Why a-10 two hellfire?

[galzohar 31]

I'm so sick of hearing that bullshit. Aircraft are in the game, so why not have them work better? Why shout down every suggestion with the same old nonsense?

Because it's not a flight sim :D

Though I agree even if it's not a flight sim some basic improvements have to be made.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

I'm so sick of hearing that bullshit. Aircraft are in the game, so why not have them work better?

Maybe one day we will have detailed aircraft simulation. Right now it's not a priority for this game. Until then, expect little improvement.

[Daniel 0]

I'm not convinced, it's been vastly improved since OFP. I don't see any reason why BIS can't put more effort into this sector. RKSL have made some decent countermeasures. All I see a need for now is computer-assisted dumb bombing, self-marking guided bombing (using something like SNIPER or LANTIRN, and more lock time and necessary circumstances for guided missiles (so it's not tab spam).

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Daniel;1411741']I'm not convinced' date=' it's been vastly improved since OFP. I don't see any reason why BIS can't put more effort into this sector.[/quote']

There isn't any reason why they can't, it's just that they don't feel the need to. All I am saying is that BIS isn't showing any interest in turning the game into a flightsim. And personally, I'm fine with that. ArmA 2, ArmA, and OFP were never designed to be full blown flightsims.

[Crni-Vuk 10]

That's why ArmA II is a game.

It claims from it self to be a Simulation. I dont see any issue if people express the valid point regarding several aspects of the game, starting with the physics of vehicles (which really needs to be adressed) and of course the behaviour of certain aircrafts like helicopters and jets. If it posses such difficulties for the company to simulate those objects efficiently they eventualy should in all seriousness consider to focus on the infatry aspect only and make air support only aviable as command to the infantry (leaders, officers, etc). That might also mean a lot less preassure in the future, better gameplay in general (no need to worry about "balancing issues"), a more worked out infantry system (since you have moer time to work on it) and probably a lot less bugs in general. I know this might come off as rude. But I would not comment on it if the game would not claim from it self to be one of the "best military simulations" around. One can not move to Battlefield 1942 and complain suddenly about that it does not portray correctly the area of 1942 in its gameplay and equipment cause they simply did never even wanted to do that in the first place or ever claimed from their game to even try portray it in a very accurate fashion as it was "just" meant as a game. Arma II has not that kind of luxus and cause its labaled as "Simulation" that also include aircrafts of course has now to bear up the analogy to "similar" games. Otherwhise should we compaer Arma to CoD? BF? Would it do the other games or even Arma II any justice?

Arma2 isnt a flightsim like Falcon, LockOn or DCS Black Shark. Something like an "Advanced Arming System" would be nice - lets see if BIS will do this beside bugfixing and other Arma2 improvements.

Then it should be called a "Infantry simulation" and not "military simulation" as "military" includes usualy all parts of armed forces, including from ground to air and even see (if present).

There's no point in wanting more from aircraft in Arma2. The cry of "it's not a flight sim" dismisses and ends all discussion of aircraft in the game. Be thankful for what you've got. Pay your money and shut up.

That cant be a serious answer to valid concers from "costumers". Not when thinking about the marketing regarding the product anyway. Or what the game and its developers claim about it.

I disagree. Everything is in your turn and alignment with the target. I've been practicing some and frankly I can pretty much nail a guy running in a field now. It takes very few hits to blow up a T-90 with the gatling. I use the trackIr and that allows me to track the targets in turns which helps a lot aligning yourself with it.

Of course alot of things can be ovecome by "practise" or the fact that you "get used to it".

Question is: Should you have to do that in the first place? Or should the game not offer a "realistic" rendition from the begining without the need to force the player to adapt to the strange behaviour of the equipment which is cleary not present in the real parts.

frankly I never had the luck to fly some A-10 or any other air craft (and I doubt I will), but its really not a good part for the game to have such obvious issues lwith the steering that many report and I find pretty annoying my self which other "fly sims" do not possess.

