitted in the blind on any Radio Transmitter you would have had 155mm or 200mm+ Shells land all over you.

We have since 1991, had wars against nations who are tier 3 Military Powers e.g Countries who are no where near parity in terms of Technology or even close.

We still use Radio's because we can get away with it, that would change overnight if we went up against a capable opponent with DF /RF and ICOM. I would say we have selectively chosen to ignore the hard won knowledge in the military in the last 50 years and have been lulled into a false sense of security, and are continuing to think that transmitting (giving away your position in the Electromagnetic Spectrum is a good idea - it really isn't it).

So we have generations of people who think it's okay and there is no Risk and use the examples of the last few years to justify their position. You can jam a GPS with a device the size of packet of cigarettes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfPc8tH8vBY

Personally If I was invading a Country or had targets I want preserving I would cover them in GPS Jammers....."Wow look at your JDAM miss!". You could even Transmit it country wide on bigger Antenna's, then use GLONAS or another system like E-LORAN rather than GPS.

This Company....

http://www.rohde-schwarz.com/en/home_48230.html

Has opened plants all over the world (even in China) and makes some of he best Intercept equipment going - I would bet my pension that the Chinese have stolen all of their research and have some serious capabilities in this Arena and have passed it around their friends.

This game supposedly (once upon a time) was about the Greater Iranian Caliphate e.g IRAN taking over the Middle East and invading Greek Islands? Iran is pretty Professional, despite all the photoshop stuff, they are capable.

Anyway, In game have it and do what you will with it. Be aware that in any kind of "Full War" the Electro-magnetic Spectrum is, remains, will be deadly, and radio transmissions have to be burst, and extremely narrow, but even then, no guarantees you won't receive an artillery barrage on your position.

@JindraCZ two posts is hardly bumping. ;) and that wasn't my intention at all.

I think I am advocating that we should consider a GPS enabled and a GPS disabled mode in the Editor, so we could have the best of both worlds?

It would mean we could model stuff prior to GPS easily, like the Vietnam Game modes in A2:OA, like SHACKTAC use. But we can enable it for Futuristic Battle?

There is actually a move away from NETWORK Centric warfare. Why? because there are very skilled people out there (Blackhats) who can crack encryption, break systems and networks with their guile skill and abilites.

Add state funding and professionalism (like in China) and your State Sponsored Cyber Warfare Teams can be extremely good.

Have your entire military force networked, might be a significant boost to your Situational Awareness, but if it's compromised your entire force disposition is given away to the Enemy, and given that 90% of Warfare is locating the enemy so you can bring your forces to bear effectively and then eradicate them, it is a significant single point of failure.

Even during WWII the Engima Codes didn't give away as much information as modern IT systems do, and breaking Signals is not easy but neither is it impossible. With Realtime Data it's likely to have less security not more, otherwise the delay between Encryption / Transmission / Decryption is too large to mean that the Real-time information is not actionable in real time.

Network Centric Warfare isn't viable even with Crypto and other security systems, it's all your eggs in one basket, and with the skills around the globe it wouldn't be easy to keep your security at such a high level.

For the purposes of the Game, you may as well do it and have GPS on everything because it helps us all out.

Rubbish, I work in the INFOSec sphere particularly in SSDLC.

There is nothing that cannot be exploited, nothing is secure, if you transmit you can be detected, if you can be detected you are "Seen / Located" and you can be shot and destroyed.

I did over 10 years in the UK military specifically in Comms, IT security etc. You are lulled into a false sense of security fighting relatively technologically challenged adversaries like the Taliban or insurgents, against China, North Korea or CIS we would struggle because they are extremely sophisticated from a Comms Intercept point of view.

Do you think the NSA cannot crack Foreign Military Codes? Or crack 90% of Encryption real time within minutes? Do you think foreign Intelligence services cannot do the same? Principle of least priviledge, and least transmission applies.

Just because technology has moved on, doesn't mean it's any more secure relative to the time it's in. It's a continual thing, like evolution, the threat evolves the counter evolves. But rest assured the Threat evolves faster than the defence and will always have a slight edge.

Will it be more secure than today, probably, will it be as secure relative to the threats of 2035? Who knows, but I would put the smart money on probably not.

This has to Happen... We've too long tolerated this, BIS given us little tweaks but ignored many of the Elephants in the Room like the UI Menu and the Squad Communications.

Chiefly because there were too many requests for Nice to Have's, and the glaringly obvious stuff has been overlooked in the culture of over-extended Optimism (they don't have enough resources to solve even 10% off all the things on the Alpha!). Another good reason not to have a PUBLIC ALPHA, but selectively get a group of testers like DSLYECXI and other community leaders, rather than Joe Average who knows nothing of Game Design and Coding or the Military.

The good stuff on this tracker is obfuscated, by idiots saying "Melee" or Copy BF3 or COD or whatever. We've ended up with a beautiful looking game that hasn't corrected the major flaws in itself.

Flashlights are dangerous on the battlefield, infact they will get you killed..

Top tip go out onto the Battlefield at night, with Enemy out there. Turn on your Flashlight, see how long you live.

Flashlights became sexy with Police SWAT teams etc, and all that Rail Furniture that "tactical combat-wombat people love", (More weight at the end of the rifle, more movement less accuracy). Lasers and NVG's are used alot, as are IR Strobes and IR Cylumes. There is a reason the Military use NVG's especially Passive ones.

When you run around with a Flashlight all you are doing is sticking a big "Shoot here/ Look at me /here I am sign" for all to see.

No point putting all that Military realism into this game, to then break it with Flashlights. The maximum would be small red filtered torches, but certainly no White Light Flashlights.

Furthermore, Panoramic NVG might seem good, but if it means you have to carry more weight and more batteries. In future I would reckon a version of Google glasses, would be more likely.

e.g Ballistic Glasses with a HUD display, and a NVG (e.g passive or active Light amplification)

But he reported it, so credit where credit is due....

GOOD SPOT!! That's actually quite amusing.

@z-boson it's nothing to do with Hardware.

"The term Engine when used to describe a piece of software is frequently used by developers when speaking to a wider, layman audience, to describe what they would otherwise refer to as library, platform, SDK or object, to denote an encapsulated block of functionality."

BIS will not give out full access to their Engine because it's their intellectual property and their Money Stream. It's how they earn their money, this isn't open source development, this is a profitable business.

If they gave out the Source Code of the engine, we would as community probably re-build it from the ground up.

Why would they give it away, when they have invested untold millions in this Engine? They would effectively cut their own throat.

I would suggest if you want to know more about Software Development Lifecycle, and it's methodologies (AGILE etc) you do some courses in it.

Or learn some programming languages, like C+ C# Python, java etc, and maybe do some asp.NET 4.5 programming to get some experience. Software development follows very similiar methodologies, it's the technical coding that is difficult, Software Project Management Methodologies are roughly the same whether you are developing "Customer Facing Web Apps", or "Games".

Games however are much more complex, as they require things you wouldn't normal need in Web Apps or Office Type software. Examples such as 3D Graphics, surround sound, Remappable Buttons, TS integration etc etc etc.

Honestly try building some software, even little things it will open your eyes to the complexity of some of these issues.

The Physics of Light is a massive thing to accurate code and replicate.

Exactly, it's an Engine limitation. If ARMA 4 was rebuilt from the the ground up it would be on the list, along with better sounds, better Physics implementation.

@z-boson - Proper full dynamic Lighting is just not something you can bolt on, as tpw said.

If there was a Game Engine that could do everything, it would be used in every game. Unfortunately there isn't, and thats because of Trade off, better Performance, Graphics, Render distances, draw distances, AI, effects, sound.

