Couple of bad things

[NoRailgunner 0]

@SUBS17

found different take-off weights for AV-8B:

Maximum Vertical Take-Off Weight: 9,400kg

Maximum Take-Off Weight: 14,000kg

Maximum Payload: 5,300kg

@Vultar

read such sentences as advertisement even other games call themselves as "most realistic", "best and true simulation" etc.

[Vultar 0]

Nope... they don't. Only ArmA does.

Americas Army states "The official U.S.Army Game" and it's true because there you can play with IRL soldiers...

What's more I haven't seen that game calls itselve the best or sth... it just write something like

"Great graphics"

"Revolution driving"

"Exciting story"

But never "The most" like ArmA does, that's why I started his topic

[MehMan 0]

Nope... they don't. Only ArmA does.

Americas Army states "The official U.S.Army Game" and it's true because there you can play with IRL soldiers...

Err...you can do the same in ArmA. If you looked around the forums a lot of the guys around here are either former servicemen or active servicemen. And Americas Army is kinda suck.

[RedStorm 0]

All these whiners sound like they're 12-year-old kids that've seen a few movies and think they know everything about armies and such.

Weird they only ever care about the "cool stuff" like guns and all eh? Sort of like the wannabe "historians" that think they know all about WW2, can name every single tank and gun used, but haven't a clue what the 'Battle of the Bulge' is.

Hey, go and do some military service and then come back and see if your opinion hasn't changed. This simulation line was never about how cool the weapons look or how fancy the explosions are or even how spiffy the weapons work. Games like America's Army are for the more action oriented people who like shooting stuff, a lot.

This is for tactically-minded people who want to manage assetts in a combat environment to see how he or she can bring a certain mission to a specific close.

So sorry, your M16A4 won't look like the God-end-all of weaponry and your tank won't billow plumes of smoke as you race it around firing your main cannon at insurgents. Go play whatever other game out there for that. This game gives you rather crude representations of hardware out there used, but accurate enough to play out certain engagements on a tactical scale.

[Second 0]

(It means "The most realistic battlefield simulation by Operation Flashpoint's authors")

Yeah. It has been said that that text is idea of Polish publisher. No BIS (vilas had this same issue, until he heard about that)

So please: shut your trap in here and go whining to publisher instead.

And besides: It's battlefield simulation, not hardware simulation (like tank or chopper simulations). DOH!

[subs17 9]

IMO Battlefield simulation is helicopter/Soldier/tank/jet fighter sim all rolled into one. eg all of the above.

[max power 21]

#1. There is a certain minimum range to the javelin. I'm not sure what that is IRL, but if you find the missiles are missing, it's because you're in too close.

#2. Ballistics and other things are simplified in ArmA. For a more realistic shooting experience, try NoWonderDog's realistic ballistics mod. It's compatible gmj's sight adjustment script. I have hit a target at 2.5 km with those mods active before, but it's difficult and the bullet drop has to be seen to be believed. The bullets look as if they rain out of the sky vertically, and you can shoot 3 times before the first bullet gets anywhere near the target.

#3. The Harrier is not capable (IRL) of taking off vertically with a full warload. The short takeoff that BIS has it doing is accurate for a loaded up harrier. Since ArmA hasn't any capability to calculate the weight of the aircraft's stores, the ground effect, and other factors that contribute to the ability of an aircraft taking or landing vertically, I'm not too upset about their STOVL comprimize.

While those paveway bombs can by guided from an aircraft with a laser target designator, they are not fire and forget. Fire and forget munitions employ their own way of tracking targets- either by using active or passive sensors. Those paveway bombs look for certain frequencies and patters of laser light only, and you or someone else must guide them to their target the whole way.

