SabotAndHeat

@SavageCDN Reply from pg 483 Ha ha! No team kills. In fact, it happens right out of the gate. Mission starts, do quick loadouts, mount helo's. Then the issue with a locked out seat.

Hello Alive Team. Hope things are well. A friend and I have been playing quiet little Alive missions recently and have had difficulty getting one (or both of us) to be able to enter Combat Support Transport vehicle. For example, I have synced a editor UH-80 to the Combat Support Module. It spawns, I tell my AI team to board (along with my friend in the team.) Usually, if he boards, then I can't...and vise versa. Seats are available I.e empty. My team only consists of 8 total. Any thoughts on why the AI can board, but some human players cannot? Thanks.

@ ARJay Is there any way to sync other vehicles to a combat support asset? I.e. You create a MH-9 Hummingbird with the CS(Trans) module, sync it to the CS module, then sync an editor placed AH-9 to that CS(Trans) MH-9. The end product being, every time you launch the TRANS MH-9, the AH-9 follows and provides support. They become a group controlled under one slot in the Combat Support Menu. Thanks. Love Alive. It really is the missing 1/3 needed piece to Arma 3's wholeness.

To those having issues with the CIV or MIL Placement modules not picking up locations within markers, I can confirm (especially on Altis) that Alive apparently gets wrapped around the axle over oval markers. No issues with rectangular. Take care.

@ Savage No I haven't, but I think I'm tracking you're thought process. So the CAS ( or Trans) Module, synced to a crewed victor, grouped to a crewed victor?

Is there any way to group other vehicles to a spawned, Alive CAS or Transport vehicle? Example, Alive Transport helo, has a gunship grouped with it at mission start, so it has an gunship escort.

@ARJay Good news! The magically disappearing squad members appears to be fixed since 0.80. Also, Alive is amazing! It absolutely makes Arma feel...well...alive. It's exactly what Arma has always been missing. Thank you.

@ARJay, Thanks. It's awfully odd, but it happens almost three out of four times. I have yet to find out what the common denominator is.

Bump from 8 SEP... Has anyone had any issues with Alive assigning your AI squad to defensive positions within a TAOR? I even have my player (team leader) synced to the profile module and its on selection 'dont profile synced'. It's happened not only shortly after start, it's also happened after I geared up, loaded my peeps into a chopper and flew 6 clicks to a forward, friendly held operations outpost. As soon as I landed....poof, three of my team were magically transported from the seats in the helo...to the guard towers 150 meters away.

Is there any way to create a mod that you can trigger shift states for the key bindings? If yes, how would I accomplish it?

Has anyone had any issues with Alive assigning your AI squad to defensive positions within a TAOR? I even have my player (team leader) synced to the profile module and its on selection 'dont profile synced'. It's happened not only shortly after start, it's also happened after I geared up, loaded my peeps into a chopper and flew 6 clicks to a forward, friendly held operations outpost. As soon as I landed....poof, three of my team were magically transported from the seats in the helo...to the guard towers 150 meters away. Strange. P.S. Alive Dev team, I'm loving this mod. Great job! Keep up the great work.

Dont know if anyone has heard of this or not but... CimmieMoreFrames [sic] ...is a registry edit that absolutely works awesome for Arma3. I found it in the Steam forums. The author did note that it won't necessarily help in multiplayer...but might if the server is running it as well. I will attempt try to find it later and add a link. It added at least 20 FPS or more. Awesome. Edit... it's GimmeMoarFrames [sic]

Two Requests / Ideas for mods. 1) Fluid Dynamic Mouse Stance. Assign a key that acts as an alternative "adjust" stance key that also momentarily replaces aiming using the mouse, with moving forward, backward and left and right with the mouse. Purpose: Is to allow with one hold of a key, the mouse becomes a fluid dynamic stance input. (One can get the effect by deleting your WASD movement keys and add "mouse forward, mouse backward" etc to the old WASD movement assignments. Then apply your stance key and the mouse becomes a fluid dynamic stance input.) 2) Enhanced Breaching File Formation. This would alter the current "File Formation" by making it a truly tight stack of soldiers. The idea is to make the AI soldiers track exactly the same footsteps that the lead soldier takes, while also implementing an extremely tight interval between soldiers that would be less than a rifle length. The AI soldiers would maintain this distance at all costs (almost invisibly linked) while covering appropriate sectors as normal while in a column of any type. (It would also inhibit the AI from breaking off or finding cover while in this formation.) Purpose: To make AI soldiers more capable of effectively breaching a door with human players.

