FCS for helicopters.

[*LK1* 10]

I don't think chemical element means what you think it means...

Everything in the entire fucking universe is made of chemical elements.

really...?im just using his logic. he said that what a weapons has inside makes the weapon chemical. WP is made 90% from chemical elements...

even chemical bombs they dont have inside 100% chemical elements.

***combustion is a chemical process, isn't it? so every bullet is a chemical weapon? dear DM....***

and as i said is how a weapon react with the body by activating a CHEMICAL PROCESS that makes that weapon chemical.

Edited July 14, 2011 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[Archosaurusrev 12]

Legend, how old are you?

[purepassion 22]

and now we all come back to helicopter FCS ;)

[*LK1* 10]

Legend, how old are you?

27 but i was incredibly younger before my balls falled down after reading some reply.

---------- Post added at 10:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 PM ----------

and now we all come back to helicopter FCS ;)

yes seriusly.

[maddogx 13]

oh thx i know.

No, I really don't think you do.

but im just using his logic.

Again, nope.

he said that what a weapons has inside makes the weapon chemical.

True.

WP is made 90% from chemical elements...

No. Like I said, everything in the entire universe is made up of chemical elements. Look up what the phrase means. Here's a tip: it has nothing to do with "chemical weapons". Phosphorous is a chemical element, of course, but so are uranium and plutonium:

Uranium ( /jʊˈreɪniəm/ yew-ray-nee-əm) is a silvery-white metallic chemical element in the actinide series of the periodic table, ...

Plutonium ( /pluËˈtoÊŠniÉ™m/ ploo-toh-nee-É™m) is a transuranic radioactive chemical element with the chemical symbol Pu and atomic number 94.

So by your logic, holy shit! Nukes are chemical weapons too! Or maybe you're just misinformed because of a language barrier.

even chemical bombs they dont have inside 100% chemical elements.

Nope, one more time, the entire universe is made up of chemical elements. Even you and I. What makes a weapon chemical is what's inside, as DM said, but you've misinterpreted that fact due to your misunderstanding of the english language.

[Archosaurusrev 12]

27 but i was uncredibly younger before my balls falled down after reading some reply.

-.-

Well, before you say anything, go to school to learn. Wikipedia is full of shit.

Maddog a few pages back is saying ze truth.

[purepassion 22]

Guys, would you please come back to topic and stop arguing about whats considered a chemical weapon or not. ??

you should have seen it earlier maddog ;)

But straight after the rule dont feed the troll, lets finish this debate and get back to the FCS's

[*LK1* 10]

-.-

Well, before you say anything, go to school to learn. Wikipedia is full of shit.

Maddog a few pages back is saying ze truth.

dear, im not using wikipedia for a fast chemical course. i was using that just as fast source. which is also reliable in many cases.

Nope, one more time, the entire universe is made up of chemical elements. Even you and I. What makes a weapon chemical is what's inside, as DM said, but you've misinterpreted that fact due to your misunderstanding of the english language.

so according with your logic and on what ou said is what a weapon has inside, as DM said, that makes a weapon chemical.

cool as since everything has chemical elements inside everything and everyone is a chemical weapon. farting it could be considerated a chemical weapon or biological(k that was just for fun)? let me clear something for you guys:

IT'S WHICH CHEMICAL PROCESS A WEAPON use to kill or to wounds that make a weapon chemical NOT WHAT IS INSIDE IT AS YOU GUYS SAID.

explosion is a chemical(well in fact is chemical-phisical) process which is also used for bulletts. but is not that chemical process that kill people, is the bullet(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics). so no is not what a weapon has inside or which chemical process a weapon can activate that makes a weapon chemical.

edit...: mmmm http://www.google.it/#sclient=psy&hl=it&source=hp&q=WP%20chemical%20weapon&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=874892c6ca2aa00c&biw=1152&bih=749&pf=p&pdl=3000

since yu dont believe wiki, here's a list of sources.

COME ON EVEN THE PENTAGON has classified WP as a chemical weapon.

just as an example: if you use a virus inside a bomb is a biological weapon.if you burn people( which is a chemical process) with a weapon full of sintetics elements made in laboratory how you would call that weapon? here you have your million dollar question of the day. cheers.

Edited July 14, 2011 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[max power 21]

So what you're saying, LeGeNDK1LLER, is if you purposefully start pumping tracer rounds into a building to try to start a fire to deny a group of badguys a stronghold, and those said enemy people start succumbing to smoke inhalation, that you have just weaponized the house and now it is a chemical weapon? After all, a house is composed of chemicals, some of those are even elements. Many of them are toxic after burning.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Max Power

[maddogx 13]

so according with your logic and on what ou said is what a weapn has inside, as DM said, that makes a weapon chemical.

That's the dumbed down version, yeah.

cool as since everything has chemical elements inside everything and everyone is a chemical weapon. farting it could be considerated a chemical weapon or biological? let me clear something for you guys:

How is it that my sarcastic comments are entirely lost on you, but then you come back with a sarcastic comment of your own, basically saying the same thing as I was? :confused:

IT'S WHICH CHEMICAL PROCESS A WEAPON use to kill or to wounds that make a weapon chemical NOT WHAT IS INSIDE IT AS YOU GUYS SAID.

