PMC Apache v1.1 for ArmA 2 has been released!

[RainDrop 0]

ArmA 2 downgrade? ^_^

[Bratishka 10]

Abs

You just dont like Russians, coz we win you at hockey, in 2008 and 2009 )))

Sorry, it is just joke.

RainDrop

yep, downdon))))

Edited June 7, 2009 by Bratishka

[abs 2]

Abs

You just dont like Russians, coz we win you at hockey, in 2008 and 2009 )))

Sorry, it is just joke.

RainDrop

yep, downdon))))

Haha...Я не ненавижу руÑÑких. Ñ Ð»ÑŽÐ±Ð»ÑŽ руÑÑких женщин. они ÑекÑуальный. за иÑключением бабушек.

Anyway...Roler, being tactful doesn't mean lying. It just means watching watching what you say.

I'm not going to reply to anything else here because I haven't tried this addon yet, and we're getting slightly off-topic.

Abs

[bravo 6 0]

could you be so kind and translate this please? This is an English forum.

[BETEP_OFP 10]

I now can not understand that in our criticism of this or can we just out of Russia \ USSR?

The solution to the problem, collect the team that makes the normal Apache :)

P.S. Abs, I hope you to use an interpreter, as well as what you wrote that nationalism ;)

[Folkmate 0]

what are you argueing about ? visual quality of this addon is awfull - it's crappy ofp port. and that's a fact. i can't really name it an addon - cause prting from arma 1 is piece of cake. i hope there'll be better conersions soon ( asa binarization will come out)

[Wass 1]

could you be so kind and translate this please? This is an English forum.

mm... im sure, you dont like it... :)

2all: please calm down all of you!

Stop fluding and back to work :)

[modemmaik 53]

what are you argueing about ? visual quality of this addon is awfull - it's crappy ofp port. and that's a fact. i can't really name it an addon - cause prting from arma 1 is piece of cake. i hope there'll be better conersions soon ( asa binarization will come out)

It is one of the first released A2 addons and can be used as a blueprint for the later addons. OK, the visual quality is not top notch, but this way, we can test weather such a config works.

So do not blame the next addon maker when the damage textures don't work / noone can fly the beast / the weapons do not work / the view is off center etc. etc. etc.

Because we need the results / know how of other addon makers to improve those vehicles. The alternative is pretty clear: Use BI vehicles only ;)

[MehMan 0]

Such things are called - trash.

Start learning 3d editors, photoshop and other things needed to create addons.

We should not say that he did want the helicopter, it can be replaced with Apache

P.S. so that you both talk up low-quality addons which you can praise the bad modeler to produce low-quality addons;)

P.S.S. Sorry for my bad English, I hope you understand what I wanted to make.

He's doing it for free. Criticism is okay, but calling it trash is too much.

Not everybody is making addons to be the best, it's a hobby and as such you don't have to do it on a professional level or anywhere near that. And you don't have to download it or look at it.

I support that people improve their skills, but Snake isn't a modeller, he's a configer and island creator, I only mentioned that the OFP model is showing it's age quite well and isn't like fine wine.

For those that wish to improve upon their skills, then yes, criticism is welcome, but instead of just going it's crap you need to point out their errors so they can fix them.

[USSRsniper 0]

OFP model in ArmA 2? Is this some kind of cruel joke?

Also saying that addon is good is not a constructive criticism, it's just stating your opinion, just as me saying that addon is not good.

Edited June 7, 2009 by USSRsniper

[Folkmate 0]

It is one of the first released A2 addons and can be used as a blueprint for the later addons. OK, the visual quality is not top notch, but this way, we can test weather such a config works.

i can tell you that any arma addon can be converted in arma in 10 minutes. almost _Everything_ is like back in arma 1. But you need time to implement features/config tweaks of the new engine. but this addon was not tweaked for arma in a good way - thus it's a trash for me. huge step backwards from arma/ original arma 2 models.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Folkmate

[Medvedev 10]

I agree with fellow countrymen that this model a shit!

I will shoot on a place of incorrect democrats!

[bravo 6 0]

if you don't like it, don't use it. There no need to offend hes work.

[modemmaik 53]

i can tell you that any arma addon can be converted in arma in 10 minutes. almost _Everything_ is like back in arma 1

Check the allInOne project by .kju and check the reports for conversion issues (hitzones, materials, turrets, renamed objects etc.). I can tell you, that we need to dig into those codes to get a fully working A2 addon. We get the first results / feedback with this addon.

If everythig would be easy, we could create a top notch addon within 10 minutes. :D

[Folkmate 0]

Check the allInOne project by .kju and check the reports for conversion issues

can you post a link please ? most problems are due to standart arma pbo paths/class names. if you have an addon without it - it works in arma 2 in several attempts ;) yeh, 10 min is kinda hiperbolic, but i hope you got what i wanted to say - it's very crude atm.

We get the first results / feedback with this addon.

feedback ? i see nothing except standart 'wow' and non-standart '^&*#$@#' about this addon - how it can help in development ? :) such an 'addon' should go into editing section as config example then it makes sence ;)

Edited June 7, 2009 by Folkmate

[modemmaik 53]

can you post a link please ? most problems are due to standart arma pbo paths/class names. if you have an addon without it - it works in arma 2 in several attempts ;) yeh, 10 min is kinda hiperbolic, but i hope you got what i wanted to say - it's very crude atm.

