Red_Barron

It's not for pilots, but for crew chief and door gunner slots. when you are in one of those slots press "w" to get a leaned out view. It is called the "load master camera" feature. It is implemented and should work for just about every appropriate slot.

Awesome news! The whole community is indeed fortunate to receive this early Christmas gift. Thank you for all your hard work ACE team! :bounce3: Yes.

I think BIS might be solving the problem by making the backpacks an ammo crate that you can carry on your back. if you "drop" the pack, you drop an ammo crate with the contents, and when you pick it up you get an item on your AT slot. If it is an ammo crate, then the AI should be able to resupply themselves from it without any additional scripting needed once the backpack is dropped. Of course some scripting would be required for getting the AI to drop the pack. I have no idea if this is possible for the ACE team to do, but it might be a cool approach. Of course whatever they come up with should be good.

I have to commend your approach to these videos gentlemen. I really appreciate that you have chosen to not use music or other external audio not related to the game. This makes the videos more professional. Excellent job.

I think you will find that there are many things that have been addressed in ACE already from that reference. ACE2 should be keeping about all of them. Here is a list of what I see that ACE already has. Weapon Support Sight Adjustments Reticule Pattern Accuracy Stamina Encumbrance Prone Climbing/Mantling (though A2 addressed this, so ACE2 may not improve upon it) Jams/Failures to Fire Round counts Inventory/Carrying Capacity Grenades Of course, I have only listed the sections which ACE has expanded upon, and not the stuff that the Arma/2 engine already has covered. As you can see, I think they have taken a look at this particular article.

Now that I can get behind. That is an essential element to the way I play. The missions we play have your men, roles, and load outs determined before hand. As part of the "whole squad to take an entire island" mentality I was addressing at first (and mistakenly thought you were talking about), your second point here is just as valid, and along the same lines. Of course, predetermining load outs for players (and AI if that's how you do it) means more workload and thought on the Mission Designers end. It is far too easy to just drop an everything weapons crate and let them have at it. It also lets the mission designer throw a much heavier force at the players than what they should be going up against.

:( Really? A whole squad to take out an entire island? (the bold was my addition to his quote) Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture? Which is more nonsense, the first or the last quote? This is the kind of mindset I find really disappointing and sad in the community, and coop mission makers especially who go this route (one squad taking out a ridiculous amount or difficulty of objectives for the size of the group, which is usually only completable with the aid of respawn). While I understand it has deep roots from back in the OFP days when we were all younger, but it is time to grow up a little I think. While I understand commanding whole AI armies in Arma is not everyone's cup of tea (including mine), I am glad the engine has the capability to do so. The High Command module makes that possible (as well as smaller scale operations in the same vein). An army taking 10 cities is more plausible, at least in a force vs. objective ratio (though the time taken to complete it in Arma would be compressed into hours instead of days/months/years), than a squad taking an entire island. But the High Command Module isn't the point. Both ways of going about it are on the extreme side. It would be nicer to see focused player made missions with "realistic" and complex goals than have your 8 man squad clear out cities X, Y, and Z (or the simplified clear the island with your 8 man squad).

Yes they do (actually the Marines use the M240G), and they still use them dismounted. .50cal machine guns and Mk19's are seldom used in dismounted roles. In the Marine Corps you have a Team Leader, Gunner, and Ammo Man. This is different from the US Army, as the TL leads the team and takes on the AG role, where in the Army the Gunner leads the team. In addition, both branches have Squad Leaders over them, who is responsible for multiple MMG teams. That squad, in turn, is part of a Machinegun Platoon that is part of a Weapons Company. The Weapons Company supports the three Rifle Companies in an Infantry Battalion. Here's a link to a USMC training document on the subject: http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:lIrxlzu05N8J:www.lejeune.usmc.mil/soi/itb/sh/0331/m_m240g/MG1305%2520SH%2520Place%2520a%2520M240G%2520Into%2520Action.doc+usmc+m240+machine+gun+team&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a And here is a video of them in action: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=051_1187982642 You are spot on there in both cases. The stamina system in ACE is the biggest counter in Arma to these statements. I get that you are not a big fan of it, but they cannot slow down the sprint/run speed of your character (an engine issue). It does prevent you from running around all over Hells creation with out any consequences what so ever (as in vanilla Arma). While in the short term it does little to affect you (except for the whole weapon sway or bullet dispersion), in the long term you have to be more conservative in your movements. The second biggest disadvantage (which does not work for launcher weapons) would be better modeled recoil, which ACE also does. It is extremely hard to kill something with a 240 in the crouched or standing in ACE. The weapon resting feature is a great feature to counter the better modeled recoil. So yes, to bring it a bit back on topic, the SMAW is obviously better than the m136, assuming you have access to both and there are no consequences to carrying something heavier. But when ACE2 comes out, there should be some checks and balances in regards to both of them if you use that mod. Ultimately, it is a mission design issue as to what is available (if at all) and in what quantities.