Which chemical process a weapon uses is largely dependent on "what is inside it". I can't create a nuclear explosion using iron and led, for example. You need the right stuff inside the weapon.

COMBUSTION is a chemical process which is also used for bulletts. but is not that chemical process that kill people, is the bullet(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics). so no is not what a weapon has inside or which chemical process a weapon can activate that makes a weapon chemical.

Ah, so you agree now that WP is not a chemical weapon? Great. :D

I think we can really get back to the topic now. Do you have any way of editing the poll to give it some reasonable options? :rolleyes:

...

[*LK1* 10]

So what you're saying, LeGeNDK1LLER, is if you purposefully start pumping tracer rounds into a building to try to start a fire to deny a group of badguys a stronghold, and those said enemy people start succumbing to smoke inhalation, that you have just weaponized the house and now it is a chemical weapon?

no.

eh come on. but if you use a weapon that burns the hell out of you(chemical process)which use sintetics elements created in chemical laboratory probably i dont have enough fantasy to call this weapon in any oher way than chemical.

also, if you donthave do it, take a look to this link and ofcourse at thecredibility of the surces too: http://www.google.it/#sclient=psy&hl=it&source=hp&q=WP%20chemical%20weapon&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=874892c6ca2aa00c&biw=1152&bih=749&pf=p&pdl=3000

i would also to say that there is a sort of legal war going on to definy what is chemical weapon and what is not. because technically you cant use chemical weapons.

Ah, so you agree now that WP is not a chemical weapon? Great. :D

oh my god im becoming green....

and how you could considerate the combustion process which is used to kill the enemy??!!!!

oh ok you were joking cuz i was starting screaming and running all around my room ;) jees i feel hot.

I think we can really get back to the topic now. Do you have any way of editing the poll to give it some reasonable options? :rolleyes:

mmm guess not :(

gonna ask at some moderator if he can.

Edited July 14, 2011 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[dm 9]

Well if you didnt drag it so far off topic with your random comments, we wouldnt be having this issue.

The poll as it stands is useless, because it does not provide an option for "configure the weapons realistically". It only provides options to leave them as they are or configure all weapons as optically guided. Which is why I posted in the first godamn place.

Dont get all pissy because someone calls you on being more interested in calling guided missiles dildos than writing good poll options (which would make the whole thread worth while).

I wouldnt bother with the WP chemical weapon bullshit anymore, plenty of people have chimed in with legitimate response yet you still reply with the same "but <group x> said so, so it must be so" (same thing you did in the AMX thread). Although I will say, if WP is a chemical weapon, why does your beloved wikipedia not list a suitable class (as recognised by world organisations for classifying chemical weapons) for WP?

Dont claim to know things when you clearly dont.

IT'S WHICH CHEMICAL PROCESS A WEAPON use to kill or to wounds that make a weapon chemical NOT WHAT IS INSIDE IT AS YOU GUYS SAID.

explosion is a chemical(well in fact is chemical-phisical) process.

High explosive rounds use the concussive force of the chemical reaction to kill people and destroy equipment. By your logic, that makes HE a chemical weapon? Is it? No.

WP works in the same way, using the chemical reaction of its contents to burn and destroy.

no.

eh come on. but if you use a weapon that burns the hell out of you(chemical process)which use sintetics elements created in chemical laboratory probably i dont have enough fantasy to call this weapon in any oher way than chemical.

Again, the fillings of HE rounds are made in "chemical laboratory" (they prefer to call it a factory), does that make them chemical weapons? No.

If you cared to read your wikipedia, you would see that what I meant by "what is inside them" was the substance they contain: Nerve agents like Sarin or VX, Blister agents like Sulfur or Phosgene, or Toxins like Ricin. Those are chemical weapons. They are engineered to kill. WP is simply dug out of the ground and baked in an oven for a while (simplification).

Edited July 14, 2011 by DM

[rangerpl 13]

By this logic, if I light a cigar I'm deploying a chemical weapon since match-heads have a flammable chemical on them.

[Steakslim 1]

I'll be the 'next' one to say this, but this thread is retarded.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-intelligence-classified-white-phosphorus-as-chemical-weapon-516523.html

"When Saddam used WP it was a chemical weapon," said Mr Ranucci, "but when the Americans use it, it's a conventional weapon.

[maddogx 13]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-intelligence-classified-white-phosphorus-as-chemical-weapon-516523.html

When Saddam used WP it was a chemical weapon," said Mr Ranucci, "but when the Americans use it, it's a conventional weapon.

Haha, well that's really cleared things up for us. :D

But I guess we can drop the whole WP discussion now, since it's gone way off topic...

[Daniel 0]

isn't correct. just this. why a mi-24 should works as an apache dude?

until now, about arma 3, we have just seen a couple of toys: a merkava, a mi-28 and a comanche. but i guess they are just waiting to show more.

i cant think of a bis game without a mi-24(which was present in all bis games)

and an apache. so im just asking more credibles FCS.

