GBee

There may be no need for BIS to include the option, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be the best solution. It would be easier for everyone in the long term for the option to be included in the game rather than by scripts. It's not something which is hard to code, it would take less time for a BIS programmer to write than it would for a community member to write and setup the script!

Don't want to go off-topic, but can you tell me which interviews said customisable weapons would be possible? I've only read ones which said no to cusomisable weapons but that there were some pre-modelled variations of weapons available - e.g. a silenced M4, M4 with M203 etc

unless we make it specific for para jump/cargo unload, ie green light = steady flightpath for x time and in this period no roll pitch etc and walk out back or side or whichever . or even moresimple chinook = hover =green light = get out of seat and ramp downand jump or even better side door. That would work!

huh ? Is it my imagination or hasn't the topic always said "Aircarft Carriers" ? Small point, the subtitle shown in small print and light grey says aircraft carriers, the main topic says "Walking On Moving Vehicles". I just wanted to keep this thread on topic and not decend into the old moving on all vehicles arguments - but here I go anyway I think the ability to move on aircraft carriers, ships etc has real merit. By limiting moving on vehicles to those which, in their config files, have a max acceleration less than X and a max pitch/roll less than Y etc you could offer moving on vehicles only where it would be realistic. I think binding the ability to acceleration/pitch/roll would be better than a config option to turn the ability on/off, that way mods can't unrealistically enable it on dune buggys etc I'd love to be able to move around in the back of a C130 for example, but if the pilot suddenly decides to try a barrel roll what should happen to those people standing in the back? It would require new animations, new code and weeks of playtesting to remove all the bugs.

I'm thinking that you've got it the wrong way around. The score system is counterproductive, it discourages team-play, which defies the point of even having teams. For us realism fans it ruins the game by destroying the 'fog of war' and introducing certainty where there should be none. You can't be thinking that individual score system and especially stats tracking such as in BF2 actually improves the games?

Aye. In real life you might never know if your grenade/shell/bomb actually killed anyone - let alone whether it killed half the opposing team. The same goes for shooting through walls - is it really realistic to know that you killed someone that way until you actually go around it and find out? Never knowing exactly how many enemy are out there, is more fun too. You have to be careful until you can actually count the bodies.

Now this is an excellent idea. Personally I'd prefer personal stats to removed entirely from the game just to spite those frag chasing rambos, but just having the option to do it would probably be enough.

I'll quote my day old opinion - However I do recognise that the original poster did say MODERATORS: Perhaps the topic title could be changed so that it's clear that the dicussion is about ships and boats, but NOT speed boats, ground vehicles or aircraft.

Just how would the sight placement differ if you were left or right handed in real life? Seriously,every game has centered sights,if you were aiming,regardless of being right or left handed,your naturally going to hold it so that the sight is at the center of your vision. My point exactly ...

Those who wonder why we appear to have a standing in a moving vehicle (the lift) yet no ability to do so in other vehicles need to consider the differences between the two. A lift (elevator) moves in just two directions. The direction of movement is vertical not lateral, you may feel the movement in your stomach but you aren't thrown from side to side. If you stand in the back of a truck and it accelerates, you will fall over. If if turns a corner you will fall over. If it brakes you will fall over. Now how would BIS model and animate that? Should you suffer injuries or even death if you're stupid enough to be standing? This was the biggest problem from the VBS concept videos - they were extremely unrealistic. As great as it would be to be able to stand on or in vehicles, handling the cases where doing so would result in falls/injuries is a lot of work. Without such a system the whole approach would be something you'd expect from an arcade game. I expect people will mod the ability, with all the changes it's probably possible now. However BIS couldn't add it to the game without spending huge amounts of time making it even remotely realistic or leaving it extremely unrealistic.

Why does it have to be that complicated? I'm a realism fan so doing it properly appeals to me but for the sake of a more realistic aspect (e.g. Surrendering) I'd be willing to accept a much simplified semi-realistic approach to handling prisoners. As I've stated the idea twice and it seems to go over peoples heads here is the idea in sentences of no more than three words. Enemy Surrenders. => Approach Enemy. => Open Menu. => Select "Secure Prisoner". => Animation. => POW tied up* => Leave 'secured' POW That is all that is needed! You could have 'secured' POWs follow you via another menu option so those wishing a more realistic approach could actually deal with them. Having a second team to take them away etc Those who aren't interested in such things can just leave them on the battlefied. * Plastic ties before anyone asks

Just how would the sight placement differ if you were left or right handed in real life?

Wills blog Just server/software issues. It's still there if you go direct to the posts.

That pic is so small ive no idea what its supposed to be, what is there to OMG! about? Whatever it is supposed to be, I'm almost certain that it's not Armed Assault.

Err, there were laser guided bombs on the A-10 in one of the OFP patches.

They could and they probably will, but everyone will bitch that they didn't release a working product etc. Everyone complained when BF2 was released in an unplayable state and a dozen patches later some of the same issues exist or new ones were introduced. In this case I'd rather BIS took an extra month to release something which didn't need patching to be playable. I don't want to be downloading a huge patch a week after I buy the game and some people can't download patches at all.

