IronPants

Movement rate only seems slow because the default field of view is narrow. Increase your field of view and suddenly it seems like you're speeding along in that UAZ due to being able to see the ground around you.

Because it's only true in the campaign, and singleplayer refers to much more than just the campaign.

Lots of confusion in this thread. You can command all three NAPA squads via the high command functions - play the high command tutorial to learn how. To enter the command vehicle, first unlock it and then walk up to the left side front and look around until you get the option to in your action menu. Every vehicle has specific points where you can board the various stations available - you can't jump in the drivers seat just by walking up to a vehicle, you have to find the entry point. You need to deploy the command vehicle by selecting 'construction' from the action menu when you're near it. Only after it's deployed do supply / salvage trucks begin operating. Then you can build a barracks to recruit troops, factories, defensive emplacements, etc. It's weird that they tossed warfare mechanics, which are multiplayer centric, into the campaign like that. Anyone who hasn't played Arma Warfare or the A2 warfare scenarios is bound to be confused.

Hooray for working FLIR, IHADSS and PEQ! Looking good for optical targeting (targeting laser isn't mentioned - hope it's a manual toggle), but what about radar? The always-on 360 degree magic radar is silly, and will look even moreso alongside realistic optical targeting features. It should have an indicated beam which sweeps through its field of view like a, you know, radar - rather than simply displaying the exact position of every contact all the time. Most of the missiles in-game actually aren't radar guided, but - combine some basic radar functions like on (auto) and off (manual, press key to scan) with realistic missile behavior and then we're set.

Actually, you don't need trackir for an on-the-fly customizable FOV; all you need is a spare analog input. I bound my stick throttle to increase / decrease FOV (since I have a separate dedicated throttle). There are many controller peripherals with sliders or wheels that can be used for this. I generally keep a FOV about halfway between default and widest setting.

Thanks Jezuro, the hotfix is a welcome surprise.

This is incredibly annoying. I've been having a lot of fun using the Mi-24V for air cavalry ops, but with an AI gunner I need to constantly keep an eye on which weapon has been randomly selected. Ridiculous.

I'll just add that I think this should be the highest priority fix; some people are crashing out with it enabled, which means the rest of us don't get to use it because servers keep it off! It's particularly frustrating because in comparison, I can fire up Arma and have working VON.

This is about the behavior exhibited specifically when you are a passenger in the vehicle, and it is bugged as Jingle describes. Crew will turn out and stay that way, ignoring all combat behaviors. Generic advice about setting the team to danger or editor technique does not apply. If you disembark, behavior returns to normal.

I would definitely pay for a targeting and systems modeling expansion which gets rid of the magic radar and includes vehicle targeting systems. Improvements which are impossible for modders to achieve would be the best expansion material - and nearly everyone would buy it, unlike Queen's Gambit!

You're clearly new to this amazing series. The only significant differences between Arma2 and OFP (released in 2001) are graphics and AI. Arma2 has the same shortcomings that Arma had, which were the same that OFP had. Of course they deserve accolade for what they've accomplished - but to ignore the fact that bullets will make tanks explode for multiple iterations of the game over 8 years boggles the mind. If they had just one designer with the gumption to do something about it, Arma2 might not suffer from the same ridiculous problems that BIS has done nothing to address for over eight years.

I agree that a fresh perspective is needed if they decide to make another Arma. Achieving combined arms simulation is the important part, whether or not it's done with legacy code. I don't understand why BIS insists that detailed damage and systems modeling is for the birds. If you're going to make a combat simulation, at least keep the components at rough parity. Why bother with accurate ballistics when the damage modeling is so simple? I'm not saying that everything has to be obsessively simulated, I'm saying that the KEY aspects of modern combat need to be simulated - i.e. tanks are impervious to small caliber bullets and weak explosives. Why bother with fatigue when it has zero relationship to the equipment carried? Why is the inventory system so arbitrarily divorced from reality (or even anything that makes sense)? Why are all electronic detection and targeting systems abstracted away to 'press tab, then fire'? At least model enough so that missiles and bombs must have appropriate targeting prerequisites and engagement envelopes. Again, it's not about modeling every little detail - just enough to constrain their use to realistic employment instead of the wildly impossible, i.e. a laser beam riding Vikhr which is somehow able to maneuver well enough to hit a fast evading jet (already impossible - dedicated AA missiles have more control surfaces for a reason) behind the launch platform, where the targeting laser cannot possibly have line of sight. These sort of questions should have arose during development and been taken seriously. BIS, if you decide to make another Arma, please commit to making a combined arms simulation and not a semi-complete infantry simulation.