This is not an aircraft simulator. Its focused on infantry. Thaught most people knew this by now.

...

Question is did you knew this BEFORE you purchased the game? I didnt cause I expected a "military simulation". So if what you say is true we would be talking about false marketing here. From a serious point of view.

I think to pull out the argument "the game is not a fly sim, so dont expect a fly sim" resembles perfectly at lot to a Straw Man Fallacy and should be really left out of any serous discussion. But thats just my oppinion.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Crni-Vuk

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Then it should be called a "Infantry simulation" and not "military simulation" as "military" includes usualy all parts of armed forces, including from ground to air and even see (if present).

That doesn't doesn't imply that every aspect in it's own is of sim standard. Milsim != flightsim + tanksim + infsim + etc... (= everythingsim). If you were unaware of this when you purchased the game then oh well, you should have tried the demo.

In fact, let's break down that word. Military simulation. The only thing that implies to me is that it simulates some sort of military experience. Nowhere does that word imply ALL aspects of combat/military. Might as well imply that you are the commander of a military... see? It's a matter of interpretation.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Big Dawg KS

[Rhodite 3]

This is drifting off of the initial topic and people are getting heated.

Everyone cool your jets and get back to the point.

The A10 and its ordanence.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Everyone cool your jets and get back to the point.

The A10 and its ordanence.

Was that a pun? :rolleyes:

[cjsoques 0]

A simple load out editor would be immensely helpful.

The F-18E addon for ARMA1 has it and it is just incredible to say the least.

Sad it was not utilized in vanilla ARMA2.

Anyhow, the A-10 should have been equipped with more weapons as the default loadout, it really is kinda pathetic as it stands. Especially due to the fact that it is not very hard to aim the GAU-8 due to the auto-rudder making you yaw +/- 5° constanty!

If the aircraft flew straight enough, the GAU-8 is really all you'd need after you took out air defenses from a distance.

[Daniel 0]

There isn't any reason why they can't, it's just that they don't feel the need to. All I am saying is that BIS isn't showing any interest in turning the game into a flightsim. And personally, I'm fine with that. ArmA 2, ArmA, and OFP were never designed to be full blown flightsims.

Agreed. I'd say things like the flight model are easily good enough. While they might not be perfect, you can tell BIS spent quite a bit of time on them since OFP. But upgrading the way dumb and guided bombs and guided missiles are employed would have a massive effect on ground forces, so IMO it's worth their time. Air-to-Air not so much. Unguided rockets are spot on other than they should be fired by the pilot a la ACE.

The A10, being a dedicated CAS aircraft (which should see a lot of use in a desert expansion), caters for all 4 of these areas, so I reckon it's a good enough excuse for an overhaul of one the main areas that hasn't been changed since OFP. Air-to-Ground weapons.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Daniel

[Crni-Vuk 10]

That doesn't doesn't imply that every aspect in it's own is of sim standard. Milsim != flightsim + tanksim + infsim + etc... (= everythingsim). If you were unaware of this when you purchased the game then oh well, you should have tried the demo.

In fact, let's break down that word. Military simulation. The only thing that implies to me is that it simulates some sort of military experience. Nowhere does that word imply ALL aspects of combat/military. Might as well imply that you are the commander of a military... see? It's a matter of interpretation.

Depends. Heavily.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/military

mil·i·tar·y (ml-tr)

adj.

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of

members of the armed forces

: a military bearing; military attire.

2. Performed or supported by the armed forces: military service.

3. Of or relating to war: military operations.

4. Of or relating to land forces.

n. pl. military also mil·i·tar·ies

1. Armed forces: a country ruled by the military.

2. Members, especially officers, of an armed force.

By looking deeper in to Members of the armed forces, wikipedia throws out: The armed forces of a country are its government-sponsored defense, fighting forces, and organizations, which include a large range of "military" in general which also cover the whole "body" of it with all units.

