Rapier

He isn't all the way there yet...missing 2 more screens on left and right or possibly even more. Seen that kind of setup, you will actually get motion sick for the first few tries..oh and rumble chair or whatever that called. The joystick he is using is the Saitek X52..I have it (them, it's 2), but it's been gathering dust on a shelf somehwere. I used it for Desert Combat mod in BF1942 and IL2 Sturmovik. Nice joysticks, but took too much space up on my desk and I haven't seen a decent simulator in years so I got no use for them.

Firefox, and once in a blue moon IE. Some webpages I visit are clearly coded for IE , such as government pages, credit card pages (to pay bills) and online-exam stuff, they are still almost exclusively for IE. I don't like IE, neved did. The school I went to was using Netscape (remember the big "N") on all pcs..and before that, I was using Macs and since that was 1993, the Internet was something I didn't want to visit, even if I could.

alright, I thought I can carry at least through the single player, but now I got stuck do to bugs. There are "checkpoint" auto saves only so reloaded the 100th time the same checkpoint and my team is missing. I wish I made a screenshot. Only their weapons stuck in mid- air and in the bush and some equipment laying on the ground, the team is in another dimension I guess. Supposed to board a heli in an LZ which is clean until the HQ radios in that the Heli is 5 minutes away. 10 seconds later the HQ says the heli 1 min away, but it pops out of nowhere with gatling guns blazing all directions, shooting at enemies, which suddenly appeared out of nowhere. So it lands, I get in and the heli won't leave, because my invisible team mate stuck in the twilight zone 500 meters away refuse to join back in the 3rd dimension. Finally i got a lethal shot sitting in the chopper, and my suddenly my dimension hopping team is boarding the heli and as the heli prepares to take off, I'm back on the 'reload checkpoint' menu because I'm dead. After the 5th time the same thing happening I just quit and then only to realize that my mouse pointer is gone in the menu screen, so I have to keyboard myself out of the game. I think ARMA II devs have a tremendous opportunity to release a good patch to iron out some of the worst bugs out there, because there is an exodus of the OFP crowd highly disappointed with DR and looking for another open ended game and armaII is right here.

Oh boy...I just got this game as a Birthday present from my younger brother. He knows that I liked the first OFP. I knew about the game is not for the faint heart, but he didnt...anyway, It's a free game for me and I didn't want to make him dissappointed with his gift so I just graciously took it. OK...been playing it for 3hrs.. LOL...I kid you not, but Call of Duty 4 is more realistic than this. This is truly made for the console players..but even them..it has so many bugs it's incredible. First mission on the map, i got stuck in the ground hip down and sunk away like it's a quicksand...had to restart the entire mission and avoid that spot on the map. Anyway, the best way to describe is that the game is like the old Delta Force, but delta force being done better. The graphics is about on the level of the 1st OFP. Love the music, but I don't know why they used Tibetian/Tuvan throat singing , because it's definitely not Chinese music. Trying to bug the Chinese?

Here is what you can do: http://hotshots.folkersma.org/?menu=27&screenID=235 ;)

Különleges Műveleti Zászlóalj (Special Operations Batallion) edit //ps: Youtube BBC code is broken??

Without fair criticism you wouldn't see patches released to any games. And stop thinking that everybody who complains are all just "newbies" , because most of the fair critics have a much more experience regarding the arma/ofp glitches and problems, than random "playing it for 3 weeks" figures who are still in the process of learning all the aspects of the game.

How about loadout selections too? There are far more types of bombs. Who wouldn't wanna try a bunkerbuster or cluster bombs?

