I swore I saw this issue before, so I did some searching and it turns out a duplicate of this, T3034, was closed as Wontfix by Chairborne (coincidentally it was closed 364 days before this tasked was first triaged, kinda neat.) He stated that there was an engine issue that caused the commander's periscope to break if the gun was disabled.

Would be a cool from a gameplay standpoint to have tho, the mechanics of the vanilla ARM's, with only the range of a typically AGM, and all in a subsonic platform (or a nice retro Cobra should someone be cool enough to actually put in the time to make one for CUP.)

Should it be implemented four Sidearms can also be carried on the American AV-8B Harrier, one on each of the two most exterior wing pylons (for a total of four), but not on the AH-1Z since it entered service long after all stocks of the Sidearm were expended. One of the missile's main platform besides the Harrier and the Apache was the AH-1 SuperCobra, the dual-bladed predecessor to the AH-1Z Viper represented in CUP (with a maximum capacity of two, one on each of the AIM-9 hardpoints.)

The same issue exists for all the other ship statics in CUP (CUP_WV_B_SS_Launcher & CUP_WV_B_RAM_Launcher) as well btw, they're not defined as UAVs and as you can see also seem to have some odd textual descriptions leftover in their configs that describe them as "static MGs".

I find it more unlikely that a professional army would buy a MANPADS for use exclusively in a static configuration (I'm not aware of one ever doing so), where it isn't man portable. In addition to the fact that most of those factions I pointed out are irregular forces, which would almost certainly use any equipment they could get their hands on (such as acquiring large stockpiles of enemy launchers or simply taking the Iglas off of their statics for over-the-shoulder use.) It just seems like a gameplay addition that'd make sense and fit with the pattern in the rest of the CUP forces.

The same principle is followed for every other vehicle mounted static in CUP, seems a bit odd that out of all things this specific static on only Indy forces wouldn't be one of them. Was this intentionally left out?

Just making sure that whoever else that may have claimed this ticket (who may or may not have had the knowledge you have) would've been able to quickly and easily identify what needed to be done so it gets resolved as fast as possible. No offense meant to you or any others who already knew what to do.

The only Vodnik variants that actually have an incorrect PK variant are the: CUP_O_GAZ_Vodnik_PK_RU and CUP_GAZ_Vodnik_AGS_Base classnames (the BPPU variant does actually have a PKT as it's coaxial gun irl.) Other than that I wasn't able to find any other vehicles with this issue (stuff like the HQ variants of the BTR-90 and BRDM-2 were fictional variants created by BIS in Arma 2, and they decided that PKTs were what they were equipped with, despite what was modeled being PKMs.)

From testing it seems like the glass itself has been fixed in the dev version, however the actual armor located directly under the windshield and door glass can be penetrated by even small 9mm pistols. The ticket should be modified to reflect this fact, in addition to adding the appropriate tags as the author neglected to do so.

Just did some research into this and it's happening because of this value,

attenuationEffectType = "OpenHeliAttenuation";

This can be resolved by setting each relevant vehicles' ammo's "lockAcquire" value to equal "1".

Setting it's value to like 75-80% of what the vanilla AIM-9X is would make the most sense. The main improvements that the X brings are a brand new sensor and a redesigned body that allows for a small form factor, off-boresight shots, and datalinking capabilities.

Yes that's fully possible, as long as somebody is painting a target with a laser designator you'll be able to see said laser on your sensor screen and lock onto it with your Hellfires. This includes laser designation sources ranging from infantry handheld sources (such as the mentioned SOFLAM) all the way up to any vehicle based laser designators from either Vanilla or CUP.

Unlike the vanilla GBU's that have Lock-on-after-Launch capabilities, you need to lock the laser targets like you would any other ground contact on the sensor screen. So you have to make sure you select the laser target and ensure that the diamond is fully shown (indicating you have a lock) before you fire.

The vanilla radio, which the enableRadio config corresponds to.

https://www.army-technology.com/projects/avenger/ for sources, it wouldn't let me add it in the description edit for some reason.

oh and it should have a FCS by setting ballisticsComputer = 16;

The values that are currently set for all those are fine, the real issue is the radar issue that was described in this ticket and the lack of a HMS.

@Freddo3000

In T3612#53431, @Freddo3000 wrote:

I believe this is in order to simulate ships being easier to spot for ground radars, as there isn't any clutter to blend in amongst. As far as I can tell, the Super hind isn't even supposed to have automatic IR sensors

Confirmed on the latest dev branch, the Mk.19 isn't available to be selected to spawn in as a turret for any side. The only way to gain access to it is through assembly using the bags as described in the ticket (additionally the resulting static that spawns is set to the "Independent" side by default.) Also, considering the fact that the ticket author decided to not properly fill in any of the tags and unsubscribed from their own ticket, a mod or something should go through and manually apply the proper tags so this doesn't get lost in limbo.

I guess that's the solution then, CUP has to remove the magwell from the weapon so it can't reload any ammo. EZ ticket diagnosis.