No Engine can do it all well, and that's the problem, we just have to live with it until someone creates an Engine that can do everything or we just learn to live with it. It's just the way it is.

How is the lighting in 2013 not good enough? Was it better in previous years, and have you seen the future and is it going to better?

I think you mean compared to other engines of it's Generation it's lighting isn't as good.....well.......

Lets Compare ARMA's engines with other Game Engines, they cannot render a full persistant Open Sandbox with huge numbers of AI and massive battles.

It's like saying a Motorbike is more Powerful than a 14 Ton Articulated Truck, because the Motorbike is Faster.

You cannot just highlight one Facet and say the engine is bad, they are all optimized for different things. For Example Call of Duty can look really good, but you have zero freedom of movement in that game, so it's an on Rail's shooter (not my cup of tea, I prefer a more free form experience where my decisions and actions lead to different outcomes) .

I can live with the Light issues in return for the Huge leap forward ARMA 3 has been for the Series. Personally I think it looks amazing.

Also I would wait for the ARMA 3 Beta - Saw the Live feed a few days ago, looks like Beta is a significant step up.

Depends..It's all about the shaped charge and how it's designed. If it was a HE or thermobaric you wouldn't survive if it hit a few metres away. A proper AT Weapon, it is possible, but not likely. You would still be hurt and you would be deaf as a post, but it might not kill you.

Shaped charges are very focused, I wouldn't recommend standing next to one if it went off, but there is a chance it won't kill you. But that doesn't mean you wouldn't need medical attention.

I like this...It has alot of Potential and would allow us a greater degree of freedom in Mission and Scenario Creation.

Functional refinement is exactly what this Alpha's about. It's us help the Dev's produce a better product within the overall budgets, engine constraints and time constraints available.

I think it helps not to think of ARMA 3 as a Game or Simulation so much as a "Sand Box". We as a community tend to create our own fun, scenario's, multiplayer, solo missions, content and equipment. So actually having this more open at an earlier stage is great, to help us get the tools we need to build what we want.

I think BIS will survive, their market is pretty niche but loyal. The graphical Overhaul, and hopefully the Sound Overhaul will help.

Equally the success of Gaming Groups like SHACK TACTICAL have really helped push this, much more quickly and arguably more effectively than big EA Games Razz-ma-tazz marketing Campaign, truth being that EA type Gamers wouldn't take to this kind of game.

The recent All-In-ARMA AiA is an amazing piece of work, and the amount of content this is unlocking into the Sandbox, means we are building the models and items for the Game, and what we need from the Dev's is the Functionality and logic plus AI and scripting structures inplace so that we can take alot of what the community has done in the last 10 years and update it.

I have to agree the Seagull is bloody stupid. :)

RickOShay - "As an aside I think ARMA needs to move more in the direction of mass appeal than towards the sim or tactical shooter. If I want to use a torch and get shot in the process then so be it. As mentioned by Bohemia they want to broaden the appeal of ARMA3 by making it more playable (dare I say 'fun') rather than adhering to the rigid requirements of a sim or tactical shooter. Simplifying the inventory system and loadout process is a very important step in this process. I know this is off topic but it illustrates an important point imo."

No it should never do this. The world will become very bland if every Shooter is the same. It's amazing Enduring appeal is that it doesn't do that arcade type Bull-****.

If it does this, it loses it's USP and in a market space full of CoD and BF4 it won't cut it as an "Arcade on Rails Shooter". It isn't true to it's heritage, lineage or it's own Superb functions.

Bare in mind, Real Military training is done with VBS the Commercial Defence version of this. You cannot claim that of CoD and BF, so the last thing it should do is destroy it's own Unique Selling Point.

It's also a Dead give away at night to have a Torch underwater. This is a tactical shooter, you would not use a torch underwater on Ops, you may as well send an E-mail to the enemy tell them what time you are turning up.

Tritium illuminated underwater Compass (like a watch dial that recharges in sunlight)....Yes, do that but diving at Night in the Dark without illumination is why Special Forces are Special.

I really wouldn't recommend using a torch underwater, when on OPS, not if you want to succeed, you would in reality be gifting the enemy an easy kill.

I would prefer climbing, but honestly I'm pretty sure someone else has raised a ticket...

Soldiers do climb around alot...It would be great if a Team mate could help you out lifting you to the next floor or to the roof a single storey dwelling.

http://www.idfblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/IDF-combat-soldiers-climbing-the-wall-at-the-obstacle-course.jpg

http://cdn.lightgalleries.net/50aa5e49ea29f/images/01102013_Becherer_Afghanwar017-1.jpg

http://www.thenational.ae/deployedfiles/Assets/Richmedia/Image/AD200810188860483AR.jpg

http://ootp.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/climbing-a-roof-during-security-patrol_120206-m-mm918-006c.png

Pretty sure this is a duplicate issue however.

ROE should be always Inherent right to Self Defence. You may always fire if fired upon.

@FeralCircus you managed to undermine your entire post with an Edit. Divide by Zero Award for you Sir...

Seriously though if you want the most realistic Gun Battles acoustically you need to invest in the sound engineering. Something that has never been ARMA's strongest suite.

The Best most realistic sounding gun battle, purely from a physics and urban environment is the shoot out in Heat by Michael Mann. Ex-SAS man Andy McNab was a technical advisor and it shows, and he employed some really outstanding sound engineers. This is truly what battle sounds like and is as close as you would really want to get, from my own experiences in Iraq it was a full on devastating cacophony of sound.

It really is this visceral, and no computer game has ever come as close as this film did....Crank it up, plug in your ear phones prepare to void yourself....You have been warned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=USZARLgMl6o

I can live with that, if you want to run around encumbered then great but there is a penalty. I like this solution it keeps everyone happy.

@Dr Death - I would suggest you get 100kg Backpack, put it on, then grab a personal Weapon. Go for a 10 mile Run...

In the British Army, The 10-mile march is conducted as a squad, over undulating terrain with each candidate carrying a bergen (backpack) weighing 35 lbs (plus water) and a weapon. The march must be completed in 1 hour and 50 minutes (This is called a CFT Combat Fitness test). Lifting your mate (all of his kit and your kit) at the End of a Combat Fitness test and runn a 100yards in a set time is a decent feat then you have to lift a heavy weight into the back of a truck and haul yourself in.

500kg is insane, 100kg is difficult.. Only the SAS would go with Bergens at 100kg plus.

You cannot fight effectively this encumbered, you cannot get to cover, cannot sprint or move you can jog, but sprinting with this weight is a good way to injure yourself.

In the 1990's this is what the US army went with..

Fighting load: 48 pounds = 21kg (A fighting load includes a weapon, bayonet, clothing, helmet, load-bearing equipment, and ammunition.)
Approach march load: 72 pounds = 32kg (This load adds a lightly loaded rucksack.)
Emergency approach march load: 120 to 150 pounds = 54kg - 68kg. (This load adds a larger rucksack.)

This is well short of even 1/ 5th of the 500kg you stated.

Seriously fill a backpack with weight go for a long run - 10 miles, then do 5 hours of continuous Paint-balling at the end of the run whilst still carrying that weight. An Infantryman at war is one of the greatest feats of Physical and Psychological hardship imaginable. It's not like a running a marathon, or an endurance event, it's like being a Pack Mule on a Marathon where you've got a chance of being killed.

He must have Quads made of Titanium...

You wouldn't do this in Real-life. Rolling around with your eye to your scope whilst you roll around, it's a good way of gouging your eye out.

Either way it needs to be consistent. Rolling away I'm happy with, but doing it zoomed and shooting as you roll is crazy.

