An-225

What annoys me most is the fact that you have to hit F twice to cycle through whatever you have in your inventory at times. This occurs only when the menu in the top right hand corner has faded away, and when I'm stuck with my AK on semi, with the need for it to fire full auto, its not fun.

Yes, but in real life the probe connects to the drogue and may be put through a number of maneuvers depending on wind buffet and pilot error, yet the fuel still flows. Its better to attach the two aircraft together. Orlok, the problem isn't the amount of space you have to connect to the tanker airplane, its the fact that you'll hardly run out of fuel on such a small map.

I'm not sure it should be restricted. A real ghillie suit is quite useful and effective, so I see no reason to add artificial balance. Its the mission maker's fault if there are several sniper slots in the mission - don't impose restrictions due to idiotic mission makers. And even while moving, at a fair distance, it should offer some concealment. Not while up close though.

Well, I think we can all agree that ArmA's strongpoint is its realism. It has attempted to do what no other commercial game has done. I also think we can all agree, that too much realism can and will harm gameplay. I'm interested, in what the community thinks on this issue. What constitutes or defines the point at which gameplay is harmed? I fly LO:MAC and FSX, mostly. I am comfortable with the basic operation of N001, and have learned most of the startup checklist on the C-130. In my opinion, these are two examples where gameplay would be harmed by way of too much realism. There would be overly long startup times in the C-130 which would effectively limit the player to one aircraft type, and targeting would be overly complicated for any plane with the N001 radar. The same effects can be replicated through very simple commands, such as Engine On for startup or TAB for the radar. BIS have stated that there will be no overly complicated systems modeled in ArmA 2. However, I think what the community, or at least the majority of the community, would like to see realism in terms of each units capability. It would be very hard to spot enemy soldiers with a UAV when they are camouflaged, no? Thats what FLIR is for. This would not necessarily entail detailed systems, but it does give an accurate depiction of the capability of UAVs in real life. The same may be said for the FCS on a tank. Not a highly intricate system, but it reflects the vehicle's capability in real life. The Javelin does not truly have the need for direct/top attack ability. But a relatively simple change of background to an accurate CLU and perhaps a change between normal and IR modes would be a relatively accurate, yet simple depiction. These are only a few examples. What is it that defines realistic? What would be going overboard? Realistic optics, ballistics, capabilities? It would be interesting to hear what other people think.

Call of Duty 4 - one of the best singleplayer campaigns I've ever played. It may have been arcady, but the plot was plausible enough and I loved the attention to detail in All Ghillied Up and One Shot One Kill. Best soundtrack ever created for a video game. Jane's USAF - variety of airplanes to fly, variety of ordnance to use and a fairly accurate simulation of standard USAF avionics. As the flight instructor so aptly put it while training for a night mission at Nellis AFB: "Now put on the night vision goggles...there, doesn't the desert look green at night?" S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Shadow of Chernobyl - didn't have the same atmosphere that CoD 4's rendition of Chernobyl had, but still a brilliant game when you consider its somewhat open maps and concept. ArmA 2 - I've only played the demo, but it is by far the best first person shooter I've ever played. Even the demo has more features and content to use than complete CoD 4. The immersion is incredible, especially when you are ducking behind a brick wall, being suppressed by a PKM. Lock On: Modern Air Combat and DCS Black Shark - the best modern renditions of present day air combat. A fairly large selection of airplanes considering the depth (Lock On) and complete realism (Black Shark).

I'd rather see a continuation of Chernarus to be honest. A primarily USMC expansion pack could open up the West side of the country even further, and add new units to compensate for the extended range, like the M777 Howitzer or the C-5 Galaxy. And a primarily Russian expansion could open up the North of the country, with units like the IL-76 and the S-300/400. Way too much effort has been placed into Chernarus already to just see it dropped without continuation.

I think it would be brilliant with the right blend of cultural background. Dry terrain at sea level, with tall snowy mountains, using the Caucasus region for architecture and structure. Something similar to Azerbaijan or Uzbekistan.