That's not what I said. Each weapon, each fire control system, and each aircraft should have the correct method of guiding in their missiles. How high the fedility is on this is up to BIS, I don't expect a significant jump from Arrowhead. But I agree, missiles that are manually guided, such as the Hind's Shturm, should be manually tracked by looking down the optics and keeping the mouse on or leading the target; essentially the method already available in game, but not necessarily assigned to that weapon (BIS' fault through ignorance or design choice). The TAB key system already works for fire-and-forget systems, it's just a matter of tweaking range, scope and time-to-lock to make it realistic per platform.

Is there anything there you disagree with?

Edited July 15, 2011 by Daniel

[NoRailgunner 0]

The Mi-24VM can be equipped with 9M120 Ataka-V and Igla system. There are Mi-24 Hinds with digital MFDs in cockpit too.

Guess that BIS is going to build the OPFOR factions more advanced than in their previous games. The 70's/80's are gone and new/modern developments are not only made and fielded only on BLUFOR side. ;)

Maybe just think or discuss about the current real FCS upgrades + further developments that could work in Arma3 time/setting.

[Archosaurusrev 12]

What are the differences of the Hinds?

I don't know what the whole F and V and M designations mean, I do know they have different weapon loadouts but due to my limited knowledge of Russian avionics I can't distinguish the AA and AT missiles :/.

[wolfbite 8]

Its the western designations of the hinds....

Hind-D is the Mi-24d The basic hind most people think of I'd say....

Hind-f is the Mi24p the one with the 30mm canon fitted to the side

Hind-e is the Mi-24v basically an upgraded D with shturm instead of falanga.... Its all rather confusing between the two change ....

I'd deffinately Like to see an Mi-24vp... It has a 23mm canon instead of the 12mm in the ball turret and a scissor style tail of the mi-28 as well as shturm....

[NordKindchen 12]

Could please some one make a poll where the often demanded variation 4 is available?

"make it both available. Tab - for Radar guided "dildos" and

Laser target for the "dildos" who demand this kind of targe acquisition"

Most of the people will agree that the Arma community is looking for realistic gameplay, otherwise we would play Battlefield.

And sadly I must say that if Arma tries to change into a more public way to fit more the casual gamers - it will definitely loose against BF3 and MW3 - so PLS stay with your starches and keep Arma the game it was and what the community is looking for. A relistic and strategic military Sim. Not a DCS A-10 but nevertheless realistic.

Therefore there should be no question that a realistic FCS for helicopters should be the aim.

The laser designator and Hellfire firemodes were good represented in ACE2 and were easily useable once understood.

So y not use them?

Best greetz

[Archosaurusrev 12]

I agree with Nord, the laser designator is awesome.

Unrelated but does anyone know how to effectively make the HIND gunner automatically or with a press of a button (Not scrollling through menus.) aim the AT rockets? This is for ace so I may have to post this there.

[*LK1* 10]

By this logic, if I light a cigar I'm deploying a chemical weapon since match-heads have a flammable chemical on them.

of course not.

Which chemical process a weapon uses is largely dependent on "what is inside it". I can't create a nuclear explosion using iron and led, for example. You need the right stuff inside the weapon.

of course but is not what its inside. is how kills. and obviously you must have something chemical on it to kill chemically. jesus christ mister obvious would be proud of us, unfortunately you force me to be it...

By this logic, if I light a cigar I'm deploying a chemical weapon since match-heads have a flammable chemical on them.

is something like 3/4 posts that im trying to explain it.

High explosive rounds use the concussive force of the chemical reaction to kill people and destroy equipment. By your logic, that makes HE a chemical weapon? Is it? No.

sweet lord....

WP works in the same way, using the chemical reaction of its contents to burn and destroy..

nope. heres is the error. is using a chemical solvent to stick himself to the body and to burn only when is in contact with oxygen molecules.

that's why, in the documentary called "fallujah the hidden massacre", you can find insurgents and civilians burned to the bones but with intact clothes.

clothes ha not oxygen molecules but the bodies yes. you can easily find documentaries ans sites that explain how it works, you dont need to believe me. is not like dieing by a normal fire. is a chemical process used by a chemical weapon to kill chemically :rolleyes:

and thats why most of the organizations, even the pentagon has classified it, has a chemical weap. hope is clear cuz is boring me a bit to repeat the same words thousand of times :j:

if is not included at the moment on the chemical weapon list its because probably the list need an update.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-intelligence-classified-white-phosphorus-as-chemical-weapon-516523.html

well, maybe now should be more clear ;):)

back on topic, since i cant edit the poll but only the thread, is it possible for any moderator to add option 5?and....would you guys want to see any other option on the poll?

option 5:

5/ Targetting view mode with zoom TDC slew, ground stabilise/lock/lase.

Edited July 15, 2011 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Guys, topic is Helo FCS, no more discussion about chemical weapons, you can take that to PM's.

And try to be civil to each other, can't hurt anyone.

[*LK1* 10]

Guys, topic is Helo FCS, no more discussion about chemical weapons, you can take that to PM's.

And try to be civil to each other, can't hurt anyone.

thx ;)