uncle reiben

Same here... been sifting through various forums and google trying to figure out how to convert to Chernarus but most of it is beyond me :( So I'm just hoping D4 will have a Chernarus version... was a great map to run around on, and fighting all the Russian gear was more colorful :D.

I have had this problem for a while... I only noticed the super sensitive mouse side effect till today when my double-click failed to work in the editor... this led me here... I too use Track IR 5, but it wasn't running when I noticed the problem come back... but I did notice the Camera's IR LED's were on despite the software being off. So I tried restarting and closing the software but no fixy. Finally I checked the task manager and found two instances of TIR5 running in the background despite the software being off. after killing the two bugged TrackIR5.exe instances, I reloaded ArmA II and the problem was fixed... for the first time not requiring a reboot (and this explains why rebooting helped) So I believe the problem is linked to to extra instances of TIR running in the background when you launch ArmA. so... to avoid this problem (I think... as of now) make sure you don't have any failed shutdowns of TrackIR running in the background before you launch ArmA... it doesn't matter if TIR is on or off... as long as it's running properly. This precaution has fixed the issue for me. Cheers.

the 1.53 download seems to be missing the NWD_ExtraBallistics.pbo which came with the 1.52 download... was this intentional? Dunno if I should remove that file or not...

Just noticed this myself...

I believe this has been addressed in some iteration before in this thread but I'd like to add my observation as well to see if it helps to illustrate the problem. Also I'd just like to get my licks in to push for a betterment of the situation I come from a predominantly flight sim background and I love the new helicopter flight modeling in comparison to OFP. However, there is one thing that caught me as peculiar right off when I tried to land using the roll axis and after playing with it in 3rd person view I figured out it affects the pitch axis too, but is less noticable. The Pitch/Roll Axis of the Mi-17 and UH-60 (only things I've played with in the demo) are a bit jacked up... it appears that the helicopters attempt to roll around a position 2m or so above their rotors. it actually pitches and rolls around where the camera is centered if you use the Command View. what results is the fuselage does a pendulum sort of motion sliding left and right as it rolls, and a similar but less noticable effect along the pitch axis This is most notable when trying to land. In real life or in a bona fide Flight Simulator, a helicopter rolls and pitches about its center of gravity (more or less). As some of you probably know it accomplishes maneuvering by tilting the main rotor system accordingly, which vectors the thrust at a different angle and subsequently pitches or rolls the fuselage. to simplify it I drew it out. Here's a well made, third party SH-60 by Aerosoft in MSFS2004 at a 45 Degree right bank: Now here's the UH-60 in Armed Assault in a 45 degree left bank: Note the pendulum effect as the ArmA UH-60 "slides" as it rolls to 45 degrees and leaves it's initial positioning. Using Commander View from the front or rear and applying only left or right stick in a hover and it becomes obvious that the aircraft "Swings" along the center of the screen. Although it can be ignored and conquered with practice, lowering the Pivot Point of the Pitch and Roll Axes would: 1) Be proper, and improve the flight model accuracy 2) Make it easier for everyone--casual flyers and flight sim junkies alike. The rest of the flight modeling leads me to believe this might have been an oversight. It only makes things more difficult for all. It's a simplified model to begin with, so that everyone can pick it up easily, so why add an unreaslistic factor which makes things more difficult? Look at it this way... when you're trying to land on a specific point every movement is countered by the fact that you're "kicking" the aircraft in the opposite direction of your intended flight path... if you're only trying to make very minute adjustments this is a big problem. You could eventually get used to it of course, but why should you have to? Helicopters and Flight sims have always been an imperfect marriage. if you fly a Chopper in Microsoft Flight Simulator at 100% realism settings you're actually not getting a very accurate representation of flying a helicopter. Fact is, your body's equilibrium (ability to sense orientation relative to gravity's pull) peripheral vision, depth perception et al are very important in piloting a Helicopter, none of them can be simulated in a computer game. So games like Armed Assault and OFP simplify them some so everyone can have the ability to get the hang of it... which is great, and why I don't criticize what they give us too harshly... but I believe the issue I've explained (rather lengthily) above just makes it harder on all of us and should be considered. Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse but I'd just really like to see that changed