Link to allInOne Project

New in class helicopters:

- class HitPoints

- class Sounds

- class AnimationSources have a hitpoint entry

- class DestructionEffects

But this is a bit offtopic, more related to discussion forum.

feedback ? i see nothing except standart 'wow' and non-standart '^&*#$@#' about this addon - how it can help in development ? :) such an 'addon' should go into editing section as config example then it makes sence ;)

I agree, the comments are most non contructive...

But this is partially my fault, because I have released the NH90 with an additional ArmA2 config a week ago, which was planned as an example but got the classification "released addon", although I named it beta :(

[BETEP_OFP 10]

NH90 so he looks much better in Arma 2 ;)

[berghoff 11]

Medvedev if you dont have anything constructive to say dont post at all.

[Shadowclaw 10]

I just have a question with self made models for ARMA 2. Can i buy them somehow in the game? Or does it require additional editing?

I don't care if the detail on the Apache is lower because it's a port. Atleast we have one now :D Thanks to you that you have taken the time to give us one :D Hope new models will show up fast like for arma1..was cool having so many models :D

[odjob 0]

I just have a question with self made models for ARMA 2. Can i buy them somehow in the game? Or does it require additional editing?

Im not really sure what you mean here, addons made by you or someone else has to be put in the mission thru the editor to be available ingame.

[OverDawg 10]

Wow, thread out of control...

Personally I think stuff like this is just sub par for Arma2 and shouldn't be released. It's just clutter now. Somebody put a lot of work in it and that was really appreciated but that was a long time ago. In my personal opinion it's better to wait for a model that goes with Arma2 then to play with this one.

[nodunit 397]

It's easy to say that but there are impatient people out there. Besides just about every single previous AH-64 addon from anybody Franze, HWM, BIS remakes Mapfact, and Marco Polo all included to an extent extra scripting and configging, some more then others.

Now while some may enjoy this not everyone likes the complexity, some want it simple, it was even shown so in a previous PMC Apache release thread that people enjoyed it because of the simplicity.

Now normally I'd be an advocate on thrashing the release of a BIS Apache rerelease on account I've seen the bloody thing used over and over too many times but now but I keep in mind that "If I don't want to use it I don't have to download it." There is no point of tearing someone a new one for an addon unless it is stolen data from somewhere IE danny pirahna's stunt with turbosquids free AH-64.

Regardless of quality endless bitching about it is not necessary since you. do. not. have. to. use. it. hence no need to really gripe about it.

Edited June 9, 2009 by NodUnit

[maniac86 0]

Depends on what you consider a "longbow apache". Longbow directly means it has the Longbow FCR which is infact not as common as you may think.

Now now non AH-64D's are rare minus in some places, UAE, Greece, US Army, and Israel still use the AH-64A. (That's not to say they obviously don't have AH-64D's.)

Yeah going along with NodUnit here, when i was Iraq, I worked with several aviation units, both Army Fixed and Rotary wing, my own Major was an Apache pilot (full filling his staff position slot to make LT COL.) anyway, according to him, in Iraq, the older pre-Delta (Longbow) Apaches are preferred, they have less of the new electronic systems (which have no use in Asymmetrical warfare) and therefore are lighter, more maneuverable, can carry more ammo an fuel, in addition to having higher heat/dust tolerances (though against Russian armoed units I guess i would want a Delta model Longbow too! (Block III if possible, they have integrated UAV control systems)

The big thing that makes AH-64 D models so special is enhanced fire control for missile systems, and the ability to pass on targeting info to other Apaches who may not have LOS on target. In addition to enhanced radar systems

[Sharpie 10]

Yeah going along with NodUnit here, when i was Iraq, I worked with several aviation units, both Army Fixed and Rotary wing, my own Major was an Apache pilot (full filling his staff position slot to make LT COL.) anyway, according to him, in Iraq, the older pre-Delta (Longbow) Apaches are preferred, they have less of the new electronic systems (which have no use in Asymmetrical warfare) and therefore are lighter, more maneuverable, can carry more ammo an fuel, in addition to having higher heat/dust tolerances (though against Russian armoed units I guess i would want a Delta model Longbow too! (Block III if possible, they have integrated UAV control systems)

The big thing that makes AH-64 D models so special is enhanced fire control for missile systems, and the ability to pass on targeting info to other Apaches who may not have LOS on target. In addition to enhanced radar systems

I think the real reasion the US do not use the Longbow radar on their apaches in afganistan (i know you said iraq) is because of the heat. Do to the hot air it makes it harder to take off with a heavy payload. Therfor they can take of with more weapons without the heavy radar so they choose the weapons.

The UK doesnt have this problem because they customised their apaches with a more powerfull engine (and fold away roters so they can use them on ships. oh and a much better self defence system) therefor the UK apaches (Apache AH Mk 1) carriers the longbow radar in afganistan and the full weapons suit.

It is said the US is thinking of buying the UK's engine and selfdefence system + adding a better gear system so they to can use the longbow in afganistan.

[franze 196]

The problem isn't the heat, it's the altitude. As such, it's not just about the engines, but the span of the rotors, etc. Even CH-47s are limited in Afghanistan due to altitude.

One of the reasons the AH-64 has stuck with the GE T700 engines is to maintain commonality with existing equipment. The UH-60 also uses a derivative of the T700 engine. In addition, the latest T700 series which power the UH-60M (and Block III AH-64Ds), bring the power up to 2,000shp (1,490kW).

Also, the radar has limited usefulness if you're not hunting armored vehicles.