Couple of bad things

[Vultar 0]

ArmA Version: 1.08 Armed Assault

Problem #1:

It's about the Javelin AT Missile Launcher. I've got a problem 'cause in one mission of Armed Assault I can use it but it is only in this one mission and I can't find it in map editor... Is it my bug or Somebody else got same problem?

Also it doesn't shoot too good... if I aim higher the aimer shows 'Lock on' but it always miss... I have to aim (only) directly on target, but it isn't a True Javalin then...

Problem #2:

M107 anti-material rifle... it's max range of shot is about 2500m , rane of PERFECT shot 1000m, so why ArmA's Barrett got half of it? it can shoot max on 1000m and perfect shot is on 500m... it's really disgusting. Also... why I cant neutralize BMP2 on few shots? The BMP armor is like 10mm - easy to break for barrett... I am looking foward for some fix...

Problem #3:

AV-8 Harrier. As we all know, harrier is a VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing) Aircraft. So... why does it need more than 80km/h to take off? It should start like a helicopter...

(Yes, I done the automatic swing).

And why the bombs GBU-12 PAVEWAY need a Scout with laser to search for targets? Those bombs are kind of 'FAF' bombs (Fire and Forget), they can be guided from aircraft.

I strongly please BIS or even good AddOn makers(good? here masters are needed...) to repair those 'I could say BUGs', otherwise the ArmA can't say that it is the most realistic battlefield simulation...

[the unknown 0]

Problem 1:

Its in the editor but you will have to script it in by adding it to a unit or ammo crate. check the editing forums or biki on how to do that.

Problem 2:

Probally because ArmA isnt as large as the real world, and about the bmp its probally because of the hitpoint system used.

[MehMan 0]

Problem #3:

AV-8 Harrier. As we all know, harrier is a VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing) Aircraft. So... why does it need more than 80km/h to take off? It should start like a helicopter...

(Yes, I done the automatic swing).

And why the bombs GBU-12 PAVEWAY need a Scout with laser to search for targets? Those bombs are kind of 'FAF' bombs (Fire and Forget), they can be guided from aircraft.

I strongly please BIS or even good AddOn makers(good? here masters are needed...) to repair those 'I could say BUGs', otherwise the ArmA can't say that it is the most realistic battlefield simulation...

I recommend looking up a few facts about certain things before being a smartass:

The harrier cannot take of vertically with a full load. It's a V/STOL aircraft(Vertical/Short takeoff and landing). So that's realistic.

The GBU-12 is a laser guided bomb and as thus needs a laser to guide it to it's destination. The harrier in ArmA doesn't have a laser painter on it and needs somebody else to paint that laser. Once you get a lock you can drop the bombs and fly away.

[celery 8]

Problem #3:

AV-8 Harrier. As we all know, harrier is a VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing) Aircraft. So... why does it need more than 80km/h to take off? It should start like a helicopter...

(Yes, I done the automatic swing).

And why the bombs GBU-12 PAVEWAY need a Scout with laser to search for targets? Those bombs are kind of 'FAF' bombs (Fire and Forget), they can be guided from aircraft.

I strongly please BIS or even good AddOn makers(good? here masters are needed...) to repair those 'I could say BUGs', otherwise the ArmA can't say that it is the most realistic battlefield simulation...

I recommend looking up a few facts about certain things before being a smartass:

The harrier cannot take of vertically with a full load. It's a V/STOL aircraft(Vertical/Short takeoff and landing). So that's realistic.

The GBU-12 is a laser guided bomb and as thus needs a laser to guide it to it's destination. The harrier in ArmA doesn't have a laser painter on it and needs somebody else to paint that laser. Once you get a lock you can drop the bombs and fly away.

From my experience it can't take off even with no weapons at all. Got something smart to say about that? And what about the sidewinder version?

[Maddmatt 1]

From my experience it can't take off even with no weapons at all. Got something smart to say about that? And what about the sidewinder version?

But that doesn't really matter. It's not like you'll be taking off in an empty harrier very often.

There are more important things to spend time on than having a Harrier that can take off vertically when it has no weapons.

If an addon maker really cares for such a detail, then he'll have to make it.

