squirrel0311

I agree that this is a feature that should have been implemented in the very beginning, just another one of the points to why I say ArmA did some things great and some things terribly… Personally I am more about function than looking pretty and since this is a wanted feature, I’d like to know how many people would be opposed to something like this as a quick fix??? If we skipped the animation and models for now because I know that probably takes a long time… Could BIS just change the code to make the characteristics of light machine guns and Auto rifles respond more like a weapon using a bi pod in certain situations? E.G. Smaller and more concise point of impact. (See Note for prone fire.)...I guess this could work for any weapon but I'd only like it to focus on support for now. Prone: Dropping down to prone and remaining relatively pointing the same way (As in not spinning around in circles with your mouse or turning past 35 degrees.) the gun would fire just like if you were using a bipod because honestly…Who gets in the prone with a bipod but doesn’t use it? No squad gunner and certainly not a crew serve gunner ever would. Maybe they could make it where you have to tap A or D twice to be able to spin? (NOTE: In the prone the recoil should also be slightly reduced due to proper bipod loading.) Crouching/Standing and weapons resting: For crouching and standing I don’t think there should be much difference however…..Would it be possible to walk directly up to an object and have that engage the bipod/weapon resting code? The object would have to be low enough to shoot over but high enough that your character doesn’t just simply walk over without having to hit the (Step Over) key. In these positions the recoil would still be fairly strong but reset time and drift would be decreased. Not sure if any of this is possible to do without extensive work but I would like to know. I don't see why the prone part would be a problem but the weapons resting might be a big headache...

Well first off let me say that I very much agree there should be more PUBLIC Player vs. Player game modes besides just Team Death Match, Wasteland, and life. My personal favorite right now is King of the Hill. I still play Co-op from time to time but the main reason I stopped is the overall repetitiveness of those games, though that’s mainly an AI thing. Yes you can turn them down and make them stupid or turn them up and give them laser precision but they still react in the same manner and spawn in the same places. I just get a more fulfilling experience playing against other people. Although I have never played it, I like the sound of a Power Struggle game mode because it sounds a lot like Planetside 2 which is another game I enjoy. As far as the suggestion…Yeah I guess this thread is in the wrong place since BIS doesn’t have any dedicated servers or whatever. I had a suggestion for a more indepth version of the KOH mode as well and since I don’t feel like making a new thread I’m going to throw it in here… It would basically be like standard King of the Hill except it would be the first team to 1000 tickets. You would have one big Main AO in a large city that each team would try to control by having the majority of players inside. However you would also have side objectives that would spawn in every so often...(15min depending on if the first side objective was attempted or completed?) The side objectives would be a way for the losing teams to help even the ticket score but they would serve little purpose for the winning team except to stop the other teams from getting closer to winning. The secondary objectives would consist of missions such as… Designating an winning team player as an HVT and giving him and a PSD an objective to move to outside the Main AO…leaving themselves open to attack by other teams.(This would be the only mission that awards 50 points to the enemy team for completing or subtracts 15 for not attempting) Rescuing a downed pilot: Randomly spawning a teammate next to a smoking crash site and only allowing them map and radio comm every 8 minutes. (The enemy teams would know the approximate location of the crash.) And moving a convoy of 8 vehicles to a designated location: 2Mraps, 2Marshalls or equivalent, 2 HEMTT, 2APCs. The HEMTTs would be the bread and butter 50 tickets each for each one that makes it to the mark.. all other vehicles only count for 12.5 tickets. Each side mission would only be worth 100 tickets total though. Also finding and destroying enemy weapons caches inside the Main AO for 1 ticket each. (Keep in mind this is all just hasty theory…I’ll go more in depth when I post an actual thread.) For the realism crowd… I love realism! I don’t like when someone can jump off a 2 story roof in full gear, shoot someone with a head shot 500m away and hit the ground running like nothing happened. I don’t like when it takes 4 shots to the face to kill someone or when someone can bunny hop and completely dodge every single round of a 200rd belt from 5m away, only to run completely around the building and shoot me in the back. But of all those things what I hate most still has to be the people who claim 22 years from now isn’t realistic or that by trying to fix faults or add certain features they are somehow killing the heart and soul of ArmA. Arma 2 did a lot of things well and a lot of things that other games can’t even come close to, BUT it still did a lot of basic things terribly. It was very clunky and…Arma 3 is pretty clunky too but it’s still better in my opinion. I agree with what MistyRonin said… I think so many of us are just so used to Arma 2 that we’ve become stuck in that realm and are now very reluctant to move forward yet we’re willing to compare a game that’s been out for years with countless mods and a bunch of content that was transferred over from the previous game to one that is trying something different and is relatively new. It seems that most of the people who make such claims about the death of realism didn’t really want a new game but just Arma 2 with modern (2013) vehicles. I see a lot of people seeking out and attacking things that have changed from what they’re used to simply because those features are different without even trying to weight the benefits. As many others have said ArmA is a SANDBOX game and in my opinion that is what makes it so great. It’s foundation is based on CHOICE! You can go where you want, do what you want, make what you want to make and play how you want to play! If you want to join a private clan and play super realistic missions, great! If you want to find a bunch of people and goof off racing trucks around the countryside, have at it! Different people like to do different things and not everyone likes to do the same thing all the time. It’s one thing to always push to keep the game true to realistic aspects. (e.g. Ballistics, Stamina, Movement (Still needs to be more fluid IMO), Physics, Content) However it’s something quite different to restrict how people play or certain features they use just because it’s not the way you like to play and claim it in the name of realism.

I've made some changes to my Wish List on PAGE 213 of this thread. I alsow know what I want now for the menu. From my wishlist.... The scroll wheel menu interface and AI Communications Rose: I WANT MY NUMBER KEYS BACK! I firmly believe that every keybinding should be customizable by the user….Should you be allowed to keep the menu how it is? Sure. Should you have the option for something better if you want it though? Absolutely! I don’t completely hate the scroll menu but I think it should be restricted to only whatever is being used/interacted with. I personally believe that weapons should be set to number keys. I know people like to call it arcadeish when you set weapons to number keys but if you think about it….In real life…. All the tactical gear that people buy is designed for one purpose… to make your gear easier to wear, access, and use. This same concept could be applied to the use of number keys. I think that was one of the major oversights by the developers….It’s 2035 and we seem to have forgotten all about smooth quick weapons transitions, one point slings, and weapons catches. Ordinarily you would execute a weapons transition from primary to secondary when the immediate employment of your primary weapon is no longer the best option. This often takes place under fire and when you have no good cover, meaning that you SHOULD be moving. However, thanks to the animations or whatever the problem is… you can’t switch weapons while moving so that makes that option practically useless. My personal set up would look something like this…. Pointing at a door and scrolling up or down would push it open or closed like in Sakura Chan’s video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70CoV...layer_embedded However, I could also double click with the scroll wheel button to open up more options(Lock door, pick lock, kick door? Get in gunner seat, etc.…) or single click to just use the item/function. For wounded you would simply point and scroll down to drag, scroll up to drop, and click to give first aid/open the first aid rose for more in-depth game play types. Number keys: 1. Primary Weapon or TOGGLE Primary to Secondary / Secondary to primary 2. Secondary Weapon or TOGGLE Current weapon to launcher / Launcher to previous weapon 3. Launcher or Muzzle thump (If they ever add it. This could work with a bayonet too if they ever add that.) 4. IFAK or bring up the First Aid rose/menu for more in-depth game play. 5. Cycle grenades or maybe open a weapons rose(You could choose options for your rifle, grenade launcher, or pistol such as load tracers, change rate of fire, reload 40mm smoke or flares, or switch to smoke grenades or chemlights.) 6. Special gear (Mine Detector, UAV terminal, or whatever else.) 7. Switch to grenade launcher, change to tracer magazines or Consolidate ammo (If that is ever added.) 8. Place Explosives or open a Ordinance rose to choose the type of explosives or mines, place, set timer or even touch off. (Voiding 0) 9. Empty 0. Touch off bombs As far as AI commands go, I think a revamped version of the Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising Comm Rose would be ideal. Maybe cross it with the BF2 command rose. I think in BF2 there were actually 3 roses… one for communication, one for individual player actions, and one for fire support…maybe not though. For those that don’t remember the Dragon Rising rose, it opened up with more options depending on where you clicked. http://faqsmedia.ign.com/faqs/image/article/103/1035048/of2dr_rings.jpg NOTE: As other have said, it’s a matter of separating user items/weapons from things that you interact with like doors and vehicles. If you haven’t noticed already, I’m a fan of rose menus but one feature I would like to see if they are added is the option to set certain functions in those menus as a single key as well. (I.E. Ctrl+G=Cycle Grenades but you could also do it through the Weapons rose.) Weapons rose: Primary weapon (Left side)- switch rate of fire, load tracer mag, consolidate ammo(center button). Grenade Launcher (Top Right)- Load Smoke, Load flare, Load HEDP. Special launcher(Top) Load AT, Load AA. Grenades (Bottom): Select smoke, select flare, select chemlight, select rock, select incendiary, or select Frag. (You would still use the throw key to throw grenade types.) I drew another sweet picture for this on MS Paint but my work filter won’t let me post it. Ordinance: Select claymores or various mine types. Select Satchel or other explosives, Set timer, touch off. (Touch off should be center or bottom button) Though I wonder if it might be easier to make all weapons and ordinance options usable from the inventory menu…?