I think this is very silly, a helicopter is a very delicate piece of kit, you clip the ground above 20kts and you will crash spectacularly, especially with skids. With a wheeled helicopter it is much easier but would still cripple the under carriage.

The speeds you were hitting those ridges was too high and would invariable result in a spectacular crash.

These things are really on a knife edge, the slightest instability and they destroy themselves due to the forces involved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3QgXQ39aL5I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nX5ZxQEWneI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N0E_UASBs7U

Bottomline - Helicopters are dangerous enough on their own when operating within their own performance limits, doing the peoples Elbow on the ground with your Helicopter is very / I mean Extremely dangerous!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hc4pEXRdDvo

Alot of these helicopters land properly and then spiral out of control, Helicopters are wildly unpredictable when you start hitting things with them.

Helicopter + Hitting anything = 99.99% chance of Crash

Nav and Comms, yes, silly gadgets, no.

Since the Mid 90's they have been talking about Drones and all kinds of HUD's and crazy stuff and do you know what....None of it has happened.

Do you know why? Weight.

All the technology is heavy, needs batteries etc even the more modern and cutting edge kit is heavy. The Soldier needs to stay light and mobile, he needs Water and Ammunition, lots of Ammunition, Food and Radios. This in of itself is very heavy, especially with Mortar systems, AT Launchers, grenades, Spare Ammo. Gas masks, First Aid kits etc etc. The average trooper is massively overburdened and we haven't even mentioned Glasses, Bino's, NVG's, Body Armour, Laser Designators etc etc.

All of this "Uber-Blue-skies-thinking-Tech" never gets adopted because you will be shifting 60kg of Kit and you simply cannot fight effectively like this .

Look at the XM8, XM29 OICW or the XM25, or the FIST programme, or Future Soldier.

Everytime we save weight on a Weapon System, they take more Ammo, or batteries or something else.

Future Tech, is just too far ahead of it's time, there will be no massive differences in the future for the Average Grunt, even in 20 years.

There is a second Pillar, and that is cost, the Average Grunt will cost hundreds of thousands of Dollars to equip and train, only to be turned into "Pink Mist" by an IED, artillery Shell, grenade or bullet.

Any changes will be small and incremental, not massively different.

Okay, you've convinced me. Might even have tactical advantages, shooting might not be heard in a noisy Storm?

Interesting...But as the Wind is the primary driver of Swell and Sea State, would we now want Stormy seas as well?

Yeah but that makes it more of why have it then? Snipers are extremely rare, you might have a small section of Sniper Pairs in an Infantry Battalion. In reality they are very useful for scouting, denying area's to enemy infantry and seeking to remove Enemy key figures.

They aren't integrated into Fireteams, or Squads or Platoons. There are usually designated Marksmen, but a Marksman isn't a sniper. He is a skilled individual able to use a Weapons system between 500m and 1000m. Snipers are skilled at take downs well beyond this, and usually employ a specialist Rifle, Scope and non-standard Ammunition.

Hollywood, Computer Games and media fiction have turned the Sniper into some kind of hero worship. 99% of a snipers life is sitting still (getting cramp and having limbs fall asleep) for hours maybe even days, pissing their pants and crapping themselves because they cannot move to take a dump. Unless they are lucky enough to have a hide, but even then they minimize the risk because they are out on their own, with no support or help usually quickly available. Better not to be seen, rather than compromise themselves. This is the true skill of the Sniper, true discipline, endurance and most of all patience. Shooting is one dimension, but snipers are much more skilled in navigation, use of terrain, stealthy movement, hard rountine discipline and environmentally aware.

Most snipers will not remove a scope cover, until they have a definite target and are preparing to get their eye-in ready for the shot.

I'm not a fan of snipers in ARMA unless everything is modelled, then if I get hit at 1.5km or whatever, I have to "Doth my Cap" because some has had to really work for that kill, using proper calculations, windage, Coriolis adjustments and an effective Spotter. All these Battlefield Games have made an Exact Science just a point and click, that looks about right *Boom* rather than any real skill.

Occasional sun flare off a scope? As in random time executed, as opposed to Orientation executed?

This wouldn't make sense on cloudy days, or at night? You would have to code alot of exceptions.

Better to just base it on the relative direction of the Sniper, to the observer relative to the sun (if it is there).

This would be a realism breaker if it wasn't implemented correctly and could prove a bit of a headache regards Physics and how reflected light is coded if at all?

Great suggestion, might not be feasible.

I saw JESTER814 do a video on this with a 12.7mm Rifle... Trying to shoot this "Big" round through a wall into a Target.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xsDcI2ax2hA#t=173s

The Bullet might have a penetration value, but when it hits the wall it seems to make no difference, this is believe is because all materials have the same value? I might be wrong, but it's not obvious that bullets do more damage or different levels of damage depending on what material the bullet strikes.

Probably because different materials haven't had a value attributed to them, equally there maybe no method to recall that value when struck by a Bullet or object.

It seems simple, but actually if not implemented into the Engine it can be really difficult to do, unless you find a work around and this can lead to limitations and problems.

Good spot..

Why oh why did BIS make this Alpha open to everyone...There should have been some kind of Vetting process, getting people with the ARMA 2 Community and recommending people. Like all of the Clan Players, and the MOD Community, not just every Tom, Dick and bell-end who stumps up cash on steam.

Seeing thing's like "We demand a X-box Controller Presets", it makes me cringe and makes me realise that there are people out there that just don't get ARMA and will with the best of intentions, bloody ruin this game given half a chance.

8300+ Issues of which at least 50% of them are Duplicates or a Complete waste of time. You care barely see the good suggestions for all the crap.

"7. All soldiers, not only squad leader, should have content in "green square bobbing above head"... easy visualisation of class."

No, if BIS does this it is no longer ARMA. If you want something similiar use the SHACKTAC HUD.

BIS don't you dare do anything as heinous as Player/Class Markers!!! This is not an arcade game, never has been and if it wants to continue to have a dedicated and loyal following it must never become or adopt "Arcade" Game type conventions.

If ARMA makes even one step down this path it will damn itself and destroy the very thing that makes ARMA Brilliant, Unique, Addictive and one of the most enduring Franchise's with a super loyal fan base.

Yeah mean the Flash and Flame from the end of the Muzzle like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ChFEGmIS7vc

Then Yeah, there should be maybe 3 different ones that rotate rapidly to give the effect of Muzzle Flash...

It doesn't vary as much as you think. Plus Soldiers in the field, do not over-oil their barrels and Bolt Assemblies because the smoke and Flame is a give away.

Over Lubrication is often as bad or worse than under-lubrication depending on conditions and tactical requirements.

Ah I get you now.... Good video. It would also make night-fighting that little bit harder because not every shot would have a muzzle flash of equal intensity.

Yep I support this.

I do get it... But then you need to redesign the Helicopter models...All of them.

Because some like Sea Kings/ Sikorski S-61, Chinnooks, CH-46 and Float plane helicopters can float, but also have FLoats Skids attached or Wheels, Not normal Skids.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSht3NvNE0jD5wsC0Fzd2vI26nfZpjFzPqu9HX_wAcJ4Dd5pn59

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/military/rotorcraft/ch47sd/images/dvd-110-07.jpg

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/53853000/jpg/_53853666_53851528.jpg

All others tend to avoid water, so you would need Helicopters modelled as either - Floating or non-floating.

