Uziyahu--IDF

Are you sure that's not where the paint is being cooked off by the heat from the exhaust port?

What animations are those and why aren't they a part of the game?

Reminds me of the old days in Delta Force: Land Warrior

The reason this was done in OFP was because firing an MG42, for example, LAGGED the game. Also, there was a bug (it was supposed to have been fixed in ArmA...was it not?) in OFP that tied your weapon's cyclic rate to your frame rate or CPU cycles or some such. You could actually see your weapon's cyclic rate slow down as you swung your view to more complex scenes on the compass, whereas in a game like Rogue Spear, your cyclic rate was independent of frame rate. What I believe B.I. tried to do was to provide a round that had the destructive power of that round and all of the rounds that should have been fired. That's why the Cobra's minigun in OFP fires explosive rounds (when a round is given a high enough damage value in OFP, it turns explosive, from what I understand, as was the case with one fellow's Barrett .50 addon, even when it wasn't firing the special explosive ammo).

Yeah, that's the stuff! If Filipinos want to make some money, they should market that pattern for clothing here in the U.S.! Wearing various "loud" (bright) camo patterns is popular fashion in the U.S. with people going for a unique look. Not to mention this stuff has the weird effect of actually making the person seem to blur out. It's like our computer-trained eyes see 8-bit looking graphics as something less "in focus" than a higher-resolution graphic. Please make this uniform pattern for your mod. I think that lots of people use various mods because they want a unique and different experience in OFP/ArmA, so having troops running around in this stuff would really provide that "foreign" feel. Except maybe for Joint Operations, I don't remember a tactical shooter that has given the Philipines a good representation. By the way, I would like to buy a set of these, myself. Are they available for purchase over there?

Don't like the metallic sheen happening through the camo paint schemes. I don't know how they paint their birds in the former CommBloc or Warsaw Pact, but I can tell you that the U.S. Army's helo paint jobs do NOT allow a metallic sheen to get through. No gloss paint. FLAT paint. I can certainly live with it, though, in order to have a badly-needed issue-free Hind in-game.

No, I don't think I misunderstood. (I like how everyone on this forum thinks I don't know how to read English.) My point in saying that FlightLevel should probably be set to just a few meters above the maximum draw distance for the desired maximum view distance is this: When objects are no longer drawn on the ground, you're not going to get any better performance (unless maybe texture detail is reduced at higher altitudes, too?), because there will be nothing left to subtract from view. So... from the altitude that objects stop being drawn on the ground (taking into account the additional altitude of the highest peaks on the terrain, of course), you might as well hit your desired maximum view distance. Anything higher will be the same experience. That is why I ask, "What are the maximum draw distances for objects at various view distances?" When we have a chart or guideline, we can set our FlightLevel accordingly. This is why we might need the Rangefinder addon to come up with a chart.

Shouldn't FlightLevel be set to a distance just a little more than the max draw distance for the maximum view distance desired by the user? Anybody know what the max draw distances are for various view distances? Can we use that Rangefinder addon to find out?

"Heartbreak Ridge", with Clint Eastwood, was based on this operation, though it was the Rangers (I believe) and not the USMC that got pinned down on the top of the hill and had to call in an airstrike by phoning the Pentagon via a pirated telephone line.

Do hay bales really provide "cover", or only concealment? Will a hay bale stop 7.62, or even 5.56?

Sometimes bigger isn't necessarily better. Imagine trying to fly that bird if you fire off only 1 SCUD at a time.

The problem with having everyone open up on helos is that ArmA A.I. leads its targets PERFECTLY, as far as I can tell, with only dispersion to make up for this digitally super-human ability. Even if dispersion is wide as can be, if you're maintaining the same vector, the A.I. will have dialed in on you within how many cycles of the CPU, so you will ALWAYS be within the center of the dispersion pattern, where the likelihood of getting hit is the highest (assuming a bell curve of probability). The way to combat this is (assuming there won't be a change to the A.I.'s super-human ability to calculate necessary lead on a moving target) to enforce realistic turret traverse rates and slew speeds and make sure that turrets and guns are not able to exceed their real-world ranges of motions (in degrees). Additionally, there needs to be scripting to separate the traverse rate from the slew speed (if I am getting my terms right). In many tanks there is the rough turning of the turret in a direction, then a switch is flicked that enables finer adjustment for aiming. In-game turrets need to enforce this transition time. The rough (faster) turning of the turret should not be used for the fine adjustment of aiming. However, in ArmA it is clear that fine adjustments are made by moving the mouse less, with a hopefully maximum turret traverse rate for rough adjustment. To illustrate how damaging this can be to gameplay, think of turrets that swing towards their target in the blink of an eye (in fact, Ghost Recon's armored vehicles seemed to have turrets like this, if I remember correctly). You're sneaking up to the back of a tank to plant a satchel charge on it and the commander gets a radio message of your location. He instructs the gunner to turn EXACTLY to your location, this occurring in a split-second. All of sudden you're looking down the barrel of a main cannon and the next you're not. In Call of Duty 4 it gets especially ridiculous when the nose cannons on attack helicopters are able to fire 3 successive rounds at 3 different targets in 3 different directions. Can we get some "turret traverse rate" on those nose cannons, please? The way vehicle turrets and target-leading AI are working in ArmA is allowing these vehicles with very limited AA capability to perfectly track moving aircraft. Sorry, but a commander on a M2 .50 is going to have a little trouble dialing in the correct elevation and lead on a moving helicopter. In fact, U.S. Army soldiers were instructed to lead moving aircraft in terms of football fields (difficult to judge at varying distances).