Can we make this threat a STICKY so that people who would like to discuss their individual wishes will stop mistakenly posting seperate threads? I've counted 2 threads so far from yesterday that should have been put here.. probably more out there. I know we already have a wishlist sticky but it's not up for discussion.

Yep and sometimes the NATO has a slightly steeper shoulder and more neck lead but usually that doesn't cause a problem. Just the overpressure but even then I'd say most probably handle it alright as long as you're not doing something stupid. On a different note: I wish they had implemented the Balanced Recoil System on the 7.62mm AK-12. The fact that they didn't kind of makes me want to drop it anyway. :/

Yeah it's on there... I'm betting it's dual caliber.. If you can shoot 5.56mm then normally you're ok with .223. Not always though.

The AK-12 is chambered in 3 different calibers: 5.45mm, 5.56mm, and 7.62mm. However, Russia has said that the wont adopt it now because it of it's short comings in testing... so that one might be out. :/ Izhmash is also planning on adding more calibers to the list.

From my wishlist on the Wish list and ideas - No Discussion thread, page 213. Note: Below is referring to military weapons yet I see no reason why civilians couldn't own AK's and AR's. Also I'm not opposed to someone adding more moderate civilian weapons such as hunting rifles (Remington 700, Winchester 30-30 or 45-70 :D) Also the WWII classics: Enfield, Mosin, K98, Springfield, and Garand. Heck you can get a Mosin for 80 bucks, so those will certainly be around for a while thanks to quantity. The 870 shotgun listed below would fit fine for the civilian side..which is kind of what I was aiming for. Oh..if you wanted to get real exotic you could also go with big bore stuff.. 577 TREX? .... I'd still like BIS to fix all the other junk first though. B]Weapons[/b]: As far as additional weapons go, I'm actually fairly happy with what we have right now but if we were going to add more then I'd say the classics should really be the only additions BIS focuses on, leave everything else out. All weapons should be the most modern versions available today (2013) and for weapons with different barrel lengths I would only include the most common military standard and compact length barrels. (20in/14in for AR platform, 13/8-10in for AK… so on and so forth.) I might have left a few out so don't go crazy. Here’s the list… Galil ACE 32 (7.62mm) AK-12 (7.62mm) AEK-971 (5.45.39) Or AEK-972 (5.56x45) M-16/M4 STEYR AUG FN FAL (modernized) HK G3 (Modernized) Rem870/Moss500 M1014 Saiga 12 P90 Glock 18/19 (Or just the 18- Both in 9mm) PKM RPK M60E (I do wish they would change the RFB back to .308 like it's supposed to be though.)

Ah I see, second time tonight I guess. haha I have seen it before though. :/ Again, I'd just like to say, although I can be a D when I need to. I don't mean to seem that way or like an Ahole in any of my above post. I just strongly disagree with someone wanting to limit something on the grounds of realism when in actuallity it just doesn't fit their play style. More options within reason is a good thing! Having a GPS for your driver isn't going to turn you into an unstoppable killing machine or keep you from working as a team. And now... a little modified exerpt from my wishlist found on the Wishlist and Idea's - No Discussion. Page 213. I kind of think that a lot of these thread reflect this situation... A Word about the Futuristic Setting: Arma 3 is set in 2035, a lot of people REALLY hate this concept. For some reason they believe that just because a game is set in the future, it can’t be realistic and therefore it must be shifting from the beloved milsim style game they once played and is now turning into Starship Troopers. ZOMG! The truth is that no one has said anything about spaceships and laser and as long as we keep it that way, I think we’ll be just fine. Personally I really like the future setting and the truth is all of the weapons and vehicles so far seem to be pretty well grounded to current technology standards…in fact I kind of think that some might have taken a step back…but I suppose that is realistic too. After all, defense contractors don’t always learn their lesson the first time. With that being said, in response to all the people crying for old weapons, vehicles and planes, I think it would be better to push BIS to focus on the REALISTIC FUTURE weapons and vehicles that they already have planned or are in the game, plus a few more… (See aircraft) Because of BIS’s limited time and resources I don’t think it would be practical to polish all the old content from Arma 2, instead that content should be polished and brought in from the mod community thanks to so many people wanting so many different things and what not. It seems that a large portion of the community were hoping for and expecting just a modernized version of Arma 2 taking place in the present (2013-2014) rather than the future. Although I agree that it would have been a neat idea... It's simply not the case. BIS chose to go with the future setting and no amount of whining and complaining SHOULD OR IS GOING TO change that now. I don't mean that BIS should just do whatever they want and forget about what their customers want but some of the things that people are asking for don't follow the direction they are trying to take the game and need to be dismissed. (e.g. Asking for more distortion in NVG's, no depth percetion in thermal, or saying that tank gunners won't use LCD displays as their primary means for target aqqusition.)...Ordinarily these are valid points when talking about today's technology..but we're talking about 2035. When talking about limiting things...it's imporant to take a look at the technology we have now and make educated decisions on whether or not it's unreasonable to think that we wouldn't have made significant advancements in those areas by the time 2035 gets here, or are we just trying to apply Arma 2's limitation to the game to make us feel more at home? That's the beauty of making a "GAME" that focuses on "Realism"...it allows for wiggle room when compared to a straight simulator and justification when compared to the average COD type shooter. You don't have to worry about static on the chopper blades or the current financial state of a country and if they'll even be able to afforde the equipment in the game,or if their government can even agree on paying for it...ahem... Anyway...You can include that stuff or you and make it up as you go along, not saying it's right or wrong... just saying... The point I want to make is... They left the game open to modding for a reason… - Just my take on it.

Alright then, just looked as if you were trying to say that because Arma simulates combat, it can't be a game that people play for fun. I am totally for fun through realism, like someone else said.. I personally think one of the key points that made/ makes Arma great is it's vast amount of options..not just the less than arcade style. Why? What good is having a thread for discussion if we can't disagree and discuss? I don't think anything has gotten out of hand.

Realism huh? Please tell me more about how a modernized tank in 2035 isn't going to have GPS for the driver simply because it's not his job to know where he's going? Especially when we're working on developing systems for all sorts of land vehicles that can basically drive themselves all in an effort to help ease the work load on the crew. If you've ever held a leadership position in the military then you know that one of the key points to being a good leader is making sure everyone knows the plan. Having personally been in a situation where the plan and route changed and where I had to take over as a driver. I can tell you, even in an MRAP with good visibility... it really really sucks driving through a hostile AO and having only one person that knows where you're supposed to be going, especially when at any point you can turn down the wrong ally and drive right into a group of turds carrying RKG's. By no means am I saying that a GPS will stop that, but having the piece of mind to quickly look and see where you are and where you should be is very nice. I know an MRAP is different than a tank but your chance is still 50/50 of getting hit. All it takes is a mobility kill to severely limit your options and survival chances. The ability of the driver to see and know where he's going without constant direction from the commander is a very big improvement and greatly reduces the work load of both especially in combat. Especially when we're talking about supposedly "realistic" modern combat. As technology moves forward, we must adapt. Today we have ATGMs that can hit targets 5k meters out... does it really sound like a good idea to have your commander staring at a map or gps, and telling his driver how far up to go before turning which direction instead of him scanning along side the gunner for threats?....Maybe in your tank but not mine! I'd also like to make it known that this problem doesn't just affect main battle tanks but also APCs. In the end it comes down to this.. if you want a GPS, you should be able to use it. If you don't want a GPS then don't equip it or simply don't use it but don't tell others they can't have it because you don't want to use one.

