Second

If, like in ArmA, gunner himself prepares his RPG-7 for firing (takes it from back, does all checks, loads grenade and scores hit to easy target) on his own then it would take something like... 20-30 seconds? With your 2nd note i agree aswell. Ofcourse there are AT-weapons which can be carried armed in back. Apilas comes to mind because of it's design. But not for very long distances. M72 takes about 5 seconds to taken from back, armed, aimed and hit and easy target, this can be done bit faster but that is general requirement for soldiers in our army during basic-training. I think one can't make AT-weapon much more faster to handle than M72 already is. In ArmA it takes maybe just 2-3 seconds (not sure about time) to do this for any AT-weapon, basically just ditch rifle and take launcher from back. *With easy target i mean stationary tanks silhuette at 100 meters. About ditching launcher and grapping rifle in general: ArmA features ability to hit the dirt without anything additional fuzzy with launcher or rifle (just hit prone key!. Then when character hits the ground he is just ordered to take his rifle from his back. that is quite fast operation. I don't see reason to critizie ArmA for not having this option, because it has that option! ... It could be bit better ofcourse.

Wii's controllers has been making me to wonder... Would they be good in shooters? Expacely when it would have been glued and taped on broom or meter long stick ... or are there some drawbacks? Well average player's unability to keep it stabile (results in not hitting anything) is a drawback, but i'm intreseted more about techincal side.

I just ordered it. You guys do better pr-job than several gaming magazines combined.

Huoh. Yes. Huoh. On carefully look it seems to be model and not visual trick, like barrel of gun (very) close to camera looking as big as human's head at one meter distance, or something related to it... I could be wrong aswell. But am i Not whining about reeealism, splitting hairs or anything else negative things, just being purely and positively intrested on why it looks like what it looks like: big

From blog. Now that is The Style Altough is that picture from Apilas somehow distorted/funny? Or is the model just that BIG? It looks like i could stick my standart sized head into it's tube... Which i shouldn't supposed to be able to do.

There is? This is a game. Points chart my progress in the game and if I'm neutralizing armour (and air) targets without getting points for it, then something isn't right. The something that isn't right might be you then. Tell me more, please? You posts gives idea that your score-hungry loner => Un-cooperative and not a teamplayer-type. 'not giving points'-thing can be bad for enjoyment... But i didn't much care. Ofcourse i never truly enjoyed Arma MP. With this you would be pretty much wrong. You can get lucky, but don't count on it. You see: BMPs and such are NOT complitely packed with TNT. Think about just like in OFP or ArmA hit to cargospace's canvas of Ural or 5tn truck was enough to destory whole vehicle! Actaully you have to hit something critical, like crew members, ammo or fuel. And i'd say that the statistics you present of 1.14 seems to line up pretty well with real (average) possibilities of destroying certain vehicles.

You quite really would have tube on your hand in reality if you choose to use another AT4 your having. AT-launchers are not yet so advanced that they get armed, directed to target and launched without hands of human. Unability to interupt animations is another matter, but that is engine limitation. He means that you wouldn't have an empty launcher as they are one shot disposable items so you wouldn't be faffing about reloading while your getting shot at, you'd just be able to drop it and use your primary. Have to admit that i don't have ArmA installed, but does it take even one second when guy hit the dirt? In OFP this was slow process, but hitting dirt in ArmA when having launcher is very fast process. Then just grap rifle from action menu. Reloading-animation (if that what he ment) can't be interupted, that is engine limitation.

You quite really would have tube on your hand in reality if you choose to use another AT4 your having. AT-launchers are not yet so advanced that they get armed, directed to target and launched without hands of human. Unability to interupt animations is another matter, but that is engine limitation.

Suppressionscript-pack by Second. Latest: Version 1.5 ----------------------------------------------- By these scripts ArmA gets some new deep tactical aspects that hasn't been present is ArmA before: Suppression to AI. AI units now suffers from ammos flying all around them even if there receive zero casualities. So basically their skills are dropped down accoring their suppression level, their behaviour and combatmode is changed and eventually they will panic and flee. Firefights lasts much longer and he who has more firepower at his side will suppresses his opponents faster. Version 1.5 Download-links: Megaupload Rapidshare assaultmissionstudio.de Thanks to Ofpforum there also addon for it too. This addon adds suppression automatically to every groups. Just copy it to addons folder. PBO from rapidshare note: This might mess idea of some scripts, missions, addons. It also might end up whining errors in some missions. I don't know why or when. Both these things are limitation of the scripts at the moment. But anyways, thanks to Ofpforum for this. ---------------- Version 1.25 can be found here... As i removed some stuff in v1.5 (two missions forexample). OFPEC and yes i'm not second from my real name Those missions RAC burns powder I & II are semi-unfinished, so there might be some mistakes in briefings and markers. Just replace suppression pack-folder in them with version 1.5's suppression pack-folder. What's new since v1.25 -Most ugly bug in the whole wide world squashed/killed/exterminated -reduced suppression levels to 3. I dropped panicing out, as it seemed to be there for nothing. -All AI's have their individual skill level, so now experts and novices can be in same group. -Tweaking suppression levels. -removed west- and east-scripts, so they are not anymore compatible with v1.5 What's new since v1.1: -Two extra example missions which i had fun playing with... No briefing added or anything. -hints for missioneditors, how to do some things differently than usually -Take cover-script (suppression_cover.sqs) for 'panic' and broken', which should make them to stick in cover better than default take cover -Ability to disable all suppression scripts in mission by command 'disable_suppression_scripts = true'', -Quite many thing have been changed/tweaked: *Resistance of suppression is determed by skill level: Novices can't take much when experts takes many close shots before affected even little. and they recore from it faster... Experts and veterans recovers very fast from it if not under constant fire. *Hints have been changed to be more readible *When units have been shot at and gained suppression and recovered from it, their suppression resistance grows a bit, should model something like selfconfidence. What's new since 1.0: -Suppression-values have been tweaked -Couple bugs fixed -Added two values:one which raises group's suppression-resistance and another let's unit only to get pinned down (determination). -Little bit of optimizing There's readme with file, that should explain some more about it.

