ajsarge

I'm using the trackclip pro (with IR LEDs attached to a headset) and I've had sunlight reflecting off vehicles come in through my door to distract my TrackIR camera, and two different house lights that gave off enough IR photons to also distract my TrackIR. Having the ability to use TrackIR to turn a minimal part of your body when scoped in would be awesome. If you're prone you move your shoulders and head to point the right direction. Any more than maybe 80 degrees off center and you have to roll to your side so you can bend at your waist. When crouched/standing everything is off of waist/shoulder twist which should give you about 95-110 degrees to either side. Just make sure it's on a toggle switch in the gameplay options that would disable mouse aiming when scoped. I would say it links in to the previous view options so that alt+mouse works the same way.

As you're probably aware, there's Bluefor, Opfor, Independent, and Civilians as playable sides in Arma 3. This setup has been around for a while (Definately since Arma 2, but since Arma 1? Since OFP?) and has become the standard we've gotten used to. My issue is that we've grown TOO accustomed to these terms and a chance to change things may make things better for mission designers and expanding our options in the future. The solution I have seems decently simple in theory to me, but may require a bit of effort in converting a lot of code that's deeply tied into how the game works. - Keep BlueFor (NATO, US Army, USMC) - Rename Opfor to RedFor (CSAT, Takistan Army, Russia) - Change Independants to GreenFor (AAF, ACR, CDF) - Create a new Independents (FIA, Takistani Rebels, NAPA) and change their color to Grey or something - Keep Civilian and keep their "Opinion" of other sides linked with Independents, while Blue/Red/Green always consider them friends/neutral In the editor's Intel menu, add a "Side Relationships" section. Here, you can chose how a side views other sides, and create options like having NATO and CSAT combined forces fight against AAF and FIA in one mission while another pits NATO as the bad guy with AAF and CSAT teaming up on them while FIA takes advantage of the situation and attacks everybody. This is also useful for having a CTI mission with 3 sides and still being able to have guerrilla fighters as the initial defense for non-captured areas. Would anyone like to see this, or have a better way that it could be done?

Last I remember, BI has been touting Arma 3 as "Authentic", not "Realistic" This opens the way to arcade balance and exact equality between factions, which I do not want. Variety is the spice of life. The days of AK47 vs M16 seem to be over if BI keeps designing weapons using the same rounds in similar weapons with similar optics that are used by the same set of soldier types that's shared by multiple factions. The sooner someone does full additional factions for Bluefor, Redfor, and Greenfor that could be engaged in asymetric or symetric warfare, the sooner I'll be very happy.

Once you have the game/beta installed, I noticed that there's a standard .exe in the Arma 3 folder that you can use instead of launching through steam or one of its silly non-standard shortcuts. The only issue is whether it will start Steam anyways and if it demands an internet connection to play offline when you have zero connection. A shortcut of the .exe has a properties section that lets you set start parameters like you used to need for mods during the early days of Arma 1/Arma 2.

If I'm correct, that's linked to the altitude/height at which the engines will still have full power, and the power available will slowly decrease as you approach the altNoForce point. Unless you've got viewdistance set to a high value, I don't see having a much higher ceiling being any use when aircraft are designed to be supporting the infantry focus of the game.