Skid- Helicopters would never dip their skids in the water, it dangerously unbalances the Aircraft. The slightest movement in any direction and the resistance of the water would act as pivot and the helicopter would topple like a spinning top, Blade hits the water, Helicopter spins out smashes itself to pieces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=FPw4MoWM95c#t=13s

Watch this video from 13's onwards, you see how the nose digs in and the whole helicopter pivots and then crashs as the blades hit the surface of the sea.

Skids act more like "Sea Anchor" due to the surface area, compared to say Nose/ jockey wheels.

Well, bearing in mind this happens when a helicopter hits water,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=eff-t6cKLCM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=FPw4MoWM95c#t=16s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=j-HvlJTsw9g#t=15s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=KpoeSMXs0mE#t=0s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YZsqhoCQXNY#t=15s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=b88vkqU3gaw#t=11s

I'd say that exploding is a reasonable assumption given the limits of the ARMA 3 engine...

Some helicopters do float, it's not easy and it's not particularly commonly done

Down voted.

NON-ISSUE - If it's really Dark then so much the better it supports my case for Natural Night vision to be improved. 7660

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=7660

Does look awful, needs to be addressed. This was not an issue in ARMA 2 so they should go back and copy what they did there.

That said Ladders have always been a bit buggy in the ARMA series.

Thats a bit naughty isn't it, advertise that it's reloadable.

It should say "Reloadable if sent back to factory!!!".

@samogon, when I was in Afghanistan 45 Commando were chucking Javelins around like confetti in OP HERRIC 9....These babies, not Roman ones even became a Verb "Jave it!!!" "Jave that position" "Jave 'em" ...

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRl_lvvw9lSCQZHz3qnVTP3FADhVm99Oa53Ylre6Dr2V3FG7y28

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=r5229GYwctM#t=53s

Principally At concentrations of Enemy behind Compound walls..not exactly fair but War isn't fair. So sorry about the PvP issue but you all need to spread out and move quickly from cover to cover and lay down suppressive fire.

Don't nerf missiles because they cause alot of damage, just learn to deal with it.

ARMA isn't fair that's what makes it real.

@samogon you do hit a very good point and I'm not sure if BIS is implementing AT properly.

There are two kinds of AT, reloadable and disposable. I always remember in ARMA / OFP Cold War Crisis the 66mm Law was reloadable, which used to make me cringe.

Things like Carl Gustav are clearly reloadable, AT4's and LAW's obviously not. NLAW I have no idea.

Just as a Clarification on here, G - Gravity still acts on Rockets. The key factor is the Escape Velocity required, something like 11km a Second. If you threw a stone horizontally at this speed it would fall around the earth perpetually, e.g Orbit.

In physics, escape velocity is the speed at which the kinetic energy plus the gravitational potential energy of an object is zero. It is the speed needed to "break free" from the gravitational attraction of a massive body, without further propulsion.

Yes Rockets can generate lift, either directly or if they have wings, but Gravity still acts on them and the arc they trace is easily plotable. It's only when they match or exceed Escape Velocity when they won't return to earth at some point. So Rocket Projectiles should still trace an arc of somekind.

Not sure what an Irregular Projectile is? Maybe it's a Potato?

But for the purposes of ARMA it works fine as it is, otherwise this could be getting unmanagably complex for our needs.

Unless of course we start firing ICBM's or using Naval PHANLANX or GOALKEEPER or Railgun type weapons.

Crew Served Weapons in General are badly implemented.

It would be good to see future Weapon systems well designed, and the ability for Weapons Crews to Shoulder Crates or Ammunition, with just a Rifle and a Few magazines for Security.

Like the XM307 which can be changed from 25mm grenades to 0.50cal MG in under 2mins. Plus all the other crew served weapons.

There will still be Crew Served Weapons platforms in the future.

Let's be honest if you are in the British Army, Having decent Ammo was a hit and miss affair...

"Oh look Israeli IMI BAe Ammunition.....Yay!"...

Or

"FFS not cocking Radway Green Crap again....."

I think the ability to handle ammunition is an important piece of the Simulation that is missing.

UP-VOTED because I want Ammunition Loadouts and Magazines addressed, But I don't want to support this particular solution.

I think it is valid, but consider a different approach, or solution.

@Treehugger, have you played much Multiplayer? Because Often, even with TS or ACRE the noise of the Environment can really get in the way of "Hey, stay still.." Especially when MG's and Explosions are going off.

It's exactly the same if you are trying to dump stuff in a Team mates pack, like Morphine or a Belt of SAW Ammo.

Keep the current setup but Add cancel Button to jump out of action mid-flow.

This could cause problems in Multi-player when you are healing people and they don't know. What if they move, rotate or fire? It will become really difficult to heal people, it's not insurmountable just something to consider..As well as other issues which might arise from unintentional movement whilst trying to do any function.

I would prefer a cancel action button. Because unintentional movement will make long winded operations even longer.

It is possible to do, they just need to create the methods.

We (the community) can then make interesting MODS using these tools. They need to implement many of these Animations, Scripts and tools so we can build things.

The last few method for Helo drops and VERTREP have been awful, in fact they are GOD AWFUL.

Parachuting Supplies from Helicopters? WTF.... Yet this was introduced in ARMA2 OA, and it was ridiculous.

Brians999 this is a different but related issue.

That ticket wants an AI Position "Creating an dropping waypoint".

We want an overhaul of the way Helicopters are used and implemented, both graphically but also in the manner in which items are Air-transported.

The other issue is just a simple we want items dropped here.

We are talking about how it's animated and how it gets there. Related but different.

Agreed, I would really love to see this implemented and with vehicles, Boats, supplies and Artillery Units as well.. None of this Parachuting supplies out of Helicopters nonsense.

This has to be done from an Immersion and realism standpoint.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTHWO-GORcdA0v4XpwKxUR7TXkWmqd0Qnbo66angcMtIrWCGNpAtw

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/5032af546bb3f72f2f000000-900/here-a-chinook-lifts-a-naval-special-warfare-inflatable-boat-and-deploys-crew-from-a-ladder.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0epJVAQhXa8/UB5t84Hw3uI/AAAAAAAACow/3XLTQoFpTl8/s1600/Chinook+underslinging+155mm+ultralight.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSHgds-oO0GlNso2-PZ3KbmbmzLQ-DHhjSPbunAOyshOqu3N4Vnzw

http://mjm.luckygunner.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Chinook.jpg

http://cache.desktopnexus.com/thumbnails/123038-bigthumbnail.jpg

http://www.hightech-edge.com/wp-content/uploads/boeing-bell-v22-osprey-carring-m777.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQVm5UvBeIhFBQgQl5Ja6h_U2-vbYSQZP89Mh6OMHSD-fHWP2sB

You need to animate a Huge Cargo Net, or Cargo Loading Straps depending on the size of the load. e.g Vehicles have Straps, Box Cargo (e.g Resupply) goes in a giant net.

Doing MOUT against an AI like that would be a nightmare!

I like your Macro suggestion, I believe (I maybe wrong) someone has raised that the ability to record Macro's is missing in ARMA 3 editor.

The one thing I was thinking about last night, was the Player / AI models. A Human being can move from A to B whilst their torso faces another direction.

e.g "Their Orientation can be independent of their direction of travel" (within obvious limits so you don't twist 100degrees +. You have always been able to move your head independently of you direction of travel, but specifically I'm interested in the torso (e.g the Orientation of the Weapon).

I'm not sure if that is modelled, as this would be an easy win for Urban Combat, it looks like Torso movement independent of direction of travel is modelled in Tactical Stance?

Look son, I'm not sure what to make of you. Your only contribution was a demand for an Xbox 360 controller presets - Something you could have done for yourself if you'd bother looking online.