Sounds like you're in freelook mode. Be very thorough when remapping controls because many keys have multiple functions, etc.

You'll have to be more specific, since the campaign branches - thus there are multiple endings.

This is a survey thread, not a conversation. I posted the reason for my poll choice. The problem is known: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=82912

I've been playing through the campaign. Last night after applying the patch I restarted the mission I was on, Badlands. I intended to kill Prizrak, but it turned out to be a waste of time.

I just tested this with my CH pro throttle, and there are essentially two changes which will make this feature usable: 1. Analog thrust maps to %100 of an axis, brake maps to %100 of another axis 2. Works with every air vehicle including helicopters 2 makes this unusable with the vast majority of throttles as they cannot switch between multiple input modes - and reconfiguring their single input in the controls gets old fast. 1 is the reason I won't be using it, even though it only takes a button press.

Supply trucks. More supply in a given town = more defenders in that town. Every delivery gives you money. You should read the old Warfare manual here: http://www.armedassault.com/dwnl_media.html

First of all, secondary explosions shouldn't be the same as primary explosions. Ammo going off is not going to make an already exploded vehicle completely explode again. Secondly, vehicles without ammo should explode once. It needs some attention and polish before it will be close to believable.

I've wanted a separate slider ever since VON was introduced in arma - though when ACE came out, I just turned off the AI radio messages. While having the direct channel tied to sound effects does make sense, the overall volume of direct chat should be increased!

Prone to standing does inexplicably cause immediate panting, which is ridiculously overdone. It should cause a little more of a stamina hit than prone > crouch > stand because it's faster, but I can't imagine the current stamina hit being a conscious decision. It's got to be a bug... either way, no one was paying attention enough to give some critical thought to the basics.

Yes, the current M136 implementation is mindbendingly retarded. Why didn't they just hardcode it so you can't carry rockets, and it shoots once? Having the rocket take up a ridiculous amount of inventory space is lazy and stupid - especially contrasted with the SMAW implementation, which allows you to carry more magazines and an additional rocket despite being much heavier.

If you bother to actually look at the options, you will indeed find a headbob slider. I'm having a hard time resisting the urge to rib you for it... but seriously, the default setting is too excessive. Just turn it down / off.

All you need to know is that checking your map or gear makes you kneel. I quickly got used to standing up again after performing either action. There are obvious differences in height and movement between kneeling and standing, so even if you manage to forget the last stance you took, how is it not clear? I quite like how you can gather state information from immersive visual (look at yourself, blood = injury) and audio (listen to yourself, panting = winded, pain sounds = injured) cues. I prefer minimal HUD elements.

Only if the plan calls for being 'spread all over the place' - which would be a nonsensical plan to begin with, so I really don't see it happening where players are using teamwork. Typically, the CO will want squads to be close enough to provide fire support to each other. The idea that a large play area and vehicles discourages teamwork is a logical fallacy; if anything, it makes teamwork even more of a necessity. You could argue that it's easier to NOT work together when plenty of vehicles are present, and that vehicles are necessary in large scale missions, which brings us to the truth of the matter: People who choose to be lone wolves are the problem - not missions which fully utilize the scale that this series has to offer. In fact, my favorite PVP games have been assymetric objective based missions like Obregan Gap (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=67060) in which there is enough distance to the objective to warrant vehicle transport. With enough players and proper teamwork, this kind of mission really showcases what the series is all about!