Inkompetent

M16A1 and something that most resembles old Desert DPM. Could I be looking at a 1980-1990 British SAS?

Sure is mission specific, and please leave it like that. Better with mission makers being in control of their environment when as relatively easily manipulated as this, than having to struggle against complex built-in systems.

Not any time soon. I wouldn't be surprised if they switch to an intermediate caliber in ten years at the most, but it is a HUGE logistical issue, not just for USA, but for entire NATO, so it is a difficult change to make. Even if just refitting current M4s it leaves the USMC to need a change too (I think the intermediate rounds looked at are as little designed for a full-length M16 as the military's 5.56mm is designed for a short weapon as a M4?). The 5.56mm doesn't pack a lot of a punch. It tumbles badly from almost nothing at all, lacks performance at distances that an avarage rifleman can reach out to nowadays thanks to ACOGs and alike, but... it is a very light round and it allows soldiers to carry around a lot of ammunition. The 7.62x51mm is twice as heavy (if I don't recall wrong) and twice as big making it hard to carry around much of it, greatly reducing a troop's capability for fire volume, even if they now carry a high performance round. Intermediate rounds like 6.5mm Grendel or 6.8mm SPC offers some middle ground, but I'm unsure if it'll hit the rank n' file troops anytime soon to any noteworthy extent.

In 100% vacuum - yes. You forgot air friction. The aerodynamics of a bullet are quite important for its flight characteristics. Different shape, muzzle velocity, mass, and center of mass will give different ballistics.

Quite a lot actually, when you already have a defined building. Optimally we should for example be able to create a HOLD waypoint on a building, and set it to "Floor 2" or "Roof" depending on the properties of that particular structure, much like ordering around units (and placing them in the editor) works in Combat Mission: Shock Force. Then maybe give them a facing on that, so that they group up on the wanted side fo the building.

Problem is that the ArmA engine is terrible at simulating fragmentation. If shooting a HEAT round against a hard surface like dense, rocky ground it could cause quite severe fragmentation, even if the pattern would be terribly uneven and not *that* effective (a lot of the blast force would dissipate into the ground due to so much energy going into melting and propelling the metal liner). ArmA only has direct hit damage, and then blast damage that is static within a set radius, and then has a linear falloff. However there's no differentiation between pure high explosive damage, and fragmentation-damage, which makes it hard to give especially non-fragmentating weapons a somewhat proper fragmentation-effect (since EVERYTHING that explodes will send fragments through the air of some kind, be it parts of the casing, or part of the surrounding terrain/objects). If indirect damage becomes too strong or the radius too big there'll always be some issue with effect against soft/medium targets, so without improved simulation I understand if they focus on the primary effect of such weapons.

Isn't it a bigger sacrifice of immersion to not even know how far you are throwing, compared to a little interface cue? ^^

Well, the M136 is strictly a HEAT weapon. the MAAWS can carry HE, HEAT, tandem HEAT, smoke, illumination, and more (not sure what rounds are on OA since I don't have it yet), and it is reloadable. I'd say there's quite a difference right there. And well, IRL that *is* the case with the M136 when there's a threat of enemy armour; lots of soldiers do carry them. Feels like it'd be more worth carrying M72s for anti-cover weapons though, against fortified enemy soldiers. Indeed though easy balance is that one can't carry a rucksack. Then it's a choice between ammo of all kinds, and an AT weapon. The RPG-18 and M136 really, really, really needs fixing =/

Thing is that it isn't easy to get to work in multiplayer with people from all over the world. In VBS, which primarily is played at a local network in some military training facility, the brutal reduction in ping and increase in bandwidth makes it more viable. It's no small job to make it work well for internet-multiplayer like in ArmA, without reworking how turrets and player models works and merges in the game. AttachTo is proven to lag and jerk in multiplayer in ArmA2, so good luck shooting if attachTo'ed to something that moves.

No, the Army has never ever, and probably never ever will use the F-18. Sure, might be that the Army sometimes call on US Navy air assets like the F/A-18. Fact is the Army doesn't even have any fighter or attack jets. The US Air Force however (which is land, not carrier based) use the F-15 and F-16. If the US Navy or USAF provides CAS depends on which one operates in that specific region at that specific time I guess: I.e. which flight is accessible to provide bombs. I do not know exactly how they sort that in practice. Since Operation Arrowhead however is about the US Army it seems silly that they'd implement US Navy aircraft from land-based airfields, when they specifically are carrier-based aicraft, and USAF gets the airsrips since they can't effectively use their planes on carriers.

Pretty much as in real life, where the tank commander usually is the one to decide what round to load, on what to aim, and when to shoot with the main cannon ^^

Keep the thread in this section imo. It does after all have to do with released addons.

