Any planes or jets?

[hamm 10]

We should. The game is an infantry simulator first. If you think otherwise you'd being disillusion.

If you're only looking for infantry simulation in ArmA that's fine, it's how you want to play the game. Others might want to play it differently, it doesn't mean the game is broken or that "they're playing it wrong" it's a combined arms military game. Personally I find fixed-wing aircraft essential in many scenarios, and they work great on several maps. If Limnos is indeed modelled 1:1 then you're gonna have a 477 km^2 map to play on with planes.

[wamingo 1]

If arma3 has no official A10, watch the multiplayer scene break down in moments as 50 thunderbolt warthog A10 addons gets released within minutes, splitting the community in a million pieces, and arma3 flops worse than ET:The Game.

Also I will be sad.

Therefore, there will be jets and A10's.

Hmm.. I hope I didn't open pandoras box there. BIS might have their work cut out for them now.

[Flogger23m 2]

Myke;1931932']FPDR well deserved. The ArmA series is a Military Sim and aerial warfare is a important aspect' date=' also for ground troops. Maps are big enough to justify planes and more than once my fellow mates were more than happy to see me in my A-10, clearing the bad situation they were in, trapped by a tank platoon and out of AT ammo.

So ArmA 3 deserves a well presented air force for all sides. Just because you prefer to walk, everyone else isn't forced to feel the same way. Try to be less selfish, would ya?[/quote']

You're falling for their marketing. The flight combat in ArmA 2 is comparable to the infantry combat in CoD. The flight model, weapon systems, and controls are so stripped down that it is essentially CoD in the air.

ArmA 1 and 2 where focused on infantry. There is no point denying it. If the game was designed with flight in mind the maps would be of sufficient size.

Just the other day I was playing some Lock On FC2. A simple air to air engagement between four aircraft took place over 50 kilometers or more. Considering the map isn't even that big in ArmA 2 (and probably ArmA 3) it is hard to call that a sim. ;)

If you think you'll see a DCS A-10 + ArmA + Steel Beasts simulator rolled into one you can quit dreaming. It will never happen due to computer limitations (imagine a 500x500 kilometer map with ArmA 2/3 level detail...)

My point isn't to remove jets from the game. Just leave them to the AI. Make it so that the AI isn't falling out of the sky when flying.

And shift the focus to the infantry first - the core of the game which is where the vast majority of the player base comes from. Move to armor next. BI has to take it step by step. Once they improve the infantry and armor until it is near perfect, they can pick up flyable aircraft again.

This is of course my opinion. Will they do this? I am not sure. I would hope so. I want to see ArmA 3 turn into the perfect infantry similar. If that means putting the CoD like air combat on the chopping block then so be it.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Flogger23m

[Madus_Maximus 0]

You're falling for their marketing. The flight combat in ArmA 2 is comparable to the infantry combat in CoD. The flight model, weapon systems, and controls are so stripped down that it is essentially CoD in the air.

ArmA 1 and 2 where focused on infantry. There is no point denying it. If the game was designed with flight in mind the maps would be of sufficient size.

Just the other day I was playing some Lock On FC2. A simple air to air engagement between four aircraft took place over 50 kilometers or more. Considering the map isn't even that big in ArmA 2 (and probably ArmA 3) it is hard to call that a sim. ;)

If you think you'll see a DCS A-10 + ArmA + Steel Beasts simulator rolled into one you can quit dreaming. It will never happen due to computer limitations (imagine a 500x500 kilometer map with ArmA 2/3 level detail...)

My point isn't to remove jets from the game. Just leave them to the AI. Make it so that the AI isn't falling out of the sky when flying.

And shift the focus to the infantry first - the core of the game which is where the vast majority of the player base comes from. Move to armor next. BI has to take it step by step. Once they improve the infantry and armor until it is near perfect, they can pick up flyable aircraft again.

This is of course my opinion. Will they do this? I am not sure. I would hope so. I want to see ArmA 3 turn into the perfect infantry similar. If that means putting the CoD like air combat on the chopping block then so be it.

The engine is actually capable of streaming unlimited sized maps apparently, it's just that so far nobody has really bothered to put the time and effort into making truly massive terrains for us to play on. I remember someone working on a map of Australia back in ArmA 1, but I've not idea what came of it, my guess is they gave up because it's such a massive undertaking.