I'm going to post this again because I actually made picture links that work this time! TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT - Personally I don't see any need in adding the massive heavy lifters, although the C-5 Galaxy is probably my favorite transport (Love the sound of those engines.) I just can't see any need for something that big with any of the map sizes that have been created for Arma 2 or 3. A medium sized aircraft is really all that I would consider necessary, anything larger would just be for fun. Also since it's the future, I think we should use our imaginations a little bit and look past just the plain old fixed wing aircraft. Now here is the part where I’m torn… I like variety in planes… certain planes do certain things better, that’s why I don’t really like assigning one plane to a specific group or faction. I think they should just be customizable. (I.E. paint jobs and markings) On the other hand I can see having a game where 3 sides clash and giving them distinct aircraft with uneven capabilities could be a small problem for those who just want to have fun and not have to plan for how to best utilize their aircraft given the limitations. (Public Multi-player) So if we gave them similar capabilities based off the rough draft of limitations I set in this wish list in the Wish list and Ideas - No Discussion thread, page 213, it would be this... All aircraft can carry 80 troops or 2 tanks but the Quad Rotor and Tilt Wing could only do so if they executed a rolling takeoff and landing, otherwise they could only take off and land completely vertical with 1 tank. In addition the Quad rotor would be slow and cumbersome in helicopter mode but it would be able to move side to side whereas the Tilt Wing would need to rotate and then move forward or backward. They should all be able to reverse direction. The A400M would be able to take off and land in relatively short distance and would be quite nimble. (Sharp turning radius and quick recovery.) NATO FORCES: Quad Tilt Rotor - Something similar to the V-44 http://i44.tinypic.com/zm1vm9.jpg or http://i39.tinypic.com/5fkpl3.png Basically it would be about the size of a C-17GlobeMaster. I think it would be neat if it could open up the nose like a C-5 Galaxy, that way you could pretty much drive up the rear ramp to load up and straight out the front when you land. OPFOR: Tilt Wing - Something kind of like this http://i44.tinypic.com/qxjngi.jpg (Sort of looks like an AN-70 already!) but with the glass nose of an IL-76, contra-rotating props like the AN-70 and a tilt wing. Here's a different cool picture. http://i41.tinypic.com/2njhnpe.jpg (I actually like this picture, it looks like a C-17 though.) Here's what the props of an AN-70 look like. http://i44.tinypic.com/245bol5.jpg The engines should be larger though and it should have a turbo fan on the back (needs it for stabilization)…or just leave that bit of realism out completely. If you haven’t seen the XC-142 here you go. :P GreenFor: A300M - Upgraded to be slightly wider with the ability to accommodate 2 tanks. It should be quick, maneuverable, have excellent braking and the ability to reverse direction on the ground. Now to those saying that the A300M and the C-17 are going to be out of service by 2035... doubtful. Look how long we've been using the C-5 and the C-130. The stealth C-130 is a long LONG ways off.. and we have to find the money to fund it first. As far as I know, progress is slow at best.

Exactly! Know your spot and 2 above you at minimum. If you sustain a turret/kill and still have mobility it might be up to you to get back to the nearest friendly line. Having to stop and look at a map is unnecessary when it's supposed to be 2035 and practically everyone has a GPS. Like I said earlier but I guess no one read it.... GPS makes things easier for the Commander.. He doesn't have to worry about if his driver is going to stray off to the side road because all he has to do is follow the GPS, this allows the gunner and the commander to devote more time to scanning for threats, planning on the best way to engage those threats as well communicating with others in the column.