Speaking of that VR shimmering effect...I immediately thought, "someone is going to turn that into a light redirection camo system" (or LiRCS for short. Feel free to use that mod community ;) )

At first the stamina update annoyed me. But, I know BIS has new programs with VBS2 that take a soldiers APFT scores into the game and it effects your characters performance. With that in mind I tested the new update. I used the US Army's Air Assault school, 12 mile road march standard with a 25-30 pound ruck in under 3 hours. These are things that the average combat arms soldier can meet prior to the school. Using the VR map in editor...flat surface, no clutter...I set a soldier off running for 2 clicks. First 500 meters he was strong, second he slowed down to a pace that would remain through the last click. I used only the second kilometers slower results. The character would have still finished the 12 mile ruck march in 2 hours and 21 minutes. Well under Air Assault schools standards (with probably more ruck weight in game.) BIS got the fatigue right and gave us gamers some slack. Speaking from personal experience with shooting while winded and in combat, I don't remember my weapon being as willy nilly as this update. However, things seemed to happen all at once so I'm probably remembering incorrectly. However, I would trust BIS on this for one simple reason...placing a laser tracking system on the barrel and having a soldier fatigue himself severly just prior to engaging targets is not hard to do. Then the laser will give feed back on how the weapon behaved not just while shooting, but while aiming. They do the same thing with Olympic shooters. Perhaps the update pushes further across the casual gaming boundry than most are comfortable with, but based on its accuracy so far, I can't deny it.

I'm ok with the bootcamp training and even some updated stamina effects (although they are grossly debilitating right now.). However, it boggles my mind that BIS is making this update and other future DLC's when its missing so many basic things that are being ignored. How about a Medical module? i.e. better treat options and anims / drag / carry? How about a SecOps module? How about a Ambient Combat module? (I'm especially confused by the helo and marksmanship DLC. They seem too specialized, while overlooking other sorely needed more general features.)

The one thing I've noticed is that some add on planes (imported from Arma 2) don't have any slip while banking. You can essentially tilt the plane 45 degrees to the left or right while in straight flight and it will not change the planes heading via slip. Not necessarily an Arma 3 flight model issue, but a physics issue perhaps?

Our platoons favorite game was starting an extreme, but believable rumor. Then we would see how long it would take for anyone in our platoon to hear it on the FOB, from someone outside of our company. (Backfired when two months into a year long Iraq rotation, we started the rumor we were getting extended to a 15 monther. By the next month...we were extended for real. Frigging whole year ahead of us again.)

I don't know...but it's pretty cool.

@ Azzur33 I just honestly tried to show a little bit of the "other side". It was not trying to suppress you. Fair enough. Believe me when I tell you that I concur with your statement that many people go too far to denigrate A3. But, it has to be available as long as its done in a mutually respectful manner. Primarily, many things one can disagree with are simply matters of opinion. Not, necessarily wrong or right...but no less valid. Take care.

@ NickLomas It's a Mercedes but it's going to be different from what i told you and when you buy it from you'll have to wait some time for me to give you the seats and the steering wheel and then in a years time I'll give you the engine at an extra price. Ha! I still have faith in BIS though. Just waiting for some news that doesnt qualify as an educated guess.

@ Azzure33 It was just a counter-attack which had no real target. Counter attack...revealing usage of words. You can't have a counter attack without the attack now can you? However, it was not an inaccurate statement. No target was intended, only a generalized statement about posters being aggressive towards people who are voicing discontent over A3. Wasnt your intent to reply (#644) meant to be a direct contradiction to my post (#641) and more specifically to contradict the freedom to express discontent for A3? If not, I relent (perhaps language barriers?) If yes, I rest my case. Interesting how you interpreted that. You assumed something that wasn't in my message or what wasn't my intention to do at all. That kind of makes me irritated. Maybe I should have given "the both sides", although you didn't either. Actually, I did. Post (#647) - "(The same can be said visa versa.)" Meaning for both "defenders" and "attackers" of A3. Again, perhaps this is a language barrier? Besides, don't be irritated...this is why people talk...because mis-communications do happen. Stated To Bad Benson: Why is it so hard to see my posts as valid ones, and not part of a "rhetorical contest"? Because you can't have your cake and eat it too.

