iratus

I 100% agree with this. Plus, I don't want to see ArmA poping up in every anti-gaming article/taklshow/TV-show as an example of "how bad games are".

That's a good point. "Default off" is maybe not a good solution. And crosshairs are allready not aviable at harder difficulties, so it can stay as it is. As long as server admins can force crosshairs off for everyone there will be no balance problems. However, floating zone is a different thing, because it can not be forced by a server setting. And people with floating zone = 0 seem tho have an atvantage, at least as "weapon lag" is limited to the floating zone. There would be ways to change it, for example by (re)introducing a minimum floating zone as in OFP or a server command to force a minimum floating zone. But some players may simply be not comfortabel with FZ at all, so it's still questionable if this is a good idea. IMO it is important that "weapon lag" should be no longer limited by the FZ setting but rather allways limited to max. FZ. So heavy weapons would "lag" the same amount regardless of FZ setting.

I felt the need to point this out because when discusing things like this it's useful to use a correct description/wording. Otherwise people are not argumenting about the same thing and the whole discussion is somewhat pointless. And there is no doubt a huge difference between shooting a rifle from the hip or shooting it from the shoulder. Anyways: The core of the problem lies in the aiming. You can fire that acurate while not using ironsights because you have onscreen crosshairs. If the crosshairs would be removed (maybe just turn them off by default for every dificulty level) we would no longer be able to shoot at 300m without using sights. Add a floating zone wich cannot be set to 0 and those "Ãœber-accuracy" problems are gone. BTW if i remember it correctly those guys in Red Orchestra 2 actually are firing from the hip, wich explains why they cannot handle their weapons as precise as when firing aimed.

IRL foot trails are more comfortable to walk on compared to walk "offroad". Using them could slightly reduce stamina drain. This way they would be usefull for traveling long distances by foot. Of course this should then allso be true for roads and streets. Yeah, there are several foot trails on Chernarus and on Utes. For example at UTES-044017 (Lighthouse on the hill) and CHERNARUS-104057 (leading west-east). You can easily spot them by activating textures in the editor or when flying above them. But if you stand right on top of them as an infantryman they are barely visible. (I like them anyways :))

The point is: there is no firing from the hip in ArmA. If f you do not look down the ironsights your weapon is still on your shoulder, not down at the hip. You just dont look into the ironsights. Because of that the bullets will not spray more than when firing and using the ironsights. This should stay as it is. IMO the whole "too acurate when not using sights"-problem does not come fron the acuracy of the fire itself. Its more about being able to aim verry precise. If crosshairs are disabled most people wont fire without using sights for more than about 50m and even use them for closer ranges if the time is aviable. And if floating zone is not 0 using the sights becomes even more necessary. btw: was it possible in OPF:CWC and ArmA1 to turn down the floating zone to 0? I allways had it activated back then and allso remember to have adjusted it a bit. But i do not remember if it could be set to no floating zone like in ArmA2.

It's allready possible to add custom music into missions. Music added this way is then included in the mission file (wich considerably increases filesize and for this reason is not used often). Soundfiles have to been in .ogg format at the moment afaik but its not too dificult to find a converter for .wav or .mp3 to .ogg.

(from "ArmA 3: Community wishes & ideas|NO DISCUSSION". Since NO DISCUSSION to me means NO DISCUSSION im going to discuss it here :D) We allready have kind of this in the game since the original OFP. However, it only works inside the floating aim zone. Compare for example a M107 to a MP5 with a floating zone >0 (and activated crosshairs). The little ' indicating where the gun points at will "lag behind" if you change your aim with the M107. If you do the same with a MP5 the little ' moves as fast as the two aiming markers. Thus the M107 takes longer to get aimed onto a target this way. But with floating zone reduced to zero there is no more "lagging behind", even with the M107. Every gun turns as fast as the soldier himself turns. I think heavy weapons should turn slower even if floating zone is reduced to 0 (maybe to the same extend as if floating zone would be set to max). This would make heavyer weapons less useful in CQC since they would take just a little bit longer to get aimed at. Additionally if looking trough the ironsights of a heavy weapon this should limit the turning speed accordingly.

Having some PDWs could fit nicely into the "futuristic" setting. They could be used by tank crew and helicopter crew. For BLUEFOR I would like to see FN P90 and/or HK MP7. For OPFOR, maybe the russian PP-2000 (I don't know if it is considered a PDW or "just" a submachinegun).

Women in ArmAII can drive some cars, but not all. Most of the animations are missing, so they often can only get into vehicles as passengers. And sometimes not even this is possible, for example they cannot sit as passengers in fishing boats.

I would like to see the SG 550 and SG 553 rifle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_SG_550 Maybe resistance or smugglers could use them in the future.

+1 I tought about the same while i was writing my post. At least it should take some time, and maybe it should not be possible to take clothes from dead bodies (because of all the blood and the holes in it).

I think (or hope) customizable uniforms will just work like all the other gear. You will have your standard gear according to the soldier you play. And you can grab uniforms, helmets, vests, backpacks and all that stuff out of crates or during the briefing. And of course mission designers will be able to controll all of it like they are able to controll wich weapons you get in ArmA2 :) Think about what possibilities this would open: You could drop your (white, bright, shiny, non-camo) pilot helmet to the ground after disembarking your wreked chopper (sacrifice "protection" for camo) for example! Or mission makers could do all sorts of "steal enemy uniform" missions! I don't think BIS is gona do something like CoD unlok, show-how-cool-you-are, profile-bound stuff that you can wear disregarding what the mission is about. That would just not fit to ArmA!

+1, This is a photograph. And about the choppers: They are pretty small on the picture and it looks like we are not able to properly identify them (some say its Ka-50/Ka-52, others its a Havoc). For the same reason we cannot positively identify them as russian choppers. Even if they are: Someone mentioned a large maneuver a few posts back that happened there 2009 or 2010 where the russians took part. The pic could be taken at this time. But i think it doesn't really matter. If the exact type of chopper would be of importance, the hackers would have given better images. I think it's about the location (and the fact that it is a military base)

I agree. And maybe China secretly supports them somehow.

It is an advertisement. You can allso find it on Chernarus (coords 128053) and it was there way before those hacks started :)

it meant "Persia"

I tried to put a list of linked names/places we allready have: Goya - Spaniard Hood - Nottingham Troska - Nogova Vlad - Targoviste Tito - Neretva Guevara - Clara Mehmed - Ottoman Bielski - Belarus Still not combined: Lohr Madrid Bohemia Lawrence Reynolds Casillas Duffy Lean The numbers/years are: 1991 1962 2003 1462 2002 1814 1943 1958

The Battle of the Neretva took place January to April 1943 (1969 is the year of the film about it) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Neretva

Yes! Maybe we should open another thread for those who want to discus about ther highest hopes...

Oh, i did not know that... Sorry for the confusion!

What about those files at www.bikileaks.info ? The second picture looks like a tecnical with some sort of surface ot air missile launchers (Strela or Igla i think). The third one could be the chinese J-20 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20) The last one could be something like the Sikorsky H-34 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_H-34) The others i do not regocnize (but i am not verry good at that).