Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Hedo

  1. Maybe the screenshots were supposed to be used only as the "fog of war" pictures, but someone messed up and released them to public? They look really amateurish and don't make much sense. Especially the one with the APC - something, that looks like a bugged muzzleflash and Tatras without drivers, plus the horrible LODs. Then the L-159 on the runway one with a pilot standing next to it stiff like a plank.

  2. I agree with da12thMonkey. Definitely looks like Czech forces. BIS are trolling us again.

    On this picture you can see czech desert troops that are already in OA. The guy on the right holds Sa vz. 58 (notice the reflex sight mounted on the front). The guy in the back holds M60E4.

    On this picture is L-159. Compare.

    It just seems a bit late to release another DLC for A2, when A3 is not that far away. Maybe they have some bigger plans with it? Who knows...

  3. The Hebrew Hammer: You know you can modify this yourself, right? Just delete the pbos you don't like.


    Look for:

    Dynamic Sound AI (RUG DSAI)

    CG animation replacement/enhancement pack

    And the All round defence is "ard.pbo". (haven't found this on the list)

    Thanks for the pack Gunter. I'm not going to download the whole package, but I might pick some of the mods separately. There are some modifications which I didn't know / forgot about them.

    Any Metal heads in the forums here?

    Yes! ;)

  4. Arma III takes place 10 years from now, and there is no realistic way that the laws of physics could change in that time span.

    Should I point you to the first post? Keep in mind: (I'll now use OP's words) "Unless you can see into the future, which I doubt you can, you can't describe the future as being realistic or not. This is also the Armaverse, not the real world." So how can you tell, that there is no realistic way that the laws of physics could change? Changing physics in 10 years isn't unrealistic, it's just futuristic. :icon_cool:

    I basically agree with the first post, but that's because he just wrote the obvious. Just trying to point out how weak his arguments are.

  5. It may be realistic or unrealistic in terms of graphics or physics, but I am talking about the content of the game.

    No, it can't. How do you know that the laws of physics won't change in 20 years?

    So, basically you are saying: "Stop complaining that it is unrealistic and start complaining that it is futuristic."? How does that change anything? Pointless thread IMO.

    If you don't like it being futuristic, then tough luck, because you're always moving into the future. The future is tomorrow, next week, next year, or even decades from today.

    LOL, thanks for letting us know. I'll watch out. I actually thought that we are going to the past.

    I suggest this thread to be closed and after 20 years we can reopen it and decide if Arma 3 was realistic or not.

  6. So no new content or some major change?

    I don't really see the point in this. The new name seems pretty lame too.

    But it at least gives me a reason to play OFP again. I guess that was the point.

    [whining mode off]

  7. Also, if you own Reinforcements, you don't need Operation Arrowhead. The only thing you lose are the O. Arrowhead SP missions and campaign, but it's not like that will entertain you for very long - user created content is where it's at.

    So, Arma 2 + Reinforcements and you're good to go. All the content minus OA SP missions.

    Or Arma 2 + Operation Arrowhead (the same as Combined Operations). A2 + OA content and campaigns + DLC units with low-res textures minus DLC campaigns.

    And this list might help you (or confuse you even more).

  8. I agree with Orlok and pbishop. It's not like Arma is the most newbie-friendly game, especially the MP.

    Also, how is a newbie supposed to know that it spams your chat when he tries to connect? No, common sense is not the answer. In most MP games some extended message shows only to the user and on the server you see maximally:

    Player X connected

    Player X disconnected

    And usually in other games it doesn't even try to connect, when the user doesn't have all the required mods.

    The fact that it spams the server chat is bad a design, not "stupidity" from the players. (Well, partially it can be stupidity of course, but I don't believe that's the core of the problem.)

  9. How about a bow/crossbow? Those are silenced and ranged enough to be not totally useless. Not particularly military-like, but maybe the militia/civilian fighters could use them?

    YEAH, we have a winner.

  10. With this kind of thinking we'll still be playing Castle Wolfenstein.

    I would gladly Return to Castle Wolfenstein. :D

    Seriously, read the second part of my post. I'm not against new features, I just think this is pretty low priority.

  11. Freedom of choice.

    With this kind of thinking you can go on and on and never have enough of features.

    I'm not really against the idea, I just think there are a lot more important things BIS can focus on.

    And if you are deciding on the prority of features, it is about "i'll never use it anyway".

  12. On real islands there are several environs at once and you need to be able to change as needed.

    Are you sure?

    In what conflict did soldiers "need to be able to change camouflages as needed"? And even if they needed to do that, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't do that during missions in the field, but between them.

    And don't get me wrong, I'm all in for customizable gear.