An-225

ACE isn't everything... I'd rather have a fully functioning vanilla game (no doubt though, that flares do not constitute "fully functioning" and we will surely receive content later on).

I'm not an active person, so I don't know much about this. But crouching is quite tiring in real life, and considering you are doing it with 50kg of gear... Have you considered that every other shooter is inaccurate? It would be very difficult to properly support the gun while crouching...

We used a similar method in flight simulator when seaplanes could not move freely. By lowering the water friction, we could then move on water in a realistic fashion. I agree with being able to set the friction of a surface. It would also help in cargo planes, where you could raise the friction of the cargo bay to prevent slipping out.

Even though MANPAD launches are difficult to spot, you are meant to use the flares proactively, like the tutorial for a strafing run in the A-10 in Lock On. That said, usage of flares in an air war would be extremely limited due to the small dimensions of the map and limited reaction time. I concur with your summary though. There are bigger, more important things to be dealt with such as the magic radar.

As Plage said, the majority of military aircraft have flares. I'm pretty sure the civilian Mi-8 is the only air vehicle in ArmA 2 that does not have flares in real life, though that could be extended to the Pchela and the MQ-9 Reaper.

Regarding early warning of the launch of a MANPAD - surely this must be a very recent addition to most airplanes? My knowledge is out of date, using simulations dating back to the 90's and early new millennium (Jane's USAF, LOMAC), so I'm not familiar with today's avionics. The KA-50 lacks an RWR, but has an LWS. When said LWS starts beeping, you better get out of there because an Abrams is pointing its cannon at you... Avibird, ArmA 2 is about balance through realism. They don't add artificial measures to make sure both sides have the exact same equipment, and this game should never be about a scissors-paper-rock type of gameplay. Anfiach, I didn't state that due to the absence of countermeasures those guidelines lacked substance. They just lack substance. "Don't fly into a hot zone like you own the place" is not a guideline. It is an arbitrary rule thought up in the lack of actual substance. I gave a very clear and concise breakdown on the positioning of MANPADs and the like. Whether flares are dispensed automatically or not (my fault for driving this OT), is simply irrelevant. Aviation is a very exacting trade. Therefore, it requires exact guidelines, and not vague guidelines. You can't fly very slow searching for MANPADs, that is simply inviting a missile to you. NOE is the way to go, flying as low and fast as safely possible. In the case of a SAM, again, you use terrain masking, locate the target, pop up and fire. In the case that you cannot find adequate terrain to use as cover, you simply hang back at the maximum engagement range. Countermeasures are required in game though, because a helicopter moving at 200km/h will not outmaneuver a missile flying at Mach 2. The same may be said for an airplane at maneuvering airspeed. People also forget that chaff and flares do not guarantee the loss of a missile. Pilot input is still required (fly perpendicular to the missile launch, and then turn into it while popping chaff/flares), though this is somewhat redundant without a working RWR to signal the launch of an AIM-9 or an AA-11.

I already stated on the previous page that they are passive. Therefore, it is impossible to have automatic flare dispersal, because they will never show up on the RWR.

No one brought up automatic countermeasures, but as I stated in my earlier post, MANPADs usually do not show up on an RWR. It would be impossible to dispense flares automatically. The pilot must do it proactively too, he gets no prior warning.

I think people here are missing the point of a MANPAD. MANPADs are extremely dangerous to low flying aircraft. They are generally passive, using IR seeking missiles. You get no warning about a MANPAD that is targeting you on an RWR. MANPADs may be concealed very easily, whether in a forest with a limited firing aperture and a lot of concealment, or out in the opening with a large firing aperture but limited concealment. Flares are meant to be used proactively in the CAS role. You strafe the target with rockets, pop flares and roll out of the area. Avibird, I think your guide lacks substance of how to fly in the CAS role and avoid missiles. Without countermeasures, any guide is a complete failure in avoiding MANPADs, even if you can only use flares proactively. First of all, it is stupid to even think that a pilot can maneuver a helicopter to avoid a missile speeding towards them at Mach 2.2 without flares. You must use terrain masking often, however note that terrain masking does not denote flying at two feet above the ground, it stipulates that you must use hills and other tall objects as cover. Since we are dealing with Chernarus, you will often be using hills as cover. Don't try flying beneath the treeline next to a forest, as flying above the trees will accomplish the same job, and it will be a lot safer. Know where to expect AA soldiers. This does not mean firing on them preemptively, it simply means to know where AA soldiers will tend to hide to try and gain an advantage over you. You would generally find them hiding in heavily wooded areas, trying to gain the advantage of surprise over you. Remember that going in slowly and searching for MANPADs is futile, and will only invite a Strela/Igla/Stinger to hit you. This just covers MANPADs. However, in instances where you are dealing with AA vehicles such as the Tunguska, they do show up on your radar. Use the radar to spot them at range, and hang back just outside of their effective range. Easy. If you are fired on, without flares, you are screwed. (Note, my conclusion comes from experience based off ArmA, where it is near impossible to lose a missile)