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/military/meaning-of-the-word.html

In formal British English, "military" as an adjective refers more particularly to matters relating to an army (land forces), as opposed to the naval and air force matters of the other two services.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In American English, "military" as an adjective is more widely used for regulations pertaining to and between all the armed forces like military procurement, military transport, military justice, military strength and military force.

But we are going here in deep to the maning and discussion of "semantics" which will most likely result in that you agree with your definition while I agree and stay with mine.

~Though notice what kind of answer you get when you ask a large portion of the usual US citizen what he thinks the term "military" includes and covers.

... Nowhere does that word imply ALL aspects of combat/military. Might as well imply that you are the commander of a military... see? It's a matter of interpretation.

That doesnt change for me anything of the meaning though. If you're now comanding the large body of the military forces or just a individual unit (respectively) it would not change in any way the expectation to have here a as acurate and realistic representation as possible from the aspect of a simulation. It makes not difference - by using realistic data and situations in mind - if you use a "over head view" or are inside of the situation on a individual level from first person. You would expect a "realistic" and "logic" load out and amunition to every unit be it that you are controling this unit directly or control a whole force of said units by a overhead map (comparable to a simulation with the aspects of real time strategy game for example).

This is drifting off of the initial topic and people are getting heated.

Everyone cool your jets and get back to the point.

The A10 and its ordanence.

I think its somewhat important to the point cause quite a lot of people use it as defencive argument against the concerns of "realistic implenentation" in the loadout of vehicles (aka: game is not fly sim = no need for realistic aircrafts etc.). If you want to avoid the one argument you should also avoid the other one and just focus on the situation which means that the aircraft has not its standart amunition stored opposed to what it has in real (how it seems, I am not a expert).

Of course just my oppinion meant without any insult or offense.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Crni-Vuk

[Cionara 10]

yep i know, supposed to be a simulator and you don't get any god damn weapons on your aircraft.

It's supposed to be a game, VBS2 is simulator.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

It's supposed to be a game, VBS2 is simulator.

True in the sense that it's a sim-game. But then again, VBS2 is also a game by definition (as is any other sim). Either way, I know what your point is... and I agree.

[frederf 0]

Does ArmA2 support all sort of multiple proxies and various loadouts for aircraft unlike ArmA1?

[Mudkip 0]

To the people who complain about balancing:

What if ArmA 2 gave the US and Russians nuclear weapons? That wouldn't be too fun...

[koroush47 10]

There's no point in wanting more from aircraft in Arma2. The cry of "it's not a flight sim" dismisses and ends all discussion of aircraft in the game. Be thankful for what you've got. Pay your money and shut up.

You couldn't be more wrong. ARMA 2 wasn't free, we paid for it... so there is no reason why we need to be thankful. Thankful is for when somebody gives us something for free, then complaining is not right. But when you pay for something... you don't just give your $ away and shut up about things you think are wrong.

You're what big game companies and movies want more of. Idiots that don't complain and waste their money on garbage. So future garbage will become even worse.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Does ArmA2 support all sort of multiple proxies and various loadouts for aircraft unlike ArmA1?

Yes..

[armored_sheep 56]

The A-10 in Armed Assault was limited to use only one type of missiles. In Arma2 we dont have such limits and we decided to choose more variable loadout, that gives player set of weapons for many diferent roles in one package.

I personaly did not find any real reference that gives loadout of 8 mavericks on a single A-10. I used this info http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/attack/a10.html and changed 2 pylons from unguided boms to LAU rocket pods.

[cjsoques 0]

The A-10 in Armed Assault was limited to use only one type of missiles. In Arma2 we dont have such limits and we decided to choose more variable loadout, that gives player set of weapons for many diferent roles in one package.

I personaly did not find any real reference that gives loadout of 8 mavericks on a single A-10. I used this info http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/attack/a10.html and changed 2 pylons from unguided boms to LAU rocket pods.

Fair enough, and thanks for taking the time provide background on loadout decisions. I think what people are wondering most is why not a dynamic loadout instead of just making it static but variable?