Your posts, much like several other of "the usual suspects on here" are endless demands for things for which you have little if any understanding. Then when we point out the limits of what can and cannot be done, and you don't listen and make irrational counter points.

It's like trying to convince a child who doesn't want to hear it, that they cannot get to the moon no matter how hard they flap their arms.

Then you have the audacity to say to pragmatic people who work in Development (like me) that we are douchebag's, it's like having a child with no education telling someone who works in that profession they know nothing.

@gotmikl did you not read what Fri13 wrote....I was reinforcing Fri13's point that waypoint orientation is a good thing, and it would be powerful to be able to do that with AI Waypointing. Something that we cannot do at the moment.

I'm glad I amaze you. Have you got some axe to grind? Because it seems like you do?

P.S I wouldn't use OF:DR as an example, it was a less than amicable split between BIS and Codemasters. The Engine is also different. Oh and what is this Chuck-E-Cheeses?

@Fri13 that Rotate Waypoint direction kind of reminds me of the Gun orientation in "Frozen Synapse" which is an excellent Isometric type Tron-esque Tactical Game.

If they could incorporate elements like that into the Editor it would be powerful indeed.

We could easily solve that Blitz issue, to be the controlled style entry e.g Slow is Smooth, Smooth is fast type building clearance, with controlled shooting but still with an always rolling forward movement and not taking cover.

From an AI Stand point, as soon as the Fireteam was in position it would "initiate" automatically and play a sound like "go-go-go", so we wouldn't have to worry about being exposed, once in position they will move immediately.

So what I really need here, is the orientation points, I know ARMA3 has waypoints in buildings but I need a position displaced from entrances so that aren't exposed to those in a building when they stack up, equally windows or Glass walls could be a problem.

I think I might raise another ticket for Stack up Orientation points outside buildings, we could then as a Community exploit this for various scripts etc for many different projects.

I apologise too, I have been overly critical or unfair in my wording. (I owe you a beer as an Apology!!).

I've been thinking about what you've suggested....

I think there should be a "Stack up" Command aligned with a Point in Geographic Space outside a Building. A Fireteam if ordered into a Building they would stack up and execute a "Blitz Command".

"Blitz type" Command, this would be a High Aggression, High Dynamic Command which would cause your AI to move quickly, disregarding Cover, Firing on Full Auto and moving at Tactical Pace, and in the type of way you attributed in your premise.

I believe with these two elements we could implement a better Room Clearance.

Another element to think about, is garrisoning Buildings, which would make the Garrison Forces automatically the defenders and therefore couldn't room clear because the Attacking forces are doing this? Once they Un-garrison the buildings they can clear buildings like the Attacking force?

If we could get BIS to do this, we could be onto a Winner.

<a href='http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/492136-Storm.html'><img src='http://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2013/5/4/492136_md-Storm.jpg' alt='Storm' border='0'></a>

So in these Examples :-

The green Dot is the Orientation Stack up point.
The Blue Dots are a Fireteam.

The Second Example shows the Stack in the wrong orientation, therefore each orientation Stack up point also needs a Vector or stack up direction, to stop the Fireteam doing something silly like stacking up into the open.

I need some help with idea of "Blitz" this would have to be Fast moving, dynamic , no stalling and no stopping e.g Firing on the move!

If you put a Way point into a Building you should get the option to Clear, or Storm. Clear is a cautious Movement through (Default), Storm involves throwing in Grenades and "Blitz" Entry starting from an Orientation Stackup point.

We could even do a Trigger Area, so you place a Radius of say 300m around a Storm or Clear Buildings Trigger, and the AI will methodically clear each building (either by CLEAR, or if ENEMY PRESENT = TRUE then BLITZ) in sequence that is within the 300m Radius of the trigger (Great for huge urban clearance).

We would need to see how we could co-ordinate with Multiple Fireteams e.g an Entire Platoon Clearing a Town because each Squad (and Fireteam) would have to work to cover the area and not clear area's or buildings that had already been cleared...

Once Inside, the team just keeps rolling through without stopping, maximum speed, violence and firepower.

If we keep this a Script Command it means Troops will still act like normal in the open fields, but when clearing a Building will stack up realistically.

http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/USMC%20-%204/4f1cd274.jpg

Stalker1, as someone who has spent a Career in Uniform and now retired you don't need to tell me how it's done. I now work in Security Software Development and believe me I understand both sides of the coin.

Frankly....I've tried to explain why this is important.

Individuals matter in ARMA because the Team does not operate as One Cohesive whole (unlike a military unit which does and occassionally does not if a squad member sees something developing a Superior cannot have prior knowledge of). I have talked exclusively about Context. Individual Squad members are tied to a Squad Leader but their AI can act independently e.g some move, some fire, some take cover.

If you programme the AI to do as you say above, in Battle Drills they will look and react correctly 75% of the time, 25% of the they will react completely inappropriately. This is the Problem of Context, they aren't able to dynamically react realistically to the near infinite combinations of events and occurances in the Military Sandbox that is ARMA. You end up with situations where AI take decisions when shot at, like going prone in the open when Hard cover is 5 metres left or right of them. Equally sometimes bunching up causes no end of problems especially if someone drops a 40mm Grenade or a Bursh of MG fire.

You need to minimise Human interaction, in order for it to be an effective "Artificial Intelligence" it needs to act independently, the problem as I see it is that Complex Routines for Room Clearance will be exceptional Difficult especially with Multiple AI teams doing the same thing the Overhead Serverside will be considerable. Equally will the AI understand the concept of Defender and Attacker, or will both teams Room-Clear towards each other?

Ideally, you should be able to enter the Editor as Civilian and Watch BLUFOR and OPFOR engage one another with Real World Tactics.

I'm telling you what you've got to work with and the constraints, I'm not saying you are wrong (Real World is Real World) but in a Simulation compromises have to made because quite simply you cannot do everything we wish to do with the Technology and the resources available.

Other Examples would be:-

Digging Prepared Positions into the ground that look realistic - Cannot be done.
Better Squad Communication - Massive body of work.
Proper Artillery Calls - Massive body of work.
AI Overhaul - Enormous body of work.

With limited resources, much of this isn't going to be done, so you have to prioritize what can be done and what is on the "Nice to have.." list.

I've said this several times, I support your premise, but with a dose of realism this isn't going to done without some major Fudges and work arounds which may compromise and have unforeseen consequences in other area's of game play.

@Stalker 1

"You guys are talking about the AI like it should be an army of one"

No, we don't want an Army of One AI, we are trying to explain why something you want implemented to look "Like it does in the Real World" is much, much harder to implement.

You are Blue Skies thinking, and using justifications but you need to fundamentally understand how the AI works

"THE AI DOES NOT HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION"

Yes it does, the current system is that it understands Orders and carries them out even in stupid situations or even if it results in their certain death.

"AI DOES NOT HAVE TO BE SUPER SMART TO FOLLOW SIMPLE, PREDETERMINED, PREDICTABLE PATHS."

This is actually what ARMA does right now, and you want it changed and for good reason. We need to break away from "deterministic approach, where a Human Programs it all" to "The AI makes educated decisions based on rules and scripts which more closely mimic Human interactions"

Here is the piece of the puzzle you are missing - CONTEXT.

If you told a Soldier to walk 10 metres right and he did, is he Obeying Orders? Yes

If you told a Soldier to Walk 10 metres right and he went over a cliff to his Death, is he Obeying Orders? Yes

In both these examples rigid adherence to orders without regard or thought is not what the Modern Military wants. It want's Soldiers who can think for themselves and problem solve, so that Orders are more Directive. It gives the Squad Leader, Fireteam leader, freedom of action to make the best decision whilst still trying to, or achieving the aim of the Directive.

