Patch 1.05 "Announced". Includes AH-64

[Pauldarrington 9]

stingers? those look more like aim 9s

Yeah your correct

still two differnt varients of the apache... I hope

[Tankbuster 1746]

To all of you haranguing me for having a short attention span....

oh look! a monkey! :D

Seriously though, I have watched the entire vid to be perfectly honest, there's nothing ground breaking in there. I sort of got the idea this was going to be the case when while watching it for the first time, I got to 20 secs (nearly halfway through) without seeing anything of substance. As I said, if you want to see an Apache in ArmAII, there's a number of addons that can give you that today.

I'm much more excited about the prospect of the performance gains that, if the beta test users are to be believed, are substantial.

[Zipper5 74]

Please, point to more than one Apache addon. In fact, point to one that isn't a port. I have yet to see one.

Why not use the beta patches yourself and see how much performance gain you get? It's not a huge amount. I haven't seen anyone yet to get a drastic change in performance apart from making the larger towns of Chernogorsk and Electrozavodsk playable. Frankly, I'm more concerned about substance than performance, as I get what I believe to be excellent performance for a game of this magnitude. You seem to believe, though, that performance = substance.

[Tankbuster 1746]

Why add the requirement that it isn't a port? That's got nothing to do with it. I said you can get an Apache in ArmA II and you can. That it might be a port is irrelevant.

I haven't used patches in ArmA II. I did in Armed Assault, but I'm involved in projects that mean I have to work with a full production release. If I wasn't then I surely would be using betas.

Please don't put words into my mouth. I used the word substantial to describe reported performance gains with the betas. You intimated I used the word huge. Nor do I believe that there is a tradeoff between performance or substance. You are talking like I did.

[sic-disaster 311]

This patch cant come soon enough!

Please release! :D

[Zipper5 74]

Why add the requirement that it isn't a port? That's got nothing to do with it. I said you can get an Apache in ArmA II and you can. That it might be a port is irrelevant.

No, it isn't really. The Apache coming with 1.05 is not a port, it's been created from scratch and will be to the standards of the rest of the ArmA II vehicles, if not exceeding it given the time that BIS has had since ArmA II's release to further improve their quality and optimization, especially since it looks like this Apache was the same one planned for Operation: Arrowhead. Ports from ArmA or even OFP simply won't reach this level of quality if they aren't modified, which the current ones are, but not to the quality of this.

Please don't put words into my mouth. I used the word substantial to describe reported performance gains with the betas. You intimated I used the word huge. Nor do I believe that there is a tradeoff between performance or substance. You are talking like I did.

Substantial can be defined as "large". A synonym of large is huge. So really, I didn't put words into your mouth, I simply used a synonym of it. However, I was not trying to put words into your mouth. There has been a performance gain, but it's not really "substantial" unless you're in said areas like Chernogorsk. Then you get a substantial performance boost in comparison to 1.04.

The only reason I jumped on it is because many, many people are acting like performance is the be-all end-all issue with ArmA II. If the next patch doesn't fix it, they'll throw the game away. They can't see past the performance "issues" (I don't suffer from them, so I can't give a first-hand account) that they are experiencing and see the other, more important things. They expect the game to run like most current big-budget games, which, for the most part, are multiplatform releases and designed mostly for consoles, then simply ported to the PC. Somehow, somewhere, performance became a bigger issue than substance. People are even saying they want performance like in Dragon Rising, which is laughable to say the least.

[Tankbuster 1746]

No, it isn't really. The Apache coming with 1.05 is not a port, it's been created from scratch and will be to the standards of the rest of the ArmA II vehicles, if not exceeding it given the time that BIS has had since ArmA II's release to further improve their quality and optimization, especially since it looks like this Apache was the same one planned for Operation: Arrowhead.

Ah OK, I see the relevance of ports now. Of course we don't know that the Apache model was created from scratch. Frankly I hope it's well above the standard of some of the other vehicles. For example, EVERY jet aircraft in the game uses the same sounds and the Herc is hardly a work of art. You're surmising the Apache was destined for Arrowhead, but given the Comanche we expected in EW seems to have been dropped, you may well be right. I'd subscribe to your theory.