TL;DR - C-17 is too big, C-27J, Quad Tilt-Rotor, and KC-390 FTW Some of the things I'm reading here I think are awesome, and somethings just make me *facepalm* hard enough to put a hole in my skull. Before I start on the comments, I'll lay out my qualifications. Beware: Wall of text ahead. I'm a C-17 Loadmaster in the USAF. I load the cargo, fly with the cargo, and get it off the jet at its destination. With that out of the way, I'll say that the C-17, while awesome, is overkill when you're working with something the size of Altis. Maybe if Altis and Stratis were on the same map, with the real-life distance between Stratis and Limnos, it would be feasible in-game to have a transport aircraft as large as the C-17. The shortest flight where I actually carried cargo was still 30 minutes long. Altis isn't even the Size of Oahu, and 30 minutes gets you all the way to the Big Island of Hawaii at C-17 speeds. Nowhere near the proximity of Stratis to Limnos. Then you have some the the cool features mentioned, like the reverse thrust used to slow the aircraft on landing that exists on most modern airlines, and the short-field capability that's easily beat by aircraft that would be better suited for Altis. Reverse thrust can be used to back an airliner just as well, but they don't do it because they can't post a spotter with a direct voice line to the pilots, and they don't want to waste the fuel while making tons of noise right outside the terminal. That equates to a whole lot of "Meh" when you actually think about where it might do more than be cool once or twice in Arma 3. How often have you used the V-22's "Cool" mechanic to actually carry troops in Arma 2? The A-400M can be considered somewhere between a C-17 and C-130J. Used for separate factions, the A-400 and C-17 could be a good match for cargo planes on different sides. But, it still falls in that "Too-big" category for me. The Y-20 made by china is a cheap knockoff of a C-17 and is only worth bashing in my eyes. Once you get into the C-27 though, I think we're at the right area. It's even being used by the Greeks right now! (According to Wikipedia...) With a few future "updates", I think it could be made to work as a 20-something-year-old airframe sitting pretty in its prime as a light, tactical, cargo airplane. Let's even make it fun and design an AC-27 with a 20mm on the side and some of the guided missiles mounted on the wings like the USMC C-130Js with the hellfires they have now. I like the QTR idea for NATO. It's futuristic enough with a fancy mechanic that I think would be right at home as a comparison to the C-27. The tilt-rotor comes into play as an option for carrying larger quantities of troops to an LZ like the Orca in contrast to the Greyhawk's single squad. Unfortunately, I don't see it being used very often, similar to the V-22 I mentioned earlier. Lastly, the KC-390 would be a good OPFOR plane in my eyes. Probably the biggest of the options presented, the size and style fits well with what the CSAT forces have already. I don't have any comments on this plane, as this is the first I've heard of it even existing. Sorry for the wall of text and disjointed rambling. I think I've gotten everything I want to say out there. Late Reply Addition - Carrying an MBT with a C-17 is probably the most expensive way to move a tank somewhere. Has it been done? Yes, and I've got pictures of co-workers putting them on airplanes and posing with the 120mm between their legs to prove it. Multiply that by however many tanks in a platoon/brigade, and it's just not worth it compared to shipping via flatbed or boat. I agree with Altis not being big enough to warrant that type of movement for armored vehicles when they can just drive themselves on a single tank of fuel.

With the recent press release/video on PCGames.de, I was curious as to how BI is going to implement the controls for Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs). Thinking about it for a few minutes, there were four options I can up with. If BI already has a set plan they won't change from, what is it? Terminal Arma 2 introduced a reaper drone terminal, where you had a menu action that put you into the spotter view with control over the orbit position, height of aircraft, and weapons/laser designation. You moved where you wanted it to fly by opening the map and clicking a new position. On UGVs, this would probably be a top-mounted camera you look through or the weapons system. Running it like this, I'd have problems where you need the vehicle to be mobile in order to provide covering fire for friendly troops, and map-based movement is not conducive to providing this. IMHO, please do not use this for UGVs, but it's still viable for UAVs (the quad-rotor UAV is another discussion) Multi Crew Works like the manned vehicles now. One person would be driving, looking through a forward camera on the vehicle. The other person runs the weapons, and their camera would be similar to the RWS view on the Hunter or Ifrit. To man the vehicle, you would have a menu action (Drive/Gun UGV) at specified UGV terminals or objects (like the UAVs from Arma 2), and your character would hold pose while you drive/gun. The issues I have with this, is when you want AI to control the vehicle, are they going to continue to think they're at the terminal location even when they're next to you in the UGV, are they going to have problems with "becoming" the UGV while their body stays at the terminal, can you make them (or players) show up with the UGV icon in the squad bar while they're connected, and a few more if I keep running with this. Basically, this would not be my preferred option for control, but I could stand it if done right. Single Crew One person, driving and gunning. More typical of "Action" FPS's, the WASD keys would control the body of the vehicle (A/D turns in-place or turns wheels) while the mouse controls the turret and guns. You can switch between the gun camera and drive camera through the / key on the numpad or whatever changes your view options. This doesn't use the extra person like the multi crew, allowing players to be some other role within the mission, and not requiring two AI for a single vehicle. But...this would probably require some coding to add a control like this, people might be up-in-arms about this kind of control being too "Action-y" for a "Realistic" Arma 3 (that's when I remind you that their word isn't "Realism" but "Authenticity"), it might make UGVs a bit overpowered when you have armor and a single person can wreck house when not facing AT. Compared to the previous two, I'd still prefer this option. If possible it'd be cool to have the camera switch toggle things like locking the turret's movement when in the drive camera, and being in the weapon camera slows the vehicle down so that normal movement in weapon mode is the same speed as slow movement in drive mode. Command Controlled Instead of placing the logic for an access point, the vehicle, the UGV module, and a character to run it all, you just place a unit in the editor like any other man or vehicle and let it run. By using the group tool to group the UGV with a squad leader, the squad leader can then order the UGV around like any other unit. If the UGV is player-controlled, they run it like the single-crew option above. Unfortunately, that would require the single-crew control options, you won't be able to take them long distances in helicopters or APCs unless they implement some kind of cargo-loading function standard with everything. I'd like this option in combination with the Single-Crew. If you want Command-Controlled, you place the UGV in the editor and assign player control, or group it to a squad leader. If you want Single-Crew, you plop down the logic and link the UGV, access station, and player/AI to it like in Arma 2. So, I'll open it up for discussion. Do you have any opinions about the options I posted above, have a better idea on how BI should go about this, or something else?