Aircraft are very much needed. We don't even know how big the map will be yet or what the flight model will be like (and if it's too small... make a new, bigger one with the updated version of Visitor they're no doubt going to put out there at some point). They've done a LOT of enhancements to it for VBS and BIS love to give us those same enhancements in their civilian offering too.

It annoys me how people think BIS are so incapable of doing anything, they just put them down without knowing anything it seems. We know next to nothing of the game so far, it still has a YEAR in development, a LOT can change (and will). The engine is being constantly updated and improved and it's capable of FAR more than many people seem to realise or give it credit for.

Also, getting rid of aircraft would be silly. If you don't like the air aspect of things, then fine, just play it how you like. That's the great thing with BIS games, they give us huge amounts of wiggle room for us to be as creative as we like and give us the tools to make it happen. It'd be stupid and not in their interests to remove a portion of the game that adds so much to it.

[nodunit 397]

The devs at CM wanted to remove aircraft from players grips so they could focus more on infantry, how wel did that work? (no seriously I don't know, never played it)

[Flogger23m 2]

Also, getting rid of aircraft would be silly. If you don't like the air aspect of things, then fine, just play it how you like. That's the great thing with BIS games, they give us huge amounts of wiggle room for us to be as creative as we like and give us the tools to make it happen. It'd be stupid and not in their interests to remove a portion of the game that adds so much to it.

Read my post next time before replying. :) I never said removing aircraft... I said forget about improving the fixed wing aircraft as there is so much work to do that it would take away from the resources to improve the infantry aspects of the game.

BI have limited resources and funds. Focus on the core of the game (the infantry). There are so many short comings with the infantry aspect of the game that it would take a lot of effort to improve it. In time they hopefully will (hopefully in ArmA 3).

As for aircraft, I don't even know where to begin. There is so much to do... radar modes, weapons, flight model, ect.

The devs at CM wanted to remove aircraft from players grips so they could focus more on infantry, how wel did that work? (no seriously I don't know, never played it)

That game failed in every single aspect.

[DARK-STEALTH 10]

Yea, that's a great idea! Lets remove all aircraft. I really like the idea of having to ride in the back of an MRAP on the way to an AO for 45 minutes or walk an hour and a half before I see any action.

[Flogger23m 2]

Yea, that's a great idea! Lets remove all aircraft. I really like the idea of having to ride in the back of an MRAP on the way to an AO for 45 minutes or walk an hour and a half before I see any action.

I have a better idea. Remove yourself from the forum until you learn how to read and comprehend English. :idea:Your location claims New York. If this is true and your lack of basic English reading and comprehension is a sick joke.

No one advocated the removal of aircraft in this thread.

[metalcraze 290]

If ArmA3 island is anything like its IRL counterpart Lemnos in size (which means 477 sq.km of land only - as in bigger than Sahrani - which is 400 sq. km including the sea - and more than twice as big as Chernarus let alone Takistan) - then BIS including planes is a given.

Because 477 sq. km of terrain makes them viable again.

[Steakslim 1]

If ArmA3 island is anything like its IRL counterpart Lemnos in size (which means 477 sq.km of land only - as in bigger than Sahrani - which is 400 sq. km including the sea - and more than twice as big as Chernarus let alone Takistan) - then BIS including planes is a given.

Because 477 sq. km of terrain makes them viable again.

It'll also make helicopter transport a godsend. Here I am sometimes moaning about the travel time in a humvee driving across Takistan (not always a bad things but sometimes you just want to RTB without it taking forever). If point A and point B is the entire 22km or so stretch across the island and you have to traverse that on wheels or tracks, woof!

[DARK-STEALTH 10]

I have a better idea. Remove yourself from the forum until you learn how to read and comprehend English. :idea:Your location claims New York. If this is true and your lack of basic English reading and comprehension is a sick joke.

No one advocated the removal of aircraft in this thread.

You advocated the removal of all user controlled aircraft. Basically, that's removing aircraft.

It seems your memory is worse than my English comprehension skills. Here's a couple qoutes:

"I would be happy if they didn't bother with fixed wing aircraft and focused on the armor and infantry."

