Gisen

There's *never* been a communist government on this planet. There have been several socialist governments that have claimed to be working towards communism, but calling them communist is like calling "The Democratic Republic of Congo" a democracy. Please read previous posts.

Yes. I was just pointing out that he doesn't have the first clue about what the word simulator actually means and how that applies to Arma. Arma isn't a (vehicle) simulator because it doesn't even ATTEMPT to come close to real life vehicle values, despite making the infantry stuff fairly sim-ish. You want to talk about petty, why don't you start on people arguing against increasing the enjoyment of the game for other people, even though the basic flight model - that they like - would still be available.

In modelling the helicopters it's not necessary to actually have the engine do the calculations about the amount of torque due to the length of the boom in real time, that could be measured beforehand and then used as part of the helicopters config.

Have you actually played it? Because the answer to each of your statements is 'yes, you can' and the main point is that you CAN fly other helis in EECH if you want. Humans can't play as infantry in EECH, unfortunately, but can't you imagine how good it would be if Arma had the same level of flight modelling? (It's almost a decade old, it really wouldn't cause any CPU problems) No, it is not a helicopter simulator. A simulator is "A device, computer program or system used during software verification, which behaves or operates like a given system when provided with a set of controlled inputs" - Arma helicopters behave NOTHING like real helicopters when provided with similar inputs. Don't know what you think a simulator is, but you're misinformed. I'm not sure if you just didn't read my post, but I agree that helicopter flying shouldn't be incredibly difficult to learn. The idea of having simplified controls (by having AI assist features like cross coupling the rudder) is good- there should just ALSO be the option to fly at a more responsive, more advanced level if the pilot wishes to. And yes, it is a shame that arcadey games like the aforementioned have better modelling of helicopters than ARMA. I won't respond to the rest of your post because you are attacking a strawman: nobody said that flying in ARMA should be practice for a pilots licence. It's not much to ask for better helicopter controls, is it? You seem to be arguing for the sake of it.

WRONG. EECH lets you fly all of the helicopters, transport, air assault, whatever in theatre. And it's certainly not boring. Armed Assault is not a helicopter simulator; the lack of fidelity in helicopter modelling is exactly what this thread was about. I agree that flying transport helis can be great fun, especially in multiplayer, but the flight model in ARMA pretty much ruins it. I agree, more options are good. That doesn't sound appealing at all. What I'd like is something like EECH in which someone with some basic flight knowledge - from playing games like arma, OFP and *shudder* BF - can fly around, take off and land. But someone who's really got the practice and the skills can do it better. Rubbish, flying isn't that hard. It's learning to fly well that's difficult, you can do the basics after simple instruction.

It might be a bit harder to set up but any modern router should allow basically the same functionality. You will probably have to read up on setting up games behind a router on a page like portforward.com

Just because there are legal loopholes for the cronies of a president does not mean that it's OK to act immorally. Your post makes it seem like any act is OK as long as it isn't illegal. Maybe for you, but ethics shouldn't work that way.

Perhaps you missed this point the first time: Lamont's right, the doomsday scenario America claimed to be protecting the world from (a huge explosion of socialist countries working towards communism) from did not happen. That was on topic.

Vietnam did not turn communist. There's *never* been a communist government on this planet. There have been several socialist governments that have claimed to be working towards communism, but calling them communist is like calling "The Democratic Republic of Congo" a democracy. And Lamont's right, the doomsday scenario America claimed to be protecting the world from (a huge explosion of socialist countries working towards communism) from did not happen.

Every single petition on that site, no matter how many people are for it, is totally ignored by the government with a statement that amounts to "We know you don't like us doing X but we are going to ignore you because we know better." As an ex-soldier myself I am of course disgusted with the people who have complained about what amounts to an addition to a hospital for the disabled.

Umm, scatterbrain, you're the one that was ridiculing science.... I'm not advocating eco-taxes or bigger government and I don't think anyone else in this thread who understands the scientific evidence behind human-influenced climate change is. Attack strawmen much?