CONTEXT is everything, or our AI's will be on Rails and perform predictable actions and this will itself look un-natural.

CONTEXT is where the AI falls down, it obeys predetermined rules, like "If underfire, Take Cover" they don't consider "Is this Cover any good? Am I being Flanked, Do I need better Cover? Do I have decent Arcs of fire?". It's also no able to make Judgements like "My Firing arcs are limited, but the Cover is much more substantial, therefore I will stay here because I am protected even if it affords me little in the way of effective firing arcs."

Humans naturally contextualise everything based on our understanding of the World and our sensory imput, and in some cases prediction. e.g Thought processes

"I need to walk 10metres right, I will go over that cliff and fall. I predict I will die if I do that, so I will not do that. If I move 5 metres, I will stop, I could stop here, or maybe work my way down to the base of the cliff...I'm not sure what to do, should I ask the SL? No think.......Okay at the base of the cliff I cannot see very well. Okay I will stop at the top of the Cliff, and then speak to the SL and tell him I cannot go any further right".

CONTEXT is everything, you need to move from "This is how it is! Do this BIS" to more of a "How can we do this be done with the resources we've got? Then come up with a thoughout solution and present this to BIS"

A good example of a well thoughout post is this one...

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=3505

AI needs to be smarter or your really good suggestion at the top of this page, will never be implemented effectively.

Yeah I totally understand that, but are you talking about Human lead AI Fireteams?

Because an AI fireteam Squad Leader will have to behave like an Human/Real Squad Leader, in order for this to look correct.

Otherwise we are in the realm of Human Led squads look ok/good (depending on the skill of the human SL) whereas the AI SL squads look appalling. We cannot even get natural sounding Communications "ONE! go here, TWO! do this...." etc etc

This is currently what we have..I would suggest watching SHACK TACTICAL VIDEO's or other ARMA Co-op Clans on Youtube to see more natural Human Playing, AI does not or cannot simulate this.

The problem for me is that we want ARMA to be natural as possible, I want your suggestion to be integrated 100% hence why I voted it up. But we need to be aware that in the Resource vs Benefit vs Size of Task is it likely to be implemented by BIS who have Limited Resources? I would think it unlikely.

I think the MOD community will do this as a Labour of love.

Well if BIS have to re-do the AI don't expect ARMA 3 to be released this year. With new AI, Alpha testing would have to be redone and then Beta.

AI is pretty Integral, unless this games goes Multiplayer only (which it won't).

We are going to have to accept a degree of compromise here.

I like this...But....Real life Infantrymen, change their stance and tactical movement and tactics on the fly.

So in open terrain, Infantrymen naturally spread out and cover one another in bounding overwatch or just moving in formation, in Urban terrain they tend to stack up and mutually support very close together.

We would need a more natural AI that changes seamlessly and accurately between Urban terrain, and open terrain.

Would the AI flip to Urban in a Farm Complex? Would they flip back to an Open Stance in a Urban Park or open area? It's not insurmountable, but it would take considerable coding and resources.

OIBUA/ FIBUA is nightmare in real life, and requires a high level of professional skill. I think ARMA handles open battle very, very well. It falls down massively in Urban terrain, I'm not sure we can solve it due to the path finding and the way Teams of AI work together.

It is a very worth goal and I would love to see it, I am voting this up but I am unsure it can be achieved in a realistic way.

@chose Just a suggestion, Stalker 1 said he would be happy with a Radio Etiquette change.

Is it possible you could re-record the Voice Radio Protocols, to be more realistic even if you made it much more Generic (thereby avoiding the need to reference precise positions via radio?).

Even just a Generic Fire mission (omitting the position, Grid and Reference) but would include the Shot and the Splash out.

You expect the SPLASH OUT 4-5 seconds before the strike, so you have time to shout "GET DOWN!"

The "Splash out" would help immersion especially if well implemented, so take the Time of flight take away 5 seconds and play the Radio Clip at that time across the relevant RADIO NET.

I've got the be honest here, there is a little bit of naivety.

Fill in the blanks
Grid _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Direction _ _ _ _ mils
Enemy type ________

This would work with the correct Scripting, and with a Human entering the Values.

It will not work with AI, you would need a huge change to the AI. It's not impossible but it's not easy.

If you got the AI to do this, I can guarantee you that WEIRD THINGS WOULD HAPPEN! The AI in ARMA is Quirky, you would end up with AI Observers etc firing Bombardments on Individuals, or worse firing on positions where BLUFOR and OPFOR are within Metres of each other (such as Urban Battles).

What about predicting movement of Vehicles, and Fire time to Splash time? Will the AI take this into Account? What about MRSI Fire missions? If we implement this, people will want more refinements, more tweaks, more functionality.

You can easily "Spaz Out" the AI with very basic commands, ARMA 3 is much better than any other version but it's not at the level where something this sophisticated would be easily implemented.

Yeah this is right, but how do you implement this with AI? You would need to overhaul the comms...

What about Player to AI Battery, or AI Observer to AI Battery?

The problem is not such much the right radio calls, but the contextual element that would require a real change to AI, understand (or at least follow a set of rules that simulate) proper calls and then works the distance from the fall of shot, to the intended impact point and will then pass this correction to the other AI unit, whilst then articulating this passing of information with the Corresponding RT. Equally how would AI handle Danger Close? Will they not fire? Warn Players on their side etc?

This is why many of things work much better with all Human Players, as it's easy to implement whereas with AI Non Player Characters. It's one of those deceptively simple things that actually, on closer inspection is massively complicated and difficult.

From a fellow Artillery Observer, respect... "Quo Fas Et Gloria Ducunt"

It does look a bit too far fetched...Like 2110 rather than 2025 - 2030.

Looks like something the Engineer from "Prometheus" would wear.

There are indeed different types of Colour Tracer. But in I have only ever seen Red or Green on the battlefield, and I have never seen any other military using anything other than those two colours.

Civilians who can buy tracer can obviously buy what they like, but this is a Military Game so Red or Green would be reasonable.

@gotmikl

"Move there - seek tree -no tree - seek rock and kneel - no rock - seek bush and go prone - no bush - go prone and await orders."

What you described is exactly what the AI does now, and everyone complains that they "Don't use Windows" "they don't take cover" "They don't react realistically" "The AI doesn't behave in a Human manner" "What they do doesn't make sense?" "They don't garrison Buildings" "They don't Clear Buildings properly" "they lean the wrong way and shoot walls" etc etc ad infinitum.

Really what was done in 2009 ? A full Contextualized AI that understood the world it occupied and interacted with it in a human manner? Are you sure? Because that would be the Holy Grail of AI, "the ability to independently Problem Solve without assistance" John Rogers Searle would love to know about it if it was done back in 2009.

By the way "Direct line to the NSA and NASA" do by any chance wear a Tin-foil hat and believe in Internet Conspiracy Theories? You are a Lunatic, I'm trying to explain that the AI cannot behave like in Dyslecxi's Guide because they aren't human. They can try and mimic Human behaviour but because you cannot map the Millions of variables of human action and reaction into a simple script you cannot and will not ever get a realistic, natural looking AI.

Stop Raging, and think about trying to solve ARMA's problems shouting at everyone doesn't help. The concepts of "Weak AI" and "Strong AI" and things which obey rules passing as "Intelligent" when they merely follow strict rules.

The best AI Mod (headless client AI) literally kills the Server because it is so back-end intensive (it isn't a true AI), it's a massive set of complex Rules. So if you have too many AI (50 enemy on a top end server) your server literally starts dying.