I have to take a slight issue to this point. The specific roles of the AG and Ammo Man can be modeled simply (in a simplified form) and effectively in Arma. The AG can use binoculars (or a laser designator) to spot targets from far away and help the gunner adjust his fire, even to the point where the gunner is firing at something her cannot easily see (if at all) himself and landing rounds on target. The extra set of eyes can make the medium machine gun more effective in engaging targets with effective communication. The ammo man's specific role is very simple, he carries the extra ammo for the gunner and provides security for the gun team. That is a more than sufficient simulation of their duties. Having the AG or ammo man reloading the 240 for the gunner and other such minutia is unnecessary and out of the scope of Arma. Now granted I do not play in general public servers, and I play with the ACE mod (Arma1) on missions that are radically different in design and intent from the majority of public server missions. It takes a specific play style to make this kind of cooperation work in coop or PvP missions, but I have more fun being an Assistant Gunner on a three man 240 team (Gunner, A-Gunner, and Ammo man) when I play Arma than being a regular rifleman. It is simplistic to say that playing the ammo bearer role (or any other ancillary role) can never be simulated in Arma, or can never be fun. It all boils down to play style, the community you play with, and the creativity of the mission maker. Also, having no respawn makes the security and cohesiveness of playing as a team much more important. Your number is way off. That number is far closer to the number of Marines who are trained to use the m136, and much further from those who are trained to use the SMAW. In MCT (the basic infantry course for non-infantry Marines) everyone is taught how to use the m136, and sometimes they get to fire one that shoots an orange chalk round for training purposes (it is too expensive to let every Marine shoot a real one). When I went through in 2001 we did not receive any hands on familiarization training with the SMAW (it is possible we were told about it, but none of us would be able to use it). To date, none of my Marines have received that training from MCT that I know of, and none of us have since. The SMAW is a specialized weapon that is generally used by an infantry Marine with the specific MOS for the SMAW (0351 --Infantry Assaultman ). I did have a SMAW gunner serve with my unit (a MLB) for a little while, and I had him give some classes on the SMAW, but we never had access to one. Grunts (0311, 0317, 0321, 0331 etc) may do cross training with the SMAW and actually get to handle one, but I doubt any but a small minority will ever fire a live SMAW round in training. Those precious rounds reserved for training are reserved for 0351's. That is not to say that any given Marine would be incapable of using one, but they definitely will not be as quick to employ or accurate as an 0351. The fact remains that the Marine Corps is primarily made up of non-infantry jobs (combat or non-combat related) that support the infantry, and that within the infantry only a few are trained to properly employ the SMAW. That being said, 99.9% of the Marine Corps being trained in the employment of the SMAW is a gross overstatement to say the least.

I don't know if this is in the realm of what you want to do, but I would absolutely love to see the 7-ton get some love in ArmaII. At the bare minimum, it'd be nice to have a 7-ton with a .50cal mounted, and a Mk.19 version as well. It's be even better to have up-armored versions of both as well. Armed (and up-armored) 7-tons make for much more interesting convoy missions.

Maybe not 100% original, but nothing ever is. ;) This sounds like a supped up version of an old OFP mission, "Murder Sim." Two thumbs up though for taking a classic mission and injecting some great looking additions to the gameplay! :bounce3:

At this time it is not possible to order a group into a vehicle that is not part of the same group with the High Command module. If that AAV was in the same group as the units you want to put into it, if you issue a move order to that group that is far enough away, the group will get into the AAV and move mounted until it either gets to it's waypoint, or is threatened enough that the group leader orders a dismount. Unfortunately we're pretty screwed for the time being on this. :crazy:

When I don't drive by joystick, I drive by keyboard alone. Hit the free look key (default "*"). This also allows you to move your head easier if you don't use TrackIR. I find the keyboard to be easier to use than the mouse.

Glad to have F2 for Arma2 Fer. Now I can start chipping away at my Coop ideas for Arma2. Thanks for the release.

This thread makes me want to die a little inside too..... :confused: The Corpsman is a Sailor or Marine issue is rather irrelevant considering the OP's first paragraph is complaining about the ranks. If you are talking about what I think you are talking about, as mentioned before the "rank" option, selectable in the window that pops up when you place or edit the configuration of a unit in the editor, is a loose abstraction not based on any particular armed forces from any particular country. It is, however, based loosely on ranks that are generally present in any and all armed forces. You will note that the ranks are the same no matter what the unit's side or faction is, be it BLUFOR Marine/CDF, OPFOR Russian/Insurgent, or even civilian. To say the Corpsman model needs a distinct rank (which has no other tangible use than to determine who is senior within a given group) is ludicrous. Now if we are talking about the third selectable option down from the top left of a unit window, if I'm not mistaken BLUFOR Marine's (or is it US?) have options for regular Marines, Force Recon, and Navy personnel (or whatever all the units designed to stand around on an LHD are called). In this instance one could say that since there is a Navy subgroup they should be put in there. Once again it would make more sense to not do that since these Corpsman are intended to go out with Marines on missions, and are indeed attached to Marine units. While they are not Marines, they work with them in an operational sense, and therefor it makes more sense to group them with the rest of the Marines than to put them with the (non-combatant) Navy subgroup (I say non-combative because they have no weapons by default if I remember correctly). So all in all, regardless of the conversation of whether Corpsman are Marines/Navy and attached to or integral, the original complaint is unnecessary since the ranking system is abstract with the sole purpose of determining seniority within groups.