"For AI? They are a must. Controllable? Skip them and work on the infantry."

Now, to clear up some confusion, by fixed wing aircraft, do you mean only fixed wing aircraft? Or rotor wing as well? Because rotor wing aircraft would need just as much work as fixed wing aircraft.

Also, if all rotor wing aircraft were to be AI controlled, will an AI Blackhawk pilot be able to land my squad where ever I want them? If I want my squad dropped on a roof or dropped in a tight area, will that AI pilot be able to do what I want him to do? I highly doubt it. Therefore, I would consider AI controlled rotor wing aircraft to be mostly useless.

One last thing. You shouldn't throw around personal insults like that, especially considering that I didn't say anything that even remotely resembles a personal insult to you.

Edited May 21, 2011 by DARK-STEALTH

[Flogger23m 2]

You advocated the removal of all user controlled aircraft. Basically, that's removing aircraft.

Not it is not. Did you bother to think before you posted ? Think about it for a moment. If there are no flyable aircraft... there can still be AI aircraft. :idea:

:butbut: Amazing concept isn't it? I play flight sims. Guess what? There are ships, tanks, hell, there is even a school bus in the one I just finished playing. But they aren't controllable. Why not? Because it would be done so poorly and the terrian would be of such low detail (for ground vehicles) that it isn't even worth the effort. The resources would be put into more advanced flight models, better radar modeling, ect. rather than adding in a controllable school bus.

Just like BI should focus more on the infantry aspect of ArmA - because the infantry aspect of the game needs so much work that they should fix that before working on the aircraft.

It seems your memory is worse than my English comprehension skills. Here's a couple qoutes:

Hardly. Lets pick apart your incoherent rant some more.

"I would be happy if they didn't bother with fixed wing aircraft and focused on the armor and infantry."

"For AI? They are a must. Controllable? Skip them and work on the infantry."

There is my quote. You claimed I advocated the removal of all aircraft. Did you read my post, even after you quoted it? Clearly you didn't.Take some time and read it again.

Either you didn't read my post or your English is terrible. The only other possibility is that you are trolling/flaming for the hell of it.

Now, to clear up some confusion, by fixed wing aircraft, do you mean only fixed wing aircraft? Or rotor wing as well? Because rotor wing aircraft would need just as much work as fixed wing aircraft.

By fixed wing I mean fixed wing...

Also, if all rotor wing aircraft were to be AI controlled, will an AI Blackhawk pilot be able to land my squad where ever I want them? If I want my squad dropped on a roof or dropped in a tight area, will that AI pilot be able to do what I want him to do? I highly doubt it. Therefore, I would consider AI controlled rotor wing aircraft to be mostly useless.

Arguing with an invisible person makes you look anything but intelligent. In case you are too lazy to reread my previous post I'll write it out for you again:

Who the hell advocated the removal all player controller rotor wing aircraft? :confused:

I'm still trying to figure out who advocated the removal of all aircraft in the game in this thread.

One last thing. You shouldn't throw around personal insults like that, especially considering that I didn't say anything that even remotely resembles a personal insult to you.

Don't post hostile, sarcastic replies that make no sense in the first place. It might prevent you from getting such replies. I would suggest to stop replying before you make yourself look like a complete idiot. :)

Edited May 21, 2011 by Flogger23m

[DARK-STEALTH 10]

Not it is not. Did you bother to think before you posted ? Think about it for a moment. If there are no flyable aircraft... there can still be AI aircraft. :idea:

:butbut: Amazing concept isn't it? I play flight sims. Guess what? There are ships, tanks, hell, there is even a school bus in the one I just finished playing. But they aren't controllable. Why not? Because it would be done so poorly and the terrian would be of such low detail (for ground vehicles) that it isn't even worth the effort. The resources would be put into more advanced flight models, better radar modeling, ect. rather than adding in a controllable school bus.

Just like BI should focus more on the infantry aspect of ArmA - because the infantry aspect of the game needs so much work that they should fix that before working on the aircraft.

Hardly. Lets pick apart your incoherent rant some more.