If the bomb loses sight of the laser its still going to land somewhere and explode the laser fine tunes its trajectory to hit an exact point. Lets not forget that the Harrier can guide its own LGBs it doesn't need anyone else to do this if it is fitted with a Sniper Pod.laser fires for only 3-5 seconds prior to impact for the F-16. If there is fog the laser won't work anyway since the tgt will be obscured and the optical sight in the pod will be unable to locate the tgt. Thats the only reason I think the pilot would opt for a CCRP delivery. Essentially the bombs need to be dropped for a reason in which case the pilot uses the tgts grid coordinates which is still quite accurate. As I stated earlier the loads that the Harrier uses in Arma are light enough to allow a vertical take-off the main reason that STOL take-offs are mainly used isn't just to do with the weapons load but mainly fuel consumption. The Harrier uses up alot of fuel for a vertical take-off compared to a STOL take-off. Although the loads on both Harrier configurations might appear heavy they are in fact not heavy enough to prevent a vertical take-off for a real Harrier. Especially the Harrier with the A/A missiles which are extremely light compared to LGBs. Those LGBs are also the lighter version of the GBU family so even with 6 of them it'll still be able to take off vertically. If you don't believe me simply use google for the AV8Bs performance and lookup the max takeoff weight for the stores for an AV8B(ref my earlier post) now google the weights for the GBUs and Aim9X.

Let's not forget what? Please read my post before replying to me, or please make it clear who or what you are specifically replying to. Thanks. Specifically in my post, 'you' means the pilot, and 'someone else' means anyone with an LTD. Out of everything that I have heard, read, and scene dealing with LTDs, the common practice is to guide them all the way to their target. No doubt they can try to figure out where they are and where their target was. But I don't think that in practice you can call them Fire and Forget by any measure. This is specifically what I was arguing.

The maximum gross weight for a harrier to take off at sea level at 32 degrees celsius is 8000 kg. The harrier, pilot and fuel weigh 6,300. 5 gbu12's weigh 1100 kgs. The Sniper LTD weighs 200 kg. The gau12 Equalizer weighs 220 kgs, and its 300 rounds of ammunition weighs around another 65 kg.

So, 8000 - (6300 + 1100 + 200 + 220 + 65) = 115 kg.

On a cooler day at S/L, it maybe could. At higher elevations, certainly not. On warmer days? Again, certainly not. At this load out, assuming Sahrani is a hot place, it could probably lift off vertically at night but not during the day in the summer time. In bad weather, in the middle of a high pressure system, maybe it could. The point is that it could not always do it so it's up to the designers to figure out what they want to do about that. Lifting off vertically with all kinds of stores on there is likely a lot more rare than a straight forward STO, so it's not out of left field to automate the harrier to reflect that.

I didn't do anything for the Air to Air loadout, likely it would be lighter, but let's not forget that those 600 gallons of extra fuel at 6 lbs per gallon is nothing to sneeze at either!

[subs17 9]

@SUBS17

found different take-off weights for AV-8B:  

Maximum Vertical Take-Off Weight: 9,400kg

Maximum Take-Off Weight: 14,000kg

Maximum Payload: 5,300kg

@Vultar

read such sentences as advertisement even other games call themselves as "most realistic", "best and true simulation" etc.

Yeah I've found a few sites that have different values for its performance weights range 3000kg(not likely) to 1000kg. The other problem is the different variants and engine types. Either way it is possible to carry slightly less fuel but more weapons and inflight refuel.

Operating weight empty including pilot and used fuel:

AV8B 6336kg

GRMk7 7050kg

TAV8B 6451kg

Maximum fuel:

Internal 3,519 kg

Internal and external 7,180 kg

Maximum external stores

Pegasus 11-61 6,003 kg

Pegasus 11-21/Mk 105 4,899 kg

Maximum useful load (include fuel, stores, weapons, ammunition and water injection for engine)

Vertical takeoff Approximately 3,062, kg

STO More than 7,710 kg

Max take off weight

Rolling 14000kg

Vertical 9415kg

Maximum Vertical Takeoff Weight (pounds)

20,752 RADAR

20,752 NIGHT ATTACK

19,185 DAY ATTACK

Maximum Short Takeoff Weight (pounds)

32,000 RADAR

32,000 NIGHT ATTACK

31,000 DAY ATTACK

Theres some video here of some AV8Bs doing vertical takeoff with a few bombs on board here.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.c....6736708

Heres some footage from the Sniper pod of GBUs being dropped note the flashing L indicates that the laser designator is firing.(this is how it should look if it were in a proper Harrier sim)

http://vids.myspace.com/index.c....0684588

6 x GBU12s = 2178kgs

4 x Aim9X = 335.6kgs + 2 x drop tanks

[subs17 9]

Let's not forget what?  Please read my post before replying to me, or please make it clear who or what you are specifically replying to.  Thanks.  Specifically in my post, 'you' means the pilot, and 'someone else' means anyone with an LTD.  Out of everything that I have heard, read, and scene dealing with LTDs, the common practice is to guide them all the way to their target.  No doubt they can try to figure out where they are and where their target was.  But I don't think that in practice you can call them Fire and Forget by any measure.  This is specifically what I was arguing.

The maximum gross weight for a harrier to take off at sea level at 32 degrees celsius is 8000 kg.  The harrier, pilot and fuel weigh 6,300.  5 gbu12's weigh 1100 kgs.  The Sniper LTD weighs 200 kg.    The gau12 Equalizer weighs 220 kgs, and its 300 rounds of ammunition weighs  around another 65 kg.  

So, 8000 - (6300 + 1100 + 200 + 220 + 65) =  115 kg.  

On a cooler day at S/L, it maybe could.  At higher elevations, certainly not.  On warmer days?  Again, certainly not.  At this load out, assuming Sahrani is a hot place, it could probably lift off vertically at night but not during the day in the summer time.  In bad weather, in the middle of a high pressure system, maybe it could.  The point is that it could not always do it so it's up to the designers to figure out what they want to do about that.  Lifting off vertically with all kinds of stores on there is likely a lot more rare than a straight forward STO, so it's not out of left field to automate the harrier to reflect that.

I didn't do anything for the Air to Air loadout, likely it would be lighter, but let's not forget that those 600 gallons of extra fuel at 6 lbs per gallon is nothing to sneeze at either!

No the pilot can guide his own LGBs was my point, if it fogs over he can still drop them using the aircrafts radar which should already have the tgt coordinates in the steerpoint in which case hes got the option of dropping them like a normal iron bomb. You don't necessarily need a laser to paint straight away either the laser only lights up in the last 3-5 seconds before impact. In aircraft such as the jaguar or A4 buddy lasing is necessary since the launching aircrafts designator isn't on a ball turret so the aircraft will lose sight of the tgt when it overflys the tgt and thats why they need a 2nd aircraft. While an AV8B can do it all without requiring a 2nd aircraft or person on the ground. As for vertical take off there are a few things I overlooked on Arma such as the addition of drop tanks and also the initial data I saw for the Harrier gave it better VTOL weight than some other sites. Even so the aircraft can still land and take off vertically and IRL they almost always land vertically on carriers. So its not good to be unable to carry out vertical landings or takeoffs. Hopefully someday someone will create a decent Harrier sim with these features as the Harrier is a cool aircraft. BTW there is probably a few configurations that allow the carriage of weapons such as rocket pods etc.

[jakerod 254]

Do you realize that the harrier can take-off vertically in ArmA? I just did it about five seconds ago. I mean technically it wasnt a vertical take off. My speed was at 15 and I used 5 meters of runway to take off on but I am fairly sure that that is close enough to VTOL to be considered VTOL for our gaming purpose. Not to mention if you parked your harrier somewhere where it doesn't have 5 meters of runway space to take-off from your an idiot anyway... right?

[Teliko 0]

Seriously, saying that weapons are all that makes a game realistic is pretty stupid. If BF2 had weapons' stats perfectly right but there were still retards bunnyhopping and spamming medipacks on the floor while speeding through a town using some crazy song on their car horn, would it be more realistic?

[Dallas 9]

Well if we want 100% combat realism we'd have to expect bullit to death ration somewhere between Vietnam's 1 to 16.000 and Iraq's 1 to 250.000. Reality is a whole lot different than only going for headshots everytime, there's alot of blind unloading, just suppressing the other end.

[celery 8]

Seriously, saying that weapons are all that makes a game realistic is pretty stupid. If BF2 had weapons' stats perfectly right but there were still retards bunnyhopping and spamming medipacks on the floor while speeding through a town using some crazy song on their car horn, would it be more realistic?

Yes, it would be more realistic if the weapons were realistic.

[Vultar 0]

Ok then, if you want now to insult everyone who do not agree with your text copyed from some millitary sites, it's time to close this topic, yeah, just because of you all noobs who do not know what means talking on forum.

Admin or sb, close this topic and send some ppl to read rules, Im quitting.