I'm not sure if it was intentional, but just try the Harrier jet and it seems like the rocket aiming piper was mixed up with the unguided bomb piper. I could be wrong though (the aiming reticule is still wrong), but if I'm wrong, then the bombing aiming still need work. We're not in WWII and most jets (ever since the HUD was developed) has a built in function to help to aim those unguided bombs. I'm not even gonna get into the guided bombs, because that's none-existent in the game, only AI has it (imaginary). Here is how it suppose to have a aiming piper of any plane that carries a bomb: (real picture) This is the A-10 aiming reticule (used for both guided/unguided bombing), after punching in the target designation, the onboard computer will calculate the distance/speed/release time so the pilot just have to fly somewhat level to the ground and a not too fast speed to deliver the bombs and can be done within a 1meter accuracy. Anyone who just barely touched a somewhat realistic pc simulator knows all this.

sitting inside the plane FOV needs to be adjusted. I end up doing it myself and when I zoom on to the HUD, it's still off and unnatural and hard to see what I'm doing. Functional MDF displays would be nice too.

Alright, so if the modders can do it, then the original coders should be able to. I also noticed in the CWR mod of ARMA, that the troops follow my commands a lot better than the plain vanilla ARMA.

I'm flying a keyboard+mouse control. I understand the point of "setting a cruise speed" but at the same time, (and you can try this), there is a certain point at a certain speed the plane will keep the cruising speed, but under this speed (it's usually around 400km/h) the plane will not hold the set speed but slows down and eventually falls out of the sky. And even if you set this cruising speed, go try it, do a turn and when you get out of that turn and return to level wing straight-notice your plane no longer holds that cruising speed and it is neither accelerating to regain that speed. Of course, you can say that "oh well" that speed isn't fast enough to keep the plane in the air, but then I say "you just said the game isn't a fight sim and not to expect a plane simulation here". Not to mention these planes (Harrier, SU25 etc.) are well capable of flying (and not falling out of the sky) under 300km/h, and as you say that the plane tries to keep the cruising speed I have set with my "Q" key, how do you explain that it won't really hold that speed in a level flight, but instead it rapidly drops and eventually I crash and burn unless I continuously accelerate by holding down the Q key? What you're implying, it worked in Operation Flashpoint perfectly. It was actually enjoyable to fly around with the jets, even with the arcade controls. But not in Arma or ArmaII. Look, it's either not a flight sim and let's have me those aids so I can play, or it is a flight sim and have the plane behave like it supposed to. It can't be both and neither of them at the same time, because then it's a giant mess.

It's a classic Operations Flashpoint bug. Actually it's not even a "bug", but a design shortcoming. The buildings for the AI is like a "no-go" place. You'd only get killed if they start shooting at you with a tank or a large caliber Machine Gun. Otherwise, the AI will never enter buildings. And not to mention the AI has no idea what to do inside a building anyway. It would need an entirely new engine with new AI to get this fixed, if they couldn't do it in 3 games already.

LOL, any of the battlefield series games have better (and more enjoyable) flight model and that's none of them are "flight sims" and none of them even try to be realistic. Shoot, Battlestations Pacific has a better flight model and that game far away of being of a simulator. The "jetfighter" series are long told to be an arcade shooter, and it has better flight model.

LOL..right on. the poll should be how bad is the flight model : 1fairly bad 2 bad; 3terrible. No. 3 .

It's not the detail that kills the frame rate, its how much they are optimized and the efficiency of the game engine loading textures coming into visual sight and unloading those that are not visible.

I have noticed this as well. You know this would only be valid, if the AI really couldn't see you , but again, we are talking about a solid land there, which changes height with the detail settings and that's just a serious bummer.

I went back to play a few missions in ARMA and since I like to fly around I noticed there is much less of popping of textures of the terrain. Granted, less detailed, but from a pilot point of view, the terrain is a lot better looking and no graphical anomalies and pop-ins (with almost max view settings) Here is something interesting. This terrain is the same game engine , compare it to ARMA II terrain: http://images.bit-tech.net/blog/2009/05/what-makes-a-game-a-game/vbs2_113.jpg

My concern is not whether or not my system is able to run the game, but the extreme amount of popping in of trees and textures, the draw distance is just way too limited or very noticeable compared other games with open terrain.

