YeomanMaple

Never mind, apparently this is normal behavior. The server attempts to mimic the temperatures of the actual IRL island, thus thermals are significantly affected. This isn't easy to replicate in the editor, hence why I thought it was a bug. This is further compounded by the rather sudden shift in Thermal view performance, while we would instead expect a more gradual change in thermal performance. Perhaps this is something to consider? In any case, since this is expected behavior from I&A scripting, it's best to close this bug report. Case closed, pack it up, boys. Go home. Its effects are manageable, I'm sure we'll all be used to it sooner or later. (In other news, Tanoa and Livonia are largely unaffected. Join us there!)

When this occurs, find a vehicle that you can switch seats in. The closest vehicle to the CAS hangar is the quad bikes at Ironside. Go there, get in the PASSENGER seat, then into the driver. Return to your Jet and it should be fixed. This is a bandaid fix for when it occurs, but a permanent fix would be nice.

It's my understanding that the CMImmunity (Counter Measure Immunity, chance that a missile will continue tracking when a countermeasure (Flares, Smoke etc.) is deployed) is stored inside the missile, not in the aircraft. This means that "better aircraft" aren't less likely to be hit in the conventional sense, but rather, their greater performance allows them to deploy more flares before a missile could potentially impact, thus running the CMImmunity chance more often. Now, there's no doubt that this CMImmunity value has been changed for most, if not all AA missiles. The chance that a missile loses lock on I&A is significantly higher (Anecdotal [Citation needed]) than the default Arma values. While this may seem stupid, remember that these CMImmunity values also apply to the enemies AA munitions as well, which is why they are significantly different than the default. We wouldn't want every pilot being instantly massacred by a wild enemy CAS, would we? I watched that video of yours. Firstly, when the target is 1.5 km and below, please use the autocannons. That's what they're for and they seriously kick ass. There's even a lead indicator that should help. As for the missiles, that's genuinely very unlucky for missiles at that range to miss, but not unheard of. It's recommended that you launch missiles after their countermeasure burst has ended, as it greatly decreases the probability that a missile will instantly lose lock (in my experience). This is also compounded by your limited ammunition supply, so making them count is crucial. AA on I&A is pretty weird, sometimes it just works, sometimes it doesn't.

As the title suggests, the contrast in thermal viewing modes has changed quite significantly. Before, landscape elements could be made out somewhat easily, showing rock walls, buildings, the ground etc., as well as "Hot" entities, being their usual White/Black hot colours respectively. Now, all you see is a sea of black, with hot signatures being slightly harder to see at a distance, but certainly contrast the sea of black. This is definitely a server-side issue, as in the editor I was not able to replicate the same view we get in I&A Thermals. (And no, the weather does NOT significantly contribute to the Thermal viewing experience.) I've even got some pictures to demonstrate. This is Lakka, a town just outside Base. This view is from the southern hill, so not the "Military Hill" everyone knows and loves. This is the Thermal view from the ENVG-II NODs, notice that while landscape elements aren't exactly crisp, they can still be made out somewhat. This image was taken inside the Eden Editor. Now, this is the Thermal view from ENVG-II's currently in I&A. As you can see... SEA OF BLACK. The heat signatures on the bottom of the screen are rabbits. It's so black, you can't even make out the edges of the actual viewing lenses. As you can see, not exactly ideal. This has affected all Thermal sights, such as gun optics, Tank optics and even further. I highly doubt that this is intentional, as there were no patch notes and despite thermals being the usual culprit for blue-on-blue incidents, this ain't exactly a solution. This came about a few weeks before the 2.04 update and the fact that it's normal in the editor further indicates a server-side change. While this isn't some game-breaking bug, it would be very nice if it returned to normal.

Perhaps a button to summon/teleport an AI from the base might be better, as I think AI is meant to be a rather limited resource. It's probably a bad idea to have AI spawned at the FOB all willy-nilly, but it's certainly not a bad start. Given that losing your AI seems to be a problem, remember to heal your AI when given the chance after being hit numerous times or suffering a critical hit. The AI carry one first aid kit, which can be used by commanding them to "Treat Self" when on foot. After this, treating your crewman manually is necessary to continue, or just give him another first aid kit if you get the chance. Your AI should be treated as another component that needs to be repaired when damage is incurred. Best to keep them in working order rather than returning to the FOB to get another.