In a "realism" aspect, I would agree that the breathing seems louder than "real". FROM A GAMEPLAY ASPECT the breathing sound is used as a measure of how fatigued your character is. Having it at the current volume lets you hear how fatigued you are or if you've "caught your breath" even when heavy fire is going on around you. It's a replacement for the physical feeling of breathing that is not capable of being passed to gamers (without doing something like camera-bob that can cause negative side effects in players). IMO, keep it as-is. And if you're constantly bothered by the constant breathing, slow down. Walk, find a ride, or take frequent breaks. Only run into/from/out of cover during engagements. If you have to run somewhere far away, go into a combat jog (C key) and lower your weapon (Press LeftCtrl twice rapidly). You'll still be jogging forward, but you won't lose stamina. Mouse button brings up your weapon again.

Next time you're playing Wasteland, I&A, Domination, or whatever else and something is broken, don't complain in chat and whine about it on the forums. Do some impromptu bug testing, try to figure out what this bug is and why it's happening, check the bug tracker for previous write-ups, and provide your research so that the Dev's don't have to waste time tracking the cause and can go straight to fixing it and continue creating more content for us to enjoy. We are STILL playing in the early BETA versions of a game yet to be released. Just being given access to the ALPHA, allowed to give input and help the development team fix the game or add important features before release (because devs are not omnipotent and don't think of everything), and all for the low price of pre-ordering the game is HUGE. When you have the same size teams doing more in the same time they used to have for less money, it doesn't take much to know that you're getting a good deal already. As long as BI keeps creating updates for us and making the game constantly better, I'd be happy with a release date of "When it's done."

Very nice little addon. Can you either make it an option, or make another version where it's a menu choice instead of a key stroke?

Best model comparison? Minecraft. Look at how much content Minecraft had during its Alpha stages, compared to where it is at now. As these months roll through and Q3 2013 approaches, we're going to see more and more BI-generated content be released to the public for testing and for us to sink our teeth into while the rest of the game is developed. I like the public alpha model that people are using. It gives us access to awesomeness early, and BIS is getting money for its product to be tested (though, not by all the early adopters) instead of paying a professional company to test the game. Just be glad that you get to play now, instead of waiting. Want to help the development? Start bug-testing and hit the development tracker so that BIS knows what they need to fix.