Squirrel's Big Freakin Wish List Ok so I'm posting this in this thread as well because I'd like to be able to discuss some things if need be, it was originally posted in the Wishlist and Ideas - No Discussion thread. I'm not sure if any of these issues were addressed yet or if they are currently working to fix them. I wrote this at work so I don't have all my notes, some of my information might be slightly off but I will still try to make my point as clear as possible. I didn't originally post this in the wish list thread because I fear it's already too big for someone to read as a single post but it got moved, not to mention the game is already out so this might just be a big waste of time. I didn't want this getting lost in the sea of one line post post but since this thread has been dead for a while I think it will be better now. Hopefully my goal of bringing together a collection of ideas from others as well as my own will be realized and taken into consideration for a more…complete feeling "Full Release" game. .....Lets begin..... Here is something I hope everyone will take a look at… I feel this would make players who are sticklers for quick concise information on the map, like me, very happy. This is my suggestion for the map symbols. Basically you would have 10 save slots for your most commonly used symbols. Along with the symbols you can also save what color and what text are accompanied with them by simply typing in the text, picking the color and dragging the symbol to an a empty slot WITHOUT hitting OK. OPERATION: Open the map and double click on the spot you would like to mark as you normally would. Simply use the up and down arrows like normal to change the symbol. Choose the color by clicking on it with your mouse cursor. If you'd like to save text with the symbol, simply type what you want in the text bar. If you don't want text then just leave the text bar empty. Once you have everything set up, simply move your cursor over to the big symbol and drag it to an empty slot. DO NOT HIT OK unless you also want to place that symbol on the part of the map you double clicked on. If you only want to save symbols BUT not place a marker on the map at that time you would simply hit cancel to close the window after you've saved your symbols to the save slots. To clear a save slot you must move the cursor over the slot and press delete. Simply dragging a different symbol over a filled slot WILL NOT replace it. This is to prevent accidental replacement during "Oh crap I'm getting shot!" combat. OPTIMIZATION: Now I don't know the specs of my computer off hand but I can tell you it shouldn't have as much trouble as it does with frame rate drop. I normally run 76-78 fps but when turning...everyone knows already...it drops...blah blah blah… I love good graphics and I don't know much about the correct order of building a game...I just know that graphics shouldn't be the only focus and that being able to see the whites of the enemy's eyes doesn't help me much when I get all of 6 frames to line up my sights and die...or crash into a mountain. A few other things fall under this category as well I believe... 4. Automatic Mod Downloader: I don’t like playing with a whole bunch of different mods simply because some seem to be more trouble than their worth and kind of a pain to get. However I know some are must haves… so when you join a server it should look and find what mods you need and ask if you want to download them. From there, clicking OK would download and install automatically or you could set your settings so that it opens up the website, allowing you to check the mod out and see if it’s legit before committing. 3. Multiplayer Server List and Filter: Now maybe they’re planning on working on this but, am I the only one that thinks the Multiplayer server list could use some revamping? And why does it only sort by one parameter? I’m not talking about filtering…I’m talking about sorting the list. If I click on Ping ^ Then it shows me the servers with the lowest ping at the top. But if I click on Ping^ then Players^ it only sorts by players. Why can’t I click on Ping^ Players^ and Type^ and see groupings of Co-op, DOM, TDM in lowest to highest order of ping and players at that specific time. The filter could use a little work too, it’s not very big, just put it along the bottom of the server list. 2. Parties, Squads, SOMETHING!: PARTIES- There should be some way you can link up with friends in the server list and all join a game together with the assurance that you’ll all be in the same squad…WITHOUT having to join an empty server! (Like how WARFRAME does it.) Perhaps in the actual game lobby there could also be a little box next to your name that you could click if you don’t mind being moved to a different squad and position when a party wishes to join your team and play together. Maybe a little box would pop up in the corner and say something like, “A party has joined your team. You have been moved to Delta Squad – Grenadier.†SQUADS – I really think that creating squads should be left up to the players in game since only about a quarter of players on public servers actually stay and work together with the squad they’re in. Allowing players to create squads would also eliminate the notorious headless squad…Plenty of Indians but no chief… If you create a squad you are the squad leader. Now I know some are going to be up in arms and screaming that is isn’t BF3 or COD but that’s not a valid argument in this case. Creating squads lets players choose to work together and it gives the Squad leader a good idea of who he can count on, none of this wasting time hoping your squad mate won’t go off and do his own thing never to return again. We need to weed out the faint hearted by realistic gameplay, not forcing groups who work well together to split up. 1. Overall Clunkiness: This is probably the most important to me, like I said before, graphics are great but they count for very little if the game runs like crap. I want to be able to play multiplayer against real people or AI seamlessly. No clunky shuffling jerking movements, no struggling to aim in on a target because of choppy gameplay, it needs to be SMOOTH! Getting stuck on doors, rails, rocks, corners, being unable to shoot through, climb through, or break out windows. Frame Rate, glitching through walls, getting killed by invisible fire…The list is pretty long and it needs to be addressed. Don’t worry about the underwater stuff until the problems on land are fixed...Especially on Altis…editor, single, and MP. Features: Across the board Team authority to punish Team Killers/vehicle destroyers: New options for players to take matters into their own hands when admins are not online. #VoteFreezeBlind- Blinds and Freezes all actions by the player by taking away their ability to see, shoot, move, communicate, throw grenades, check their inventory, and map for 2 minutes, 5 minutes, or until server restart. (If there is a way to keep them from disconnecting from the server for 5 minutes just to waste their time I would like that as well.) Too many times have I had to endure someone with nothing better to do than sit in spawn or just outside and repeatedly kill teammates or blow up vehicles in an effort to cripple their team. We should have some ability to annoy them until they go away with something that constantly halts their game play via a 2/3 vote. Vote kick is ineffective because the harassing player can just return and continue or make a new profile and return…at least with this you would stop them from having as much fun. If they change their profile name then you can just vote against that name too. The servers should remember those names until it restarts or have a #Voteban - which would ban that name for 24 hours. Perhaps we could also have a #Votecheck– Which would give all other players a window in the map that would allow them to check the inventory, rate of travel, and whatever else would be useful for determining dishonest gameplay. The votes for a check should NOT be visible to the player who is being checked, meaning it shouldn't show up in chat for that person. This would stop them from turning off their cheats before the vote was passed, unnecessary banter, and preemptive or retaliatory douchebaggery. I’m not very fond of having admins simply because one has to be online in order for any action to be taken. The power needs to lie with the players to regulate themselves. The scroll wheel menu interface and AI Communications Rose: I WANT MY NUMBER KEYS BACK! I firmly believe that every keybinding should be customizable by the user….Should you be allowed to keep the menu how it is? Sure. Should you have the option for something better if you want it though? Absolutely! I don’t completely hate the scroll menu but I think it should be restricted to only whatever is being used/interacted with. I personally believe that weapons should be set to number keys. I know people like to call it arcadeish when you set weapons to number keys but if you think about it….In real life…. All the tactical gear that people buy is designed for one purpose… to make your gear easier to wear, access, and use. This same concept could be applied to the use of number keys. I think that was one of the major oversights by the developers….It’s 2035 and we seem to have forgotten all about smooth quick weapons transitions, one point slings, and weapons catches. Ordinarily you would execute a weapons transition from primary to secondary when the immediate employment of your primary weapon is no longer the best option. This often takes place under fire and when you have no good cover, meaning that you SHOULD be moving. However, thanks to the animations or whatever the problem is… you can’t switch weapons while moving so that makes that option practically useless. My personal set up would look something like this…. Pointing at a door and scrolling up or down would push it open or closed like in Sakura Chan’s video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70CoV...layer_embedded However, I could also double click with the scroll wheel button to open up more options(Lock door, pick lock, kick door? Get in gunner seat, etc.…) or single click to just use the item/function. For wounded you would simply point and scroll down to drag, scroll up to drop, and click to give first aid/open the first aid rose for more in-depth game play types. Number keys: 1. Primary Weapon or TOGGLE Primary to Secondary / Secondary to primary 2. Secondary Weapon or TOGGLE Current weapon to launcher / Launcher to previous weapon 3. Launcher or Muzzle thump (If they ever add it. This could work with a bayonet too if they ever add that.) 4. IFAK or bring up the First Aid rose/menu for more in-depth game play. 5. Cycle grenades or maybe open a weapons rose(You could choose options for your rifle, grenade launcher, or pistol such as load tracers, change rate of fire, reload 40mm smoke or flares, or switch to smoke grenades or chemlights.) 6. Special gear (Mine Detector, UAV terminal, or whatever else.) 7. Switch to grenade launcher, change to tracer magazines or Consolidate ammo (If that is ever added.) 8. Place Explosives or open a Ordinance rose to choose the type of explosives or mines, place, set timer or even touch off. (Voiding 0) 9. Empty 0. Touch off bombs As far as AI commands go, I think a revamped version of the Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising Comm Rose would be ideal. Maybe cross it with the BF2 command rose. I think in BF2 there were actually 3 roses… one for communication, one for individual player actions, and one for fire support…maybe not though. For those that don’t remember the Dragon Rising rose, it opened up with more options depending on where you clicked. http://faqsmedia.ign.com/faqs/image/article/103/1035048/of2dr_rings.jpg NOTE: As other have said, it’s a matter of separating user items/weapons from things that you interact with like doors and vehicles. If you haven’t noticed already, I’m a fan of rose menus but one feature I would like to see if they are added is the option to set certain functions in those menus as a single key as well. (I.E. Ctrl+G=Cycle Grenades but you could also do it through the Weapons rose.) Weapons rose: Primary weapon (Left side)- switch rate of fire, load tracer mag, consolidate ammo(center button). Grenade Launcher (Top Right)- Load Smoke, Load flare, Load HEDP. Special launcher(Top) Load AT, Load AA. Grenades (Bottom): Select smoke, select flare, select chemlight, select rock, select incendiary, or select Frag. (You would still use the throw key to throw grenade types.) I drew another sweet picture for this on MS Paint but my work filter won’t let me post it. Ordinance: Select claymores or various mine types. Select Satchel or other explosives, Set timer, touch off. (Touch off should be center or bottom button) Though I wonder if it might be easier to make all weapons and ordinance options usable from the inventory menu…? Desync Chain: Does anyone remember this little box from Counter Strike? I believe this would be a much more useful tool than a simple colored chain. Changing weapons while running and BIPODS: Obviously this is a given... not sure if they fixed this in the "full release" but I don't think they did… I know I had some issue when playing.... Stuck aiming down the sights after hitting map button: Aim in on something and hit the map button… close your map and you’ll be stuck aiming down the sights until you hold aim and open the map again. Ability to use a GPS while driving