[celery 8]

From my experience it can't take off even with no weapons at all. Got something smart to say about that? And what about the sidewinder version?

But that doesn't really matter. It's not like you'll be taking off in an empty harrier very often.

There are more important things to spend time on than having a Harrier that can take off vertically when it has no weapons.

If an addon maker really cares for such a detail, then he'll have to make it.

So making a VTOL feature that doesn't work like VTOL by assuming that every Harrier carries more than its thrusters can handle was more important than just making a working VTOL? The "more important things" song is really tired especially when you look at the current 1.09 changelog. Wow, really revolutionary fixes.

[Madus_Maximus 0]

From my experience it can't take off even with no weapons at all. Got something smart to say about that? And what about the sidewinder version?

But that doesn't really matter. It's not like you'll be taking off in an empty harrier very often.

There are more important things to spend time on than having a Harrier that can take off vertically when it has no weapons.

If an addon maker really cares for such a detail, then he'll have to make it.

So making a VTOL feature that doesn't work like VTOL by assuming that every Harrier carries more than its thrusters can handle was more important than just making a working VTOL? The "more important things" song is really tired especially when you look at the current 1.09 changelog. Wow, really revolutionary fixes.

Be happy they're "fixing" things at all. This game is a year old and we all know most other devs would have abandaoned it in the first few months and go onto making sequal number eleventytwo by now. It's not perfect but it's not exactly crap either. If they added every little bit of detail like that then they'd spend as much time perfecting one vehicle or weapon as they would making half the game.

[{USI}_Zombie 0]

Problem #3:

AV-8 Harrier. As we all know, harrier is a VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing) Aircraft. So... why does it need more than 80km/h to take off? It should start like a helicopter...

(Yes, I done the automatic swing).

And why the bombs GBU-12 PAVEWAY need a Scout with laser to search for targets? Those bombs are kind of 'FAF' bombs (Fire and Forget), they can be guided from aircraft.

I strongly please BIS or even good AddOn makers(good? here masters are needed...) to repair those 'I could say BUGs', otherwise the ArmA can't say that it is the most realistic battlefield simulation...

I recommend looking up a few facts about certain things before being a smartass:

The harrier cannot take of vertically with a full load. It's a V/STOL aircraft(Vertical/Short takeoff and landing). So that's realistic.

The GBU-12 is a laser guided bomb and as thus needs a laser to guide it to it's destination. The harrier in ArmA doesn't have a laser painter on it and needs somebody else to paint that laser. Once you get a lock you can drop the bombs and fly away.

From my experience it can't take off even with no weapons at all. Got something smart to say about that? And what about the sidewinder version?

actually, IRL, it can take off and land vertically if not over loaded. I have seen it numerous times over the course of my naval career, at least the USMC version can. I know it is different from the RAF/RN version is some ways though

[MehMan 0]

Define over loaded. As in, full load of weapons and fuel?

[frederf 0]

1. The Javelin is in the game, the editor edits the game. I don't understand what you mean that the Javelin isn't in the editor, none of the weapons are. It's not a bug. The thing is also a mere toy compared to the real weapon, vastly undermodeled it's true. BIS aren't in the business of making weapons anything like their real life counterparts it seems.

2. The M107 should probably have some more precise ballistics code, it's true. But you seem to equate punching through a BMP2's armor with killing it. Firstly ArmA has a moderatley simplistic armor simulation and second penetration != kill even in real life.

3. I won't give you the standard flame answer that a heavily-laden harrier can't VTOL. I'm sure they don't to preserve the engines, maintain some sort of safety margin, and possibly because they can't. The truth is "VTOL" mode in the helicopter makes it like a helicopter according to the ArmA engine and making it able to straight lift-off probably had some really ugly/weird side effects in the rest of the flight dynamics so they chopped it to landing only.

[Jex =TE= 0]

Short take off was adopted as the best means of take off to reduce debris into the air intakes. As far as the US/UK versions go, they are practically the same now I think since the UK gov't decided to hand majority control to the US leaving 25% to BAe. Of course once you have dropped all your bombs you no longer have a full load but arma wasn't meant to be a flight sim. Therefore the skimped big time on the flight dynamics and it's strange the went for the harrier at all - why not the f16/f15? We would then not have to worry about the VSTOL capabilities...

