Couple of bad things

[subs17 9]

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.

Lasers only required for the last 3-5 seconds before impact and the reason other delivery methods are possible is incase the weather causes problems for the delivery.(So in bad weather you can still do some damage A/G radar on its own can still be quite accurate for CCRP delivery if there is low cloud or fog or the sniper pod malfunctions) You can also LOFT delivery on some types of LGBs this is where you first lock the tgt optically then arm the laser and pull back on the stick when the HUD indicates a TOSS symbol. Once the bomb releases you have to bank in the appropriate direction inorder to continue painting the tgt whilst egressing. Using this method you can release the LGBs 4miles away from the tgt IRL. It would've been better for Arma to have a non-working sniper pod as at least it would have a realistic loadout.

[boopidoo 0]

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...

This is not true, the M107 can't just punch a hole in 10mm armor. Actually it can't hit anything without ammunition. And armor piercing incendiary is just one of several .50 cal ammuntion types available.

.50 cal ammuntion

So depending on what ammunition you use the results will vary. I guess BIS choose not to use the armor piercing ammuntion with the M107. This after all is much more realistic then having some kind of super ammunition that does everything.

[NonWonderDog 0]

The "electronic sight" he's talking about is probably the BORS. It's a little computer that snaps on top and tells you what range your current elevation knob setting corresponds to. You still have to determine the range to the target yourself, though, and it doesn't tell you anything about windage.

I've never heard of such a thing being used by a military sniper. I always thought it was just a $1,500 gimmick for people who can't use their rifles properly.

A complete optics replacement package with a stabilized image, day and night channels, and a built-in laser rangefinder was apparently planned (by Barrett...) a few years ago, but I haven't heard anything of it. I think they realized it was stupid.

[Vultar 0]

This is not true, the M107 can't just punch a hole in 10mm armor. Actually it can't hit anything without ammunition. And armor piercing incendiary is just one of several .50 cal ammuntion types available.

So depending on what ammunition you use the results will vary. I guess BIS choose not to use the armor piercing ammuntion with the M107. This after all is much more realistic then having some kind of super ammunition that does everything.

Yes, maybe, but ArmA engine still can't punch BMP cause it work on HitPoints engine, what's more, it's still not barrett, and if you will tell that barrett can't shoot at more than 2000m, then you will just blame yourself, and in ArmA it can't, so it isn't any fun.

About Barrett scope, yes, U.S.Army use a special scope for barrett that have 14x zoom, nightvision and perfect aim system.

More... a normal barrett ammo .50 cal Easily can break trough the 10mm armor...easily. AT ammo for barrett can break more than 15mm

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?

the most realistic battlefield simulation For Me is a game which is real, which troops and armory got perfect parameters, which when you play you fall in front of screen(hot emotions^^) and which got no bugs to discusse about like in this thread... now you know what I mean?

[Teliko 0]

So a game will be 100% unrealistic if they put 1 bit of balance in it or if it has 1 bug?

[Vultar 0]

Are you guys kidding or playing ****, if you know what I mean why you ask funny questions? Did I said that ArmA is 100% unrealistic? It is realistic, very realistic, but in some elements I feel dissapointed. Do you all now know what I mean?

[Vultar 0]

M16A2 shoots 400 rounds per second instead of 750

you all still havent answered me this one^^

sorry for double post

[Commando84 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...

the last part why they put in the harrier at all is cause the fans of ofp begged and begged for BI in many years to add VSTOL capability to the ofp / arma / poseidon engine.

hey i remember myself wished for a good harrier in the game back in the days. Only thing is i haven't gotten to use the aircraft in arma so much as i use choppers so im still green with the harrier. usually me and aircrafts end up in the sea or in the ground

only exception is the A-10 that i fly decent with.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Vultar don't mix maximum effective range with maximum range. Different sights are possible too.

It's a matter of skill and little luck if someone hit target more than 2000m away. Wind is the most pain but in ArmA(and most other games) you don't have this affect on bullets.

FYI Armor Penetration with M107:

Cartridge, Caliber .50, Ball, M33

500 meters: 0.32 in (8 mm)

1,200 meters: 0.16 in (4 mm)

Cartridge, Caliber .50, Armor Piercing Incendiary-Tracer, M20

500 meters: 0.83 in (21 mm)

1,200 meters: 0.43 in (11 mm)

Cartridge, Caliber .50, Ball, Armor Piercing Incendiary, M8

500 meters: 0.63 in (16 mm)

1,200 meters: 0.32 in (8 mm)

[whisper 0]

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?

the most realistic battlefield simulation For Me is a game which is real, which troops and armory got perfect parameters, which when you play you fall in front of screen(hot emotions^^) and which got no bugs to discusse about like in this thread... now you know what I mean?

No, the most reallistic battlefield simulation is only that, the most reallistic one. Which means there is no other battlefield simulation which is better.

It says NOWHERE that it is perfectly accurate. It's just the most reallistic amongst battlefield simulations.

So I repeat my question : if ArmA is not the most reallistic, which game is?

[DBO_ 0]

Quote[/b] ]if ArmA is not the most reallistic, which game is?

ofp ,because it dosent let you switch to a tank commander or anything else when you have been shot

[4 IN 1 0]

as a side note M107 is marked as "Long Range Sniper Rifle" while M82A1 is marked as "Special Application Sniper Rifles"

which means they do all the wet works from killing soft targets at range to Anti-materiel and to Bomb Disposal

[W0lle 1046]

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...

Where on your box it says that ArmA contains the full range of U.S. vehicles/aircraft/choppers?

How many different vehicles the SLA and RACS have in reality? None because they are both fictional. Having said that, what is unrealistic in the RACS having only 2 light choopers and some M113s ?

Quote[/b] ]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...