Substantial can be defined as "large". A synonym of large is huge. So really, I didn't put words into your mouth, I simply used a synonym of it. However, I was not trying to put words into your mouth. There has been a performance gain, but it's not really "substantial" unless you're in said areas like Chernogorsk. Then you get a substantial performance boost in comparison to 1.04.

Substantial isn't a synonym of huge or large, at least not according to my Word 2007, though I'm prepared to admit there may be more definitive resources available. Significant is a synonym of substantial and that's a better word in the context I used originally.

The only reason I jumped on it is because many, many people are acting like performance is the be-all end-all issue with ArmA II. If the next patch doesn't fix it, they'll throw the game away. They can't see past the performance "issues" (I don't suffer from them, so I can't give a first-hand account) that they are experiencing and see the other, more important things. They expect the game to run like most current big-budget games, which, for the most part, are multiplatform releases and designed mostly for consoles, then simply ported to the PC. Somehow, somewhere, performance became a bigger issue than substance. People are even saying they want performance like in Dragon Rising, which is laughable to say the least.

Welcome to the internet friend. :) I can see a lot of users throwing the game away, but I like you, have been around a while. The thing with performance of this game is that it is really disappointing a lot of new users, while us old sweats shrug and 'meh'. People who are playing World of Modern Warfare and Call of Defeat: Kickin Ass at Teh Airport, or whatever it is the kids are playing this week don't understand why they can't have ArmAII performing like their other games, but before they get to look under the hood or, if you'll excuse badly mixed metaphors, scratched the surface, they've moved on. And for the majority of US, that's fine. :)

I will reiterate my main point, 'cos I suspect you probably agree with me just a tiny bit; That vid was a let down; nearly half of it was titles and black screen and it didn't show us anything REALLY interesting. My main interest is in the patch, because if it's good enough (and I remember the patch that transformed Armed Assault) it really will move the game on. And that's good for you, me and all the others who joined in July 2009. :)

Edited December 14, 2009 by Tankbuster

[max power 21]

Mm, not quite. :) Due to the complexities (read rubbishness) of the US Army procurement process, there was a C version which didn't have the Longbow dome but was identical to D in every other respect. There weren't many C types and because the radar is interchangeable between C and D types, the C's was dropped and redesignated D. Still following? :) Anyway the upshot is that D's sometimes don't have the radar, but are still D's.

Split hairs? Me???:eek:

So the poster you replied to said that it is a D model since it has a radome.

What you have just said is that that is not the case, but only the D models have a radome.

I'm not sure exactly what you think you have contributed to the discussion.

[AndresCL 10]

Ah OK, I see the relevance of ports now. Of course we don't know that the Apache model was created from scratch. Frankly I hope it's well above the standard of some of the other vehicles. For example, EVERY jet aircraft in the game uses the same sounds and the Herc is hardly a work of art. You're surmising the Apache was destined for Arrowhead, but given the Comanche we expected in EW seems to have been dropped, you may well be right. I'd subscribe to your theory.

Substantial isn't a synonym of huge or large, at least not according to my Word 2007, though I'm prepared to admit there may be more definitive resources available. Significant is a synonym of substantial and that's a better word in the context I used originally.

Welcome to the internet friend. :) I can see a lot of users throwing the game away, but I like you, have been around a while. The thing with performance of this game is that it is really disappointing a lot of new users, while us old sweats shrug and 'meh'. People who are playing World of Modern Warfare and Call of Defeat: Kickin Ass at Teh Airport, or whatever it is the kids are playing this week don't understand why they can't have ArmAII performing like their other games, but before they get to look under the hood or, if you'll excuse badly mixed metaphors, scratched the surface, they've moved on. And for the majority of US, that's fine. :)

I will reiterate my main point, 'cos I suspect you probably agree with me just a tiny bit; That vid was a let down; nearly half of it was titles and black screen and it didn't show us anything REALLY interesting. My main interest is in the patch, because if it's good enough (and I remember the patch that transformed Armed Assault) it really will move the game on. And that's good for you, me and all the others who joined in July 2009. :)

It is free, you know

[johncage 30]

I'm much more excited about the prospect of the performance gains that, if the beta test users are to be believed, are substantial.

is that the beta we can currently participate in? if so, performance gains are disappointing, to say the least.

[Steakslim 1]

is that the beta we can currently participate in? if so, performance gains are disappointing, to say the least.