Jumping as is done in other FPS's is a silly idea IMO when it comes to Arma's movement system, and its depiction of soldier's realistic movement within the battlefield. Do soldiers have to move over objects or across gaps some times? Yes. Often? Questionable. Do they bunny hop over everything like some games depict? No. Thus, we have reason to implement a system that takes into account the possibility that we may need the movement options available to us, but without going overboard. This is all limited to waist-high objects only, and anything much larger (hood of a car, table, head-high wall with help) is more likely to require a climb action. Running vaults have already been done in Arma 2. Take a look at some of Dslyecxi's videos on youtube to see ShackTac's version. With the current movement types in A3, I could see there being multiple vault or leap types implemented. The below is ordered by movement speed from slowest to fastest. Discussion is open to crouched versions, as all this relies on animations at middle standing position, or default for the proper speed. Standing: Bunny Hop in-place. Maybe useful for peeking over that wall that's too high for even the VTall stance. Go grab a pair of 30-40lbs weights and try to jump with them. That's about as high as you're going to get. Walk: Step-over. Pretty much what we have now, at a walking pace Combat Walk: Step-over, with weapon up (currently implemented? I don't have the time to test it right now.) Jog (Weapon Down): Slow to walking pace and step-over (currently implemented? I don't have the time to test it right now.) Combat Run: Slight decrease in speed while stepping over obstacle (currently implemented? I don't have the time to test it right now.) Run: Instead of slowing down, you leap over/across the obstacle ahead. Good for knee to near-waist-high objects, and small gaps. You can't immediately stop on the other side, but you will maintain your run speed if you keep moving. Uses a lot of stamina when executed. Hold V to prep, activated upon release unless Ctrl is held (to cancel the leap). The animation would be of stepping onto the object, modified to look something like a leap if there was no object there. Sprint: Long leap, gets you over short objects or across decent gaps. Uses the most stamina, resulting in having to stop and "catch your breath" before your weapon sway is manageable. Farthest cool-down distance before you can stop, but sprint speed is mostly maintained and you can bound over further objects at the cost of more stamina per bound than an individual leap takes. Can be used to jump short building gaps. As with above, hold V to prep, and release when you want to leap. Tapping V before landing creates the bounding motion (repeatable, stamina cost per bound exponentially increases so you can only do 2-3 bounds before having to wait a long period for your stamina to return to normal), otherwise you have to press/release V to leap again (at individual stamina cost). Uses same animation idea as the run. Like the melee/take-down thread, there's options in between keeping it at what we have now and going Quake style with bunny hopping and rocket jumping that some here believe is the end result of the "Jump" requests.

While I agree with the idea of adding melee, I don't want it to turn into a BF3-style insta-takedown or a CoD-style slash-fest. This starts when you're within 1 meter (or arm's length, whatever you prefer) you get a menu option of "Knife". This can be done from any direction, but the likelihood of getting in someone's face who has a gun ready is low. The Knife option starts a QTE event between the players. Let's say player A starts the chain against Player B. Once A hits "Knife", B gets a QTE of W A S or D. Successfully hitting the correct key keeps the attacker from killing you. It then goes to the attacker, and if he hits the correct key, the fight continues. If player B then hits the wrong key, they are killed. but, if A hits the wrong key as an attacker, he's overtaken and is now on the defense while B is now attacking. If A now hits wrong, A is killed. This lasts as long as both players keep hitting the right (or wrong, or no) keys. Make sense? A: "Knife" B: OK A: OK B: OK A: OK B: Wrong B: Dead A: "Knife" B: OK A: Wrong Turnover B: OK A: Wrong A: Dead The fighting animations can be cobbled together from 4 or 5 different individual grappling animations. The "Knife" option is only added to a mission by the editor, and only applies to units/groups synced to the module.

Is it possible to replace the 04: Combat scenario template located in the scenarios>my missions from OA with the one in A2? Or to have both? Otherwise your only option to play as the US in singleplayer is by any of the other scenarios or editor.

Or, they could implement a new group system, that's tiered specifically to who's grouped to who. If you take one unit and group it to another, the second is your team leader. Now, if you group that TL and another to one more, the TLs still have command over their units, but they in turn are told where to go by the new Squad Leader. This just tiers over time, with the old unit portraits in the bottom right being replaced with the respective icons for the unit type and size. Now, waypoints would have to be revamped, and a few extra commands added so that we could have a streamlined HC interface mixed with our standard commands. If I could photoshop, I would make a menu example, but I can't.

It was a point brought up when they patched it in. People seemed to give up on it eventually. But, the system currently incorporated in A2/OA is not at all realistic. If I'm firing a full-auto LMG in real life, I'm not going to be following the barrel of the weapon as it tracks skyward. I'm going to keep my view on-target, and naturally bring the muzzle back down to at least a somewhat nominal direction to what I was originally shooting at. It's probably the worst "fix" that BIS has included. IMO.