although a great thing it would be I doubt the level of realism you describe would become a part of ArmA. Helicopters unlike fixed wing aircraft don't like to fly... They require constant inputs from the pilot just to maintain straight and level flight on a set track. in a non-flight simulator game genre this could become frustrating to casual or non-flyers (I personally would love it) Modeling them properly in a game requires a lot time on the developers side and a lot of processor power from the client to calculate all of the factors. While modern systems could easily handle it, in a game like ArmA which revolves around the Infantry aspect, putting too much into the flight aspect is a waste. As much as I like to think of OFP/ArmA as a combined arms Sim it's really just the closest thing to an Infantry Sim with vehicles and stuff to play with on the side. Flying in combined arms games like this is great for Flight Sim enthusiasts... even if things aren't modeled to the same level of fidelity and realism the environment itself and the interaction with ground units gives us a better feeling of flying with the purpose of using our skills to support people and help them achieve a team goal. That being said I don't lament the fact that flight modeling doesn't meet simulator complexity. But I totally agree in that I'd like to see some level of difficulty which naturally prevents every n00b and their uncle from becoming the doombringer from the skies.

Another thing which I'm really hoping for is more fluid and consistent AI Handling of choppers I like to use choppers in many of my missions, being able to set them up to do exactly what I want consistently would make me a happy Reibie. I was able to pull off a lot with the old Mission Editor but forcing AI to do precise maneuvers was always a chore... and when you finally get it sometimes it only works for a few missions and breaks... oh so saddening

Are the attitude restrictions are still in effect for rotary winged aircraft in ArmA? I think that was one of the biggest turn offs. preventing pitch and roll past certain angles really hinder versatility of the Helicopter flight model itself. The fixed wing flight model from OFP was atrocious... of course like anything you could get used to it, but the simplified modeling actually made fixed wing flight significantly more difficult in most cases. 3rd party addon makers and their tweaks to their own models help in some cases, but OFP for the most part was quite unfriendly to fixed wing aircraft. The environment itself, specifically the view distance restrictions made flying fast moving jets quite hard because you had little time to prepare for targets and terrain. another thing was how the collider model worked on flying vehicles... at 150Km/H or whatever if you're touching the ground you start sustaining damage regardless of weather or not you had wheels. and Helicopters can't even move on the ground... Heli's like the UH-60 series with wheeled landing gear can surface taxi and perform rolling take-offs and landings (up to 20kts on a runway to aid in heavy takeoffs and such) by tilting their rotors forward (forward stick) and adding enough collective to begin moving forward but not enough to start lifting off. Hopefully some of these things have changed in ArmA... Of course ArmA isn't a flight sim, so not much can be reasonably expected, but the more fidelity they add the more appreciative I'd be

an opinion if I may. the echo effects to gunshots aren't a good balance for a video game like this which takes place in a wide variety of environments but only allows one firing effect. they sound good on their own but there's a significant pause between the initial report and the echo effect, which makes the overall effect seem very artificial. I would suggest that the best balance because of the way sound is modeled in OFP that you should leave small-arms sound effects to the initial report wherever possible. As it stands right now the after-sound seems a little out of place. Also is there an updated Weapons/Ammunition Classname reference? or at least an amendment to the 2.0 one saying which no longer applies? I've two or three blanks in the weapon crates made in 2.0 and wanna know what classnames no longer apply in 2.5 As always a great job by TB and his crew. Your contributions to OFP for no personal gain are much appreciated

Ah yes... the BIS Forum Motto

out of curiosity was that issue with animations for 3rd party (non FFUR) addons ever addressed? the ones where on some crew/gunner positions of addons the player was sunken low and rotated 90 degrees left (i.e. the Mk 19 and M240B models of CBT HMMWVs) You replied to my original inquiry about half-way through this thread but I couldn't determine if it was something you were willing/able to fix.

awesome... thx for the info. would the choice be restricted based on server settings or can clients change it independently?

noticed a crosshair in the videos which were fixed in the center of the screen... is this set in stone or will the point of aim be "floating" like in OFP? I hope like hell we get the floating system back, it was the best feature of OFP that gave it the more of a realistic feel and the function of it forced more realistic gameplay. that poll on ofp.info is up to like 8300 votes with like 79% in favor of the floating system... so im sure a lot would agree. did a search on this topic to see past discussions but couldn't find much.

two things I've noticed (besides the manl/auto-end thing I mentioned before) when I call for fire from a Paladin platoon they get on line, raise their guns and then the leader starts driving around as they start to fire and he fires as he drives around aimlessly... it's odd... never happened in 1.0 another thing was my initial test of conventional Tomahawks online with one other player, an error "-Maglist...something something" appeared and the conventional warhead Tomahawks didn't appear on the Assets List to either of us... anyone else experience these?

right mate... thats why I said leave the default units as are with 6 individual grenades, not replace them, and add the vest to the Magazines list so it can be manually added via the mission editor at the editors discretion... this way they wont change anything about the game as it is right now. It just gives the rest of us the option.