I'm afraid you misunderstood me Walker, although upon rereading it, it does seem a little cryptic. I stated that I tested it in ArmA, not ArmA 2, and I was asking if it was still the same. I don't see what my PC specs have to do with it. I'm fine with flying around Utes in a C-130/V-22 until I get a new PC. ;)

I have been busy recently, so I haven't been able to answer to this. Currently, ArmA is not on my hard drive, so I can't test it (nor can I record because I only have a Pentium 4). People have told me that there is no such thing as a silencer, and I understand that a gun will never be totally silent. But 500+ meters away behind several hills and buildings with a suppressed M4 using an SD mag? That would be impossible to hear, or see. The squad leader was behind a relatively tall hill, and the rifleman was located in the center of a small town, so it was impossible to see, or hear. The frequent communication point is a good one, but the end result was the squad leader turning and facing my exact position. It should only send the leader into an alert state, not give away my position. Here is an image pinpointing their positions: http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/6960/soldierpositions.png Now, the red dot is the rifleman. He was located in between several buildings in Gulan. The blue dot is the squad leader. He was located over a hill in Somato. If anyone is skeptical of the line of sight issue, fly over the area and look at the obstacles between the two points on the map. I was definitely using SD ammunition.

Thanks for that Norrin. Even if its just eye-candy, its still nice to have an opening ramp. Does the C-130 have a roadpath allowing units to walk into the cargo bay? It would be very interesting if cargo attached and detached inside the cargo bay.

What about the AI knowing when one of their group members dies from several hundred meters away? I tested this in ArmA, using a silenced weapon with subsonic ammunition. Upon killing a group member, the squad leader of that group turned and faced my direction. I think the auto-detection of a downed squad member is quite unrealistic, and can ruin some stealth missions.

Wow, cockpit photos are extremely difficult to find for the Mi-28, just like the KA-52. I do however, have a payware Mi-28 for flight simulator. It may not be as accurate as the real thing, however its cockpit matches up to the few photos that I did manage to find and I can get screenshots of the cockpit from different angles if you need me to.

The rate of sideways flight for the Kamov seems fine to me. Any faster than that (at least while flying to the right) and its possible that the rotor blades will snap off.

Very nice find...I've always enjoyed the smaller things that add to life on the ground (opening canopy/folding wings etc).

On something like the Harrier, they use an RCS. However, on a helo like the Chinook or Osprey, yaw is controlled by tilting the rotor disks in opposite directions.

Hmm, the E is the only one with thrust reversers. I always assumed that there would be no difference between a military TF33 or CFM and a civilian TF33 or CFM. Frederf, 100km/h is equal to 53 knots. You generally do not engage thrust reversers below 60 knots in a jet plane. A C-130 or C-17 will deploy thrust reverse at 200 knots, which is 370km/h. I would rather have the ability to deploy reverse thrust at almost any speed.

I am pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

Of course the developers are aware of the issues with rank, but it was designed this way to provide a one-size-fits-all solution for all of the different factions in the game. I wouldn't give it a high priority in the face of other features.

Not sure on the exact terminology on the C-130 (you engage reverse thrust by pulling the throttles past the idle detent) but prop pitch control essentially does the same job. The E-3 Sentry picture you posted is a British airplane with CFM engines. I'm no expert on engines, but I can see a demarcation line where the rear nacelle splits to deflect thrust, however the removal of thrust reverse is plausible on a CFM engined AWAC. However, the KC-135s that serve in the USAF with PW TF33s have thrust reverse, it makes no sense to remove thrust reverse on TF33 E-3s. Sorry about the thread being derailed, its hard to discuss aviation in depth elsewhere.