When I played through , I noticed my artillery support disappeared. i thought I did something wrong.

I've never seen this in other games, but no not artifacts or weird polygons, it looks more like zigzaging grey lines all over and the higher I'm up the more of the shore becomes like that. So you're saying it's a driver or graphics card problem? I see it as something that needs to be corrected in the game.

I don't have a picture (but I'll might take one) , the shoreline flickers like crazy from about 400m and above (flying above), it looks horrible. I tried all sorts of adjustments within the game and outside too + tried 3 different graphics drivers, nothing fixes it. ATI 4850 1GB DDR3 graphics card. Intel Core 2 Quad 2.40gig CPU

Flight physics+ flight model are terrible. I found out why I can't speed up enough not to collide with the ground many times. Because, I'm trying to fly like in real life. Why are the plane brakes auto-engage during nose down? I don't want to be pushing the accelerator all the time, come on! If i want to pick up speed from not stalling, it's obvious that most pilots will nose down the plane to descent to gain speed, even kindergarten kids are aware of this. Why even implement such a thing? If this game try to simulate such a small things like sun flare and fuzzy view while running and so on, why are the big details like physics and flight model left for arcade physics? It's not even arcade physics though it's worse, because the game is working against me with ideas like this. Also try this. If you turn, you'll loose more speed than climb. I can actually accelerate faster by straight nose up to the sky than trying to turn around. This is not only bad, it's stupid. IN real life, every plane has it's rate of climb and rate of turn, which depends on it's flight model, engine power weight, etc. Each every one of them has its range of speed that is given which would give the best speed vs turn ratio. But I have yet to see a plane that turns faster if the speed is faster , especially if it's outside the turn/speed ratio. It's straight against Newtonian physics.

First it's seems to be very buggy and inefficient. The enemy AI loves to build nothing but pickup trucks and BTR90s and bum-rush each village with it, later scatter around and randomly show up at various places. When an SP mission start (or the campaign mission with Badlands and Dogs of War), the "AI commander is selected" and issues commands which town to take over and if I fail to take over the mission can end. This is confusing and doesn't make sense if you ask me. I can vote for myself to be the commander, but again, if I issue a command which town to take over next and if I'm not physically present during the conquest, then i "failed" the mission. I can't build helis, even if i built an "airport". When I build mounted defense they are empty, an now I have to assign my troops to sit in it, which is a waste of my squad slots, since now they are sitting in a mounted position somewhere on the map and I can't use them for the missions. Same with the strongholds, there are nobody in them, nobody defending them, no guns in them, this doesn't make any sense. When I buy a machine gun nest or anti-armor or anti-air defense, it should come with a gunner in it, who is not under my direct command (as a quad leader) and will defend the village or base. This would make the towns a lot harder to take over for both me or the AI. (Right now, I just drive to a place and wait until it turns green then rush to the next one. If I got a few tanks, they can easily hold each position with no further help but it's a waste to build any defense buildings or guns because there won't be anyone in it anyway and I have use my assault troops to defend and now I'm limited with my units where I am on the map, so is the AI) There are plenty of vehicles sitting empty on the main base and the AI doesn't utilize them, instead they walk to each towns and get massacred by the light armor BTRs and pickup trucks. The entire game becomes nothing else, but me , building a bunch of RPG guys to take out the light-armor APCs and watch out not to get ran over by the supply trucks. There is so much potential in this, it could be an incredible feature if it would work right. Imagine tanks, helis, planes and all sorts of combat vehicles and various special ops making contact and waging war. This entire RTS part needs a serious restructuring and re thinking. There are more problems, I'm only listing a fraction of the problems so add your own comments.

probably somewhat with medium detail . here is a place i used to test my pc: http://www.pcpitstop.com/pcpitstop/default.asp Also Can you Run it? (ARMA II is listed) http://cyri.systemrequirementslab.com/srtest/