an armored vehicle turned in: Don't know why this doesn't work but it doesn't for me. (First person) Short Stocking/Moving sideways through doorways: We're supposed to be trained soldiers...even with a long rifle we should be able to find some way to make it work! (I.E. Short stocking) Even if we can't aim down the sights while standing in the absolute threshold of the door, we would find some way to completely pie that corner! What about something similar to ...I think it was Gears of War...where he sticks his gun up over a wall and blind fires. I don't want to have a soldier that blind fires but maybe moving up to a doorway sideways and leaning over causes him to snake his gun out and peek. You couldn't aim down the sights but you could at least suppress long enough to get back in and out of the line of fire or if you kept stepping out you'd eventually raise your weapon again....Or just make it so we move smoothly through doorways… This should be something achievable from the standing all the way down to low crouching stances. Oh and if you're thinking trained military operators don't bring their weapons out of their shoulders, you're wrong! In combat you do what you have to do to make it work, if you have a short barrel rifle that’s fine but if your rifle has a 20inch barrel…something is going to have to change. Step Over/Climb: I shouldn't have to hit a button for anything under...eh… I say thigh high… unless it's railing along a cliff or the edge of a roof. (That’s so you don’t fall off without meaning to.) If I'm moving forward and I come to a knee high ledge or step I'm simply going to raise my leg and go... Another thing... CLIMBING! This doesn't pertain to ladders… I'm talking about walls… You know the walls in Agia Marina that surround some of the houses? A motivated warfighter should be able to go up to one of those walls hit "step over" and leap, pulling himself up onto the wall… it should take away his stamina...more or less depending on gear... but he should be able to first stay on his starting side of the wall, come to a forearm hang and peak over (If you take too long he should get tired and drop back down)... hitting forward brings you prone on the top of the wall and then doing so again would send you over the other side or you could hit back and go back from whence you came. Climbing up ladders: Not sure if this is being fixed but I think we all know the issue… When climbing up to the top of a ladder you don't need to stand completely up. The animation should be changed so that when going up, once the character's waist is past the top of the ladder he bends forward as if trying to put his chest on whatever he's climbing onto...taking the last 3 steps or so and finishing out in the prone, from there you could crawl, crouch or stand from one button push. You don't want to skyline yourself! When mounting the ladder to go down he should stay in the prone if your character was already in prone. If you were standing or crouching then he will crouch. (Stance fidelity is very important.) At the bottom of the latter obviously doesn't matter but you should be able to mount from any position…and I do believe the ladders should be operated by a use key function or at least lock the scroll wheel menu from giving other options when trying to use the ladder. (You'd need to be looking at it and pressed right up against it, not just in the general area.) This will allow you to still do other important things like place explosives or change to tracers. Shooting out of vehicles: Cars, Trucks, Helos, and ATVs: I don't need to explain this do I? …Off the back of an ATV or from the bed of a civilian truck, from the passenger seat, out the window or through the windshield. From gun ports on armored vehicles to the bench seats on the MH-9 or for the guys closest to the side doors on the Mi-48 Kaiman. (Friendly fire might be an issue with that.) Oh here's a big one....Since no one thought to give the commander a gun on the Bluefor tank the least they could do is let him shoot with his rifle when turned out. Better visibility and DETAIL for armored drivers Turned In: This is supposed to be the future...No one would make an armored vehicle with only one available view port unless they have absolutely no idea what they're doing and didn't learn from WWII. You can even see 3 distinct view ports on the driver hatches of the vehicles in Arma 3 right now, you should at least able to turn your head and look diagonally. Ideally the view ports would have...eh 135 degrees field of view? Also again, this is supposed to be the future… the drivers should have a dashboard with a screen that shows at least a rear facing camera that is Night Vision capable (ideally it would have a forward facing camera as well). And if you really want to get fancy... the driver's front facing camera should be connected to a slave system on their helmet like an Apache gunner... where ever he turns his head is where the camera looks, so that it would be just like if he was turned out. It doesn’t need thermal or anything super fancy just give him the tools to see where he’s going. (Night vision and a little bit of zoom to identify IED’s and mines.) We have web cams that can zoom, pan left, right, up, down, rotate 360, and track faces…I can’t see why we couldn’t mount a camera on a tank under the turret for the driver. Armor Optics Vulnerable to Small Arms Fire: Any mounted weapon with a remote viewer SHOULD be vulnerable to small arms fire IF YOU CAN HIT IT. For tanks and APC’s at least, they should have a redundancy system. The periscope view ports (the 3 slots on the driver’s hatches) should be used only as a last resort after their good optics have been destroyed, but even the view ports should be able to get shot up so bad that you can’t see out. Obviously I know that 3rd person will make this feature useless but it should still be added. It’s too bad that the devs didn’t think of this before the models were made. I would have given the gunner a primitive periscope sight mounted next to and looking down along the bore of the main gun so it and his coaxial machine gun would still be somewhat effective. The gunner sight would be receded inside the armor of the turret, requiring a nearly straight on shot to hit it. The down side is that it wouldn’t be thermal or night vision, it wouldn’t have zoom and it would have a severely limited field of view. (Scenario) You’re hiding in a building and a tank pulls up beside you and stops in the street with no infantry support, you should be able to shoot out the optics of the tank partially or completely blinding it if you can hit all the cameras and view ports. 3 guns for tanks and driver ability to turn out with someone in gunner spot: I'm still mad about this... The gunner should control the main gun and coaxial medium machine gun. The commander should have control of a heavy machine gun in which he can fire while turned in or turned out. All drivers should be able to drive turned out regardless if someone is in the gunner seat. Female Characters - Military and Civilian: I currently have 3 female friends who mentioned it's dumb that there are no females in the game. Maybe something like F.E.T. Marines (Female Engagement Teams - AKA - Lionesses) These are the ladies who go out on patrol with us (Infantry Marines) and interact with the women and children. Also, female military police, motor transport, HIT (human intelligence), interpreters, pilots, UAV controllers, officers and or Red Patchers! (Landing Support Specialist) In all honesty I really don’t think they need specialized titles, just make female characters. Breakable Doors, and Windows: I think this is pretty self-explanatory… it shouldn’t take 10 rounds to knock out a window, you should be able to toss grenades from windows, and you should also be able to climb through windows if they’re big enough! Don’t go through doors if you don’t have to. Doors should be able to be kicked down or blown off the hinges as well. (Found that you can break windows quickly by shooting the frame in the center of the window… 3 shots with a pistol should break all the glass…still gives your position away though.) Muzzle Thump: There should be a feature to thrust the muzzle of your weapon against your enemy. Hits to the body would stun/knock them back for 1 or 2 seconds, giving you the ability to thump them in the head… one hit to the head would stun for 5 seconds, a second hit would knock them unconscious for 15 seconds, a third hit would kill them. It would also allow you to break out windows without making too much noise...maybe even break door locks? Rocket Damage to buildings: When a rocket hits a building it shouldn’t turn the whole building brown and send cracks everywhere. Instead it should punch a fairly large hole in the wall, blow out the windows, doors on that level and char the inside and around the hole. (Unless it’s HE or thermobaric) Now this may be a glitch but I’ve seen several buildings either just brought down or still completely intact but simply charred looking. The reason I think this is important is because at many points in a MOUT environment, the safest way into a building is through the door you made. :P Many times we have used rockets to knock holes in walls and houses to gain entry. Rocket Sounds: The sounds of a rocket being fired and impacting need to be changed. The distinct “Currclunk†noise is the sound of the rocket leaving the tube and is only heard if you are in fairly close proximity. The next sound, “psssSSSSSHHHHH†is the sound of the rocket motor starting up, That is what you should hear the farther you are away. As far as the impacts go…the sound is off but it’s still pretty realistic in that you don’t hear much of a hissing roar unless it passes over you. Interpreters, Assigned Radios and GPS - Opfor/Bluefor: Someone else mentioned this and I agree but with a few small changes... Firstly, ACRE is cool but again this is the future and I like to use my imagination a little and believe that technology has advanced to the point that we no longer need a PRC-119, 148, 343. I'd like to believe that everything we need, be it UHF, VHF, or Satellite could be achieved through a radio no bigger than a PRC-148. And we could also just say that the tech was invented by the west but of course china ripped it off and sold it to everyone. :P Now, every side would have their own.. You could kill the enemy and take their radio but you would have to give it to an interpreter and then the interpreter would have to relay those messages to command or the rest of the troops... and I mean by word of mouth, not just have it broadcast to everyone else. If you wanted to make things a little more complicated you could have a 4 digit pass code (#1-4 only) that would have to be cracked before being able to use the radio... You could have it so that only enemy squad leaders had the pass code written down on their map. You would need to kill one, search their bodies and take their map to find the code, same with the GPS. In addition, interpreters could have a code breaker device that must be attached to the radio/GPS and takes 10minutes to crack if you didn’t already have the code. Incendiary and other specialty grenades: We need thermite grenades to destroy radios and equipment without loud bangs from explosions… also FLASH BANGs. Tear gas might be interesting but all I care about right now is the incendiary. Tear gas would require gas mask too so that shouldn’t come till after everything else has been fixed. Consolidate Ammo: There should be a button in the inventory to take your half or near empty magazines and consolidate your ammo into full mags. That is so you don’t have to fire 3 rounds, change mags, fire 6 rounds, change mags, so on and so forth… Helmet lights and strobes: Since I believe all the helmets in Arma 3 have strobes I think it would be neat to see a 3 function helmet light compiled into a single unit. However this particular helmet light can also be clipped to the brim of hats. It would feature: http://i40.tinypic.com/xehrtk.png (485 kB) 1. Forward facing Visual (white) and IR headlamp. (Select which one you want to turn on) 2. A NON-FLASHING multi-color choice (Blue, Red, Green, Yellow… Think replacement for chemlights.) MARKER. (Select which one you want to turn on) 3. And a Visual/IR strobe. These 3 feature types would all work independently of each other and the status of your helmet lights would be displayed by a simple indicator on the stance menu. This would also enable visual lights while not giving up IR weapon mounted lasers, since for some reason you can't have both on your weapon. In addition, each side could have their own type of helmet light/strobe....Hang on this is where it gets complicated.... You could tell them apart in the air by the flash patterns. Bluefor: .....\Flash/....1. 1000, 2. 1000, 3. 1000.... \Flash/...and so on Opfor: ......\Flash/ \Flash/.....1. 1000, 2. 1000, 3.1000, 4. 1000.....\Flash/ \Flash/…and so on Green: ......\Flash/ \Flash/..(1/4 second pause)..\Flash/ \Flash/.....1. 1000, 2. 1000, 3. 1000.....\Flash/ \Flash/..(1/4 second pause)..