CyclonicTuna

SR-72? Is there really any need for spyplanes anymore? We have geostationary sattalites. Besides, a game like Arma isn't really fit for a high speed high altitude spyplane because even if you set the view distance to max, you can't see the ground beyond 12km up. And the map of altis is way to small for something like a Blackbird to fly circle's in.

I'm not going to continue this discussion any further because we're getting offtopic, just this reply and the rest will have to be PM's if that's necessary. Its not about being offended easily, its about communication. Its imperetive as a community that we follow certain rules these are defined by the moderators. But there are also other rules that are harder to define and write down, that are part of the social structure. You see when you write a comment, I can't hear your voice, or see your face or maybe there are grammatical hick ups that make you sound like a total douche even if that's not your intention. And this is a lesson I have learned the hard way because I myself am someone who is not afraid of using... coulerfull languege, to state my opinion. I always tell people that I might be harsh, but honest, and that honesty is more important. This might be true but it does not mean that everyone here knows that, and that I can just keep on being the sarcastic cursing animal I am in real life. So, it is really important that if you want to make something clear, you do so by substantiating. Its often good to start your sentince by saying "in my opinion", "I believe that". To let people know you've actually tought about it and are not rambeling away. And then instead of saying "I want" or "you should", try saying "would it be possible to", "could you try to", to let people know you're not commanding but asking. These are just some precautions you can take, and this way you're communicating, and getting your point across just as well. Let people know why you're thinking the way you're thinking. Substantiate, and you'll see that people will be very helpfull.

Then let me reform you comment for you: "Hey Peral, I'm really enjoying your addon, but I'm not quite satisfied with the sound. Do you think you could help me modify the sound to my own needs?". See? No nasty words of sarcastic remarks needed ;) And if you're lucky, and Peral thinks you've actually made an improvement, he'll make it part of the public mod, and your name will be in the credits. And that's how a community works :D!

Well that's exactly the thing, changing it for your personal taste. Kind of selfish to ask, let alone the fact you don't seem to comprehend how much time and effort goes into creating a mod, especially if its of such high quality as this one. Besides, you don't need to use all those words to get a point across. All you have to say is: "Hey I don't really like such and such, do you think you can change it?". But seriously go ahead and try to change one thing, just one little thing about this mod, the sound. I honestly encourage you, not trolling. And see how long it takes you, then realize that its but a fraction of the work Peral actually puts into the mod, and then read your original comment again. There's no rule that states you can't modify it for personal taste, but at least have the courtesy to ask first, and if you do, don't be so neglecting. No one is angry with you, its just a respect thing.

Well he doesn't even have to make a new A-10. You could just mod the excisting soundfiles for personal use only.

I really don't know what you're talking about, it is a scream. Pretty much any plane makes a scream when it flies past, except for maybe an old fashioned piston prop. But it sounds pretty accurate to me:

I agree with Kremator. The A10 sounds like thunder with attitude. Ugly sound for an ugly aircraft.

That's actually not what I meant, I meant to say that there are now 2 versions of the AC-130 in active service in real life ;)

So does that mean there are 2 versions of the AC-130 one with Hellfire's and one with Griffin's? The AC-130W doesn't have the 105 though.

How are probability and the actual amount of people that can make a hardcore simulation unrelated? Where is this "guy like Chris Roberts" who apperently already made a couple of those games, and is therefore "respected", and wants to start a kickstarter campaign. I don't know him. If there isn't anyone to develop that game, than that game isn't going to come. You have to remember that if you claim there is a rival to Arma in the making, that players will most likely have to choose one or the other, that what competition is. And the only thing I can think of that comes even close to what you claim is around the corner, is Groundbranch. But that project is still years away, and won't really be a competator to Arma to begin with, because it focusses on CQB and counterterorrism rather than combined arms warfare. I look at the facts, and the facts are, that Arma has been the genre staple for the last 10 years, and anyone who has made something even remotely comparable is no longer on the market. Besides, what Chris Roberts has done is exceptionally rare. It was only thrue a combination of conditions that he has managed to raise millions on kickstarter. The fact that he has the recources the start a new studio, the fact that he already had a big dedicated following, the fact that the space and sci-fi genre is much more popular than the hardcore military sim, the fact that like Arma, Star Citizen is bascially a monopoly in its own right. Just because that occurs once, doesn't mean it will occur anytime soon again with any random developer. You claim that a game that directly rivals Arma is imminent because there are so many developers capable of making such a game. But what do you have to support that claim? And what makes you so sure that even if those people are out there, that they won't make a completely diffrent game? So what exactly is the probability? Because I think its next to none. Bohemia are in a very good position, they don't have to switch engines, they don't have to change they're development process, and even if this rival appears out of thin air, they probably wouldn't.

Yes, because everyone on this planet has acces to an entire dev team and has the hardware to make any imaginable game, even if they might not have acces to running water. I mean cmon, that's just silly to say. And Chris Roberts makes entirely diffrent games than Bohemia, you can't even compare the two, I don't know why you would even bring that up. And just because you don't have an altirnative, doesn't mean you should play the next best thing. If you really think that Bohemia makes bad products, you shouldn't support them buy buying it just because you don't have any other choice. Its like bad politics, if you feel like every politician is a douchebag, and you don't really see any viable option to vote on, you shouldn't vote for the least douchy guy. You should not vote at all, and start your own political party. Otherwise your country will be run by douchebags forever. ---------- Post added at 08:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 AM ---------- I agree, competition it good. But I don't think Bohemia is a game that actually does competition. