- User Since
- Mar 7 2013, 2:08 PM (215 w, 3 d)
Sat, Apr 22
Fri, Apr 21
Bump? Even the Xi'an gunship has a laser.
May 10 2016
One of the main reasons that BIS implemented Steamworks in ArmA 3 is to deal with issues like this, creating and maintaining such database would be very difficult and costly to make, whereas the Steam Workshop is a readily available solution that exists.(And even that is taking them a long time to implement)
So it's very unlikely that BIS will do their own addon-managing database.
Making gliders would be a total waste of BIS's development time, and you can probably make it yourself by removing all fuel from a plane and have it attached to a powered plane which lifts it.
Out of all aircraft we need, you choose a glider? Srsly?
In the editor you can directly place a kart as playable/player and use it, although if you get out you won't be able to get in.
And although I haven't tried, there are probably dozens more ways and scripts that would let you skip the restrictions.
Same for me, my game hung and crashed when I first autosaved, when I tried resuming that save it gave me an error
It's nice being able to add/remove default loadouts, but we need the ability to create custom loadouts.
Koala, you posted a workaround but it's not a solution. First of all in Zeus you can't set a unit's condition of presence, and second, even if you could it would be annoying to group every new soldier/squad to a specific side
Sweet, but what about changing classes/kits/loadouts when you respawn?
And an option to save ammo box contents into presets/loadout presets for future Zeus sessions
I support, placing a bunch of ammocrates is really annoying, I want the ability to set loadouts and create custom ammoboxes.
Agreed, besides the turrets in ArmA 3 are modular that almost every vehicle of every faction uses the same system, so there should be no problem fitting a Titan AT/AA to every mrap.
While having females in the game would be logical, keep in mind that most women serve in support branches of the military, and ArmA 3 is focused on infantry combat, which means that female soldiers would be uncommon during most situations.
I would definitely want to see female civilians though, but it's a matter of prioritization, making female models, animating them, and capturing their voice for so many actions, is a very expensive process which can be better spent on more important things.
I agree, more reddot variety would be nice. And since they both use picatinny rails there is no reason to block the pistol scopes from being used on main weapons.
I think the problem is with the planes themselves - they are too slow, not very agile and overall bad. If we had proper fighter jets this wouldn't have been a problem.
That's a duplicate of my ticket:
It is unrealistic for foot units to magically mark targets on map, but it's definitely realistic for armored vehicles and drones who are equipped with GPS receivers and laser rangefinders.(After all, to know where's an enemy is, you just need your own position and the distance and heading between you and him.
For example the "Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below"-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBCB2
Is a communication platform for tracking friendly and hostile forces. No doubt that in 2035 there will be something similar.
Now I can see the tags of friendly squad members and waypoints that I assigned.
However I can't see the my own(Uav operator soldier) tag and I can't create new waypoints(shift clicked ones) from a drone nor delete ones.
Voice-acting for ArmA 3 is very expensive when you got so many lines and so many possibilities. This would take a HUGE amount of money, while not adding anything to the game. Just read the chat messages if you want to understand what is being said.
Moving FIA to the blufor faction was very silly. History has proven us how unreliable and unpredictable rebels are, they should have definitely remained as independent. I could understand AAF being BLUFOR since NATO are supposedly helping them against the Iranians, and the rebels being reluctant about a foreign force in their lands.(NATO and CSAT)
I know that you can find elevation in the HUD, but this method uses an indirect fire trajectory which is too slow and not useful against moving targets.
But this did give me a simpler idea:
Simply, the HUD calculates the elevation required for a direct fire trajectory, because whatever you're seeing in the HUD is in your gun's direct line of fire.
The real jet can reach 930 km/h and fly at 15km altitude. Clearly this is not the case in ArmA 3. If this is the only jet in the game, at least make it behave more like a modern multirole (light) jet.
The Merkava in real life definitely has a rear compartment where you can place soldiers or stretchers, however it's mostly used to store ammo. The engine is in the front.
However, the rear compartment is usually used to store rounds, and it's unrealistic that the Slammer can carry ~50 shells and also has cargo capacity for 6 passengers. 2 or maybe 4 seats at best, is a more realistic configuration.
How is this still not fixed?
I've noticed this too, I tried rearming a Scorcher and the truck stopped rearming after like 5-10 shells. Considering the fact that a HEMTT is a specialized ammo carrier with a similar size to the Scorcher, it should be able to at least fully resupply it.
And it can't even resupply a single 230mm titan rocket(for the MLRS)
I agree, this would be a simple feature, just add the UAV terminal action functionality to vehicle commanders, it's definitely realistic. (Net-centric systems are one of the most important things for situational awareness in modern vehicles.)
Also, I've made a ticket about functionality to assign drones to follow vehicles and units like you've suggested: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=13007
The bigger issue here is the lack of optic stabilization, and that you can't control guided missiles as a turret operator.
The current method is too complicated, you have to set several waypoints straight ahead of the target, so that the UAV strafes in a straight,long path to the target, then you switch to the turret seat, lase the target and wait until the drone decides to target your laser paint, then wait for it to decided to launch a missile. It's ineffective and hampers the effectiveness of drones.
I'm not sure whether removing automatic drone movement when there's no waypoint is a good idea, because this does prevent your drone from crashing into a mountain or going low until it crashes into the ground/ocean, etc..