\Flash/ \Flash/…and so on Civilian Dogs: Cities have dogs, some are nice, some are mean, some bark and some don’t really care. I would like to see scenarios where dogs would bark and alert people in the area when opposing forces are nearby… or possibly even attack or attack and run away as if it was scared and just trying to protect it’s family and territory. Depleting supply crates that can be dropped off by helicopters: Crates can be customizable but will take up the spots of 2 or 5 people depending on size, large or small. (I.E. Ammo crate small- 30stanmags, 12 200rd belt, 20grenades, 20 HE40mm, 2 rockets. Large crate- Lynx Rifle w/ 5mags, 8 rockets, 60 stanmag, 20 200rd belt, 40genades, 40 HE40mm.) Once the ammo is gone, it’s gone. The helicopters don’t have to land to drop these crates off, however the higher the altitude the more chance you have that weapons or ammo will be damaged. (Not available and unable to take out of the crate – Highlighted in red.) 3 meters and below- No damage. 7 to 3 meters- Possible moderate damage. 8 meters and higher- Critical damage. SCENARIO: Something similar to Invade and Annex… Assault an objective and take it over. Supplies are limited and crates spawn every 15 minutes at the main base requiring them to be helo’d out to the forward positions. On top of that, some objectives might receive a counter attack from the enemy up to 15 minutes after being taken; this would make having a fluid supply line key and ensure the helo pilots stayed busy. Better HUD for planes and helicopters: We know the white lock on box isn’t cutting it. How about helmet mounted HUD? (Circle and look at a target, lock, fire, go home and play N64. - Pilot Life) Occupant list in vehicles: Everyone inside of a vehicle should be able to see the names of everyone else in that vehicle with them including what position they are in. Every seat should have a number...yes like BF3. Perhaps you could choose where you'd like that list to show up on your screen, side or bottom… or hide it all together. A Word about the Futuristic Setting: Arma 3 is set in 2035, a lot of people REALLY hate this concept. For some reason they believe that just because a game is set in the future, it can’t be realistic and therefore it must be shifting from the beloved milsim style game they once played and is now turning into Starship Troopers. ZOMG! The truth is that no one has said anything about spaceships and laser and as long as we keep it that way, I think we’ll be just fine. Personally I really like the future setting and the truth is all of the weapons and vehicles so far seem to be pretty well grounded to current technology standards…in fact I strongly believe that some might have taken a step back…but I suppose that is realistic too. After all, defense contractors don’t always learn their lesson the first time. With that being said, in response to all the people crying for old weapons, vehicles and planes, I think it would be better to push BIS to focus on the REALISTIC FUTURE weapons and vehicles that they already have planned or are in the game, plus a few more… (See aircraft) Because of BIS’s limited time and resources I don’t think it would be practical to polish all the old content from Arma 2, instead that content should be polished and brought in from the mod community thanks to so many people wanting so many different things and what not. They left the game open to modding for a reason…. Vehicles: I’m not really going to get too into this one but I think a lot of people including myself feel like there is still much to be desired. The Mobile Artillery, IFVs, and AA are just variations of the BTR’s and Panthers. I’m all for variety in weapons but I can’t help but wonder if we will find a somewhat sizable gap in firepower and capabilities between some of the Bluefor and Opfor vehicles. I.E. Lack of ATGMs on the Marshall or no heavy cannon on the Panther IFV….The Marine Corps had a hard time with that too. Weapons: As far as additional weapons go, I'm actually fairly happy with what we have right now but if we were going to add more then I'd say the classics should really be the only additions BIS focuses on, leave everything else out. All weapons should be the most modern versions available today (2013) and for weapons with different barrel lengths I would only include the most common military standard and compact length barrels. (20in/14in for AR platform, 13/8-10in for AK… so on and so forth.) I might have left a few out so don't go crazy. Here’s the list… Galil ACE 32 (7.62mm) AK-12 (7.62mm) AEK-971 (5.45.39) Or AEK-972 (5.56x45) M-16/M4 STEYR AUG FN FAL (modernized) HK G3 (Modernized) Rem870/Moss500 M1014 Saiga 12 P90 Glock 18/19 (Or just the 18- Both in 9mm) PKM RPK M60E Conclusion Overall I think BIS has done a really really great job. They’ve certainly come a long way from the days of Operation Flashpoint. It seems like they’ve held pretty close to the roots on keeping this project based more on realism than just another flashy shoot’em up. I’m certainly enjoying the idea and the direction they’re taking it, however as with all things, I think it’s important to remember that it’s not over yet, let’s not get complacent and start calling it good enough. There is real potential in Arma 3 to turn it into a game that everyone who enjoys realistic milsim shooters must have and set the global standard for what one should be…though I guess they’ve already done that, but that’s no reason to stop now. FIGHTER/ATTACK AIRCRAFT: (See transport aircraft note) US FORCES Multi-role: F22 Raptor, F-35 JSF, and Super Tomcat 21 (See note at bottom.) Ground Attack: Let's just say they upgraded the A-10...Thunderbolt 3 :p OPFOR Multi-role: Qaher-313 http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/f313.jpg (702 kB) (702 kB) , J-20, and Su-47 Berkut Ground Attack: Su-39 Frogfoot INDFOR Multi-role: T-50 PAK FA, Saab JAS 39, and Eurofighter Typhoon. Ground Attack: L-39 (already in game) TOMCAT Note: I haven’t been able to find a good picture but since the F-14 Tomcat is still my favorite plane I wish someone would draw up a stealthy version that still closely resembles the old tomcat. At one time there was talk of a Super Tomcat 21. These look pretty cool though the nose is kind of ugly: TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT - personally don't see any need in adding the massive heavy lifters, although the C-5 Galaxy is probably my favorite transport (Love the sound of those engines.) I just can't see any need for something that big with any of the map sizes that have been created for Arma 2 or 3. A medium sized aircraft is really all that I would consider necessary, anything larger would just be for fun. Also since it's the future, I think we should use our imaginations a little bit and look past just the plain old fixed wing aircraft. Now here is the part where I’m torn… I like variety in planes… certain planes do certain things better, that’s why I don’t really like assigning one plane to a specific group. I think they should just be customizable. (I.E. paint jobs and markings) On the other hand I can see having a game where 3 sides clash and giving them distinct aircraft with uneven capabilities could be a small problem for those who just want to have fun and not have to plan for how to best utilize their aircraft given the limitations. (Public Multi-player) So if we gave them similar capabilities based off the rough draft of limitations I set in this wish list it would be this... All aircraft can carry 80 troops or 2 tanks but the Quad Rotor and Tilt Wing could only do so if they executed a rolling takeoff and landing, otherwise they could only take off and land completely vertical with 1 tank. In addition the Quad rotor would be slow and cumbersome in helicopter mode but it would be able to move side to side whereas the Tilt Wing would need to rotate and then move forward or backward. They should all be able to reverse direction. The A400M would be able to take off and land in relatively short distance and would be quite nimble. NATO FORCES: Quad Tilt Rotor - Something similar to the V-44 http://i44.tinypic.com/zm1vm9.jpg or http://i39.tinypic.com/5fkpl3.png (I’m thinking it needs a tail fin though.) Basically it would be about the size of a C-17GlobeMaster. I think it would be neat if it could open up the nose like a C-5 Galaxy, that way you could pretty much drive up the rear ramp to load up and straight out the front when you land. OPFOR: Tilt Wing – Something that resembles a wider IL-76 with contra-rotating props like the AN-70 and a tilt wing. Kinda like this… http://i44.tinypic.com/qxjngi.jpg (Sort of looks like an IL-76 already!) Here's a different cool picture. http://i41.tinypic.com/2njhnpe.jpg (I actually like this one too, it looks like a C-17 though.) Here's what the props of an AN-70 look like. http://i44.tinypic.com/245bol5.jpg The engines should be larger though and it should have a turbo fan on the back (needs it for stabilization)…or just leave that bit of realism out completely. If you haven’t seen the XC-142 here you go. :P INDFOR: A300M - Upgraded to be slightly wider with the ability to accommodate 2 tanks. It should be quick, maneuverable, have excellent braking and the ability to reverse direction on the ground. To those saying that the A300M and the C-17 are going to be out of service by 2035...doubtful. Look how long we've been using the C-5 and the C-130. The stealth C-130 is a long LONG ways off…and we have to find the money to fund it first. As far as I know, progress is slow at best. Another thing…Stealth in Arma… Just like in real life, many times on the battlefield it turns out that stealth isn’t really a necessity, air superiority is established relatively quickly and often the largest ground threats come from good old fashioned AA. With that being said I would like to imagine that these planes were designed with hard points along the undersides of the wings. These hard points would be hidden by small flaps that could be opened like landing gear, allowing for the attachment of pylons and the ability to carry external weapons when stealth isn’t needed. HELICOPTERS: I've been wanting to see a CH 53E with a coaxial rotor for some time now so that is definitely on the top of my list. I know the 53K is the wider version that is able to fit a HMMWV inside but I think the 53K looks butt ugly. So I say make a coaxial rotor CH 53E and pretend it can fit a light armored truck or car inside. Next on my list is a helicopter I've been dreaming up for some time.. Take the nose and body of CH 53E, chop off the wheel wells and move them back, Put two smaller wheel wells up front, change the tail section to something like a V-22, and add large sliding cargo doors to both sides. Basically you could have a high tail clearance for the ramp to load or unload troops or cargo, while at the same time the side doors could be used to load wounded or kick out supplies while the gunners provide cover fire for offloading troops. (Closer to real life application than game play.) I've attached this super sweet drawing I did with MS Paint while I was at work. Now before you ask no I won't draw you super awesome airplane pictures because I'm not doing commissions... I know I know.. but if I did it for you then everyone else would want one too! (See GreenFor heavy lift helo) Heavy Lift Armament - 3 Medium or Heavy Machine Guns. Load Ability - 35 troops, (Slung)- 1 Tracked APC or 2 wheeled APC or Mraps. Additionally, the heavy lift helos should be able to fit a civilian truck or a small light weight armored car(Strider) inside. But the total allowance shouldn't be changed. Medium Lift Armament - 2 Medium Machine Guns Load Ability - 15 troops, (slung) 1Mrap or light civ truck. Light Lift/Attack Armament - (Depends on helicopter) Load Ability - (Slung) 2 ATV's Attack: Armament (Depends on the helicopter) BLUEFOR Heavy Lift - Coaxial CH 53E http://i44.tinypic.com/n5geww.jpg Medium Lift - UH 80 Ghost Hawk Light lift/Attack - MD500 little bird/Pawnee Attack - AH 99 Blackfoot (Comanche) OPFOR Heavy Lift - Sikorsky X2HS - http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll31/DemonLordRazgriz/3View.jpg Medium Lift - KA 60 Orca Light lift/Attack - MI-48 Kaiman Attack - KA 58 - http://digitality.comyr.com/Comanche/arc/ka58-2.jpg GREEN FORCES Heavy Lift - Hybrid helo http://i39.tinypic.com/2ntysk.png or this…Even has a strider being loaded up. http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae77/mitch_ftw_/scalietti%20project/HTH2-1.jpg Medium Lift - CH-40 Mohawk (in game) Or NH-90 Light lift/Attack - Lynx Attack - AW Mangusta or AW Apache PMC Forces Heavy Lift - Chinook type : http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/advanced-tandem-heli-0108.jpg Medium Lift - EC 725 Cougar mkII Light lift/Attack - UH 1Y Venom Attack - KA 52 Alligator Specialty Helicopters: V-22 Osprey: Armament - 2 Medium or Heavy machine guns (1 ramp, 1 side door limited) Load Ability - 25 troops, (Slung) 2 Mraps or 2civ trucks. Eurocopter X3: Armament - 2 Medium machine guns (limited movement) Or rockets and guns. Load ability - 1 civilian truck or 2 ATV's. Advantages and disadvantages: The v-22 would be fast and large, able to carry heavier loads though not with rotors tilted. It would be able to get into more spots, provided you find a clearing big enough. The X3 would be very small and fast, flying much like a plane. Though it would be hard to slow down and dangerous to land on anything but completely flat ground thanks to the side mounted props. Both would have to fly much slower with cargo slung and crew served weapons would be limited in their range of movement due to the wings, nacelles, and props. Another option could be the Osprey type helicopters used in Half-Life Opposing Force. Basically it is an osprey with a rear ramp and 2 large sliding cargo doors on the side. That could also give you and interesting option for fast roping, 1 on each side and 2 off the back ramp.