[Madus_Maximus 0]

As with all games there needs to be a balance between realism and... well balance. There are plenty of mods out there which give you what you want, with more accurate ballistics and so on, so why moan about the vanilla game when there's ways to change it that you have access to? It seems people just whine for whining sake. What happened to the OFP community who instead of moaning about the games short comings actually did something to improve them? People expect WAY too much from BIS. OFP was made great by the community, BIS mearly gave us the tools to make it what it was, just like they have now, but far too few are taking on the challenge these days. Lack of community is killing this game not the "bugs" or BIS not giving us every single weapon system ever created in the last 100 years.

[Beagle 684]

Mods don't make games anymore...this is not countersrike and it's not the Year 1999.

After al this yars im Sick of looking für compatible mods, updaates and servers....and Mods more often have lots of bugs too, since games become more and more complex.

Most OFP Mods brought more unbalance into the games as the stock games had. Every mod team made his units the best...so, we hat 24. Century T-64s, Tank Hunter Tunguskas and Blackhawks with pulse cannons und regenerativ shilds in the end, high poly hinds that brought your PC to the knees and an...abnd on...

Those mods wher nice gimmiks, but not more.

[Madus_Maximus 0]

Well, to expect BIS to make everything we want is a bit of a stretch. That's why we're allowed to edit and create our own content, so we can get what WE want. I'm more than happy with the vanilla ArmA units. I've yet to see any user made models that match the quality of the BIS things. Remember they're also optimised, it's a balance of looking good, being functional and being able to actually use them in decent numbers without totally bogging your system down. It's a never ending whine. People want this and that, then someone makes it and they whine it should have been included in the vanilla game. There's a few mods out there which combine things like 6th Sense. Try that. It's a big download but it's updated regularly and you just run a simple command prompt that does all the work for you.

[Deadfast 43]

Don't confuse mods with addons.

Mod is basically a pack of addons, so the only thing you need to look for is server running the same mod.

Of course, if someone makes a rifle pack and calls it a mod that's another story...

[Black Sphere 0]

As with all games there needs to be a balance between realism and...

...playability.

[Madus_Maximus 0]

As with all games there needs to be a balance between realism and...

...playability.

That's the balance bit

[celery 8]

As with all games there needs to be a balance between realism and...

...playability.

That's the balance bit

Balance and playability are two different things. Balance sacrifices realism to equalize units, weapons, sides and so on. Playability is ease of action and doesn't have to exclude realism.

And just so you know why mods don't make ArmA the perfect game. The game has multiplayer and being ready for addons requires players AND servers to have every imaginable addon that might be used in missions that are played. Not to mention that missions possibly need converting to make a mod work. That's why it's essential that fixes come in official patches.

[Madus_Maximus 0]

As with all games there needs to be a balance between realism and...

...playability.

That's the balance bit

Balance and playability are two different things. Balance sacrifices realism to equalize units, weapons, sides and so on. Playability is ease of action and doesn't have to exclude realism.

And just so you know why mods don't make ArmA the perfect game. The game has multiplayer and being ready for addons requires players AND servers to have every imaginable addon that might be used in missions that are played. Not to mention that missions possibly need converting to make a mod work. That's why it's essential that fixes come in official patches.

And that's why there's several "packs" out there which have everything already needed in there, like 6th Sense.

[Black Sphere 0]

Balance and playability are two different things.

Of course they are. And no one is equalising them here so I don't really understand your point.

Quote[/b] ]Balance sacrifices realism to equalize units, weapons, sides and so on.

Why? To ensure (better) playability. Balance is the equilibrity between two things you know, in this case between the realism and playability.

Quote[/b] ]Playability is ease of action and doesn't have to exclude realism.

Not (necessarily) true. This really depends from the genre, and type of the game. As already said, here the reducing of not too realistic action goes on expenses to ensure (better) playability; to establish a balance between them.

[subs17 9]

Don't confuse mods with addons.

Mod is basically a pack of addons, so the only thing you need to look for is server running the same mod.

Of course, if someone makes a rifle pack and calls it a mod that's another story...

I think addons that add to Arma vehicles/weapons with more detail would rock. Maybe Arma2 might build on the current weapons and make some of them closer to the real deal than they are at the moment.

[raedor 8]

BTW balance can mean two totally different things. With balance you can either mean that each weapon (or whatever) has a complement on both sides (M16 = AK74 etc) or that you balance things to be similar to the real things: M16 and AK74 have different, but balanced values (same "measure", calculated for the same system of armor/health/hit/etc values), so that you don't have an uber M16 or AK74...