The HEAT part of that statement is untrue, unfortunately. Laser-Guided (And Guided) are just HE shells with extra sauce, being the guided element. I'm sure the extra shell types would be nice, I don't know if they'll be monumental in changing how Mortar Gunner plays but there'll be some more fun to be had. (From my brief testing in the editor, you're limited to 8 Laser guided shells. This seems to be the case for all the shells that aren't HE (Smoke, Flares etc.).) Mortar gunner works best with a dedicated spotter, no need to wait for some muppet to piss their pants and finally call for support when they're overwhelmed. Unfortunately, finding such a spotter can be hard, as most players want to get their own kills. Calling in CAS (and other means of support) perhaps acts more of an ace in the hole when they're up against a superior enemy (i.e an MBT or APC). JTAC seems to fit the role perfectly for this, especially if they're observing from a safe distance. (However, in my experience, when a JTAC is on, mortar gunner is empty ) Mortar gunner is in a peculiar place. The role is capable of so much but is limited by the coordination needed to properly use it to its full potential. A lone mortar gunner calling for fire requests seems to be the norm for the role at the moment. Throwing more tools for the mortar gunner to use isn't gonna solve the human issue. Perhaps if we increase its visible presence in the side channel, more people will use it. I'm thinking of something like a kill report/announcement in the side channel after a large multi-kill. If players see that mortar gunner is effective, they'll be more likely to call in fire missions (hopefully). This isn't a problem of a lack of killing potential, but rather the inability to harness it effectively.

So at some point, the CAS Rules of Engagement were updated which prevented CAS aircraft from destroying ground targets that were +2km away from the AO/Side Mission that were not a threat to friendly aircraft. 2. the ONLY targets which can be engaged at free will are as follows: Enemy attack aircraft - attack helicopters and enemy jets Enemy ground vehicles which are outside the AO/Side Mission area that Pose a risk to other friendly aircraft, i.e 2km+ outside the objective area This change poses two problems: Risk to other friendly aircraft is ambiguous. The rule change seems to forget about the existence of friendly ground vehicles. Firstly, by adding the term "Risk to other friendly aircraft", you now have to consider what risk to said aircraft actually is. I find that there are two avenues in which you could classify something a risk to friendly aircraft, Armament and proximity, both of which incur their own problems as well. If we're classifying by armament, we have to ask what a threat actually is? 50. HMG? GMG? 30mm autocannon? Recoilless AT rifle? While some are definitely not a threat to aircraft, the fact that this even has to be asked produces a problem of lack of definition. We can also classify by proximity. It's very common for Transport pilots to determine a safe flight corridor, even if it is entirely unspoken. In which case, CAS can only engage ground vehicles if they are within said flight corridor, as by simple logic, if it isn't in range of friendly aircraft, then it isn't a problem. However, the dimensions of said flight corridor can also introduce ambiguity, while simply a vehicle that 2km+ away from the AO/Side does not. While this doesn't concern friendly transport aircraft at all, it easily transitions to the next critical problem. This entire rule change forgets about the existence of ground forces (Tanks, IFV's, light transport, etc.) and that random enemy ground patrols also affect them. While some vehicles can handle on their own, some depend on the existence of additional support, such as HEMMT's and other support vehicles. While this may not be a problem when your adversaries are HMG offroads and minigun qilins, When the threat is a T-140K Angara, there's a serious problem (Yes, they do exist.). No one has time to call CAS in. The unspoken interdiction that CAS provided was critical in ensuring that they get to safety if they didn't have any escort. Even if the ground patrols spawned in a spot where they never make contact with ground units, CAS blowing it up just to pass the time doesn't do any harm and is only at the expense of their own munitions. From this, we can sum up that the change to this rule has only introduced ambiguity, as well as just left commuting ground forces exposed without having their own escort. If someone performed a strike that potentially breaks this rule, said CAS pilot can perform any number of mental gymnastics to justify their attack, which only produces more problems than it solves. Now, we have to ask what the actual objective of this rule change was. The only one I can think of is that some CAS pilots were engaging targets that were deemed too close to the AO, and the proposed solution was to add additional guidelines for CAS to follow. To which I can retort that 2 KILOMETERS IS 2 KILOMETERS. If Pilots are engaging within this area, that isn't ambiguity, that's just plain breaking the rules. If everyone's breaking a clear law, It would be better to simply re-affirm your position and enforce said law, rather than introducing additional bits which make things worse. Other than that, I see no reason for this existing.

Rookie Numbers tbh