Tozmeister

IIRC, The Harrier was in game first and had the basic (Mark I) vertical flight model you see now. The Osprey and F-35 were added later and had a new and improved (Mark II) vertical flight model but BIS had no spare Devhours to update the Harrier to the new model. See Opfor and Thermal Imaging/Thermal Maps for similar situation.

Confirmed. M2A3 should be on a par with Warrior for armour but it's way short. Conversely the BMP2 is considerably over armoured as well. I have an open ticket on T72's on CIT at the moment as well. Would be nice to see a bit of a review of armoured units in a patch/DLC of the future.

Bunny-Hopping MW2 spai detected.

Could that HUD system be used to recreate this: ??

Purely cost-saving from what I've read. Make one-size-fits-all round to serve all 3 branches of the military and save money on R&D and manufacture.

I was looking up information on the Mastiff 2 on a few credible websites and they all mentioned a 50mm cannon option for armament. At first i thought this was a misprint of .50 cal but it seems not as an M2 option is mentioned in the same sentence. However, currently no 50mm cannon exists. There is a plan by ATK to develop their 35mm Bushmaster III to a 50mm Supershot but that's still in the experimental stage One of the guys on an army rumour forum mentioned a Bushmaster III as a UOR but for Jackal not Mastiff, but there's no way you mount that on a 6 tonne open-top vehicle. I also turned up an artists impression picture of a Mastiff with cannon mounted on top but i can turn up artists impressions of unicorns and dragons as well. I'm tending to the theory that this is (was?) a misprint of .50 cal that's run away with itself, everyone's just c&p'ed the false info and no one's correcting it because they don't want to appear to be out of the loop. Does anyone know differently?

I don't think the Ah-1Z got upgraded, it has no thermal texture after all. I think what has happened is the turret optics got upgraded for the AH-64 with FLIR but the cobra uses the same turret optics view so got the FLIR by association.

To Be Fair; a map with a single large Airport and C-17's as a DLC could be the focus of a pretty decent mini-campaign. Special Forces parachuting out of a C-17 at range then approaching on foot eliminate initial AA defences. Parachute Forces following up capture said Airport, with C-17 flying them in initially. Parachute+Special Forces hold the airport from counter attack while C-17 flies in personnel and equipment to establish an Airhead.

Anyone remember a series called Jericho? remember how it ended? There's your next *BIG* campaign. US Civil War II The South rises again, makes a few dodgy deals with South America for support. Takes most of the equipment and bases in the Revolution. The North has more man power but lacks equipment, accepts support from NATO. California stays neutral (INDFOR). Ideologically with the North but to exposed to a Southern invasion to get involved (at first...). Campaign could cross several maps (states) as the war progresses. ...Hmmm, maybe a bit much for a DLC. More of a full expansion for USCWII.

Fair point. I should have said infantry weapons, not support weapons.

Depends on exactly which variant of which decade of the vehicles and which variant of the ammo you are using. Not to mention range. As a general rule the front and turret of the BMP-2 is armored against .50 cal AP. the sides and rear upto 7.62mm AP. M113 is given as armoured upto 7.62mm AP all round.

A BTR-60 or BRDM is light armour. A truck is unarmoured. Light armour (which includes all APC's and scout vehicles) is traditionally classed as able to stop infantry small arms upto .50 MG, Artillery shell splinters and hand grenades. Any Anti-Tank weapon is capable of taking them out. Slat armour is an attempt to give APC's a chance against RPG's but is reported to be effective only about 50% of the time. Modern IFV's and CFV's that are pushing 30 tonnes or more are blurring the line into medium armour class able to withstand a few RPG's. As for everything going up in a Fireball-Of-Death I expect that's a marketing decision. If things aren't going up in a Hollywood F-O-D then how are they going to sell this game to 12 year olds?

Sometimes its a Tunguska being lifted. Making a combo package substitute AC-130. Kids these days...

