FeoFUN

Why should the people with the same PoV be an identical twins? Strange logic - are you a blonde?

This is much better than if this thread got another one fanboy puking strawberry with the Bohemia's exclusive 'A3 Vanilla' cream. Ihatecheaters has a sensible view of things and sharp sense of humor, at least.

Yes it is. Since the question about the Mi-28's service and production life has been answered at least two times in this thread.

engineers_facepalm.jpg ---------- Post added at 01:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 PM ---------- Sure. Especially if to remember when the Mi-28, ACTUALLY, entered in to the real serial production and service. BTW Apache will remain on duty at least until 2035, too. And given that each next generation takes much more time on developing and the most part of military programmes facing the delays - i won't be surprised if we'll find out that these two helicopters are still in service even in 2050(if we'll be still alive LOL). Cobra - nearly 50 years in service and still in production. Mi-24 - more than 40 years in service and still in production. Mi-8 - nearly 50 years in service and still in production.

It's harder, but still possible. In our ACE hardcore games we're using infantry ATGM's like TOW or Metis/Konkurs only with the manual tracking. It makes the game much more interesting and demand from the operator some skill to hit the target which is 2km away. Finally, it's nicely balancing the armored vehicles and ATGM's.

In the current form it isn't, but as i told it before, it may be otherwise. Just bring a simple but significant specific features to the different types of weapons. You can make the different types of weapons and equipement working by the different way, having their specific features and restrictions. As example - the command-guided ATGM's, like Vikhr or Ataka. And self-guided ATGM's, like AGM-114L LONGBOW Hellfire or Spike. Same goes to the different types of FCS and sensors. Such a little specific features could make the game much more interesting, making the different types really different. ---------- Post added at 03:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:51 PM ---------- You're still confusing the real weapons with some mismatches and simplifications with completely fictional ones. I can believe if USMC expeditionary forces may be reinforced with the M1A2, if they're preparing to face the enemy that has a strong armored forces or AT weapons. As well, i know that limited numbers of AK-107 is in Russian Army and FSB special forces. BTW, it would be really nice if BI, in some future esxpansion, added this thing. This is an incredible and pretty futuristic project of the light CAS/COIN/RECCE VSTOL aircraft made by the American students for the NASA contest. THE ARBALEST: IRREGULAR WARFARE AIRCRAFT

You fixed nothig - because all the weapons and equipment were real. ---------- Post added at 12:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 PM ---------- TOH model is fine, but there is a second, even more significant question - weapons and their functionality.

How is THIS a trolling? It's a fair and simple question.

What type of war? Fictional or real?

What for? To play it alone?

You've made a nice point, daellis94. OFP, Arma1 and 2 weren't a geographic simulators - so no one complained about the fictional islands because the arsenal was pretty real.

I didn't dictate anything. And please, can you warn the people like Maionaze from their manner of discussion with a name calling and personal insults? Then everything will just fine and polite. If you didn't notice, i prefer to back my point of view with the facts and knowledge, than with a name calling and insults.

I'm not poking the people who have something more in their argumentation, than 'troll' and 'fool'. He started it - he deserved it.

Looks like you have too much of maionaze and too little brains in your head. Next time, try to bring something more solid and intelligent into discussion about the authenticity and accuracy of the combat simulations. Until that, GTFO.

^Nonsense. I think i must learn a little more about the dynamic flight models. More, than just a beautiful acronyms. For you, the PhysX is a some sort of the magic wand, but it's just an engine, that need the proper and detailed physical/functional model of the simulated object. BIS may do whatever they want, but call it 'accurate' and 'authentic' isn't fair. Fictional - that's the word.