Ah yeah you could be right. For the battle ships you are... It might have been the Desert Combat mod because there was an option to lower or raise the ramp on the landing craft and CH-53. Though I'm pretty sure they came out with a patch that let you drive the carriers in BF2, maybe not though. I remember driving a carrier though and having JSF's on the deck because I ran it into the ground when I was trying to take it up the river in Dragon Valley.. I think that was the name of the map. It's been so long since I've played it though..makes me want to dig it out. ADUILO- You make a valid point, sir. Haha

The problem is, this issue doesn't just effect Main Battle Tanks.. It also effects armored personel carriers. As far as people saying that you wouldn't be able to use a GPS inside a tank. I agree that you might have signal issues by itself, but with the GPS antenna it would be no problem. If they didn't build a GPS/Blue Force tracker into the system(dashboard) I'm pretty sure they'd at least make a port to plug in a hand held model.. infact I'm almost postive they'd do both so that you could take a hand held unit, link it to the tank and instantly upload set way points from your infantry guys.. (Yes that's just a scenario) If you think that drivers wouldn't need to know that stuff because it's the commanders job...well you're right and wrong.... it's the commanders job to carry out the plan and tell the driver where to go but it's also his job to make sure everyone knows the plan. Having a GPS/blue force tracker screen in front of his driver, listing destinations, objectives, dangers, and other pertinent information makes his job easier. Rather than having to tell his driver everything over the comm, he can simply tell him to look at his screen, ask if he understands, and then explain what he needs to or go into detail on stuff critical for the driver. Using two senses (sight and hearing) to gather information is better than just one (hearing it over the comm) and it ultimately leads to a quicker better understanding and situational awareness. Here is my wishlist idea regarding the dashboard, visability, and optics in armored vehicles. You can find my full wishlist on page 213 of the Wishlist NO DISCUSSION thread. Go read it! :P Better visibility and DETAIL for armored drivers turned in: This is supposed to be the future...No one would make an armored vehicle with only one available view port unless they have absolutely no idea what they're doing and didn't learn from WWII. You can even see 3 distinct view ports on the driver hatches of the vehicles in Arma 3 right now, you should at least able to turn your head and look diagonally. Ideally the view ports would have...eh 135 degrees field of view? Also again, this is supposed to be the future… the drivers should have a dashboard with a screen that shows at least a rear facing camera that is Night Vision capable (ideally it would have a forward facing camera as well). And if you really want to get fancy... the driver's front facing camera should be connected to a slave system on their helmet like an Apache gunner... where ever he turns his head is where the camera looks, so that it would be just like if he was turned out. It doesn’t need thermal or anything super fancy just give him the tools to see where he’s going. (Night vision and a little bit of zoom to identify IED’s and mines.) We have web cams that can zoom, pan left, right, up, down, rotate 360, and track faces…I can’t see why we couldn’t mount a camera on a tank under the turret for the driver. Armor Optics Vulnerable to Small Arms Fire: Any mounted weapon with a remote viewer should be vulnerable to small arms fire IF YOU CAN HIT IT. For tanks and APC’s at least, they should have a redundancy system. The periscope view ports (the 3 slots on the driver’s hatches) should be used only as a last resort after their good optics have been destroyed, but even the view ports should be able to get shot up so bad that you can’t see out. Obviously I know that 3rd person will make this feature useless to some degree but it should still be added. It’s too bad that the devs didn’t think of this before the models were made. I would have given the gunner a primitive periscope sight mounted next to and looking down along the bore of the main gun so it and his coaxial machine gun would still be somewhat effective. The gunner sight would be receded inside the armor of the turret, requiring a nearly straight on shot to hit it. The down side is that it wouldn’t be thermal or night vision, it wouldn’t have zoom and it would have a severely limited field of view. (Scenario) You’re hiding in a building and a tank pulls up beside you and stops in the street with no infantry support, you should be able to shoot out the optics of the tank partially or completely blinding it if you can hit all the cameras and view ports.