Yes. ArmA bited dust, in my opinion, with "super" sized groups already. Leaders were just command-automats... It was a mess even if AI led the platoon... I mean, i hardly ever had solid understandment what are we doing and what i (as trooper/soldier/dork) was supposed to be doing. Leader also blocked the communications network for even minutes by issuing horrible amounts of orders, getting killed and stuff... Not to mention mess with 'get in and disembark'-play when group had vehicles... Being in killzone of Battery of 122mm guns, while AI-leader can't deside should platoon stay in it's Strykers or not... ... When looking at sides and seeing that both other platoon leaders are having same "problem"... Sure it has good bright sides aswell. Making mission easier to make is big factor to me, my capability to focus on making mission more than 1 day is poor. If it's ain't in playtesting state in few hours i will never finish it. With big groups there was no worries of syncronizing waypoints and no so much space for brainfarts in waypoints, no scripting solutions... Which to me are big reliever.

Lack of pointman is bit of a problem. But in ArmA leaders aren't as important in reality they would be. If sergeant is killed then corpral takes command in few seconds at worst... at best in split second. I can't think of big drawbacks to squad performace from leader getting killed. All-AI squads to my understandment are even more immune. No time is wasted on communications like in squad which involves player. Higher rank getting killed is more dismoralizing than lower rank, but then again most squads can keep up fighting even when half squad has been wiped out. Then again it's leader who has binoculars. Guy getting best spotting value (as well as usually being most trained guy in formation) is valuable in front. About breaking formation. Sometimes it is good, sometimes not. Was introduced in OFP... I pretty much didn't like it. However atleast in 1.08 this happened only with in stealth-behaviour... So BIS has done OFP with ArmA as well. This became "problem" in later patches of OFP, in earlier patches they remained in their formation... Sometimes good, but not nearly always.

There are problems. Someone's missles seems to follow reticle quite well. Someones (like mine) missiles are lazy and can't keep up with reticle. Might be because of mouse or mouse drivers. My older mouse and older rig performed well with OFP missles, my current mouse and current rig doesn't (conserning OFP and arma missiles). So i can hit just stationary targets with TOW. Getting proper lead to moving target is about cheer luck and hit probability is veeeeery low even on slow moving vehicles.

What is that supposed to prove? That he's actually a noob at guns? I'm just wondering how relevant a video of an olympic alpine ski shooter who practices 8 hours a day and only eats brocoli is to how recoil is handled in arma. Well in that way that we can have more tranined soldiers on marksmanship (also handling recoil) and then less trained soldiers, and then guys and gals who haven't ever even touched a gun with their hand. Also, like it has been said: We should find The Golden Middle Road as ArmA has just one recoil setting for each stance. If one says that 1.08 had horrible recoil and another says that it's too mild... Both claims to be experienced shooters... Then what is the right recoil setting then?

Best save that for "Rainbow Six" games, I think. "Ding Chavez" would pwn this guy, I bet! Well yeah My whole team was cut down several times by one terrorist with AK or submachinegun in about half second, all kills being head shots. I hated the game because of that. Wamingo: Sure, but first, target should have enough time to rise his gun and aim it... And besides what i was after was skill in weapon handling and forexample controlling recoil. Like Frederf said there are lots of aspects in this too, to some ArmA 1.08 has horrible recoil, to some it seems to be fine (or even mild). But which is healthy middleroad in this?