However, there are cases when this is needed, for example when you manually control a quadrotor and hover just slightly above the ground, using a hill as cover, if you switch to the turret to lase a target, suddenly your quadrotor goes up and exposes you.
So, I think there should be button/option to:
- Lock pitch - this makes your drone keep it's current pitch, this overrides waypoints and may be unsafe. (Crash to the ground, or stall)
- Altitude lock (controls pitch and collective in quadrotor) - this ensures your quadrotor/drone does not go higher or lower than it currently is.
- Lock roll - self explanatory
- Lock heading - ensures the plane goes on a specific heading(0 roll and a specific yaw)
Quadrotors should care much less about landing at helipads, in fact, they should try to ignore them, because they may be taking valuable spots for bigger helicopters.
It might be because the MQ4A is a placeholder until they model the K-40 Ababil-3
Or maybe they're going to use the same drone retextured for all factions, but in that case it wouldn't make sense to give the CSAT variation a different name, while both NATO and AAF share the same name.
I totally agree, the current yaw rate is way too slow, it makes navigating and aiming at stuff hard.
As of the latest dev patches, some minor stabilization has been added, however the optics don't stick too good and tend to move, especially when moving at higher speeds, or when using the Greyhawk UAV.
More specifically, when loitering around an area in the greyhawk, and I stabilise on a house, the optics don't stick to the house but rather follow a circle which goes through your stabilised position every revolution.
Also because it takes some time for it to begin the stabilization, you need to position your optic slightly left/right of the target, depending on the drone's direction. I suggest that instead of the stabilization automatically happening after about 1-2 seconds, you could press a button to stabilise instead.
Plus, the new-stabilisation doesn't work with moving vehicles obviously, this should probably get addressed.
We need more customization options for vehicle payloads, not just the AH-99 Blackfoot.
Adding stub wings with extra weapons would be good, but in its current state, the Blackfoot is strong enough. It has A2A missiles and 24 guided missiles which can also be used unguided effectively. Adding even more missiles would make it very overpowered.
We also need an option to use a rangefinder or laser designator in addition to binoculars
It should be available to all crew members, not limited just to the commander.
It's already the situation with the RPG-42, which is also smaller and more compact. I think it can be balanced by mission editors by limiting the available missile launcher versions.
I'm not suggesting to use the current AT/AP missiles who fit in the compact titan, I'm suggesting to create a bigger version of those missiles that can only fit in the non-compact titan. (With the same dimensions as the AA missile)
In ArmA 2, even the huey transport chopper had a laser designator. As of today(2013), laser designators are getting pretty integrated in other military hardware such as ground vehicles, and surely in 2035 they will be available in all attack choppers.
The Apache which is an attack helicopter does have a laser designator too, for example. (In real life)
I agree, even today's aircraft have this capability, for example the AH-64 Apache's 30mm chain gun can be controlled by the pilot's or gunner's helmet, and the F-35 JSF has a similar feature for controlling the missiles.
So surely helicopters in 2035 would have this ability.
I've also made a ticket about the inability to lock on targets when using manual fire as the pilot: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9961
Your GPU is too weak to run ArmA 3 on Ultra, try running it on medium, or high if you really insist, but you will surely have a low FPS.
I agree, the current situation is worse than in A2, in A2, the AAV7 had and interior for the driver, looking through the hatch's windows, the new Panther APC has a similar hatch yet the crew can only look at the dull HUD. The A2 stryker had an interior for the gunner/commander, which had some monitors with static images. Such kind of interior would make perfect sense in A3 thanks to PiP.
The AH-64 Apache can be controlled by either the pilot or the gunner, both of them have flight controls.(http://science.howstuffworks.com/apache-helicopter4.htm)
The same is true for the AH-99 Blackfoot.
The Mi-48, at this moment does not, but it's a fictional helicopter and I think that its copilot position should have access to flight controls.
I've changed the ticket to be a feature request instead, the Mi-48's copilot seat should have flight controls and a 'take controls' option for the sake of balance.
(Its advantages over the Blackfoot are its passenger cargo capacity and 30mm chain gun versus 20mm, its disadvantages are higher profile/size, less agility, no air to air missiles, a much smaller amount of air to ground missiles compared to the Blackfoot, and overall I think it has more disadvantages than advantages.)
Yup, I've noticed this. It has 2 spotlights and one is always active.
I agree, it would introduce a new way of recon. (Hiding in a forest and using the periscope-sensor to detect enemies)
Agreed, unguided rockets who fire straight, should be controllable by the pilot.(Skyfire)
There are multiple tickets about this issue but it hasn't been fixed in the last updates yet.
It should remain possible to shoulder the weapon for switching to your pistol or binoculars, but I agree that it shouldn't be accurate when moving.
Indeed, they also seem to be missing some animations
I think the special forces should get a more compact helmet and compact HUD, without the ventilation pipe, because SF are probably trained to handle the extra stress/heat and they need agility.
Their helmet should be less egg-like(more like the NATO helmet) without protruding
glass holders(the thing that attaches the HUD to the helmet) and have goggles shaped HUD that is attaches to the underside edge of the helmet instead.
Helicopters need to be less sensitive to water in general.
Even when only the Ka-60's landing gear are touching the water, the engine gets damaged pretty quickly.
I don't sssssseee any problem with the abundance of sssssnakessss.
I think it has been fixed by now.