I use them frequently when attacking enemies beyond crests or inside buildings, flushing a house with a frag grenade can be quite nice, and if I know I have an enemy maybe 25m ahead, but I can't see him, better throw a couple of grenades before assaulting/defending.

Still, measuring the time of a button-depression with no kind of graphical indication is WAY more unprecise than the body-control of a real throw. Even with a graphical cue of the power of the throw it's more imprecise unless we get at least a drawn determined impact zone. So without the drawn impact point there need to be something else, even if descrete, that helps determine what one is actually doing ^^

Or maybe it's just very poor and lacking interface design to give no feedback what so ever to the user of what he's actually doing. Doh.

Not entirely true. It is SUPPOSED to work as you say. But a lot of the time the engine sees something you do not, like people in cover or in good concealment. I've lost count on how many times auto-spotting has spotted targets I didn't have the slightest clue about, and to press the revealTarget-key does just the same as auto-spotting, but under user-control. Thus I can 'cheat-spot' people I wouldn't otherwise see due to their fantastic hiding. A good enough reason for me to have unbound revealTarget completely from my keyboard since it serves no purpose other than cheating.

Thumbs up on that suggestion. Agree that the F-key is getting way too many steps to cycle through to be really manageable, and this sounds like a nice and easy fix.

ArmA doesn't want that. It's just that there's no existing computer that wouldn't self-terminate from the strain of picture-in-picture rendering in within ArmA, so it's not a techinically achievable solution.

Domination is Evolution, pretty much. Although more configurable in the lobby, random cities to take, and a bit more refined overall (note that I haven't played Evolution since ArmA1, so I might be wrong). Both Dom and Evo are similar enough to categorize them as the same type of mission though.

Agreed. Exactly why I and zGuba have developed two slightly differing versions of addons to manage disposable launchers (something BIS is welcome to copy btw, instead of the current less than satisfying system). As for M203/GP-25/30 grenades it is sort'a remedied in OA with the official introduction of rucksacks, since the secondary magazine slots will be 'ready grenades' in the rifle grenade pouches, while those in the rucksack will be the hard-to-reach extras that's in the soldier's butt-pack, rucksack, or wherever else he's put them. Since that system exists in OA I dunno if we'll see an official 'fix' for ArmA2.

Just that in-game, regardless of what faulty term is used, it's elevation adjustment RELATIVE to the zero. The adjustments on a rifle's sight assumes that it has a very specific zero otherwise the knob-adjustments will be totally off. Say a weapon assumes you zero it at 50m to get the different settings on the sights right. When you turn the knob to 400m it is supposed to hit exactly at 400m. If you zero the weapon at 25m instead the 400m setting on the sights won't hit anywhere near where it is supposed to at 400m. Thus it ain't zeroing. That even applies to sniper rifles with their MIL-dots, since the settings you do the sight is to get a wanted offset from the zero. Not re-adjust the zero itself.

Yep. Where the terrain or supply level doesn't allow cars it occasionally happens that they use animals to carry things.

Correction: What's missing from the publically hosted mission types, because admins almost exclusively host missions like Domination that doesn't need any administrating; a mission that encourages and promotes ramboing unless an admin is there to do anything about it. Therefore don't play on unadministred/public servers, join a community, and get what you want. Sorry to say, but there are TONS of good missions out there, yet the only one I see being played is Domination. Lazy players and lazy admins means there won't be anything else either. Communities ftw.

<sighs> Is it so hard to differentiate between zeroing and setting the elevation? You never zero the weapon in the field. It is done in base with tools to adjust the sights, shooting at targets through a predetermined drill to be sure that the weapon shoots straight for that particular shooter. You only adjust elevation and windage in the field, which usually is done by either turning knobs, flipping to another peephole, or or sliding the ladder sight. Glad to see that at least some people got it right :P The ZERO, and not the elevation adjustment, is the great problem with sniper rifles for example, since a too hard knock the rifle can make the scope lose its zero, meaning the shooter will have to manually adjust for that rifle no longer shoots straight (relative to the zeroed sight-line of the optics), until the weapon can be re-zeroed at base. For example the British SUSAT sights have great issues with this, easily losing their zero (although I can't recall the specific reason why, if it's because of the optic itself, or how the sight is attached to the weapon) meaning rough handling of SUSAT-equipped rifles is a no-go if you want to hit where you aim.

Something to pop the ping-myth: Played a 100-player TvT this Sunday. First mission we did have some issues with desync. Not sure what they were because of. Second mission however, still with 90+ people from all over the world playing on the central-US-based server (Australians, Americans, Europeans) the mission played flawlessly. Not a hickup. No desync. That's 180-350 ping in each direction, both east and west from the server, becoming roughly 500ms between both ends. Didn't notice a single word from anyone about finding it hard to shoot.