Onno

Linux support is achieved through using Proton. If you install the BattlEye linux runtime, you should have no problem using Reforger on linux. I much prefer that solution over having an 'experimental' port which is always several versions behind the windows version, meaning that you can't play with your friends if you're on linux, which was the case before the BattlEye runtime was available. As far as I know, the official server is Docker based. See the documentation on the wiki: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_Reforger:Server_Hosting

Any news on this issue? It would be nice to be able to host from home, but of course that would require this to possible in the first place. The lack of response by anyone is really disturbing.

I agree that the lack of IPv6 options for hosting your own server is totally unacceptable in 2023. There are many people in the world whom do not have native IPv4 (meaning no CG-NAT etc.) access any more while they do get native IPv6 from their ISPs. I would like to see IPv6 support added as soon as possible.

There's some more coding related things I'd like to see: Scripting language: Multithreaded scripting. I mean full concurrency with (pseudo-)threads and some form of atomicity and locking. The time of single threaded programming is over. Not just for the makers of the game, but also for scripters. Some notes: An asynchronous programming system could be implemented on top of this to facilitate less skilled coders. This would probably also require a stronger typing system. The ability to include code libraries in the basic scripting. (so you can include code without CBA) Ability to reference compressed/binarized resources/libraries Add the ability to work with custom markers Scripting: An extension of targetsQuery with type of sensor, or a similar query which shares an array of known targets for a specific sensor on a specific vehicle. Alternate ballistics radar script which tracks rounds instead of creating markers for firing positions. (currently hard to do because attaching markers to bullets is impossible) Thread pool object. Engine: Make it possible to show custom markers Add direction to markers on map in game. Ammo belts with individual rounds. (relevant for MG's and aircraft) Tools: A stand-alone script runner or 2D simulation environment for development purposes (so code testing and profiling becomes a lot easier).

@Dallas Medina I was actually asking where the right place to put up such suggestions, not for the actual suggestions themselves.

I was wondering in which way any suggestions for Arma 4 (in my case more tech focussed desires for editing and portability) would best be put up for discussion on the forums. Alternatively, is there a feedback tracker/issue board which fulfils this role?

Interesting question. I'd like to know as well.

So far, I've encountered a couple of things which I think are very annoying: Lacklustre FM behaviour in general I expected something along the lines of the Helicopter DLC in regard to FM's. Stall behaviour of the new planes in particular is very dissatisfying. Incorrect loadout display in cockpit for most planes No high off bore capability for the SRAAM's (R-73, AIM-9X etc) - The main use of HMD's is exactly this feature. It's quite useless to have HMD's and not have hobm's, even though the jets have the sensors for them in their 3D models. (Maybe add IRST sensor type?) Lock remains in place even when target leaves search volume of the radar. (even in sim/elite difficulty, iirc) Besides these issues, I'd love to see a special render mode for the target camera (perhaps only in it's highest zoom level?). Currently it's very hard to get a lock in time for a single pass attack run in one of the new jets because at the current speeds there's not enough range to acquire the target. I think that the rendering volume of the target camera is small enough that you can ease on render range restrictions. Overall I think that the Jets DLC is not really worthwhile. It feels like you get a couple of jets thrown in, but the improvements to make them work are not there, save for some minor engine tweaks regarding datalinks and sensors, which seems are adaptations of knowsAbout. The FM department is nowhere close to what the Helicopters DLC was for that part of the aviation branch. If the current state is anything close to the release, it is very much a disappointment to me.

A couple of points I would really like to see: Vehicles: I would like to see a couple of 'low tech' vehicles to complement the current top end tanks for each side in the game. (Blue/opfor and independent) An Independent AA vehicle would be nice, this would complement the vehicles for the independent side. Besides the AA vehicles getting more rounded, it would also be nice if there would be some kind of long range AA vehicles as part of the tanks DLC, which would then tie in with the improved sensors that will come with the Jets DLC. Both OPFOR and Independent could use an engineering vehicle. It's really disappointing that this vehicle is only available for BLUFOR. This would complete the arsenal to a more well rounded one for these sides. A vehicle like a Bradley for BLUFOR would be nice. The Marshal is too lightweight to fill in the role of the IFV. Like others have mentioned, the merkava only has the ability to carry passengers in emergency situations. Something like a Namer with a RCWS turret with missiles on the side would be nice to have in this role. Rocket artillery for OPFOR and Independents would be nice. Damage handling I think Arma should have more detailed modelling of parts in terms of what parts are on a tank, as well as how they work. For example, when a fuel tank gets hit, then that fuel tank should get drained, but not the others. Or when the drive shaft gets hit, the tank should get immobilized. I think War Thunder does a great job at modelling the hitboxes for certain key parts, rendering only those functions useless. I'd love to see a similar system in Arma as well. I'd also like to see active protection like Trophy on the modern tanks Physics & environment interaction Tanks need to be less prone to bouncy behaviour. It seems to me that the physics calculations suffer from overflow when dealing with heavy objects. This is not only apparent in tanks, but also in ship behaviour. Maybe we could get a per class physics handling of some kind?

Hmm, I wonder if you can add some kind of damage handling to this. I'd like to know this because objects such as walls etc. don't need any animations etc, but at present they do use the full AI routine (AFAIK). However, if shot by artillery and the like, I'd still like to be able to have them destroyed. It could be usefull for building bases. (in CTI games, for incstance)

No comments on IPv6 at all?

Can you also add support for IPv6 while revisiting the browser? I know it's more of a network related feature, rather than a core server browser related issue, but I think it would make arma more future proof. Ideally with multiple ip binds, so you can have IPv4 and IPv6 coexist for the same server. I think it would also allow me to bypass the restrictions tied to the use of NAT and allow me to remotely admin my servers from work without having to resort to port forwarding. IPv4 has alerady run out of address space and it's not coming back. I know it might take a few years before everyone has it, but it's probably better to build the experience earlier, rather than later. Also, I know that the serverbrowser can already resolve hostnames. Please keep that in the new launcher :)

First question: Can we get captions for our screenshots? I'd really like to be able to annotate the screenshots I put up so they can be put in context. Second question: I'm wondering if the "Play Now" feature would work.How do you picture this feature will work for squads? Does supporting this feature (as a squad) mean that people would be able to play under our banner without our consent, or if it means that they will form ephemeral units which dissolve after completing the game? Will there be any kind of setting allowing us to manage these requests? OTOH, will it be possible to take on 'mercenaries' for just a game?

Just wondering: are you planning to expand the member system to include initiates and junior members? (maybe as ranks or some other mechanism) I also had problems adding my TS server until I tried entering ts3server://ts3.sarisdragons.org. It turns out the protocol has to be specified. Quick question: Isn't the protocol implied by the type of server you indicate you're running?

Hello, I'd like to be able to assign hostnames/URLs to my game servers. Do you think that will become possible at some point? It would enable us to redirect people with just a DNS update, which is convenient.