Helicopter camera

[R0adki11 3945]

14 minutes ago, pooroldspike said:

In a sense we're all on the dev branch because we suggest stuff that needs fixing in threads like this one and hope the devs read it..:)

Personally I wish they'd get around to fixing longstanding issues that we've told them about in the past, like the "ghost trees" all over the maps (below) that have been unfixed for years.

 

Please try to stay on topic, perhaps log a ticket for the  "ghost trees"

[oukej 2910]

On 18. 5. 2017 at 5:29 PM, RacerX said:

You can't expect us to believe nobody flew a helicopter during testing. They knew this was a problem but released it anyways. How 'bout that Q&A team huh? Thats what im talking about

I have to defend our QA. There was an immediate objection after the change has happened. However we weren't 100% certain about the negative side of the heli 3rd person view change (I'm saying that as heli freak and confident time trials gold medalist myself ;)). We liked how it felt with airplanes and small drones (technically helicopters). In the end we decided to wait for more feedback on Dev-Branch. Not causing uproar there we let it go into the 1.70 main branch update.

With the feedback now it's a completely different story.
 

[EXEPOWERED 16]

So, how long we can wait for camera fix?

[RacerX 55]

1 hour ago, oukej said:

I have to defend our QA. There was an immediate objection after the change has happened. However we weren't 100% certain about the negative side of the heli 3rd person view change (I'm saying that as heli freak and confident time trials gold medalist myself ;)). We liked how it felt with airplanes and small drones (technically helicopters). In the end we decided to wait for more feedback on Dev-Branch. Not causing uproar there we let it go into the 1.70 main branch update.

With the feedback now it's a completely different story.
 

How is that possible? Did you try to land it? Whatever the case its the weekend and many many milsim pilots are doing their operations over the weekend and are left with a WTF? Can you get in touch with the BI team and release a hotfix and get it pushed through ASAP? Transportation in and out of the AO is pretty much limited to drops way outside of the AO forcing ground troops to traverse on foot. Killing 30 people due to a failed insertion is not my idea of a successful operation and I think those dead ground troops would agree. This is a game killer and should be on top of the priority stack. You guys are going to have a rebellion on your hands after this weekend if this problem isnt addressed. ALot of people are going to be trying the DLC the first time over the weekend. I do thank you for your reply and your honesty but please get the word out that they are at least aware of the problem and it will be fixed ASAP. BI saying or mentioning nothing at all like the problem doesn't exsist does nothing but piss people off more if their concerns go unanswered or ignored. BI has a reputation for this. Im just one guy what do I know?

[pooroldspike 128]

On 19/05/2017 at 2:15 PM, R0adki11 said:

Please try to stay on topic, perhaps log a ticket for the  "ghost trees"

What does "log a ticket" mean? Where? How?

[R0adki11 3945]

2 minutes ago, pooroldspike said:

What does "log a ticket" mean? Where? How?

I meant log a ticket on the feedback tracker that the dev team use to monitor and track issues. 

 

https://feedback.bistudio.com/project/view/1/

[pooroldspike 128]

6 minutes ago, R0adki11 said:

I meant log a ticket on the feedback tracker that the dev team use to monitor and track issues. 

 

https://feedback.bistudio.com/project/view/1/

Sorry I just don't have the time mate, the ticket procedure is too longwinded, techy and overcomplex for me. I'm very busy being a moderator at Mission4Today, a reviewer for Matrix Games and a playtester/developer for other games and sims. 

[RacerX 55]

9 minutes ago, R0adki11 said:

I meant log a ticket on the feedback tracker that the dev team use to monitor and track issues. 

 

https://feedback.bistudio.com/project/view/1/

Mr moderator you know that don't work. The chances of a BI dev looking at and being assigned to it is about the same chances of winning the lottery. The best advice is to goto bug tracker find a thread that is already in progress that matches your problem/bug and adding to that thread as much info as is possible in order for dev to be able to accurately recreate the bug/problem such as any logs and computer specs even a video if possible. But making your own thread when a dozen of them already exist just makes the dev teams job harder trying to sift through them. Otherwise you get a 

Assigned to:

none 

[teabagginpeople 398]

On 5/19/2017 at 1:55 PM, RacerX said:

the dev notes say that the rocket motor has been fixed to properly "burn out". This means the motor does not stay burning all the way to the target but burns out before. This IS the accurate way titans work

you may have not detected the sarcasm in my post.

[RacerX 55]

no I didnt but I dont have time for all that. Sorry but I have other things to deal with right now

[oukej 2910]

4 hours ago, RacerX said:

How is that possible? Did you try to land it? Whatever the case its the weekend and many many milsim pilots are doing their operations over the weekend and are left with a WTF? Can you get in touch with the BI team and release a hotfix and get it pushed through ASAP? Transportation in and out of the AO is pretty much limited to drops way outside of the AO forcing ground troops to traverse on foot. Killing 30 people due to a failed insertion is not my idea of a successful operation and I think those dead ground troops would agree. This is a game killer and should be on top of the priority stack. You guys are going to have a rebellion on your hands after this weekend if this problem isnt addressed. ALot of people are going to be trying the DLC the first time over the weekend. I do thank you for your reply and your honesty but please get the word out that they are at least aware of the problem and it will be fixed ASAP. BI saying or mentioning nothing at all like the problem doesn't exsist does nothing but piss people off more if their concerns go unanswered or ignored. BI has a reputation for this. Im just one guy what do I know?

I am personally largely responsible for the change and for the arisen issue.
The issue has been acknowledged on the first page of this thread and linked on couple of other places (reddit, discord).

