akd42

Pretty sure that every M16A4 in the Marines is supposed to have an ACOG (TA31RCO-A4CP, in fact).

Mortars actually, for WWII at least.

Not VopSound causing this.

Where and when in ArmA II is sitting in a bunker on a quiet front modelled? And if you were waiting for the enemy to attack, why would have you a bunch of partially full magazines? I repeat, this is not something you would be doing in combat, as you illustrated with your example. I'm trying to imagine in what situation taking your mag out of your rifle and holding it up to the sun at just the right angle while peering down into it would be of any use. A an good guess based on weight would be a far more practical method.

From the FLIR mod thread, @2:11

I'm sure the Minimi is the stock M-249 included in the game. Somebody needs to make a Minimi Para model.

If you could carry and fight with only an M9 with the SMAW, I bet the M136 would be a lot more appealing.

Way more than 20 tanks have been knocked out in Iraq, but the lesson there is that it takes a lot of HE to destroy a tank. An Abrams crew doesn't bailout because of a lucky shot to the gunner's primary sight.

Hi, How many times do I have to hit a piece of steel with a piece of lead before a hole appears in the steel. Your knowledge of "physics" should allow you to calculate this. Then show us the calculations for how many blows from a common construction jackhammer to the exact same point on the frontal armor of an M1A2 are required before the tank's armor fails. You have asserted this to be a "fact" based on "physics" so you should be able to produce the calculations. Also, how will the jackhammer survive to deliver this theoretical number of impacts? This thread is full of idiocy. There is no point argueing over what a .50 cal can realistically do to a tank when we are talking each .50 cal bullet taking away "10 points" until the tank runs out of "points." There is zero relationship between that and a miracle shot that at most renders some component of the tank ineffective until it can be repaired. And no, neither .50 cal MGs nor the GAU-8 defeat armor by "chewing through" the exact same point of impact. First of all, the likelihood of any round striking the same exact point of impact is very low unless we are talking about tests under lab conditions. Second, you assume that every shot that does not penetrate is a partial penetration. If a round hits and deflects, why should the next round that hits the same point not do so also?

For the entire month of August 2008, Coalition military forces suffered 49 KIAs in Afghanistan. Over the course of 9 days during that same month... ...Georgia suffered 374 military/police KIA ...South Ossetia militia lost 140 KIA. ...Russia lost 64 KIA.

Wet tarmac is not exactly a typical surface. ;) ArmA tanks slide all over the place in all conditions.

Not the magazines issued to US Marines. 2. Even if solid you can just look into it from the top and tell how many bullets (approximately) are left in there. What? No you can't. That would not be done in combat for obvious reasons.

Rate of fire for the M1A1HC loader's M-240 is very low.

?? There are no CH-47s in the US Marines inventory.

Yup, years later and we still have fundamental flaws, like the hitpoint vehicle damage system and small arms' recoil.

You can drift in tanks. 'Nuff said.

Looks like it modifies image intensification to appear a bit more like FLIR imagery. Doesn't appear to have anything to do with real FLIR, although the choice of runway as a backdrop makes it appear so at first glance. Of course men and machines contrast strongly against the runway texture in daylight or regular night vision also. Note that areas under the street lights are the "hottest" in the scene and that toward the end the fire and runway have little contrast, although their IR signatures would be vastly different. And unlike NV, FLIR is all weather and should offer imagery despite conditions like fog and smoke, but FLIR here performs the same as day optics and NVGs. It certainly looks nice in certain conditions, however.

Wow, that looks good.

Just a realism note as you go forward. A tank's turret popping off is the result of an internal ammunition explosion. As the M1A1/M1A2 Abrams have armored ammo compartments with blow-out panels, they should not exhibit this behavior. T-72, however, definitely could (but probably should only happen occasionally). Now an effect for the ammo of an Abrams cooking off would be pretty cool, but that's something I've never seen footage of!

I'm not sure why that would be a fix. All rifles in the game have adjustable sights to some lesser or greater degree. Of course you can argue that they should be not be adjustable in 1/4 MOA increments, but some ability to adjust is better than nothing at all. Most likely people would simpy use them for setting new zeroes, not adjusting on the fly in the middle of combat. For example, some might want a 300m zero for their EOTech, and GMJ perfectly facilitates that.

Anyone have an alternate download for this? Filefront is being troublesome.

Also would like to see an improvement in the particle effects for large shells hitting buildings. As it stands, no matter where you hit a building, the effects originate at ground level and propogate vertically and horizontally from that point. Looks very odd when you, say, hit the second floor with an HE shell. Men of War has brilliant effects for shells impacting the sides of buildings. Worth a look.

Javelin. Not Swedish. Firing up your time machine to 1985 right now. Blue force tracker? Not Swedish, but surely used by them as in most NATO nations. ??? Hey, this one is actually Swedish and new...well, Swedish and Norwegian. Sweden has seven of them!!!

So basically they change the one thing they shouldn't, and then leave all the things that should change untouched? Brilliant!

Will an updated version with range cards, etc. be released?