There's quite a bit of spin from the old Iraqi regime about small arms fire downing Apaches as a way of getting militia's motivated. This Wiki articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Najaf_%282003%29 including that same encounter from 24th March 2003. Note the mentioning of "Heavy antiaircraft" as well as small arms fire coming from the town. A follow up attack on the 26th accounted for "7 anti-aircraft guns, 5 radars, 3 artillery pieces and 25 other vehicles"

If you were to have a PMC content then you'd have have them as new 4th side with a new interface so you could set standings to the other 3 factions in any conceivable manner. Would lead to some interesting and chaotic situations for mission makers to play with eg; PMC is friendly to blufor but hostile to independent. blufor and indy are mutually friendly. what happens when PMC engages indy in front of blufor...?

Seems to be some real balance issues as well. Particularly the CTWS and M621 have very powerful HE (HEAT on CTWS), both able to destroy a T55 or T72 with a handful of rounds yet the APFSDS CTWS rounds seem quite weak against the same targets. Also, i thought Mastiff's were supposed to be in this pack as well? or was that just my imagination?

I Started a ticket on DH (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/12848) about the weakness of T-72 turrets. However Kju requires a script showing the damage done to a turret over time as a more quantifiable explanation on whats going on. Are there any scripters out there with time on their hands to help with a bit of bughunting? Even if you're not a scripter please feel free to vote up the issue to bring a bit of realism and balance back to an old Warhorse.

I know the scripters section is elsewhere but i figured it'd be easier to find a bug-hunter that knew a bit of scripting than a scripter that was interested in bug-hunting. Yes, i know it would change the game in a small part but there can't be anyone who plays ArmA2 that thinks a vanilla T-72 having a turret half as strong as a T-34's is in anyway a good thing(*). *apart from the most frothing-at-the-mouth Apache fanboi.

Even Military vehicles full of extra fuel and ammunition don't explode in fiery death the moment you drive them into water above the wheel arches.

Beagle posted this in another thread :- So, would a simple re-balance of damageResistance values be included in ACE2?

I know jakerod. Dev time is limited and they have to concentrate on the things that sell games to the majority of Joe Q Public, graphics and AI for example. Doesn't mean I'm going to stop lobbying for what i think will lift ArmA2 from a good game to a Great Game. Namely, better physics modeling including penetration/damage calculations.

I stand corrected Anfiach. I know nothing about WWII online i just quoted from the info box attached to the video. To Jakerod, M1 tank Platoon had planes in as well. All of it incredibly simplified compared to ArmA2 but it was 20 years. That's 10 cycles of Moores' Law. Are you telling me then, that given Moores' Law is correct (and if you can disprove it then you are really wasted on these forums), we have computers that are 1024 times more powerful than they were back in 1989 and there's no room for more by way of vehicle damage modeling than just A_Weapon does X damage to A_Vehicle with Y hit points?

Actually, what you told people was 'to get the f**k out of the forums'. Since when are these forums yours to give these orders? There are people on these forums asking for things I don't agree with, like better graphics and new units but I'm not going to tell them to get out the forums. Their opinion and right to reply is every bit as valid as mine. Please, leave the hostility and tantrum-throwing to Something Awful forums. Maybe it's a matter of perspective but I see very very few people posting 'this game sucks'. Those that did have all left already. What i do see, in this thread and all the others, are lots and lots of fans saying "this is a good game BUT it just needs XXXXXXX to make it a Great game." and that's just the way it should be. That's good healthy feedback. That's what forums are for. I bought this game because I think it's a good game. I've been a fan since I first bought OFP back in 2003. I will be there on launch day to buy ArmA3 (or whatever it may be called). And yes, it is the "SAME" and that's just my point, after 10 years of graphics improvement how come we aren't seeing 10 years of improvement in the physics engine (incorporating vehicle damage modeling). A_Weapon doing X points of damage against A_Vehicle with Y hit points is just not good enough by todays standards. As I asked you in my first reply, are you totally happy with ArmA2? is there nothing you would like to see improved? This is, after all, a forum. A place where ideas are exchanged and debated, not a lecture hall where everyone has to shut up and listen to one person speak.

This often quoted youtube video... BzpUVtVUBTI is how it should be. It was from WWII online and was designed for computers of 2004. That's 5 years ago. Going even further back there was M1 Tank Platoon which was written back in 1989 for the Commodore Amiga and that had a simple penetration/component system 20 years ago. Vehicle has Y hitpoints Weapon does X damage if Y-X < 0 then do Fire+explosion+smoke This is the overly simplistic damage model we are all suffering under.