There is my quote. You claimed I advocated the removal of all aircraft. Did you read my post, even after you quoted it? Clearly you didn't.Take some time and read it again.

Either you didn't read my post or your English is terrible. The only other possibility is that you are trolling/flaming for the hell of it.

By fixed wing I mean fixed wing...

Arguing with an invisible person makes you look anything but intelligent. In case you are too lazy to reread my previous post I'll write it out for you again:

Who the hell advocated the removal all player controller rotor wing aircraft? :confused:

I'm still trying to figure out who advocated the removal of all aircraft in the game in this thread.

Don't post hostile, sarcastic replies that make no sense in the first place. It might prevent you from getting such replies. I would suggest to stop replying before you make yourself look like a complete idiot. :)

"Flight sims are extremely difficult to make... it is just too much work for BI to do at once. I'd rather have them get armor and infantry right."

"As for aircraft, I don't even know where to begin. There is so much to do... radar modes, weapons, flight model, ect."

"Once they improve the infantry and armor until it is near perfect, they can pick up flyable aircraft again."

I guess I figured you were just against aircraft in general. You said you want BI to focus on infantry and armor. I figured you just put user controlled rotor wing aircraft on the chopping block like user controlled fixed wing aircraft. After all, rotor wing aircraft would need a TON of improvements too, like the examples you gave earlier, which would take time away from infantry and armor.

Suury I guews Imma jus a stoooopid puerson hu dooesnent nowes anythung abouwt inglish:butbut:

Edited May 21, 2011 by DARK-STEALTH

[quickdraw_01 4]

Im not one for jets myself but I would still like them to be part of the game. I would like to see competent AI or Human controlled AC-130 Gunships thats the ultimate night time support.

[Flogger23m 2]

I guess I figured you were just against aircraft in general. You said you want BI to focus on infantry and armor. I figured you just put user controlled rotor wing aircraft on the chopping block like user controlled fixed wing aircraft. After all, rotor wing aircraft would need a TON of improvements too, like the examples you gave earlier, which would take time away from infantry and armor.

Suury I guews Imma jus a stoooopid puerson hu dooesnent nowes anythung abouwt inglish:butbut:

Considering I mentioned rotary wing aircraft many times in my previous posts I would have figured people would grasp the concept. Perhaps I overestimated the average posters ability to retain information.

Your typical helicopter doesn't have radar, and if they do they are nowhere near as complex as something like an Su-30 or F/A-18. The same can be said for weapon systems. The next advantage of helis is the map size. ArmA 2 maps are still very tiny for them, but it is not that bad. Finally, the flight model is in a better state for the helicopters than the flight model of the fixed wing aircraft.

Again, I hope BI doesn't bother improving jets. Just take them out. No need for a CoD: Air Combat in a simulator IMO.

[nodunit 397]

Due to being disgusted with the thought of this community sharing the mindset of CM's I cannot tell if you're last line was sarcastic or not.

Edited May 21, 2011 by NodUnit

[Steakslim 1]

Due to being disgusted with the thought of this community sharing the mindset of CM's I cannot tell if you're last line was sarcastic or not.

No mate, i think it's just him, and hopefully he's a debonaire of internet sarcasm.

[nodunit 397]

Right, poor choice of word there...come to think of it remaining here would only serve to stir pointless drama since we all know jets will be included anyway, wonder what other topics are around..

Edited May 21, 2011 by NodUnit

[metalcraze 290]

Again, I hope BI doesn't bother improving jets. Just take them out. No need for a CoD: Air Combat in a simulator IMO.

What are you talking about?

If you don't like planes don't use them. The modern authentic war isn't possible without them.

I also use (AI) planes in a missions as a support

Things that don't work like they should should be improved not cut out.

[aus_twisted 0]

We should. The game is an infantry simulator first. If you think otherwise you'd being disillusion.

The maps are so tiny for fixed wing aircraft it is a joke. I can fly across the biggest maps in seconds. Unless the maps can at least be increased in size by 6-10 times, then they are worthless aside from being left to the AI.

The infantry and armor aspects of ArmA 2 are lacking in so many ways. Work on that first. Once it is a perfect infantry simulator and a light armor simulator, then we can look at fixed wing aircraft.

