frederf

The #1 problem with VON is that it's not channel-based, it's group-based. You can't take 5 arbitrary soldiers and say "Hey, tune to channel 12." #2 problem is there are no noise/ out of range effects. #3 problem is that the voice server must be the same as the game server. Address those 3 and you basically have ACRE using automatically-working built-in voice.

Enjoying ACRE, problems and all. Don't have much to add except: 1. Real PRC-148 has channel knob center, power-vol knob on the side. ACRE has them reversed. 2. Would love a portable antenna for RTOs to deploy and plug into.

I have it on minimal setting. As for "there's no head bob in real life" try wearing 40+ lbs or gear, tired, and running. It's real.

It's no longer 1500m in the latest versions, it's somewhat longer "stick" than that. Also, he's right, a bug is when a program does something it wasn't designed to do. If it was designed to do it, no matter how unpleasant, it's not a bug.

The fact that there isn't a separate "cycle fire mode" and "cycle weapon" in OFP ever has been a continual thorn in the players' collective side.

I want "driver turret vehicles" simply because it would provide the modding community with an excellent base for many advanced vehicle simulations! What about the Ka-50? That's a "single player tank with a turret" isn't it? You need a turret class in the config to do things like the Shkval or the Sniper XL pods on A-10/ F-16 type aircraft. With a turret class in the config you could give Stryker drivers access to be able to look around their viewports.

Nope, airspeed. If you were flying 90° pitch up or 90° pitch down, and your airspeed was 20 knots... you would not be stalled because the airflow was still laminated to the wings (AoA would be close to zero.) The reason ArmA does the massive speed drop off for pulling G's is that the flight model is limited in its fidelity. The flight model doesn't handle things like accelerated stalls, FCS limits, corner speed, etc. In ArmA the more speed you have, the more powerful of a turn you have access to. In real life this isn't the case. The speed drop off is for gameplay balance so you couldn't pull a super turn just because you had a lot of airspeed "in the bank" so to speak. If you have access to EA's battlefield 1942, you'll notice the same behavior; turn ability increases with speed without limit giving some truly alien capabilities.

Stall speed assumes level flight. So banking, while not a configuration change, doesn't change stall speed. The whole concept of a stall speed is actually very old fashioned thought. I could have a 747 going 20 knots, but not be stalled.

Read more better.

Windex, you're killin' us man. It was an IR strobe. NVGs see into the near infrared.

I'm not criticizing your criticism but... ArmA2 just plain ain't a flight sim. It would be nice I guess but really ArmA is an infantry sim and that means having a slew of battlefield aspects that support the infantry simulation. The farther from boots and dirt you get in ArmA the less fidelity you encounter, universally. The flight model in ArmA is really on par with about... EA's Battlefield 1942. Functional but just enough to get from A to B. As one having some aviation background, I'd like to say that stalling is a delamination of airflow from the wings that can happen at any speed. Many civil aircraft have nose-down departure tendencies built into the airframe but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. I imagine the A-10 behaves traditionally but I wouldn't bet $100 on the F-117A or F-35 or anything on the sportier/exotic end of the scale. Standing a jet fighter on its tail until very slow speed is more similar between ArmA and real life than you give it credit for. ArmA is no shining flight model to be sure though. Also "stall speed" should never change for a given configuration, since it's merely a benchmark at which level flight at that speed that requires a certain AoA where the airfoil airflow is just on the verge of delmaination. It might require a lesser AoA (thus higher speed) for reattachment but stall speed only cares about the lamination-delamination threshold. Usually airplanes lose speed in turns, especially more than 2 Gs lateral.

The only real control issue is that you can only assign "half axes" to analogue assignments. Meaning if you wanted to bind your entire "Q Axis" from -Q_Max to +Q_Max to throttle or brake or whatnot, you cannot. This squishes the control authority into only 50% of the axis range (-Max to 0 or 0 to +Max). If you bind your throttle + "half axis" to thrust, then your throttle does nothing in the -Max to 0 range and from 0 to +Max that is where you get 0-100% control input. Obviously in the real vehicle there is a control where the entire range 0-100% is mapped to a full physical axis (-Max to +Max). This is impossible in ArmA. The issues with throttle and break control after the simulation gets a hold of the values is an entirely separate issue with how the flight model works, separate thrust and break systems, etc.

You should have seen ArmA several months ago. When walking sighted your eyes were bolted to your sights. You always had a perfect sight picture but you absolutely wanted to throw up because your eye point was moving around like mad. Now they made the eye point stead and let the rifle bobble in your hands. Now I guess you're saying that the bobble is too much. It also doesn't help that the CCO or similar parallax-compensating sights don't work properly with a disturb alignment. Also note that about 10-20% head wobble in the options seems (to me) to be the most realistic.