Yes, see the BETA forum section for the releases of beta patches. These patches are backwards compatible with the last full release, in this case 1.04, and work in multiplayer. That means any of these beta patches work so long as the server you play on is running 1.04.

[Tankbuster 1746]

It is free, you know

Fair point, well made. :)

---------- Post added at 07:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 AM ----------

So the poster you replied to said that it is a D model since it has a radome.

What you have just said is that that is not the case, but only the D models have a radome.

I'm not sure exactly what you think you have contributed to the discussion.

I did say that it was something of a hairsplit and as you say, it doesn't bring a huge amount to the discussion, but some Apaches with a radome were originally C versions.

I'll get my coat. :)

[wolfbite 8]

Hi just to say I'm very Excited for this update and am deffinately looking forward to the apache.Just as an extra extra though.. it would be nice if we could have the source file for the hind released. As I would like to work on a modernised Mi-24VM with the 23mm GSh-23L cannon and Attaka-V missiles to counter the western threat :P and maybe source for just about everything else...... Or have I missed something ?

[stegman 3]

Ok lads, keeping this civil and on topic please see here for all your AH64 concerns;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AH-64_Apache

Its on wikipedia,so it must be right ;)

Im more interested in this 3 way warfare TBH.

We know how the heli campaign is going to work; Fly a few missions, get shot down, join the resistance who help back across to your side of the map.

but the warfare, now thats something that could really take off...

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

Im more interested in this 3 way warfare TBH.

x2

New Warfare is always welcomed.

I'll use any Apache available.

[Durka-Durka 10]

Anybody have an idea on how relevant this new warefare system will be to multiplayer?

[walker 0]

Ok lads, keeping this civil and on topic please see here for all your AH64 concerns;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AH-64_Apache

Its on wikipedia,so it must be right ;)

Im more interested in this 3 way warfare TBH.

We know how the heli campaign is going to work; Fly a few missions, get shot down, join the resistance who help back across to your side of the map.

but the warfare, now thats something that could really take off...

Hi all

We tend to take more notice of FAS than wikipedia though I am not knocking wikipedia it is an exelent source from which to begin any research at the bottom of each wikipedia page is bibliography, that can be used to hunt the primary source.

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/attack/ah64_apache.html

Kind Regards walker

Edited December 15, 2009 by walker

[stegman 3]

Im going WAY off topic here but....anyone remember 'Gunship' on the C64?

I thought that was the best flight sim ever!

Been in love with the AH64 ever since. :inlove:

Actually, I wonder how it will stand up against the Cobra already in arma2??

[Herr_kalashnikov 10]

gunship2000 on the amiga now thats what i call a heli sim :)

[walker 0]

gunship2000 on the amiga now thats what i call a heli sim :)

Hi all

I remember it well; and thinking I want to get out of the helicopter and walk around shooting up stuff too.

The BIS brought out OFP and my wish was answered.

Kind Regards walker

[stegman 3]

Hi all

I remember it well; and thinking I want to get out of the helicopter and walk around shooting up stuff too.

The BIS brought out OFP and my wish was answered.

Kind Regards walker

And now they have done it again with ARMA2!

[archsceptic. 10]

I presume the "performance enhancements" will be down to there not being much trees and vegetation in the desert, as opposed to some game-engine tweaking breakthrough.

:j:

[Beagle 684]

I presume the "performance enhancements" will be down to there not being much trees and vegetation in the desert, as opposed to some game-engine tweaking breakthrough.

:j:

If you would just try the betas you would know that it is the opposite...more trees, logner draw distance, better performance.

Just stop beeing "sceptic" if its already proofen.

[tsb247 0]

Im more interested in this 3 way warfare TBH.

We know how the heli campaign is going to work; Fly a few missions, get shot down, join the resistance who help back across to your side of the map.

but the warfare, now thats something that could really take off...

You took the words right out of my mouth. I too am curious as to how this new 3 way Warfare will work. Warfare is my favorite game mode, and I spent DAYS of my life playing it online with the original armA. I'm also hoping they will finally enable the player to buy empty vehicles.

[max power 21]

I doubt it very much, but perhaps those aim-9 missiles under the wings of the apache are AGM-122 Sidearm missiles.