No, sorry, I do understand the point you are making but I stand by what I said. Your claim "if the climate change is caused by humans then it can be stopped by humans..." is flat out WRONG." is NOT backed up by any evidence, even in the link you provided. In order for you to back that up, you'd have to have irrefutable evidence of some sort - which noone thinks is possible at this stage. You really do not understand the point of the argument I linked to. I shall rephrase it so maybe you can see where you are going wrong. No matter what the potential cost of acting on climate change, if it gives even a small chance of averting the doomsday scenario it is worth doing. What exactly don't you understand about this?

WHY? You're just throwing assertions about with nothing to back them up. The only reason that any measures taken would fail is if the measures don't go far enough. If change is happening because of human actions, stopping those actions will stop the effects of those actions. In any case, even if you were right (which you aren't, IMO) it still doesn't make any difference to the guy's argument in the video. The consequences of not taking action are far far far worse than the consequences of taking action and it being unnecessary.

I don't understand what you mean. If global warming is caused by humankind's actions, in what sense is it impossible for humans to stop doing those actions? They might not WANT to, but if the climate change is caused by humans then it can be stopped by humans.

PLEASE read what other people have already said: we don't want the (pointless, only eye-candy, machine killing) grass but we do want the (useful, giving cover) terrain detail

Guys, here is a short video that encapsulates the most sensible position on climate change. Please watch it. http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=p6o08udcmw I'm not going to summarise it because then you won't watch it. Its very short and should make you think.

Please could you read the thread before posting things that are just plain wrong?

No, the grass is still broken. The patch improved it slightly, but the AI can still see you as if it were on a bare island, while humans CANNOT see out of the grass in most cases. The grass is too long; IRL you can raise yourself on your elbows and have better vision even with thick grass than in arma anyway. My PC is plenty capable of rendering the grass, the grass is just rubbish. I'm not suggesting I should be the only person able to turn grass off. It should be able to be disabled by the mission/ server without affecting terrain detail.

What name calling? Your entire 'argument' is based on your faith that global warming is not happening, not science. The sources have already been provided to you, that's why I'm not doing YOUR research for you. You actually have the temerity to claim that you know anything at all about the science behind global warming in order to attack it, but you weren't even aware that CO2 is not the only driver of change!

I was preempting what I assumed you or another anti-warming faithhead would go onto, another popular lie amongst the antis- the claim about volcanoes producing more CO2 than humans. Why don't you go along with that, along with the rest of the anti-warming crowd? So we've finally got you to notice that you've been attacking a strawman the entire time. Maybe if YOU go back and read the many previous posts by the various contributors to the debate you'll see what the other factors are. Maybe if you actually read some of the scientific articles already linked to in the thread you'd have slightly more of an idea of what science is, because you don't seem to have the faintest idea at present. I'm not going to list all of the other factors because if you actually read some of the science on the topic yourself it might sink in.

As I said, I also think it was probably a terrorist attack, however I think we should stick what we know and not conclude anything until the facts are in. Most humans have almost no idea of what coincidences are and how probable they are. Which is why people believe in ghosts, psychics, the power of prayer and so on; they do not understand probability. Coincidences are not proof of anything.

@ messiah Of course the police are going to say its a suspected terrorist attack, that doesn't mean that it wasn't just an accident. The latest information is that the belt the guy was wearing was NOT an explosive device, it was just 'suspicious' which could mean anything really. The more people using a terminal the more likely an accident is. I have petrol in my car too, and sometimes I have gas cylinders if I'm going hiking or something - none of these facts are 100% supportive of a terrorist attack. Personally I think its likely that it was a terrorist attack, but there is no need to jump to conclusions before we have all the facts. Just consider how the police and media would treat it if it was a completely innocent coincidence: exactly the same as a terrorist attack until they knew better.

I'd really like the next patch to add an option for totally disabling grass as well, without changing terrain detail, because it is broken at present.

According to BBC news the glasgow incident is still possibly a car that went on fire and the driver lost control of. Keep calm and carry on.

Yes, I must be the one that isn't reading things properly. I was indeed preempting you with the volcanoes information, but if you have realised that that particular part of the anti-warming mythos is bunk then good for you. Only a few more steps to go.