[RacerX 55]

7 minutes ago, oukej said:

I am more or less personally responsible for the change and for the arisen issue.
The issue has been acknowledged on the first page of this thread and linked on couple of other places (reddit, discord).

Thank you very much. 

[RacerX 55]

8 minutes ago, oukej said:

I am more or less personally responsible for the change and for the arisen issue.
The issue has been acknowledged on the first page of this thread and linked on couple of other places (reddit, discord).

Do you know of a line to change in the pbo? I am looking now. I can make the temp fix myself if you guide me to the right line in the config.cpp. I am compairing arma 1.68 to arma 1.70 to see what has changed in the pbo. and hopefully turn off whatever was turned on

[R0adki11 3945]

1 hour ago, RacerX said:

Mr moderator you know that don't work. The chances of a BI dev looking at and being assigned to it is about the same chances of winning the lottery. The best advice is to goto bug tracker find a thread that is already in progress that matches your problem/bug and adding to that thread as much info as is possible in order for dev to be able to accurately recreate the bug/problem such as any logs and computer specs even a video if possible. But making your own thread when a dozen of them already exist just makes the dev teams job harder trying to sift through them. Otherwise you get a 

Assigned to:

none 

 

In my experience it does work, however all i was trying to do was help a fellow forum member by directing them to the correct area to log an issue. It up-to the end user to choose how to log the call. 

 

Quote

Do you know of a line to change in the pbo? I am looking now. I can make the temp fix myself if you guide me to the right line in the config.cpp. I am compairing arma 1.68 to arma 1.70 to see what has changed in the pbo. and hopefully turn off whatever was turned on

 

I personally would not mess around with the default Arma3 files as doing could cause other issues and if you play multiplayer you would be kicked from servers and potentially banned by battle eye. 

[RacerX 55]

47 minutes ago, R0adki11 said:

 

In my experience it does work, however all i was trying to do was help a fellow forum member by directing them to the correct area to log an issue. It up-to the end user to choose how to log the call. 

 

 

I personally would not mess around with the default Arma3 files as doing could cause other issues and if you play multiplayer you would be kicked from servers and potentially banned by battle eye. 

not if you run it as a client side mod on a server that allows mods which our does. Totally legal to do.

Although this did not fix my problem

with external camera following the "running as a mod" principle is the same. I am compairing 1.68 config.cpp files to 1.7 files to see what has changed from version to version then hopefully turning off "the problem" . Then make a copy package it up as a .pbo and run it as @Heli_fix mod. I have to at least try

[R0adki11 3945]

12 minutes ago, RacerX said:

not if you run it as a client side mod on a server that allows mods which our does. Totally legal to do.

Although this did not fix my problem

 

with external camera following the "running as a mod" principle is the same. I am compairing 1.68 config.cpp files to 1.7 files to see what has changed from version to version then hopefully turning off "the problem" . Then make a copy package it up as a .pbo and run it as @Heli_fix mod. I have to at least try

Well you didn't actually say that, it sounded like you wanted to alter the base game files. Using a client side mod would work perfectly fine, as-long as you find a server which allows you to do so. 

[RacerX 55]

3 minutes ago, R0adki11 said:

Well you didn't actually say that, it sounded like you wanted to alter the base game files. Using a client side mod would work perfectly fine, as-long as you find a server which allows you to do so. 

correct. But I just encountered .ebo's not .pbo's. And I have a pretty good idea what you may be thinking but Im only doing information gathering nothing more.

[oukej 2910]

You won't find any control in data, sorry about that. This has been a change in the engine that unified the 3rd person view system of aircraft with land vehicles making the camera follow vehicle also in pitch (prev. the camera stayed leveled behind airplanes, making it almost impossible to orientate when diving or climbing, and it has been widely complained about).

[RacerX 55]

@oukej In the engine? Well I guess we are at your mercy. I humbly admit defeat

[R0adki11 3945]

1 hour ago, RacerX said:

correct. But I just encountered .ebo's not .pbo's. And I have a pretty good idea what you may be thinking but Im only doing information gathering nothing more.

Well .ebo's are to be expected as the content is encrypted for a very good reason. 

[RacerX 55]

2 minutes ago, R0adki11 said:

Well .ebo's are to be expected as the content is encrypted for a very good reason. 

What reason would that be? Copyright? Theft prevention? I get that but Viewing is alot different then changing/altering/modifying/adding/deleting/copying/stealing the file directly. My method of approach was simply to over-ride a setting indirectly leaving the original file untouched and unaltered. But either way it does not matter now because according to oukej problem is in the engine itself

[EXEPOWERED 16]

@oukej So its too big problem to fix it?
Its 2mb required of fix files (i think ;_;), so not big deal to send a patch. 

 

Landing with new camera making us big problem, and its not big problem to fix it from your side.

[Seanayy 1]

On 5/20/2017 at 6:12 PM, oukej said:

You won't find any control in data, sorry about that. This has been a change in the engine that unified the 3rd person view system of aircraft with land vehicles making the camera follow vehicle also in pitch (prev. the camera stayed leveled behind airplanes, making it almost impossible to orientate when diving or climbing, and it has been widely complained about).

So when can expect helis to be back to normal? 

[zrmz_x 10]

@oukej Will the fix for this current issue be in the current (1.70 Update) hotfix which is currently on RC branch?

 

 

[teabagginpeople 398]

I seem alone here in saying the camera issue is bothersome but not huge game breaking.  And it'll be good to have fixed in hotfix if possible. 

 

Alls I'm getting is It's a little More awkward to land in 3rd person.  I really do wonder when you guys are saying it has ruined everything " I was great pilot before this camera change ".