We can tweak what we have already, but a major overhaul of AI isn't going to happen, ARMA Beta wouldn't be ready until 2014 at the earliest!

This is all about CONTEXT - The AI cannot do this because it doesn't understand Context.

Will everyone stop posting AI fixes without understanding the idea of Context. There is NO GAME, on the planet right now that has fully Contextualised AI. If it does it is a very limited AI and in a very limited Environment.

You are trying to make AI react like Humans in a Completely Open Sandbox World! ......Do you have any idea how Complex this is? It's never been achieved by Researchers or Universities working on AI....

Seriously guys...

Ah ok, As an Ex-Artillery Observer , I get really into this subject.

It's a bit strange because from a Reality point of view, a Ballistic Computer wouldn't keep tabs on Ammunition (unless in the case of something like an integrated Fire Control Management Solution on say an MLRS).

So i think this must be a bit of a fudge, this is a good opportunity to either integrate Ammunition into a Ballistic Computer (so a Fire Control System), or separate it entirely.

E.g the Ballistic Computer is there to computer results, then we dial in the results into the Mortar itself. (I know in previous examples and MODs it has been implemented in an Ad-Hoc manner).

But I would like to see this done, full on with the Ballistic Computer used to calculate values based on Map, GPS or Lased positions, then the values we would dial into the Mortar sight and use Ranging Poles etc.

Ammunition would then be held in Plastic Cases like this (see picture)https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSl4OjgcIB-wAPoaoxKXs4u2i6qkd6E-HKCo01fJmYde-hfWxFD
, because this how Soldiers do it in the field, then prep the rounds for firing (e.g Fuse settings and Charge Setting for range.)
http://www.diomil.ir/images/product/Original/amig/mortar60mm.jpg

This would do 2 things, make the Mortar only as accurate as your inputs, and the subsequent dialing in, and also allow the divorcing of the Ammunition from the Ballistic Computer.

Er I might have the wrong of the stick - But if this is a MOD why is it BIS responsibility to sort it out?

Well thought out...I approve, all excellent suggestions.

I disagree with your original Premise why would you need 2 rifles on your back and one in hands?

we don't do this in the field. Neither do Special Forces. Carrying Multiple weapons means multiple ammunition, unless of course they use the same ammunition but then why would you need multiple Weapon systems that do the same thing?

For the weight of the second rifle systems you could just take more ammunition for your own rifle or take a different weapon system.

This isn't an issue of whether you can, this is an issue of simulation, In the real world you will see a Soldier with Possibly two Weapon systems and a Pistol. A Rifle and AT system, A Rifle with extra ammuntion for another Weapon system (Like a SAW belt or Ammunition for a GPMG) or Squad Automatic Weapon or a Grenadier with UGL and extra Rounds. Occasionally Marksmen will carry a 7.62mm Rifle as well as 5.56mm one, but then they don't carry an AT launcher as well!!

Real soldiers carry items like Water, First Aid kits and extras like signal flares, maps, orders, radios etc. So they always have a Patrol pack or backpack on.

I do agree with the Grenade launcher, as a Secondary but it might yet come to pass. The real issue is can you carry the ammunition. The M4/M203 is quite capable Weapon system with extra Grenades over carrying a Pistol. etc etc.

You just don't see modern soldiers tooled up like Arnie in the film "Commando". Because it slows you down, and if you cannot run quickly in all your gear, you are an easy target.

For a hacker he doesn't seem to understand the concept of an Alpha does he?

"go pester BIS to get their act together, end plug this leaky bucket of a game. VE, mute 4."

Is this not, what we are doing on this Tracker? Bloody Clown.

Yeah that is "Pointe Du Hoc", went there on a Battlefield Tour. Turned out the guns were removed and replaced with telegraph Poles, but the Rangers still got up that cliff. The Cliff is insane, especially when you consider grenades raining down on you, and then Machine Gun fire as you Crest. It's stunning they took that position.The Story of 1st Sgt. Leonard Lomell is particularly amazing.

We Digress....I would love to see the following in ARMA 3

1. Bundeswehr Panzer Grenadiers
2. French Foreign Legion
3. The Royal Canadian Regiment
4. 82nd Airborne Division
5. Netherlands Marine Force
6. Danish Guard Hussar

But actually much of this will be done by the MOD Community.

I agree we should have SF, but we should also have the "Grunts" so to speak.

I think your point about A campaign is great. Having an SF unit go in and neutralise something prior to a Big Air drop or a Big Amphibious landing would be an Excellent idea and it is what we do.

SF doing a Surgical strike to open the way for the Follow on Forces.

Operation Barras was a good example of this. We smashed them with a combination of Special Forces and Elite infantry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barras

On top of this Large Scale Special Forces Raids have been on a few occasions and they are Outrageous in scope. I would like to see this in the game as well. Good examples being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Pebble_Island
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden

And this one...Not much talked about openly, but it was a biggy!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1364035/Wounded-SAS-men-were-in-cave-raid.html

I'm sorry Dr Death but the following:-

"actually, i am sure marines in both UK and US sides are not elite infantry, just a joint force with somewhat different training and equipment, they are not exactly better than the army."

What you wrote Is utter nonsense. The Royal Marine Commando's have the Longest Basic training of any Infantry in the World, their Ethos, fitness and training eclipses that of the British Army by a Considerable margin.

The USMC also have considerable Training, their Ethos, fitness and Training eclipses that of the US Army.

So by Elite Infantry, I mean Elite Assault Infantry. Other good examples are the US Airborne, Rangers and British Parachute Regiment, French Foreign Legion. These are some of the worlds finest Assault Infantry, they are the Tip of the Spear and used to lead Assaults. They are the 1st in, they are given the tough nuts to crack, and their histories and ethos show just how resilient they are as fighting units, especially when other units would have withdrawn or surrendered.

Special Forces are great at what they do, but you never have enough of them and they are extremely, extremely expensive to train and the numbers of recruits are low (unless you lower the standards and then, well they aren't that special anymore are they?).

So ARMA for me should be about Line Infantry and Elite Assault Infantry. Not about BLADES running around in 4 Men Patrols doing close Target Recce, or surgical Strikes. I want to be the Sledgehammer not the Scalpel.

As a retired OF-3, and Graduate of the Staff College in the UK, believe me when I say Marines of Almost all countries are an Elite Formation.

Elite Assault Infantry (like the USMC, US Airborne, Rangers, British Para's, Royal Marines) are very highly trained Infantry, lets be honest most Special Forces (in the UK at least) come from this background. I do know that US Navy Seals recruit directly from the Civil Populous.

The problem I have is that 99% of Special Forces are dull, get in, do the job get out. Usually Close Target Recce, Designation of key targets, attacking specific sites. They are expensive assets you don't throw them at anything, thats what your line infantry is for, patrolling and sweeping areas, holding positions and doing the lions share of the work.

Special Forces, emphasis on the Special because in Computer Games they are featured everywhere and in such numbers we should really called them "Common Forces".

The attraction for me to OPERATION FLASHPOINT and something that has carried through the series, is Section Attacks, Platoon Attacks and Company sized Assaults. The ability to actually be an infantryman and use proper tactics and Infantry Weapons.

I think if ARMA goes down the Special Forces road too far, I think it will lose one of the Unique Selling Points of the series.

Why Special forces? Special forces go in, and if all goes well they aim not to get into fire-fights. What we want in this Game is Line Infantry, or Elite Infantry not Special Forces.

Remember OPERATION FLASHPOINT, the Special Forces Missions were tense, but actually weren't as good as the ones with the larger Platoon or Company attacks.

It is the curse of Modern Computer gaming, as soon as you introduce modern military it always "Tends towards Special forces".