[Vultar 0]

why not the f16/f15? We would then not have to worry about the VSTOL capabilities...

Yeah thats right... but they didn't and we have to. Let's say... if M16A2 shoots 400 rounds per second instead of 750, AK74 is not AK74 and all the scopes don't have zoom (like ACOG 4x or Barrett scope 14x) can we tell that its realistic? IF ARMA WANTS TO BE MOST REALISTIC SIM, WE CANT SAY THAT BIS DONT HAVE TO MAKE GUNS SAME LIKE IN REAL LIFE

[W0lle 1050]

Vultar

Refrain from typing in all capital letters. Maybe you should spend some time reading the forum rules.

[Second 0]

Blah. "My-gun-isn't-like-it-should-be-IRL"-whining again

Yeah. That is the only thing which will make the to be realistic or unrealistic.

It's also the only thing that can make The Ultimate Combat Simulation. No wonder i despise big part of ArmA community these days.

[celery 8]

Problem #3:

AV-8 Harrier. As we all know, harrier is a VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing) Aircraft. So... why does it need more than 80km/h to take off? It should start like a helicopter...

(Yes, I done the automatic swing).

And why the bombs GBU-12 PAVEWAY need a Scout with laser to search for targets? Those bombs are kind of 'FAF' bombs (Fire and Forget), they can be guided from aircraft.

I strongly please BIS or even good AddOn makers(good? here masters are needed...) to repair those 'I could say BUGs', otherwise the ArmA can't say that it is the most realistic battlefield simulation...

I recommend looking up a few facts about certain things before being a smartass:

The harrier cannot take of vertically with a full load. It's a V/STOL aircraft(Vertical/Short takeoff and landing). So that's realistic.

The GBU-12 is a laser guided bomb and as thus needs a laser to guide it to it's destination. The harrier in ArmA doesn't have a laser painter on it and needs somebody else to paint that laser. Once you get a lock you can drop the bombs and fly away.

From my experience it can't take off even with no weapons at all. Got something smart to say about that? And what about the sidewinder version?

actually, IRL, it can take off and land vertically if not over loaded. I have seen it numerous times over the course of my naval career, at least the USMC version can. I know it is different from the RAF/RN version is some ways though

I was talking about the game, not RL.

[Sevan 0]

2: Depending on where you hit a BMP it's armor thickness can be upto 30mm or more. Even then punching a small hole through the hull is not going to destroy the vehicle. I understand that anti-material snipers are not designed to destroy vehicles, but to damage specific components on them.

as for ballistics, the stock ballistics in the game are not accurate. You should try the NWD ballistics mod. It's not a problem exclusive to the M107.

[subs17 9]

Problem #3:

AV-8 Harrier. As we all know, harrier is a VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing) Aircraft. So... why does it need more than 80km/h to take off? It should start like a helicopter...

(Yes, I done the automatic swing).

And why the bombs GBU-12 PAVEWAY need a Scout with laser to search for targets? Those bombs are kind of 'FAF' bombs (Fire and Forget), they can be guided from aircraft.

I strongly please BIS or even good AddOn makers(good? here masters are needed...) to repair those 'I could say BUGs', otherwise the ArmA can't say that it is the most realistic battlefield simulation...

I recommend looking up a few facts about certain things before being a smartass:

The harrier cannot take of vertically with a full load. It's a V/STOL aircraft(Vertical/Short takeoff and landing). So that's realistic.

The GBU-12 is a laser guided bomb and as thus needs a laser to guide it to it's destination. The harrier in ArmA doesn't have a laser painter on it and needs somebody else to paint that laser. Once you get a lock you can drop the bombs and fly away.

The GBUs can be delivered in CCIP/CCRP/DTOS(like an iron bomb) mode without using the laser. IRL the aircraft can buddy lase the tgts by using another aircraft to paint the target or paint them itself.

Quote[/b] ]The NA configuration includes: night vision goggle-compatible cockpit controls and displays, a wide-field-of-view HUD, a Navigation Forward Looking Infrared (NAVFLIR) system, a Digital Map Unit (DMU), and an Angle Rate Bombing System (ARBS) with laser spot tracker, which provides first pass day or night target strike capability at low altitude/high speed.