Thank you for reformatting it, I guess? Also, nobody has spoken to me about anything of the sort. That ticket you pointed to was authored by an @Tookatee where it looks like it was actually really needed as that ticket has nearly triple the classnames of this one.

This seems to be a personal opinion on how you'd prefer to format a more aesthetically pleasing ticket, as it is now the classnames are able to be discerned from one another and it honestly doesn't make much of a real difference to go out of ones way to format it like that again if it's already been done one way. If you have any further comments about this specific topic please take it to the discord in the #public channel to prevent the #activity channel from being spammed with irrelevant conversation rather than new tickets.

Are the classnames not the most precise and easy way to list out the affected vehicles? With them all one needs to do is simply copy and paste them into the config viewer and they're given the exact item with the issue and they can start working from there, no need to waste time figuring out which exact item has the issue.

After the latest update this issue has reappeared, the T-90 once again has a top speed of 22 km/h, regardless of whether or not you press shift or the terrain. It should have a top speed of 60 km/h.

Occurs at any distance when the gunner is under AI control, doesn't occur at all under manual control.

In the latest release this ticket has also reappeared, with the T-72's top speed being reduced to about 51 kph regardless of whether or not you press shift. It's top speed should be 60kph.

This ticket was closed as resolved, however it has reappeared in the latest release. The missile will fly off in a steep direction, loop around, and crash into the ground in front of the T-90.

Pls continue on discord, this is starting to get tangential and flood the activity channel with this.

If that's how you guys want it to be that's fine I won't discuss it any further, I was just pointing out the inconsistency in its audio and then issuing the correction to the ticket when it was closed as invalid for having the SPAR audio files (despite that also not being a 7.62x39mm weapon and it having the same sound as the CAR-95.) Nothing harsh meant by it.

Weapon sound is largely determined by fire rate and weapon caliber, and since this weapon has a similar fire rate to the other CUP/Vanilla 7.62x39mm weapons it makes sense that it should use the audio files that those weapons use. It having the audio of a SPAR just sounds off when you know it's the same caliber as an AK (and yet it sounds completely different than either CUP's or the Vanilla AKM.)

That's still wrong lmao, the SPAR-17 is a 7.62x59 weapon. Also I didn't realize this until I checked now, but both the SPAR 17 and the CAR-95 use the same audio files, so that's why I listed it as such in the ticket. Regardless the audio file should be changed to that of a 7.62x39mm weapon's, such as the vanilla AKM's or one of the CUP 7.62x39mm AKs.

I guess you just found the issue cause you just pushed this, https://dev.cup-arma3.org/rWEAPONSSVN1269 .

Despite that value it will not let you lock anything over 2000 meters away. Additionally, the description wasn't updated to reflect this (it still lists it's maximum distance as 2500.) I recommend you do some testing on your end to confirm this.

@Alwarren Since this ticket was posted the Javelin's damage properties were fixed by @Urban (https://dev.cup-arma3.org/rWEAPONSSVN1060), so I don't think the Javelin's low damage is an issue anymore. So this could be closed as resolved.

Hmmm, I wonder how BIS was able to get their aircraft to go supersonic then. Because even a straight copy of the Blackwasp/Shikra's performance characteristics would be better than how it is now.

Has an adjustment to the envelope values like I mentioned been tried before? Cause if it was an engine issue, wouldn't stuff like the Blackwasp or SU-34 not be able to reach higher top speeds that they're able to hit now?

Actually it's not even possible for the F-35 to equip the AIM-9L IRL. The hardware and software (or lack thereof in the AIM-9L's case) is completely incompatible with the F-35's weapons computer and weapons bays, those were optimized for the AIM-9X with it's smaller form factor, off-boresight capabilities, and upgradable software to counter developments in ECCM. So the CUP F-35 really should have these AIM-9Ls be swapped out entirely for the vanilla AIM-9X, as it wouldn't even make sense for it to have them equipped even if a pristine AIM-9L model was developed.

I think it would be better to leave it as is until something new gets developed as the actual Mk.19 does eject shell casings and it looks better to have something actually eject out of the weapon rather than nothing (as you'd only really notice this inconsistency if you were looking at the shells ejecting rather than whatever you were firing at.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PK_machine_gun#PKT , http://www.mayak.com.ua/en/catalogue/small-arms/kt-7-62 (actual PKT factory product description) , and http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/pkt.html among a variety of others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KPV_heavy_machine_gun and https://weaponsystems.net/weaponsystem/CC01%20-%20BRDM-2.html

If you're looking for this functionality, there are ACE modules which allow for a relatively realistic depiction of this with both the Javelin and Titan AT.

I'd like to add onto this saying that all the tents also use the dirt effect for whenever bullets impact them and take an extraordinary amount of damage before they're destroyed (with most of them requiring large caliber high explosive shells or GBUs to destroy them in one shot), it should only take one hand grenade or 40mm to immediately destroy any of the CUP tents as they're simply fabric held up with standard supporting rods.