However, why not have a dynamic changeable loadout interface that was already done with the F-18E addon for ARMA1 instead of just the variable static loadout that is current of the A-10 in ARMA2? So it really can't be too hard since it has definitely been done before.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

However, why not have a dynamic changeable loadout interface that was already done with the F-18E addon for ARMA1 instead of just the variable static loadout that is current of the A-10 in ARMA2? So it really can't be too hard since it has definitely been done before.

Make a feature request on dev-heaven...

[chops 111]

You couldn't be more wrong. ARMA 2 wasn't free, we paid for it... so there is no reason why we need to be thankful. Thankful is for when somebody gives us something for free, then complaining is not right. But when you pay for something... you don't just give your $ away and shut up about things you think are wrong.

You're what big game companies and movies want more of. Idiots that don't complain and waste their money on garbage. So future garbage will become even worse.

Welcome to sarcasm my friend.

[Jex =TE= 0]

I think the whole unbalancing issue lies directly with the "magic radar". If aircraft had to acquire their targets realistically, then they would not be able to fire off 8 missiles in just a few seconds unless the targets were grouped closely together. Take away the simplistic targetting system (it is not by any definition a "radar") and the pilots work load increases meaning he's less of a threat and it gives ground forces a chance to take out the aircraft if they play tactically enough.

I can't tell you how many times aircraft have completed ruined a game for the grunts on the ground. Some prat comes along flying above your heads so you can't hear a thing and then blows up all the armour, RTB's to rearm (if the knob hasn't managed to crash it doing a victory roll) and then returns to kill all the infantry (most times hitting friendlies). This leave nothing for the majority of players to do.

I love flying aircraft and taking out ground targets but in Arma, there's not much satisfaction in it and I have to restrain myself so I don't ruin the mission for the boys on the ground.

Something needs to be done about the way vehicles are targetted. It doesn't have to be complex but it does need to change. If it stays the same for Arma 4, it will just be embarrassing.

[chops 111]

@Jex =TE=

That problem could be fixed by just increasing the reload time for the maverick missiles in the config, but as you rightly point out, big red squares floating infront of the pilot's face is very 2001. Hopefully this will be addressed in Operation Arrowhead.

[Jex =TE= 0]

@Jex =TE=

That problem could be fixed by just increasing the reload time for the maverick missiles in the config, but as you rightly point out, big red squares floating infront of the pilot's face is very 2001. Hopefully this will be addressed in Operation Arrowhead.

I was going to suggest that but then thought it still doesn't get around the problem of the radar which is the main issue imo. Perhaps something along the lines of the pilot having to put x-hairs over the target to lock it. I can't even remember if the A10 has a radar and I played that almost exclusively in Lock On.

Anyway the current system is just so awful and over powered that maybe they should just remove the attack aircraft.

[cjsoques 0]

I think the whole unbalancing issue lies directly with the "magic radar". If aircraft had to acquire their targets realistically, then they would not be able to fire off 8 missiles in just a few seconds unless the targets were grouped closely together. Take away the simplistic targetting system (it is not by any definition a "radar") and the pilots work load increases meaning he's less of a threat and it gives ground forces a chance to take out the aircraft if they play tactically enough.

I can't tell you how many times aircraft have completed ruined a game for the grunts on the ground. Some prat comes along flying above your heads so you can't hear a thing and then blows up all the armour, RTB's to rearm (if the knob hasn't managed to crash it doing a victory roll) and then returns to kill all the infantry (most times hitting friendlies). This leave nothing for the majority of players to do.

I love flying aircraft and taking out ground targets but in Arma, there's not much satisfaction in it and I have to restrain myself so I don't ruin the mission for the boys on the ground.

Something needs to be done about the way vehicles are targetted. It doesn't have to be complex but it does need to change. If it stays the same for Arma 4, it will just be embarrassing.

Tryout the F-18E addon for ARMA1, the targeting system is just superb