Was there any need to reply like this? He was simply posting a notification to prevent further smearing of his clan...

"So what's one more..." One more, is one step further away from what the game strives for. There are unrealistic parts of this game, yes - does that mean we should remove accurate ballistics too? No. The game should strive to include more realistic things, but certainly not remove them. The grass turning invisible at 100m distance is only there because of performance requirements. Its not a concession to realism, its a concession to your CPU and GPU. I don't understand most of your other comments about realism...you can't have an endless supply of soldiers coming out an APC...and if you could, that would be the fault of the mission maker. The zoom is due to the high resolution you see at in real life. Objects disappear at a distance to take a load off your CPU and GPU. The story in your opening post sounds a lot like intentional team killing. I see absolutely no need for IFF.

The HUDs in all aircraft should be more prominent, at least from the footage I have seen. I do believe that the US aircraft display speed in knots and the Russian aircraft display speed in km/h in ArmA 2, just as in real life. The only problem is, the HUD is so dim, that you rely on the indicator at the top left of the screen, which only displays speed in km/h, and altitude in meters. I'm not sure that displaying ASL would be better than AGL. The map is too small to warrant ASL, and therefore you aren't cruising for kilometers at 5000ft for economy.

Since I only have the demo, I can't save missions. But I have a screenshot of the only things that were on the map, and how they were set up. Static weapons show up on radar too. I flew a similar mission to the opening post but with me as the Huey pilot, and my gunners engaged quite fast.

It is quite an annoying problem. The AI seem to always know where every vehicle is and if it is friendly or enemy. I've posted the results of this test before, but the bug is still apparent in ArmA 2, so it may be worth posting again. One test at the airstrip on Utes... Static M2 placed directly behind a T-72. The T-72 is facing away from the M2. I get on the M2, and the T-72 turret swings around and automatically targets me. I didn't fire a single bullet. Second test, night time, airstrip at Utes. A flight of Hueys start 500 meters North of the airstrip, with a given waypoint that makes them fly past the runway to the South. I spawn on a ZU-23, hidden behind the control tower. The Hueys start spraying my position with gunfire, even though I haven't fired a single bullet.

It seems a little inconsistent. With grass clutter, the enemy still engages me with accurate fire through the grass, while I withdraw from my last known position while making turns. Occasionally, I can lose them. But the issue originally raised is extremely consistent. No matter what, the tank turns the turret around. No matter where I am hiding in the ZSU, the Hueys find me. As Beagle stated, this seems to be related to either the radar or (what I think may be) peripheral vision dots.

No, its absolutely impossible. I spawned behind the tank. The tank was facing directly away from me. I spawned only about 5 meters away, got on the M2 which was 4 meters away, and it turned its turret around. There is no way to communicate something that you do not see. There is no excuse for this, there is no way to refute it. It is simply impossible.

But the problem is, it is cheating. There is no possible way a tank crew can hear me getting on an M2 machine gun directly behind it. The tank crew had NO indication of my presence either, it spawned facing away from me and I spawned right behind it. As soon as I got on the M2, it turned its turret around.

What a beautiful sight. It was 11:00PM, and I was planning to test the new tracer system out on some Hueys and Cobras with the ZSU. Instead, as soon as I spawned, a fast moving object lit up the valley in front of me as it sped towards the ZSU at M1.5, seemingly coming from a Cobra. I must admit, they did a good job on the lighting. ;) Hopefully the AI is fixed, it makes certain tactics that would work in a real situation impossible.

The helicopters seem to have somewhat respectable flight models, at least in the ArmA 2 demo. Or maybe its just the fact that I'm using rudder pedals and my joystick now. The time it takes to gain or lose altitude is perfect. The helicopters that I've flown in the demo need a little more yaw authority, particularly at 150km/h, the nose will do more than just buffet slightly. And the yaw has been dampened too far at slower speeds, of 130/100 or 80km/h. But otherwise, the flight model is fine and a lot closer to what you fly in Black Shark (minus the systems of course). And I'll also say that I find it easier to fly in Black Shark - it certainly isn't the contra-rotating setup however.