The thing that I don't like about gunning turrets controlled by A.I. is that they never do the human thing of scanning in the WRONG direction. They always seem to have a field of view and if you fall into that, they look automatically in your direction and open fire. Ever seen a Commander in ArmA tell his gunner "Left! Left! NOOOoooo! Your MILITARY Left!"? Never happens. Gunner ALWAYS looks RIGHT where the Commander sees the enemy. So often ArmA A.I. fails to behave in a human manner. Like rocket launchers, for instance. Ever notice how the A.I. fires off its rockets the very instant it shoulders or reloads the weapon? Now go watch videos of soldiers firing rocket launchers in Afghanistan/Iraq, whether BLUFOR or OPFOR, they are TAKING TIME to aim the weapon.

When I played F-19 Stealth Fighter on the Commodore 64/128, flying undetected while enemy fighters passed you on the right or left was part of the suspense. At the last minute, you open your bay doors, your radar signature increases, your let your ordinance fly, then you close your bay doors and try to survive the attention you've attracted. Poor handling characteristics would increase the suspense, as you couldn't fly so evasively when discovered. There needs to be a script, maybe using invisible targets, that causes ZU-23 and Shilka gunners to fire randomly into the air in the hopes of getting lucky and tagging one of these babies. Flying through one of those s-storms would be like C-47 pilots dropping paratroopers behind the lines at Normandy. I understand that the angular surfaces cause the radar blip to blink to those watching on the ground, so they have an idea where the bird WAS, but not an idea where it IS. Unfortunately, maps still haven't achieved the size needed to make jet flight-combat all that fun, in my opinion.

There won't be a "thin forest" version WITH tree shrubline? Remember to have a few German estates that aren't so well-kept.

I've not been misinformed. You misread, "Captain Adam Moore informed me that helicopters have a moving center-of-gravity," as some kind of statement about helicopters in-game. If I meant in-game, I would have said "in-game". I served in an Air Cavalry squadron for 3 years, so I've had a bit of experience with helos. Furthermore, Captain Adam Moore, if he isn't, now, was a Helicopter Flight Instructor. What Captain Adam Moore was referring to, for example, is that as fuel is depleted from the tank, the center-of-gravity of the vehicle moves. If I remember correctly, it also moves from its point during a hover to another point during forward flight.

I don't see any real-world reason why an aircraft and its missiles would have the same paint job. Missiles are like bullets. They are for shooting, not for carrying around indefinitely. I think the difference in color makes the hellfires look more lethal. That's a Littlebird that packs a punch!

I'd like to see the helo flight model improved so that you could make quick evasive actions and so that it was more difficult to balance, like in the Desert Combat mod for BF1942 or the Battlefield 2 that it inspired. Captain Adam Moore informed me that helicopters have a moving center-of-gravity.

Just make sure to have openings in the bushline of various widths. Keep up with the chaos. : ) Chaos makes things look more natural.

That's one thing about the F117: it doesn't require so many polys. lol

Joint Operations had some great water with gameplay value. The deeper a person was, the harder it was to see them under the surface. The water had realistic cloudiness to it, depending on the map.

This was done in Rogue Spear (sequel to Rainbow Six 1) on the PC, back when there were only a handful of tactical shooters. You could adjust the length and width of various parts of the body.

Are you going to have any troops in that cool urban camo pattern made of black, white, and gray squares?!

What about power lines? That's an important challenge for helicopter pilots. Would be nice to have at least a single long line of those on the map. I'd like to see a few more "unique" areas, like that rock quarry or whatever it is. That's an area that stands out. Are there no canals or ditches along the roads? Or does that introduce too many problems for A.I.? If this terrain is smaller than Sahrani, does that mean the terrain can be more detailed?

Of course, with Queen's Gambit, there's a soldier with a beard, already, eh? I'd just like to see those buildings with proper shadows, casting proper shadows.