Okay-okay-okay. Lets draw list of things which soldiers (from different tasks like rifleman, cook, radar-operator) and their unit needs most to do well in what he does. Starting from me. Hi. My name is Second and i'm alcohol-... ATGM squad leader, and no i don't think computer games would have given me nothing in art of leading and handling my squad and it's weapon. We had lasersimulatorequipment attached to our ATGM. About training in ATGM: What we need most is to understand how our weapon works and how it's handled and how equipment in our platoon is handled (radios, saws, axes, growbars, sledges, tents etc). How fast they are required to handle. We also look theory of how ATGM sqaud, platoon, company fights in different types of battle (offence, delay, defence. Not very much, just to get understandment of what the frameworks are). We learn how missile works, what limitations there are etc just like in school and we have to pass thru exams. What else do we need? We need to understand how to react to certain events in battlefield like enemy airplanes and mines. Then we train those bit more. Computer? No-no, we need to train our "musclesmemory" so that if instructor takes off our brains we still function at same speed and reliability. We become machines of ATGM-system in that sense. In short we don't need computergames to train as they simply can't give anything to us. Our operation is mostly just about speed and reliability of how we do things, this can be trained with cheap methods. All we needed for daily drills was gas for vehicles which ain't expensive when comparing to many other things. NCO-class and bootcamp/basictraining: thoughts conserning NCO class. There i get basics of leading riflesquad and various AT-wepons and leadership in general... In there i can see some indes of using computergames as traning porpuses. Then again there is no time to waste, half day spent on computer and then half day going it thru in "real life" desn't sound very promising, as we usually understand the basics in less than one hour when doing it in reality. So i have hard to time to see any positive effects to be gained from computer games during my NCO-class. Same goes for basictraning (aka bootcamp) when i'm just rookie learinng to be a good rifleman and soldier... Again, time is limited and there is no time to waste into poor forms of traning. So in short: Here is my point of view, which is related to things to which i got trained. Basic reason i think computergames are not effective or practical to me or my squad is that it is waste of time. There would be something other to which we could learn/train during that wasted time. Time-time-time. One thing more. We actually never "hurried to wait" because we didnt' train in divisional exercises (which might turn to be wasted time for squads, platoons companies). usually biggest exercises were comapanies, but we usually trained as platoon (because of our weapon-system and it's place in organization: batallion's ATGM-platoon). Twice we took part in large and long exercises which consisted brigade strong force.

I know guys who do military version of practical shooting and could say that they are whole different beasts when comparing to average soldier who's weapon handling experience probably is much less in time, drill and bullets shot. Quite honestly i found it hard to believe how well they handle their guns. Btw. I believe he hit all his targets with most of his bullets. And yes he fired in semi fire, i think i've seen other videos of him and he was as fast in them. Don't know is that AR rifle or something else. 5.56mm definedly. And that is how pistol should be handled ... What is the middle road to be taken? Hard to say.

I guess above has a typo? No. He said standing, not patroling or moving. The problem seems to be when enemies are patrolling not when enemies are standing.

Not to my understandment. I think FSM (or just script) could tweak flight routes by weaponselection or target's type. Altough i haven't messed with pilot-AI but grunts should in many ocations be turned to zombies which are following orders what FSM tells them to do in slave-like fashion my MOUT-scripts makes me laugh still: "My name is private Jones... I need to get to that corner and check it before squad passes it... mmm... Brains". Their own will (AI) has to be shut down partially or even complitely as otherwise stock AI might keep on interfering with what FSM tries to do. But overall i don't have even vain picture of how pilot-AI should be handled and forexample how it chooses it's flightpaths in sky. There are some script-command ment for pilots and how they choose their flightpaths between waypoints... i think.

Okay... [checks posts]... I'll draw my words back and say this: I'm deeply sorry. My bad

International help (=supplies) should be on it's way already, hopefully it does even some good to those who survived and got rescued. Burma is in need of help as well, helpers has to split resources for two disaster-zones.

[edit] Loads of cow's shite that was. [/edit]

[edit] Loads of cow's shite that was. [/edit]

I dont understand this beta-name. Why are they beta or why are they called beta? Why simply patch (instead of beta patch) isn't used? There doesn't seem to be anything "beta" in patches, just more or less improved ArmA-features. I could understand beta-name if ArmA would introduce whole new animations, heavily tweaked Sahrani, SLA/US replaced with some else military. In other words things which has potential to change game quite drastically (to worse direction even) and BIS would be un-sure what player have to say about it. Well there are new things like anti-cheat features added, so maybe it's that which "entitles" these newest patches to have "beta"-status in them?

I'd say it's pretty subjective whether it was better or worse. I agree. I (and some others) likes/liked it, but not many are moaning it back.

I quess you know and own OFP resistance. If you do, best way to understand this is to open mission in for example Everon. Set terrain detail to very high and look deeply at land scape, go prone and pretend that your under fire and need to keep moving forward or just wish to find suitable cover. Then set terrain detail to very low and try the same... Voila! there is terrain which ArmA offers and you even can think on your own is it bad or not that ArmA lacks this. Quite many actually doesn't seem to care. As you see: No island making involved in OFP, just option in video menu to make the terrain smoother or rougher even in middle of mission. Arma doesn't have this. In ArmA i haven't been able to produce same effect even in islandeditor Visitor 3.