No one said that it is the most realistic battlefield simulation.

[Jack-UK 0]

W0lle: i think he is referring to the slogan on the back of the DVD case (at least the 505 Games version) which says:

"The Ultimate Combat simulation..."

As the header at the back

[W0lle 1046]

It's a big difference if it says "The ultimate combat simulation" or "The most realistic combat simulation".

I'm not 100% sure here but it could be that the design of the package (and thus the statements) are up to the publisher. It doesn't say "The ultimate combat simulation" neither on my german nor on my czech box or dvd case.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Better watch on developers site: "ArmA is a first person tactical military shooter with large elements of realism and simulation."

Publisher do more marketing & advertisement stuff.

W0lle pls have a look into manual page 4 - 1st sentence - without pink or black glasses!

[Ornelp 0]

I'm no military know it all, but the vehicles seem reasonable to me, First off, Their independent state (island) is not big at all, so i highly doubt their military budget is large. Or that the need for a large military is necessary. Frankly i was surprised that the Southern Government (Racs) where using western equipment, i'd half expected them to be using soviet hardware like the Northern state (SLA).

The only thing that bugs me REALLY bad about this game is that the AI drive vehicles like their wearing blindfolds... I can almost say that the AI path following in OFP (god rest its soul) was much better.

Just my 2 pennies

[subs17 9]

Are you guys kidding or playing ****, if you know what I mean why you ask funny questions? Did I said that ArmA is 100% unrealistic? It is realistic, very realistic, but in some elements I feel dissapointed. Do you all now know what I mean?  

Of all the FPS games out there I regard Arma as the most realistic in terms of the manner of which the game is played. Its far better than any of the others with the exception of VBS series. Some of the aspects such as the weapons and vehicle damage modelling etc sort of lessen its realism a little bit but overall there is no other game as realistic as this. I think if the developers wanted to go down the path of more realism in terms of vehicle/weapon damage effect it would certainly add a fair bit to it. Things such as being able to damage a car engine with a M107 or having a proper human damage model when hit by one would be cool as well. eg a .50 hit on a person at 1.5-2km would result in the person being split in half.

[ArmaVidz 0]

On the back of my Atari "European DVD ver. 1.04" purchased in Canada on the back of the box it reads:

Quote[/b] ]"The ultimate realistic combat simulation experience brought to you by the creators of Operation Flashpoint. Recharges in a new engine with additional fresh, modern time setting. Freedom of action and immersive complex environments blended with a unique touch of total realism return in this new game."

I think it's about as real as you're going to get while considering these points and factors:

• Sitting at a computer

• Paying a reasonable cost e.g: $60 per copy - not $1500.00 per copy

• Considering the run-of-the-mill 'on rails' game offerings the ARMA offering is more realistic than most.

• Engine flaws/bugs are fixed to correct unrealistic happenings during gameplay

To the 'publishers' if they've not been authorized to print such on the boxes then they should be held accountable. You can't just run around branding something whatever you want! It's great to have the distribution points but if the bs of product misrepresentation via pictures or statements is not intended by BIS, then in my opinion, it should be corrected by BIS in all future dealings with the publishers.

I think for all it's flaws, ARMA is great. Realistic penetration would be great. Realistic everything would be great. But I think knocking it for not being able to deliver on 'ultimate realistic combat experience' given it's scope, modability, capability and considering the rest of the game offerings today - is just...pointless.

It's the best we have that can be purchased by your average Joe.

 

[max power 21]

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...

#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.

[Vultar 0]

Firstly, I agree with everyone who agree with me^^

Secondly, the most relaistic game for me?

Americas Army, it is very poor in units and only MP... but we are talking about 'realistic'. AA units are fully done and even faces look like IRL... but it got only one machine, HMMWV with M2 Browning. But with many options of infantry guns, from SCOPES by rifles to launcher it is perfectly done to an 'latest pix and bit'. Also the 'only one' HMMWV is perfectly done and its computer system.

AA size is: AA2.8(2600mb)+AA2.8.1(300mb)+AA2.8.2(800mb)=3700mb

ArmA(1,08) size is:

2600+460+560= 3,620mb!

So why ArmA got weigh less if got a lot of more units?^^

I answer the question(I know you will ask)

'So why dont you play AA?'

Yes, I do. I play both AA and ArmA. But I play more ArmA because of few reasons...

1) My Weak Net

2) I love ofp, now its arma... why shouldn't I love it too?^^

[W0lle 1046]

Better watch on developers site: "ArmA is a first person tactical military shooter with large elements of realism and simulation."

Publisher do more marketing & advertisement stuff.

W0lle pls have a look into manual page 4 - 1st sentence - without pink or black glasses!

You're right, it's there in all 3 languages...

To my defense I have to admitt that I never checked any ArmA Manual until today.

[Jex =TE= 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

eh?

Is there some point to this?

[Vultar 0]

You know, it's very rude to start talkin if you do not understand. Maybe you should go on some english course? What's more, you all guys started copying text from websites to show that you know something about it and spam like hell. Let's make one rule, if you agree with post Up, dont write the same thing 1000 times, ok?

It's very hard to one person to answer 10 posts... and also I dont want to read 3 times the same thing.

Hey, sb said that Harrierr inot VTOL, who's idea is this? Guy, How old are you? Do you know anything other than ArmA? There is also real life, hey dude, do you hear me? ^^

About 'The most realistic simulation' thread I've started here.

I've got Polish version and it shows when start game:

1st site:

BOHEMIA INTERACTIVE STUDIOS presents

2nd site:

ArmA

armed assault

3rd site:

<the humvee picture>

"Najbardziej realistyczny symulator pola walki tworcow operation flashpoint"

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

[subs17 9]

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...

#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.