Simple, in-game footage of awesomeness would be perfect for American TV. Look at some of the videos of A2 on youtube (LitosHQ's videos are good examples) and take inspiration. 30-60 seconds of action with the Arma3 and BIS logos in the bottom corners, a game rating placed unobtrusively, with easily-seen descriptive text, and you have yourselves a commercial. Or, expand on the AAN idea with realistic-looking A3 news coverage.

If it's implemented, it needs to be something that doesn't affect gameplay. When you create your character (or characters - one per faction) that is how you look, regardless of your class. Damage and inventory remain the same whether or not you wear vest A or vest B. With weapons, it just needs to be a loadable option in your inventory. A2 currently has so many accessory slots open (the ones that hold your map, compass, radio, etc.) that they can be used to store ACOG scopes or IR lights. When you drag an addon to a slot on your weapon, the picture changes to reflect that addon. Same goes for magazines. If you have a drum magazine loaded into an M4, the model in-game needs to show that you have a drum magazine loaded.

What about the airfield/airports? In A2 the cherno airfield is only moderately realistic. Are we going to see proper lighting, spacing, taxiway safety margins, and etc. in A3? As well as lengths?

If the AI gets low enough on ammo to where they say "Low on ammo!", and there's an AI team leader, the ai team leader will order their low ammo unit to resupply at the nearest supply. Now, I don't know if an infantry squad will call for an ammo truck with just one guy low on ammo.

I think a lot of people are confused. It's not the chat channels, it's not static, it's people (well, AI) using the "voice channel" instead of the radio channel in-game. Like, if you're within 15m of a guy, he talks instead of using his radio to transmit to you from 15m away. Would be cool if it was a default on giving orders, where, when you're within 15m or everyone you're ordering, your guy talks (shouts?) out the orders, and you get replies from everybody at once. Same for in-vehicle. But, vehicle to soldier outside, even if <2m, is still radio. unless you're "turned out".

A couple things from my not-so-expert knowledge. -Make the runway lights a little more spaced out. As far as I know, IRL, the lights are spaced so far apart that you don't notice breaks in the lighting for taxiways. Don't go overboard adding lights. -"Square" your taxiways. Instead of having them go to the middle, send them to the ends, with one or two in the middle to turn off early. BIS's example on Chernarus is actually very good. -Speaking of that airbase, single runway plus hangars/cover for fighters and a parking ramp for transports is probably the most realistic setup for an in-theater airbase. See the northern airbase on Takistan for an example. And the buildings you're already using look mighty fine for what you're using them for. -Dim, blue lights on the taxiway sides. Dim, green lights in the middle of taxiways. The default BIS lights work perfectly on the runway edges. -Don't forget the PAPI's! These 4 lights are used for glide-slope correction when landing. Noticeable as 4 red\ lights that turn white as you move into the correct approach. -NVG compatible. It's rather hard to do in Arma 2, but having your lights dimmer is better. Keeps the contrast in NVGs flyable, and looks a bit better than ub3r-bright lights with no NVGs. Little things that I nitpick about, being OCD about what I know it's supposed to some-what look like. Just my 2-cents in my hope for a fully-realistic airfield/base.

Sadly, Death valley was in the A2 demo only. It would've been nice if they included it in the retail version too. But, you're looking for the game mode called Warfare. There's a small one for Utes, and much larger ones for Chernarus and Takistan. Now, does someone with more editor skill than I want to make an epic small-scale PMCs vs. BAF warfare-like mission on one of the new, small, maps?

Say, 2 seconds for prep (showing a "Pie circle" timer, 1 revolution per second), then reload from "held" mag to other at 4 rounds per second, then 2 seconds for stowage. That means that reloading a 28/30 mag into a 2/30 mag takes 11 seconds (if you didn't choose the 4.5s for the 2/30 into 28/30). You can lengthen that out to 2 rounds/second for a "more realistic" time (28/30 into 2/30 becomes 20 seconds).

About the best thing they could do right now is to force zoom when wearing NVGs, but limit the screen down to 2/3 the current size. As well, but less likely, is to have the NVG portion take up a zoomed in part, while the rest is standard zoom without NVG (but non-adjusted). Besides that, it all seems to be about the same, if not better than RL.