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.

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.

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

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.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, again.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Although I applaud you for a great game and your community relationship and prompt updates, could you please see fit to tweak the C-130J's turning circle on the ground? For as it is now, it is nigh on impossible to steer this aircraft on the taxiways or line up on the runway for take off without having to take a detour through the countryside. This makes such a great addition to Arma II, almost useless. Especially when considering the potential it has in community made single player and multiplayer missions. Thanks again, much respect. Edit: I see this issue has been mentioned, sorry.

Quite the confession, now perform 5 Hail Mary's and seek redemption. :)

When I first read the title of this thread, I laughed a little, then on a second though, I actually agree. Simply as this would work both in being more realistic and more fun from a gameplay point of view.

I also agree with the need for analogue throttle in ArmA 2. Alot of virtual pilots have bought OFP/ArmA/ArmA 2 and they should certainly be catered for. I realise that this is a combat simulator and not specifically a flight simulator, and understand the limitations you have with the size of the development team and existing engine, however, if it was possible in OFP, why is it not possible now? I, for one, decided to invest in a Saitek X-52 Pro Flight Control System, to further enjoy this release, only to find that my swish throttle unit is nothing more than a secondary programmable button holder with the throttle as it currently is. I do not know how difficult it is for you to change this, but it would be a seriously good value fix, as many of the virtual pilots in ArmA 2, myself included would find it game changing in a positive sense. Again, I would like to say that I am very grateful for the work you continue to put in and appreciate that you are a small team with a whole lot of enthusiasm, and your community relationship is an example to any of the major games developers/publishers.

Yeah the AC-130 Spectre would have been great, maybe they will add it later, and if not, maybe a talented modder will answer our prayers. :)

Ah, a fellow pilot. I hope you enjoyed expressing your opinion as much as I did. :)

So, let me get this right, there are two posters complaining that with all their wisdom and experience of virtually flying Helicopters in different games (BF Helicopters are nothing like the real thing, they were dumbed right down for ease of use) they feel that BIS have got it wrong? Arma II is not perfect, though the helicopter flight model is fairly accurate. This is expected from a 'jack of all trades' simulator rather than a specific flight /infantry /vehicle simulator. What is actually being complained about is the actual realistic way a helicopter flies, it is obvious that you have not experienced a realistic helicopter flight model, other than DCS Black Shark, and that helicopter is an exception, in its typical Kamov co-axial rotor design it uses a rudder control surface which allows for higher manouverability at speed. The problem is not with the flight model in Arma II, it is with your misunderstanding of an accurate flight model through the experience of games rather than simulators on the whole. Take time out and clock up some hours in the editor and give the helicopter some respect and assume you do not know it all and you will be all the more satisfied when you master it. Learn, adapt and enjoy. :)

BF2 'Helicopters' were terrible, they were dumbed down so much, it made them weightless and restricted.