Yeah but the animation part is more cosmetic so personally I don't want to see anymore animation until we get they get functionality part taken care of. Being able to hipfire while opening a door would be nice. I really like the work Sakura Chan has done, changing the doors to operate by scroll wheel and eleminating the scroll menu. You scroll UP to OPEN, DOWN to CLOSE, and you can control how far you open and close the door! He's made some updates, check out his videos.

As others have mentioned... BF2 did this…and did it quite well in my opinion, or at least more than adequately enough to make the game playable and enjoyable. In this video you can see people walking on the deck as well as helicopters and planes landing and taking off. In addition, all of the aircraft carriers and battleships were drivable. As far as standing on objects and going for a ride… it didn’t work well when you were standing on the outside of a vehicle such as a jet or something moving fast where you could slide and hit part of the vehicle as you fell off, that’s normally what killed people. But in the case of the CH-53, you could drop the back ramp, have people walk inside, close the ramp again, and fly away. Occasionally people would die when you descended too fast or pitched the nose too steep because they would start to drift up through the roof and get crushed, but I bet that is something that could be fixed. With land vehicles such as tanks and humvee’s, normally you would just slide off the back or side and land on your feet unscathed. In my opinion though I only care about the aircraft carriers and junk. You’re really not supposed to ride on the top of jets or on the outside of tanks. For those who complain about slipping off…well you’d slip off of a real one too if you don’t hold on. Most of the major, modern, conventional armies today really frown on soldiers riding on top of armored vehicles and things of such nature. It's against the rules and it could result in punishment or worse...the dreaded Safety Stand Down. Personally I’d rather see the ability to shoot from vehicles… From the bench seats of the humming bird, the back of the truck, and also from the cabin of both trucks and cars(civ)… maybe even through the windshield. :P (I put that in my big wishlist on page 213 of the Wishlist NO DISCUSSION…Go read it. :p)

This is something I had in my wishlist on the Wishlist NO DISCUSSION page 213. Breakable windows, shudders, and doors via a melee/muzzle thump feature. It's already been covered in other threads but I can't remember which ones. Apparrently this feature either can't happen because of the engine limitations or won't because of it was given up in exchange for something else... Now that's just what others have said, I don't know how true it is

Exactly the same as in sway/drift or speed of the drift too? It seems to move a lot faster when you're fatigued in the STABLE version... Did yall try that out yet? Like I said only did standing and that's what I got from first glance. Aside from slapping down a Squad Leader, truck, and containers I didn't get to spend much time on it before I had to go.

No, in the STABLE version. It might shift to the same motion after the intitial pattern or something.. it looks a lot different on mine though. I stood in one spot and focused on a truck off in the distance...my cross hair seemed to drift to the left and down really far with just one finger on the mouse.. I then ran down the hill and back up until my screen got hazy, stood on the same mark and zoomed in again with one finger on the mouse... It seemed to make a faster but tighter pattern, still drifting more to the left and down. In both tries I used other objects (orange containers) to try and measure how far down the drift was and how far to the sides. I only got to try it twice though before I had to leave so maybe there was something I'm missing. To me it looked different... Also, when I was first setting up the test and moving the crosshair around it seemed like there was much more noticable drift after moving the cross hair around (Compensating) while rested vs moving it around while exhausted...though it's hard to tell with it moving so fast. I was not standing in the exact same spot for that test though.

Yep, exactly what I was saying. I'd like to to see those people just try to stand up with out swaying while wearing 80-100lbs of gear, then add the heat, being hungry, being tired.. stomping up the side of a mountain and trying to zero in on a spec. After reviewing in the editor, I will say that the STANDING sway with FULL STAMINA is a bit excessive. The range of motion should be changed I think... When looking through the binos while... NOT TIRED: The sway is slow but drifts pretty FAR up, down, left, and right. This isn't correct because your brain and muscles do a better job compensating when you're rested. TIRED - The sway is fast but the area of movement stays FAIRLY TIGHT around the object trying to be viewed. In real life your brain is sending signals but your muscles are fatigued which takes more work and normally makes you end up over compensating.. not to mention the feeling of being about to pass out. So keep the respective slow and fast movement but change the range of the sway movement. (That's just the simple solution without getting into different sway for different optics.) Again... personally I would rather see them focus on the big issues before spending time on this.

What amazes me is that people hold something for 5 seconds and suddenly think that they're an expert on it and think that their experience applies to all situations... Just like in shooting, the basic stance limitations still apply. The closer you are to the ground the more stable you'll become and just like in shooting, the basic foundation is good solid bone support and natural point of aim. What people don't notice is that when you try to hold something up, even if it's just the weight of your arm, your muscles are twitching thanks to the constant impulses being sent to keep your arm up. Now combine that with standing up...Your eyes are seeing something and sending the information to your brain which is making constant adjustments to your entire body to keep you from falling over... and holding up your arm... and focusing on whatever it is you're focusing on. On top of all that you can add gear...which causes fatigue, which causes more sway. This is something that affects everyone... from the 90lbs weakling to the 300lbs strong man competitor. To those saying that they can hold binoculars perfectly still while standing up.... It might look perfectly still if you're looking through binos with no crosshair, low power, looking at a fairly close object, or just simply not paying attention but I can pretty much guarantee there is sway and the minute you really focus in on putting a certain point on a certain distant target you'll realize it. There is a reason that good laser range finders and laser designators come with tripods or at least have the option to be mounted on some sort of stable platform. I’m not saying the Bino sway is realistic or doesn’t need to be changed…I haven’t paid much attention to it in order to decide. What I can say is that no sway at all is totally unrealistic. I didn't seem to mind it in Alpha. For reference, these are the standard issue binos we used in the Marine Corps. http://www.galls.com/steiner-10x50-military-marine-binocular (Issued to Squad leaders, Section leaders, and Platoon Sergeants only.) And here are the vectors. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Leica_Vector_rangefinder_2007_07_14_n2.jpg

Well that's what I was thinking... realistically you can shoot while sprinting... won't do much good unless your enemy is super close, or maybe as a last ditch effort to kill or get the enemy's heads down but even then....Why? ....Now I don't get it either.... Sprint is already used for "Get the heck out of Dodge! / RUN FOR COVER!" It's also more taxing than simply jogging or moving at a tactical pace. So as it stands we have... Slowest: Walk (Weapon down I think?) Slow: Tactical walk (Weapon up - Able to shoot and move forward, backward, side to side.) Fast: Tactical jog/shuffle (Weapon up - Able to shoot and move forward, backward, side to side.) Faster: Normal jog/shuffle (Weapon dips to Alert position or some say low ready....I think but can't remember if it's in his shoulder... if not then it not the alert/low ready. Can't shoot while moving I think all directions but I know side to side for sure.) Fastest: Sprint (This is your "Get out out of Dodge!" pace and it takes the most stamina out of all. Can't shoot while moving.) I can't check all this junk because I'm at work. Someone jump on, hit tactical pace and then hit Right Shift to walk and see if it's slower than regular walk.

I can see what you're saying, basically you want to be able to sprint and shoot at the same time. I personally don't see much need for it and I think adding such a feature would just make things slightly more complicated than they need to be. There needs to be real definable limitations for each method of movement otherwise there isn't much point in having them. Slowest: Tactical walk (Able to shoot) Slow: Walk (unable to shoot)..I think it's slightly faster.. Fast: Tactical pace (Able to shoot) Faster: Normal jog (Not able to shoot while side stepping and moving forward?) Faster than^: Tactical sprint (Able to shoot) Fastest: Normal sprint (Unable to shoot) Another problem I could see is a lot of exploitation of some kind. Possibly learning the hit patters and just sprinting from cover to cover while accurately engaging the enemy...I guess that part is somewhat realistic in that you could do that in real life...though not very accurately. Even worse would be something similar to the melee charge in COD except you wouldn't even need to get that close. Overall I think there are much more pressing issues that need to be addressed before even thinking about adding such a thing. For example...Weapons transitions while moving.