UltimateBawb

I wish it was.

Yeah... boat exfiltration would be incredibly easy compared to this, not to sound elitist or anything. I could post the mission file, it's literally Autism Simulator 2013.

Oh, I don't know, maybe any mode / mission where the main subject is focused around some sort of combat? I'm not dismissing other game-modes; Life and DayZ could be fun (Wasteland is cancerous, sorry). However, I can't stand to see the combined arms 'simulator' (before I get jumped on by people with the strictest definitions of a 'simulator') that is Arma 3 be overtaken by childish modes that fail to utilize the most redeeming aspects of the game and engine.

I'm making an IFV amphibious by attaching it to an inflatable boat. I have a platoon of these in a landing operation, and seemingly randomly a few of the paired IFV/boats explode on mission start when the attachTo is run. Often none explode, but rarely an entire unit is wiped out, making it a major problem. What could be the issue here?

attachTo always runs disableSimulation on the attached unit though, right? Whenever a unit is attached it becomes intangible. I've never had this problem with attachTo.

Yeah, as I said it'd be very simple to do that. I may use this as a temporary solution. But, again, it's only skirting around the actual problem.

I could try a work around like that, but I'd have to re-enable damage after the attachTo is complete. This'd be pretty simple but it's just more scripting to skirt around issues. I'd like to get to the root of the problem.

He specifically stated that his single card performance was much better than SLI. Please read and think. Thanks.

Ticket created, please vote, this issue greatly hinders mission creation. http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=16270

I've noticed that amphibious units (e.g. a floating APC) have a sever range limitations around 300 meters. This may seems reasonable, but all APC's have gyro-stabilized turrets and a player can easily accurately fire when floating even in 100% waves. I'm making a large amphibious landing mission so the units get decimated before they can even fire back. I don't know if this is a bug or not, but AI should still engage while amphibious even if they are less accurate. Honestly AI is way too picky about when they fire.

Ah apparently hiding the base unit (e.g. the boat) makes the attached unit capable of being fired upon. I thought I'd have to make a fake invisible man to act as a proxy target but I guess I can actually thank BIS on this one (halfheartedly at least).

I'm trying to make an ad hoc script for making any vehicle pseudo-amphibious. It works by attaching an inflatable boat to the interior and using the boat for movement over water. When the ATL level over the tank is very low (e.g. < 0.1) the tank is ready to be converted for land use and the boat is deleted. This works well, but I'm having a problem with using the system in firefights; hostile units completely ignore the attached land vehicle and vice-versa. Is there any way (beyond manually writing target scripts) to remove the "phantom" effect of attachTo?

I've tried it. And what you describe has everything to do with range; at that distance magnification is so affected by micro-movements of muscles that stuttering is very possible.

Exactly. Everyone whining about sway just wants an easier game. You have incredible problems sniping at 2km? Good.

Server FPS is highly dependent on the server hardware. Problem is, most moron admins choose massive missions to run on a spare PC. Horribly made and inefficient missions like wasteland (online daycare) or life (asshat simulator) don't help when you have 30+ players.

So many people with ideas, no one that can actually do anything. Seriously, who here can actually 3D model well, texture well, or implement well? Probably a very small amount. Posting lists detailing your ideas doesn't help anything; get shit done if you want to, though I doubt this idea will go anywhere.

I only play on elite. Please.

The AI isn't too hard. Seriously, you want the AI to not be able to hit you at all? Think about it: you can easily take out more than one AI in a life under equal conditions. The AI is incredibly easy compared to a living player, I can guarantee you that.

To those saying that the L-59 Super Albatross (after which the A-143 is presumably based) is no different than the L-39 Albatross other than radar and cockpit modernizations, the L-59 carries the newer DV-2S engine while the L-39 carries the older AI-25 engine. DV-2S: - First run in 1987 - 24.50 kN maximum thrust - 5.69 thrust to weight ratio AI-25: - First run in 1966 - 16.9 kN maximum thrust - 4.9 thrust to weight ratio So as you can see the L-59 has far greater engine power than the L-39.

I think the low fire rate is due to a bug in Arma where high fire rates can't be simulated, it's present in other IRL fast firing weapons like the M134 and AA vehicles. Also it'd be nice if we could have mixed ammunition loads, e.g. HEI;HEI;API-T.

Ticket created: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=16271

What? It's literally elementary English. It takes much effort to understand someone who literally uses no periods (or anything else for that matter); it's not being a dick, it's being reasonable. I really don't care if you don't make everything perfect but please at least separate your paragraphs into sentences, it's not that difficult. Anyways this is off topic. @jaemn I agree completely, I also don't understand why only the game only simulates "hull" damage. It'd be nice if ailerons, flaps, elevators, fuel tanks, and engines could be disabled.

Holy shit, way to talk about spelling and being able to be understood. Can you please attempt to use grammar? I can't read anything you write.

With regards to DayZ, it has affected people playing Arma 2 vanilla (how it was originally intended). The server browser is full of "DayZ start with DMR recruit deathmatch" servers, and it's nearly impossible to find a legitimate Arma 2 server even with the filters. Scripting options already exist as far as they need to. "Arcade" has no place in Arma.

Whelp I stand completely corrected, sorry for sounding so rude.