SF make up a tiny % of the fighting strength of NATO forces. I say more respect for the Humble Professional Infantryman.

No, you don't understand, I'm not raging, i'm giving you a way out, to say "Okay I was wrong, but the Physics is bad" I would say "Okay, fair enough it is inconsistant, but it should be consistently real, not consistently abstract".

I am explaining quite clearly why you are wrong, and why what you are saying has no basis on fact or reality.

When a Helicopter lands at that speed, onto wheels, there is heavy lateral force, not just a vertical force, that suddenly apply's on the wheels rearwardly, this essentially does three things.

1. Arrests the forward movement of the helicopter, dipping the nose and because the blades are tilted forward, suddenly shifts the axis of the forces acting on the Helicopter and causes an acceleration into the ground.
2. Above a certain speed approx 30kts, the sudden impact and rearward sheer is so strong compared to the strength of the landing wheels, they are ripped clean off.
3. As the wheels are ripped off, the helicopter lands on it's belly or fuselage, the Tail-rotor will in all probability hit the ground, and then wildly unpredictable things happen as pieces fly everywhere and the helicopter crashed.

Helicopter simply do not land at the speeds you were flying on wheels, you can put forward any theory you like about, wheels rolling and the following will happen, etc etc. And no matter what you say, you are fundamentally wrong.

Your point about Physics being inconsistent is valid, your points about landing with Wheels and the Physics of flight are not.

I want the physics to be consistent and accurate, not some crazy Arcade Flight simulator.

Right,I'll keep this really, really simple.... Talking purely about helicopters.

TAKE OFF, is going from Zero to the required speed to generate lift.

LANDING, is going from a High Speed to Zero to bleed off lift.

As you take off, you are accelerating, the force increases until you take off. You are going from gradually increasing Resistance to no-resistance. There is no Sheer-force (only the Wind sheer).

When you Land, you are decelerating, you are going from no resistance, to Full Resistance in a time amount of time (about 0.1s conservatively). This is when the Rearward Sheer force occurs and rips off your landing gear, not at take off.

I have not talked about take off, I've been talking about landings.

You've given me two video's of extreme Take off's, interesting, pretty dangerous.

You are performing a Logical Fallacy, based on "If it takes off this way, it must be able to land this way".

But you've not given me two Video's of them landing the same way? Because Physics says no, The only way a helicopter can land like an Aircraft is to have an Undercarriage like an Aircraft and it simply doesn't.

"I like your 150kts, 80kts is pretty reasonable.." Is that how you think Aircraft are designed? Just random guesses based on pseudo-judgement from an ill-informed position with no knowledge of the subject matter at all?

It's ridiculous, show me footage of a WHEELED Helicopter landing at 80mph...You are talking out of your Rear, a 747 does not land at 200kts, it is between 165-121.

At 200kts a 747 is generating lift and you'll never land.

Winged Aircraft have a much higher lift to weight ratio due to "The wings" therefore can carry very strong and robust under-carriage which is heavy. Helicopters do not generate the same lift, in the same way and so do not have the ability to carry heavy duty undercarriage, so do not land at this kind of speed or even close to 80kts or 80mph, 1/4 of this maybe 20kts not much more than this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=INHZizIpkII

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=i8-XVH-BqOE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nDR6_1rEs_k

If your issue is Inconsistent Physics, then say that.

What you said is "However, landing very very gently the KA-60 at anything over 80 km/h will completely damage the chopper."

This is the equivalent of saying "I drove my car gently at 40mph into a wall and now it doesn't work".

Hitting a runway at 80km/h, even at an extremely shallow angle, in a Wheeled Chopper, will rip off your wheels, bottom you out and is Insanely dangerous.

Oh and here's our Conversation from yesterday...and the ticket is a duplicate.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8627

Jesus Christ....That is far too fast to land a wheeled Helicopter.

WATCH THIS...https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fA8pYb6ipqw

You are landing it like a 747, they have huge Under-carriages with vast amounts of Damping, Helicopter wheels are for gentle landings and taxi-ing not for attempting an 80kt landing.

Helicopter Wheels are not engineered to land like that....Otherwise they would need Aircraft landing gear and that is uber heavy!!

747 -http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Main_landing_gear_of_747-8F.jpg

helicopter - http://www.army-technology.com/projects/lynx-mk7/images/2-lynx-helicopter.jpg

Jet fighter landing gear - http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/at/courses/aeml/airframeimages/trailinglinkgear2.jpg

Helicopter - http://s3.vidimg02.popscreen.com/original/46/ZGYzXzEzMTY1ODc1ODYxNA==_o_helicopter-landing-gear-fail.jpg

Just because it has wheels doesn't mean you can land like that. Just because a Missile has a rocket Motor, doesn't mean it will get you to the moon.

You've got to use equipment as intended.

It's like using a TV to hammer in a Nail, it can do it but you will damage it. You have to use the correct tool e.g a Hammer, in the correct way. You don't demand that they redesign the TV just because you don't know how to use a Hammer?

EDIT - Hold on we had this Conversation Yesterday.....24 hrs later here we are again.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein

Hacktivism on an open Alpha?

Is this going to be a Game whose direction is going to be determined by one individual imposing on all of us his or her own agenda?

"I want the following done or else I will be a dick to everyone"...

I think the Community and BIS all agree we don't negotiate or engage with people based on Blackmail or threats.

VOTE GREEN to say no to Dicks.

Yeah I would support time limited Battery NVG's, but it would have to be a hell of a time on it (like the same as the Fuel on a Helicopter).

Also properly implemented NVG's would have multiple modes, my LUCIE NVG's I used to use, had several modes including Night Vision and IR. Equally it was difficult to adjust to depth as some Goggles use a single input lens.

Whereas one's used by flight crew used to be better as they had twin seperate tubes for proper stereo-scopic vision and depth perception.

Like these:-

Grunts get these - and work around the depth perception issues / adjust to it.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTZPq4dqLUqhdWSO6yzd_cA7ZcYWjVfByc_VhoGIRvkYRRUYD0jGw

Aircrew get Stereo-scopic ones, because they are precious and expensive. :)

http://www.armedforces-int.com/upload/image_files/Aviator-night-vision-goggles-1.jpg

In the future who knows, but there should be some kind of simulation of the Tunnel vision/ depth perception issues that occur.

Yeah apologies I haven't articulated this very well. A feature that more closely mimics how the human eye adjusts to "Seeing in the Dark".

Simply taking your Night Vision Googles off, shouldn't result in clear night-time vision.

It takes time for your Iris to adjust, and your Rods and Cones to build up a sensitivity to see clearly at night. We called this in the Military "Night Vision" not to be confused with NVG's, we were taught to look in figures of Eight using our peripheral vision, or slightly off centre because it is more light sensitive. It used to take approx 10 minutes to adjust, and any light source, flash etc would spoil your night vision and gives away your position.

I believe you could replicate this, by having alonger adjust time and then having explosions or flashes resetting this. Night fighting is a real skill and discipline, dependency on NVG's can make life difficult if you run out of AA Batteries. So this is and remains a core discipline of the Infantryman, same with tritium Sights, Compass and Watch, you never know when your NVG's will be unservicable or break.

I think it was between like 15mins and 30mins to get your true night vision. The other thing was that the edge of your eye, the Peripheral Vision was more sensitive to light than colour.

So we were taught to search by using your eyes in a figure of eight pattern, so using more of your peripheral vision than your Central vision. I know BIS won't be able to implement this - It was more for info.

http://avstop.com/ac/flighttrainghandbook/imagevnd.jpg