I concur Murphe. We shouldn't have to rely on add-ons to have a semi-realistic Javelin.

I believe muzzle flash hardly shows up during the day.

I understand that you are a mechanic in the RAF, and I'm quite picky myself. The Captain Sim C-130 is my favorite airplane for FSX too, I've had some fun times landing it in spaces 400m long. But you surely cannot be serious? The APU port serves no actual purpose in ArmA 2. It is a 2D texture of a few panel lines in the airplane. The HMMWV also has a few mistakes, but it just does not mean anything to actual gameplay. Now, if it is something that actually affected gameplay, it would, or at least should be considered as serious. The F-35B in the game has a GAU-12 mounted internally. That is something that should be looked at by the game designers. Until we actually have to open the APU bleed air port, set the APU to START/RUN and wait for the APU ON AIR light to come on, then the APU port plays no actual role in the game.

Impossible to land a C-130 on an LHD. Its wing would go through the bridge. It is already very difficult to land a C-130 on a 400m strip (or in the case of a CVN, 342m), so an LHD with a length of 200m will definitely not support a C-130. Especially not under any sort of load.

Waffen is correct in that list of enemies. There is no other plausible scenario that involves a superpower fighting on a large scale. A game featuring conflict on a large scale must have Nazis/Imperial Army/Russians/Terrorists as enemies. NATO bonds a large portion of the world. You could do what Far Cry 2 did, and have African nations fighting it out, but that doesn't provide much scope in terms of vehicles and equipment. Dragon Rising's story was probably written by a 10yr old. I really want someone here to propose a scenario involving two superpowers that have equal equipment in equal quantities, that does not involve Russia. Eastern Europe is also a perfect setting due to its sheer size and diversity. There is enough room to plant a fictional country there and have it seem realistic at the same time.

I was not around for OFP, so I don't know much about its plot. But I do not see the problem with having Russia as an adversary to America. Will someone please propose a worthy adversary to America? There isn't much sense in pitting the USA against a member of the EU/a member of NATO. So that leaves us with two other worthy adversaries. Russia and China. And personally, I wouldn't say a country that uses a variant of the MiG-21 is a threat to the USA. In all seriousness though, China is a threat to the USA, but Russia provides a far more interesting and detailed backdrop from which you can create a game out of. It is most likely appealing to players to fight against another country with counterparts in equipment. You can still do COIN while fighting against NAPA. Another good thing about ArmA is that anyone can be the bad guy. You have the capability to play as any faction, and it is only in a USMC based mission that Russia is your opponent. If I remember correctly, you can even set Russia as an ally to the USMC. ArmA 2 does not portray the Russians as savages, as most other games would. They are only the 'bad guys' in the eyes of the USMC in the campaign. I don't believe the game would have the Russians committing war crimes either, so there is no purely evil side... The ArmA 2 campaign is not black and white. There are all shades of grey. It has a lot more depth than simply stating that the Commies are bad.

As a self-certified "professional" at Nazi Zombies in Call of Duty: World at War... Even I must say that there are far more important things BIS could devote themselves to rather than zombies. Like the numerous bugs that must be fixed. And adding walking in moving vehicles. And adding aircraft countermeasures. And adding a CCIP. Player repairs to damaged vehicles would be a very arcady addition if implemented incorrectly. I think BIS are already stretching it with their supply trucks. I believe in repairs to a vehicle only if the player has the necessary supplies ready, and not every soldier is going to be able to refit a tire on a HMMWV. Shrinking the map for Warfare won't happen given the amount of work that went into building the current Chernarus. It needs no downsizing at all. The problem you are encountering is probably a lack of players (Warfare should be played with at least 20 players). ;)

Another supporter of FSAA here. Performance is important in a military simulator. As is being able to discern one object from another.