Sabrefox

Thanks for the update Ohara. Keep up the good work. :)

There is nothing wrong with people asking for an update on a patch, they have bought the game, they are entitled to ask these questions. They are also entitled to an answer. Obviously I do not expect devs/mods to answer every single question, but a weekly update on work in progress is healthy for a game's community relationship and therefore healthy for it's success. It is easy to jump on the band wagon and slate anyone who asks for an update, but if you took your car to the garage for work to be done to it and the engineer told you it will be done when its done, would you not enquire with a phone call in a few days time. It is human nature, and, I for one, am sick of these people who must think they are going to get a cookie from BiS for stating the obvious in support like parrots. It comes across as the forum is a place for BiS worship, and if you oppose or challenge this, then you are deemed an idiot or requested to be banned. What I read on these forums, especially by some on this thread is quite simply fascism masquerading itself as sensible advice. Seriously, there wouldn't be any point to a forum if there were rules upon what you can and cannot ask. Don't kill the spirit of these customers, there is frustration leading to this common question, there is also excitement. The game's success will benefit all who play it, so 'think before you ink'.

Kremator, it is a good thing that you are not leading a country with an attitude like that! Banning people for asking questions on a forum is so smart.............. Reminds me of a failed artist that had ambitious ideas.

I agree with you Hoak about the amount of 'features' compared ot other games, though this could have probably been achieved with just patching Operation Flashpoint for the last 8 years. That is what it feels like, the same game with a few meaty patches and most of these 'features' were in the original back in 2001. I am not seeing anything 'ground braking' between the releases, Arma 2 could have really benefitted from a touch more 'game' than its predecessors. And this is coming from me, someone who appreciates simulators over games, sandbox over theme park. It still feels like BiS are releasing an updated set of tools for the community to make a game from.

For your information LJF, alot of customers have chronic CTD problems unrelated to specific parts of the game, anywhere from 5 mins to 40 mins they crash out. You and I are some of the more fortunate ones, but both of my friends that I have nagged to come give this a go are at the end of their patience and have uninstalled Arma 2 already. And with zero updates on the progress of 1.03 it only makes matters worse. A weekly update on the next patch would go a long way right now for them.

Bugs, Ctd's and Hookers. This franchise has always come across as 'F*ck it, let them finish it.' Always has more potential than any game involving military, but then the devs seem to throw the towel in 70% through it's development and release it. Op Flash 2 is 'theme park' and Arma 2 is 'sandbox'. Op Flash 2 will have the 'bling' and hold your hand along the way, Arma 2 has the 'guts' and allows you more freedom in what you do. It's just sandbox games shouldnt involve actually finishing the development yourself. You shouldn't have to download addons for fundemental features that should already have been in the game in Arma 1. Such an example is 'fast roping'. This should be available in any helicopter that transports troops with a suitable entry/exit point. As in an Action Menu option. This is one of hundreds of examples of what is still left to the community to bolt on to a 'finished product'.

Why should it not remain open? It has been moved to 'Off-Topic'. There is nothing wrong in healthy discussion/debate. And as this thread is now under the correct forum category, lets keep the ball rolling.

I agree with Roler. Proportional representation is rare as a true democratic voting sytem these days, and aslong as it is, we are kidding ourselves that democracy represents freedom.

So, not considered a 'False Flag' incident? Isreal detonate an 'aquired' warhead in their country, and this then gives them cause for the indiscriminate use of such weapons on Iran etc. Think this kind of thing is fantasy? Without going into 9/11, you should google 'USS Liberty' and 'Gulf of Tonkin', not to mention 'The Reichstag Fire'. Infact both WWI and WWII were as a result of 'False Flag' incidents, or set ups. Look them up, they are declassifed and public knowledge now.

The 'Cold War' is regarded by many to be WW3. And Isreal has 400 Nukes. In November, the first reactor of the Bushehr plant is expected to come online/ become operational. This is the deadline for Isreal according to past official statements. But, this is going way off topic now, and as always I respect other's opinion's, just make sure you are well read on such matters before making broad statements.

To Fumo, Do you realise if Isreal attacks the Nuclear plants in Iran it will most probably use nukes? The plants are 30 plus metres under ground so as to be protected from conventional weapon attack. We are headed towards the inevitable World War 4 show-down, if any time in recent history signifies the threat of an imminent nuclear catastophe, it would be the 'Cuban Misslie Crisis' and the current geo political situation.

Have to agree with you, the analogue throttle is sweet!

Alot of people are complaining that this game does not have enough PvP servers, BiS creating their own standard multiplayer game modes is something that has been lacking for a while. Community created muliplayer modes are a nice addition, but these should have always been an addition ontop of the BiS created 'standard' modes. You wouldnt have released the game as purely an engine for everyone to make the single player campaign and content on your behalf, so I do not understand why the same is done with the mulitplayer. Quite frankly the choice of multiplayer is awful, with 80% of community game modes being some convoluted co-op, which wouldn't have been so bad had we had some half decent AI. The only true PvP games being the very basic deathmatch types, there is a great void that is not being catered for. The server list refreshes to show, what essentially is a mess to the new player. Colour coding for game modes would have been a nice touch but it still doesnt detract from the main issue, this game could really soar from its niche and attract alot more players if it only had some default, well considered BiS multiplayer game modes. Though I respect the work done by individuals on the above mentioned co-op games, they do not have long term appeal. Bottom line, the game is screaming out for more PvP game modes, that sit between the very basic DM types and the complicated co-op modes. Ideally BiS need to provide their own.

I do not think stating that BiS should focus on the campaign is going to help, a hell of alot of players still cannot play the game as a whole due to CTD's, overall stability is still the main focus. A few of my friends have purchased this game on my recommendation, and they cannot play with me for longer than 20 mins in a game without crashing to desktop. (both have dual 295's with i7 920's and running on Win 7) They are losing patience and have decided to leave the game alone in favour of others untill the CTD problem is addressed. The game, as a whole being playable should rank before specifically, the campaign being improved.

Technically, there are different variants, SU-27IB/32FN/34 But SU-34 'Fullback' is the latest and more generally accepted designation.