@ Azzur33 After that, even the valid points of that poster is considered as "trying to polish a turd" or "being naive" or whatever. Interesting that you recognize that in one direction, but not the other. Exactly why, not calling A3 a "polished gem" for example doesnt make the "loudest" and "disappointed ones" with valid points, just "complaining." This is exactly why dialogue is important to A3's development. Attacking posters that have a less than perfect viewpoint of A3 makes one a "troll" or a "sychophant fan boy"...while simply defending A3 "full" with open dialogue and information does not. (The same can be said visa versa.) The fact is that the loudest ones in this forum are the "disappointed ones". You can't audibly hear anyone at all on this forum, so how exactly are you measuring loudness? Or is anyone that constitutes being "loud", simply resisting your attempts to subvert communication that's less than favorable to A3? That was my closing arguement in post #641, was it not? Not that some enjoy A3 as is and some do not...but, that some here on this forum are attempting to suppress disappointment in A3's full release. I'm pretty sure BIS knows all the issues they are complaining about already. This is an assumption. If we were to assume BIS knows every issue a consumer thinks, why even allow threads like this? Went through Arma 3 screenshots, but I couldn't find Any vehicles that weren't in the game already, except that placeholder jet and that "submarine" which was in one shot. The Opsrey was also in early shots. Also, check the Tactical guide. It was just released and has vehicles not even released in the early shots. The paid DLC's won't have nothing to do with the Campaign and most likely are not just addon-stuff for the existing main factions. Azzur33, please cite the official BIS source for this information. (As DM stated above, BIS has "alluded" to the existance of both types of DLC. But, alluded to is not guaranteed...as we've discussed already. I would just like a little more transparency in light of content shifting.) If you want to think more positive and less negative about it... It's foolish to conclude that a less than perfect critique equals negative thinking.

Here's a couple issues. BIS told us well after early purchase that the campaign would come later in three DLCs. This also compounds the fact that vehicle access and module access is very limited compared to A2. So many people, like me are astonished. For example, in the early screens there are divers with a full size sub (not SDV). This sub has yet to be released, along with scads of other vehicles that have been eluded to through glimpses like that. You can argue some of those vehicles were "place holders" brought from A2...but, the big sub wasn't. So where is it? Oh, it's going to be released later? Then why call it a "full" release? Oh, the big sub was a preview of pay DLC. Really?...that implies something of BIS that I'm not willing to believe at this juncture. DLC is supposed to be content created after full release...not "full" release content, shaved off and resold as individual packs. What also adds to it is, people like me who bought the special edition were promised all DLCs were paid for therein. BIS has yet to insure us that the campaign DLC is truly different than what was guaranteed through pre-purchase. Cause if it isn't, why buy the special edition? Just lack of transparency and shifting product content has got people frustrated....myself included. Some people argue that had there been no alpha and beta release, the full release would not be currently targeted for disappointment. The problem is that A3 "Full" is not being compared to A3 Alpha and Beta....it's being compared to Arma 2! While Arma 2 was full of bugs, was not optimized very well and lacked PhysX...the content was massive and was never officially added to until the pay DLC's. So, we've gained PhysX and optimization. Is it really so horrible to ask for A2 standards, plus some? That is the march of progression is it not? Add to...never take away. I just can't understand why some posters on this thread would rather an individual take these complaints and concerns and go post them on Steam. How is this going to benefit BIS? They may control this forum, but they don't control the Steam forum. The damage by airing dirty laundry on Steam could be very detrimental to BIS. That would not be MY intent. So where do some get off questioning others about posting concerns, disagreements or content issues here on this forum? One can only conclude that those attempting to suppress disappointment with A3 are generally just disagreeable trolls, sycophantic yes men to BIS or sincerely want to hurt BIS by attempting to push concerns over to Steam threads. An open dialogue can only advance A3. Sincerely SabotAndHeat (formerly FrostyBowman)

I guess you can chalk me up as frustrated. I was really at least hoping for the Ambient Combat and Sec Ops Modules (and if we were lucky, all vehicles from Arma2 ported.) A couple points follow. First, giving the campaign out in three pieces still makes you wonder how they can call it the "full" release. The second point is, according to BIS, the campaign is free DLC...then accordingly there still should be future pay DLC's. The reason I state this is the edition I got guaranteed me all future DLC's are bought and paid for. If the campaigns are simply going to be those DLC's, and they are free....what DLC am I benefitting from by buying that special edition? If it is not the free DLC, how long is it going to take to see those DLC come to fruition considering the campaign isn't likely to be fully implemented until 2014. Again, I'm frustrated. Maybe not as frustrated as Aliens Colonial Marines, but more than I should be with an Arma "Full" Release. Love BIS....but some transparency at this point might guarantee longevity.