An-225

If that is AI, BIS have done a great job this time around. Notice one person keeps returning to the civil pickup to get ammo?

I remember the demo for Armed Assault. One of the greatest things about it, was the Attack Somato mission. In it, you had about 10 squad members, and two HMMWVs. In my opinion, one of Armed Assaults (current) greatest downfalls, is the mission variety, or lack thereof. The only missions that get played now are: Warfare, Evolution and Domination (so, its not just Evo plaguing it). It is a true shame, considering the realism of the sim, to think that everyone wants to play these three missions. Thinking back to the Somato mission, you had only the BARE MINIMUM to seize the town. Domination, Evolution give you a great deal of vehicles, (up to four of every single variant of BLUFOR or OPFOR vehicle), limiting the amount of teamwork encountered, because everyone has to have their own HMMWV or Blackhawk. Domination features a TELEPORT function, further ruining the immersion, and reducing the reliance on your teammates to fly an EVAC helo. Evolution features air support which can be radio'd in via the map, reducing reliance on your teammates to give proper CAS. Warfare - a cash system in a military simulator? I wanted to fight a war, not finance my killing machines. All three missions feature something similar to a ranking system (cash system in Warfare, rewards for side missions in Domination, Evolution with a ranking system that rewards...points with unlocked vehicles and weapons), further attracting players for the wrong reasons. Vehicles should be provided right away, rather than rewarded for cash, rank or missions completed. The missions are designed to be somewhat easy for the players accustomed to CoD gameplay. No one gives any care for teamwork or tactics. Not to mention, that in all of these missions, you are capturing an entire island with only 5 people because there are so many variants of the one mission, the community gets divided. Its like, the majority of players want to turn this into a fast paced action game like Call of Duty 4 (a game which I have no problem with, but I want Armed Assault to be Armed Assault - a game in which the utmost care must be taken to accomplish a mission, not throw yourself at a town and hope you clear it). Since I bought the game in late 2007, the only three missions I have ever seen being played regularly, are Evo and Domination (and, in 2008, Warfare). What does the community think? Should Evolution and Domination return? (Warfare is a given) Will they return? Does 2009 require more sophisticated missions, ones that are not as generic as the million "Capture the Island" variants we have now?

Hi everyone, this is my first post here at the BI Forums. I have real flight experience, 1 hour 5 minutes flying a Cessna 152. I also have thousands of hours combined while flying FS2004/FSX and Lock On: Modern Air Combat. I think, the flight model in Armed Assault is an exceptionally good one, especially considering it is a combined arms simulator, but it does have a few weak points. I have thoroughly tested the flight model, and have compiled a list of things that should be improved upon for ArmA 2. Here is my list: First off, not related to the flight model, the control setup (thank you for the multiple controller support in ArmA 2). Currently, the throttle control is setup in such a manner, that it is either on or off. The throttle should be manual, so that the degree of thrust can be controlled. Another major problem is, that if the throttle is idle, it automatically deploys the speed brakes for the airplane. The throttle should ONLY control the throttle, and the spoilers should be a different command. That is all that is truly wrong with the control setup. Here are some things I observed in the flight dynamics. ~ each aircraft class (rotary/fixed wing) feels like it only has one flight model. The Harrier responds to control input, as if it were the Fullback or the Thunderbolt II. The same can be said for the UH-60 being compared to any other helicopter. The aicraft require different roll and pitch rates, as at the moment, they just have different stall/thrust parameters. Control surface deflection is almost exactly the same for each aircraft. ~ When flying a plane in ArmA, as long as the airplane is pitching upward, it is losing speed. It doesn't matter if it is pitching up one degree (LITERALLY), while flying at a medium altitude, it starts losing speed if you try to climb. In short, ArmA 2 should allow aircraft to climb without immediately losing speed. ~ The glide ratio needs to be decreased in helicopters. If I drop the collective to absolute idle, the helicopter should more or less drop like a stone. With the above said, the effectiveness of the main rotor blades needs to be increased. It takes several seconds for a helo to climb or descend right now, and this makes flying Nap of the Earth EXTREMELY difficult. ~ Throttle response time needs to be increased for both airplanes and helicopters. That said, it is difficult to tell whether the slow descent/ascent rate mentioned above is a product of this, or the rotor effectiveness and glide ratio, so I would rate the above as more important. ~ Tail rotor effectiveness needs a SERIOUS tweak. Currently, flying at 50km/h imposes moderate yaw dampening. The point at which the helicopter starts to experience yaw dampening, is actually quite close to overspeed, in real life. In fact, there have been several accidents due to LTE (loss of tail-rotor effectiveness), which have mainly occurred at low speed. I hope BIS can make some use of these suggestions, and I wish Maruk all the best with Armed Assault 2. Looking forward to flying the Mi-24, V-22 and KC-130. An-225

I understand that energy is lost due to high alpha maneuvers, and my maneuver was not all that different from a Pugachev's Cobra, only going down. Where the plane got the elevator authority to pitch down that hard, I do not know. The plane's entire fuselage in this instance acted like a spoiler, and the plane slowed down by 50km/h, in an extremely short amount of time (less than 2 seconds) which does not seem all that natural. Rather than "DEFINITELY not right" (I often exaggerate. ), I think this behaviour encountered in ArmA is (also) an exaggerated form of the real thing. P.S: lucky buggar, I'm stuck with TPG, while you have iinet.

Thank you to all who support my suggestions. I have noticed something very odd; while flying the A-10, I was able to gain speed while climbing. I went back and checked the Su-34, and it could also gain speed. However, this was not the case the first time around, where two afterburning AL-34 engines could not support my Su-34s climb at one degree pitch up. As such, my comment on this subject in my opening post should be disregarded. However, power loss is exponential, while flying the Su-34 with max throttle, I abruptly pitched the nose down - and it LOST speed, before regaining it. This is DEFINITELY not right. The above begins another point on which the flight dynamics could be improved, power loss and glide ratio need to be adjusted. EDIT: I have now noticed in the Russian video, the helicopters seem to have increased agility, with the MI-17s bobbing up and down at will. This is a step in the right direction (even if Mi-17s do handle like "flying dumptrucks" ).

My apologies, plaintiff. My wording was sparse, and criptic, and you are completely right. I intended that line, to be an example, of when such power loss occurs, rather than saying "power loss occurs at a hard figure of 20 degrees pitch up." Power loss is highly dependent on AoA, and other variables, such as the type of engines used and altitude of the plane. My mistake on the context of the line, in all my time simming, I've never encountered such behaviour, and it was difficult for me to place it into (appropriate) words. Sabre tooth, it might just be my control set up then. I could feel minute differences between each type, but not much else. DM; I just figured, 'ah, what the hell, I have some experience.'