I went through all this when I first configured TrackIR for ArmA2. It would be nice to be able to look 3 o.c. and then bring your rifle onto target without disrupting your vision. The problem is that in ArmA there are three things controlled by your mouse/TrackIR and so they can't be entirely separate on two controllers. You have your walking direction, your rifle aiming, and your eyes looking. The only way I could see it being possible is to have a toggle button that engaged to change what the mouse was doing, body or rifle. With the button in state A you would have a suuuuuuper wide floating zone so you'd just be aiming your rifle. In state B you would be maneuvering your body.

I had a moment followed by a FPDR moment when ArmA2 first introduced secondary explosions. It was great except they kept going forever! Infinitaries make even an ancient wreck dangerous. It's weird.

Yeah, many OA anti tank weapons are messed up. The RPG-7 is supposed to fly very "flat" for a certain portion of its range due to aero on the projectile itself. AT-4 on the other hand should not fly flat at all. Pop-bang and pretty parabolic in arc. I don't know why BIS goes to such great lengths to get non-ballistic behavior that makes zero realism sense.

Not really. Take a look for yourself. Venus-bright stuff might be disky but the vast majority of stars are simply a tiny bit more bold than otherwise. The old A2 "attack of the marshmallows from outer space" was hardly the pinnacle of realism.

Lines or not is simply due to the laser wavelength and particulates in the air. Light is light; there's no "special military light." Particles are required to scatter light, any laser powerful enough to be seen as a beam without any particles in the air does this by ionizing air molecules. Any laser that powerful is not practical (i.e. not used) for illumination/guidance systems. Wavelengths make a difference in how the laser reflects based on the size of the particle. The ~1000nm IR military usual light is going to be slightly more penetrating than 500nm red visible for instance. All in all assuming 1.0xx micrometer light dust in air is the overriding factor determining what fraction of the laser energy is scattered back. I just wish BIS would make the laser beams about 20-50% as opaque as they are currently and also put the LaserDesignator dot at the end of the vector as a secondary effect. The most complete effect would have the beam opacity be a factor of local atmospheric but that's a bit too much to ask.

HALO is generally not a lot of people, well trained, and lots of time to navigate after exiting the aircraft. Thus you would use the rear ramp. Static line you want to get a lot of less-trained jumpers out the door fast and dense with good separation. The doors provide lateral separation which would likely combine with left/right staggering. Thus you would use the side doors. The "keeping momentum" isn't an issue with exiting vehicles, it's that the BIS parachute is awful. It opens almost instantly and doesn't fall fast enough. I've been party to a lovely static line system script that was very light and clean and worked properly. Shame I don't remember where it was from.

I play on 1.0 skill and 0.55 precision, "super AI" on and I find I only have a slight edge over the enemy in shooting performance.

Looks like about 25% of the screen resolution being rendered in 3D and stretched. That or some truly epic levels of PP/AA

In no way can the "100% automatic return to point of aim" be an option. Not only is that backpedaling in terms of realism, it would give the old-style user an unacceptable shooting performance advantage. Your personal CoD-standard definition of "fun" aside, the rest of us want ArmA to continue on its mission. This is not a "difficulty option" but an evolution in the modeling of the universe in ArmA like how helicopter flight changed in ArmA1 from OFP. Plenty of people mistakenly asked for it to be an option or difficulty option then as well. Asking for the old aiming simulation as an option is akin to asking if you could have the option of being taught that the sun goes around the earth instead of the new Copernican model.

I've really given up on torturing my brain trying to think of a workable system for these items carried on the non-ACE person. With the AT4 as reloadable, you've already lost the battle to make it right. If you make the magazine huge then you impair the normal combat load and if you make it small then the AT4 gunner can carry a silly number of rounds. A similar problem exists with 40mm 203 rounds. You're supposed to be able to carry ~20 on your person as a grenadier. ACE hasn't even figured out how to remedy that.

If you get stuck going crab through a door with your rifle at the high ready... lower your rifle?

High command drives me buggy. It's two very two huge boulder command systems connected by a few thin threads. The boundary between high command and low command should not be cut and dry but blurred. Simply have the traditional full-featured command system but individuals can be collapsed into groups and then those groups act as a single unit while collapsed. Right now you can only get into platoon level organizations practically as the HC layer is only a second layer. There's no chance for a 3rd, 4th, etc later. Company or battalion level ops are not too much to ask at all considering the combined arms nature of ArmA.