Sorry but ArmA will never be a "perfect infantry simulator" If you think a "perfect infantry simulator" is possible on PC then you have no idea what your talking about. There's never been a perfect game or simulator released in history, theres always limitations to whats possible and in such a open game as ArmA that makes it even more difficult.

If the general public (gamers) were to play the most advanced flight sims in the world used by Air forces software that is not available to public then the first complaint would be the graphics are crap etc. To say remove aircraft for players use is just stupid, every type of vehicle has been usable since OFP and to take that feature away it would not be the same sim/game anymore.

Edited May 21, 2011 by AUS_Twisted

[SASrecon 0]

Flogger I fail to see why you don't just go and play Battlefield/America's Army (If Red River just doesn't float your boat), I'm sorry but you're not going to change the open-nature of BIS' games and limit it to an 'infantrysim' just because you don't think the maps are big enough and the flight model means it isn't worth it... who gives a sh*t if it takes less than a minute to fly at full speed from one side of a map to the other, if you want dogfighting that's what BIS made infinite terrain generation for and Air support is a vital part of 20/21st century warfare, I don't get WHY you want to remove planes from this game.

If you'd ever played some tactical games with a clan/some mates you would probably know how important it is to be able to have a fellow player control the air-support, there's no way an AI pilot would be able to provide the same fidelity, speed and the ability to make important decisions out of their own choice. You can order an AI unit to attack certain vehicles and bomb laser-designated targets but it's usually slow, is more prone to getting shot down and you can't plan an attack with AI, it will always have the same generic behavior in most situations, making it slightly unrealistic (after all if this is a simulation then unrealistic combat wouldn't be a wise idea would it :rolleyes:).

Also please do refrain fromcontradicting yourself

Again, I hope BI doesn't bother improving jets. Just take them out. No need for a CoD: Air Combat in a simulator IMO.

It's getting quite frustrating and confusing to follow you when you keep slightly changing your opinion, please if you want to keep this constructive then make your opinion a little more clear and stick to it please, no need to dish out personal attacks:

I have a better idea. Remove yourself from the forum until you learn how to read and comprehend English. :idea:Your location claims New York. If this is true and your lack of basic English reading and comprehension is a sick joke.

We should. The game is an infantry simulator first. If you think otherwise you'd being disillusion.

-'Disillusioned' would be the correct term there :j:

I also fail to see how your COD Air combat analogy makes any sense (yes I have read your previous post, but in what way is ARMA air combat 'arcadey' and 'untactical'? It's probably more tactical than Air combat in any other game series.) I think you're failing to see the fact that there's a whole game covered by just Air-Ground support and Ground-Air measures, BIS is covering all areas and sticking it in their incredibly versatile sim, not just stripping out all the features they don't have time and resources to do to your incredibly high expectations and they are making their game, not yours.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Imho the default maps/islands are too small for modern planes/jets and modern air combat. Just spawning planes or pilots and having no or low AA(A) defense is far from "sim feeling"...

Btw how many missions can one download to experience the "modern aerial warfare" in A2OA?

IIRC support from pilots flying helicopters is much more requested and in use than assistance from jet pilots. ;)

[[aps]gnat 28]

Imho the default maps/islands are too small for modern planes/jets and modern air combat. Just spawning planes or pilots and having no or low AA(A) defense is far from "sim feeling"...

Agree.

Fortunately Lemnos looks like its a 25km x 25km terrain.

Better, but not best.

BTW, VBS2 is going to be able to do 500km x 500km, with 40km VD.

Hopefully ArmA3 and VBS2+ will be based on the same technology so custom terrain could be created larger.

But anyone creating just a 50km terrain is going to need some seriously good "Visitor version 7" auto tools to get that made before the end of this century.

[CyclonicTuna 87]

I'd like to see a fully functional Nimitz class supercarrier, or "Queen Elizabeth class", or the French "Charles de Gaulle class". Anyway a big maritime floating airbase!

[dysta 10]

I'd like to see a fully functional Nimitz class supercarrier, or "Queen Elizabeth class", or the French "Charles de Gaulle class". Anyway a big maritime floating airbase!

I'd rather looking for USS Ford, and PLAN (PLA Navy) Kuznetsov.