Jason, the only airplane in ArmA that has thrust reverse for real is the C-130. Max Power, that is an odd statement. - KC-135 - KC-10 - C-17 - C-141 - C-5 Just some of the USAF production jets that have thrust reverse. I can also find no reference to the lack of thrust reversers on the E-3 Sentry, and since the Sentry uses the PW TF33, like the KC-135, I am inclined to say that it too has thrust reversers. There are two fighter jets with thrust reversers. The Tornado and the Viggen. The Viggen is intended to be a STOL airplane able to take off from a highway. Thrust reversers only add more weight to the airplane, so instead fighters and attackers get fitted with large airbrakes/drogue chutes and can only operate from long runways.

No, ArmA is not about balance. The satchels to destroy the tower only tried to balance it some more, and it made it less realistic in the process. Realism over gameplay for ArmA (where realism is the gameplay). Five players capturing an island is not realistic. "Someone fired an M136 from 500m and it was done." So, the mission designer should have placed the OPFOR in a better manner so as to cover the radio tower. Artificial methods such as immunity to everything other than satchels only harms the gameplay and teamwork. Painting the tower with a laser requires skill, to actually get someone in between all of the obstructions to designate it. To get inside the town unnoticed by the OPFOR, and find a spot to paint the radio is actually quite hard in itself. Satchels to destroy the radio tower also limited the ways in which you could have teamwork. One of the brilliant things about ArmA is its open-ended presmise. So you aren't just limited to using the satchel, but you can use a SMAW, a Mk.82, a GBU or whatever is capable of taking down a radio tower. Crappy arbitrary rules that limit the open-ended premise should never be imposed. Evolution did not encourage teamwork. I don't want to join a clan to have to play ArmA 2. Like I stated, the instant the mission was swapped to a small-scale co-op mission (Desert Ambush), people started cooperating and the teamwork started to flow in. But when Evolution was on, there was hardly any teamwork at all. And again, searching for hours on end to find the last OPFOR who went prone in a bush is absolutely no fun at all or realistic.

I'm against Evolution. Since 2007, it has been nothing but Evolution, there were no interesting missions to play, because Evolution was the only one being played. Ranked Evolution wasn't hard. It was "Sit on the hill with the HMMWV (M2) and kill everything moving to rank up. Repeat with the M1A1." Next, a common symptom of most mission designers in ArmA, they placed objects right next to the airport runway, another pet peeve of mine in Evo (and indeed in every other mission). But there are so many things wrong with Evolution, its not funny. You can hardly ever find 40 players to play Evolution with. Evolution requires 40 players to be a realistic mission. I hear people say that: "Oh, but we've finished it with four players." Yes. Four players capturing an island. Very realistic. At least on public servers, there was hardly any teamwork. Neither was teamwork encouraged. Strangely, as soon as I changed the mission to something non-Evolution, everyone was playing/sticking together, and using teamwork. The radio tower could only be brought down by satchels, which eliminated one facet of teamwork. If I could get a man in there to paint the tower, why couldn't I drop a Paveway on it? There were too many vehicles, enough for everyone to take their own and therefore end up with vehicles that were not fully crewed and no one on the ground. It is 2009. Let the good mission makers create brilliant, creative missions. Not a one-size-fits-all mission. ArmA should be ArmA. Not BF2. It should not be a rapid conquest of the island, rather a slow and gradual conquest depending on what occurs in between. And the bugs in the mission destroyed it completely. Often, Evolution would end up with me and four other people searching through the towns to find one last soldier who went prone in a bush, not moving at all. This would continue for hours.

As has been stated before, the V-22 and the C-130 lack opening cargo doors. I find this quite odd, since the C-130 seems to come from VBS 2, therefore the cargo door should open, and the Mi-24, an attack helicopter, not a cargo carrier, can open its doors. This is not to state that walking inside moving vehicles must be fixed right away. However, having doors that actually open and meshes that allow moving inside large vehicles would still be a great addition. If opening doors were implemented, then the infantry would spawn inside the cargo bay upon selecting "Get Out" and therefore they would have to exit the aircraft in a realistic fashion, rather than instantly spawning outside, ready for combat. Hopefully this is still an option for ArmA 2, there are still several weeks left until the 505 Games release, and the ramp opening animation should still be there on the C-130 at least? It just seems quite odd that an Mi-24, out of all vehicles, gets opening doors and a dedicated cargo plane, like the C-130 (which already had an opening cargo door) does not.