With regards to helicopters causing lag, that's a non-issue. Arma has all new netcode and until we have the game there is absolutely no reason to believe they will cause the same problems they did in OFP. Their relatively poor armour compared to tanks is somewhat balanced by their firepower, but mostly by keeping them back from the action. Yes newbies will fly their helicopters right into the centre of the battle firing their FFARs at a range of 50m but they are designed to be used at a distance. You destroy enemy armour/AA just within your maximum engagement range with missles/AP rounds, only moving closer when you can. You use terrain to shield you from enemy AA/radar appearing only long enough to fire at your target before disappearing back out of sight. Onto the issue of there not being tanks older than the T-72. A few possible storylines to explain those 1) The Island had no need for tanks prior to the purchase of the T-72s 2) The older tanks were sold to even poorer countries to help pay towards the T-72s 3) The older tanks were decommissioned and melted down for scrap.

Second: I think some people just aren't reading what others are saying. They aren't looking for a discussion on the subject but rather trying to present their view as the only view in the hope of changing the mind of BIS. I can't understand either how DVD can be repeating what he said in the very first post eight pages ago, as though the debate which followed never existed. I for one have now had enough of posting counter-arguments only for them to be completely ignored.

Yes. It is smart. Perhaps it's a little too smart for some ... I'm reminded of a popular mod for the original half life. There were two entirely different teams. One side were human with human weapons. The other side were aliens and they had no weapons, they were the weapons. The humans had the advantage that all their weapons could kill from a distance and were very powerful - the aliens could be killed before they could even come close to bite etc. However the aliens had their own advantages, they were a little smaller, they could crawl through vents and some could climb walls, so they could sneak up on the humans. Yet the game was very evenly balanced - two equally skilled teams could force a draw. The tactics used by each team in a game were *very* different, yet were most effective given their assets. Most importantly it was huge fun. The differences between the teams made it much more fun than any game where the teams were balanced by weapons or ability. If you got a little bored you just switched teams and suddenly you were playing a different game! Where is the fun in there being no differences between North and South? In that scenario, what does it matter that you are even playing North v South, you might as well be playing South v South.

Then don't, fly a Ka-52 instead.

The relative cost and effectiveness of a helicopter gunship and a modern tank have been mentioned in two or three posts so far. It's being overlooked by many posters though (read back because some valid points have been made). A gunship is more expensive, but it's also far more useful and powerful. Some have guessed at figures like one Ka-52 is equivalent to 3 or 4 T-80/T-90s. In addition to firepower helicopters have a huge advantage over tanks in speed and maneuverability. One helicopter can repond within or patrol an area that would need 50/100 tanks. There are no obstacles with can block their advance. . Given a choice between a few T-80s and a gunship who would spend that money on the tanks? Especially when you already own hundreds of T-72s ... It is a choice btw, for those that seem to think "If they can afford A then they must be able to afford B!". Money is finite, just because you can afford spend $1 million on something doesn't imply you have actually have $2/5/10 million still in the bank!

I think you may be right as i've just watched this video posted by spook and it's of the schene in your sceenshots. The tracer appears to come from the barrel . @ simba I've got a feeling that we'll still have that problem in ArmA. So which is it? I can't come from the barrel and still show the positioning problem.

Don't forget the butterflies!

Err .. the ironsight view in Arma (or what we've so far seen of it) gives you a far better view of what's around you than in real life. The sight isn't too big, it's too small

Armed forces, especially those of backwater nations tend to make some very strange spending decisions. Though in this case I'm not sure the decision is such a bad one. If you had a limited budget and the choice between a couple of dozen T80s or a few KA-52s which would you choose? The gunships are far more versatile than the tanks, they suit the mountainous terrain of North Sahrani much better and a couple of them combined with hundreds of cheap T72s is a little more formidable and affordable. As far as a Navy goes, they are unlikely to afford anything more than a few patrol boats, but then their only enemy and nearest neighbour is on the same island so wasting money on a Navy seems stupid. You also have to look at their adversaries. South Sahrani so far seems to only have some M113s. Even assuming we haven't seen their other vehicles yet, they *might* just have a few M1A1s and they don't appear to have any air vehicles at all. Thus North Sahrani armed forces are actually far superior to their Southern neighbours. As far as the MP argument, well I think you're all lacking imagination. Balance doesn't have to exist through like for like vehicles. You don't even have to have equal numbers on teams. You could limit the server so that the Southern team has only 1/3 the number of players as the North. Or they might be limited to having only 1/3 the number of tanks. You might say that a Ka52 is equal to 2 M1A1s, so there is already balance. Or you might recognise that the US/UK in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken severe punishment from a force which doesn't have any tanks or helicopters at all, but relies on guerilla warfare - setting ambushes and being highly mobile. Tanks aren't mobile, they can't move through forests, climb mountains or cross rivers. If the Northern team relied on small 3-4man anti-armour teams, destroyed bridges and layed mines/satchels on key routes they would quickly cancel out the advantage of the M1A1. Edit: Fix spelling/grammar