So you don't always necessarily need someone else to paint the tgt for you as you can do it yourself. Harriers also carry the Sniper pod for this. As for the FM well it leaves alot to be desired since you can't manually rotate the nozzles and thrust isn't modeled and IRL yes it can land and takeoff vertically but that depends on its take off weight.

Max weight for stores for vertical takeoff is 3062kg as opposed to 7710kg + using short takeoff weight. An Amraam weighs 157kg And Aim 9x weighs 85kg so the A/A variant modeled on ARMA should be able to takeoff vertically IRL with that loadout.(even if it were carrying AMRAAMs) For that matter a GBU12 weighs 363kg x 4 bombs = 1452kg Which means even the GBU version of the Harrier in Arma would IRL be able to do a vertical takeoff IRL.

The Harrier also doesn't have a realistic loadout. IRL you can carry both Aim9s and GBUs and alot of other weapon types no problem.

[subs17 9]

As for the M107 the problem is in the weapons sight IRL those things carry an electronic sight which takes into account range,wind rotation of earth etc So thats why they are alot more accurate IRL when compared to Armas one since the one in Arma carries a normal scope.

[frederf 0]

If you notice the "1.0" version of ArmA had the AV-8B with the self-designating sniper pod and then 5 GBU-12's. In whatever recent patch they removed the pod and made it 6 GBU-12's. They must have removed it because it was silly to have the pod on but have it non-functional.

Also while you can drop GBU's in CCIP, CCRP, DTOS, etc modes as free fall munitions, you'd get a severe wrap on the back of the noggin by your commanding officer for doing so as they cost significantly more than your standard Mk83 dumb bombs.

LGB's are not F&F in that they need a laser on target during the fall of the bomb. Similar to the Hellfire missile (except for the L model) the aircraft still needs to lase the target. The fact that the laser pod may be on the right/left side means that the plane cannot bank any ol' which way but has to keep the line to target within the laser head range of motion.

Other aircraft can also lase for the AV-8B in ArmA as well. There's just no default aircraft with lasers. The mapfact AH-64s work nicely.

The idea of any US military combat jet taking off without any A2A missiles is laughable. It just isn't done. The reason they did only one external store is to fit within the engine's weapon proxy limitation.

============

As for the M107 sight being "smart electronic" either you are mistaken or have seen something I haven't. I'm pretty sure the M107 day sight is a Leupod something-x scope with nothing particularly high tech about it. Perhaps you are thinking of the CheyTac M-200 with it's special ballistics calculator PDA-thingy.

[Vultar 0]

I dunno its full name in english but I know it have a 14 times zoom...

Whats more... sb said that 'ArmAs distance is 2x smaller than IRL. The Answer is No. Because officer without eq can walk 1000m in about 10mins = Real time.

And, lets say that ArmA have 2x smaller distance, so why M24 shoots Almost same like Barrett?...

The problem #4:

Why ArmA is so poor with units? Infantry is well built and I love it... but machines... That's too bad, 50% of Armored Machines that I've expected. About aircraft? Thats too funny... 3 planes, few helicopters in east and west, and RACS? They have only (1?2?) choppers...

The Problem #5:

Why the hell windows in HMMWV aren't bulletproof? Lol

Same in AH-1Z... omg thats disgusting...

[Maddmatt 1]

Why the hell windows in HMMWV aren't bulletproof? Lol

They were, but since 1.06 or 1.07 they changed it. Don't know why

[NoRailgunner 0]

Vultar pls. have a closer look into Armed Assault Bugtracker (BTS). Maybe this is additionally an good basis/reference book for next patches and ArmA2.

[Vultar 0]

Ok then, if it will help...

[Deadfast 43]

I wonder why no one yet mentioned the fact, that Javelin was never completed which is the reason why it's buggy and why it isn't included in default unit's load-out.

[whisper 0]

I strongly please BIS or even good AddOn makers(good? here masters are needed...) to repair those 'I could say BUGs', otherwise the ArmA can't say that it is the most realistic battlefield simulation...

Just to nitpick for the sake of it (and because I find that argument pretty pointless) : So, what would be the most realistic battlefield simulation for you?