The PhysX, by itself, is just a beautiful acronym and will give you NOTHING, if you don't have the proper physical and functional model, based on the flight and telemetrics data of the real prototype. Of course, the ARMA series isn't(and no need to be) that precise as DCS:Ka-50, with its crazy detailed and pretty realistic flight model, developed with the help of the Kamov design-bureau and real pilots of Ka-50 from Torzhok Center of Combat Application of Army Aviation. But, as i've said before(on example of the Ka-52 functional model from A2), there is a number of relatively simple things that could be made - to significantly improve the level of realism. Through my own knowledge about the engineering, real helicopters and weapon systems...and after the 33 years of life in the family where the both parents are aviation engineers. :cool:

OFP, Arma 1, Arma 2, Steel Beasts, Falcon 4.0, Flanker 1/1.5, DCS, Harpoon, good old Rainbow 6 and Ghost Recon - the list of the great simulations without all of these features might be very long. And your quote is a nice example of the...new Crysis game and engine advertisement, but it's not the "authentic and accurate military simulation game". ---------- Post added at 01:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:44 PM ---------- REALLY?! And what is that way? How did you come to such a conclusion? By what criteria?

Why should i?! And his post is a fail, until the Arma 3 Overview section include phrases 'accurate military combat' and 'authentically simulated aircraft, vehicles and ships'. You did it much better in your previous games. Not ideal(no one is ideal), but you've tried, at least. Admit the truth - change the words 'accurate' and 'authentic' to your favorite word 'fictional'. This will be fair, at least - becuase this word is your only and the last argument here.

Too many excuses sort of 'it's a fictional' for the game that pretend to be an 'authentic' and especially 'realistic'. It's not the real Iran It's not the real helicopter It's not the real tank It's not the real weapons and equipment It's not the real history and plot too many fantasies and mismatches to be believable and authentic.

They didn't create ANYTHING - just copied the 60-years old design, which they have an access to for the last 40 years. But now I see it clear - you don't have an idea, how the real things are developing and what's the difference between the copying and developing. Iran strong!!!!111 ---------- Post added at 10:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 AM ---------- +1. But i have some concerns about the future of ACE, since it's a non-commercial project. I will be glad to buy the ACE for money, if it could guarantee that project will live.

They've tried, at least. Do not confuse the engine and balance issues with the completely fictional stuff. What is the 'features'? Realistic sunrise? No, they didn't. But if to say about their trend to make each of the next Arma more realistic than previous - yes, they do. ---------- Post added at 01:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 AM ---------- Unfortunately, the context doesn't matter here, because you told about the real Iran and real helicopter - so, the copying of Cobra isn't improvement, just a questionable try to replace the old airframes of Cobra with the new ones. And of course Iran can't make the equipment better than modern Western counterparts(or even on pair). Poor copies of the 50-years old Western and Russian stuff - that's all what they can to do.

As i said before, in Armaverse the engineers are very stupid. Such a fantasies don't add the realism - because they're not logical and realistic. It's just another poor excuse. Yeah, it looks like nose-cone of RC-guidance antenna, but it isn't antenna. These ATGM's looks like a Vikhr, but it isn't the Vikhr. Poor excuses for the poor creativity, i'd say. And that's a problem with the modern society and gaming industry - people are getting stupid, they don't want to think and look at things deeply. Sad, but true. ---------- Post added at 09:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:30 PM ---------- I did.

I told it many times before - your tactics is dictated by your weapons and their REAL abilities, functionality, physical/visual/damage/operational models. It would be better to implement the Mi-28N(M) or Ka-52/50-2 with some improvements in realism aspect, as FCS functionality, weapons and pilotage characteristics, than create such an unrealistic "chimera" as Mi-48 is, with the only excuse of 'a fictional universe'. For example, Ka-52 in A2, its sensors and ATGMs are working not very realistic, that lead to ability to implement the completely unrealistic tactics, that real Ka-52 can't implement at all because of restrictions on the number of launched missiles at once and allowed maneuvers after the launch, until the missile(s) hit the target. It's not that hard to further improve the Ka-52, its weapons and equipment - fix some mismatches in its visual model, make its FCS and ATGMs working properly, with simple but realistic restrictions on the fire channels and launching procedures. This can improve the realism and make the different types of helicopters/ATGM's really different and realistic.

I answered to this your statement. As you can see, there is no fictional Iran'2035 in it - only the real one. And the real helicopter - iranian copy of the good old Bell Cobra.

Are you seriously comparing the wrong additional fire mode with the completely fictional helicopter or tank?! The OFP was the first experience of BI in making such a game - that's why such a little mismatches were excusable in that time. But there was a significant progress of realism after the OFP, in A1/A2. Now we see a significant regress in realism aspect.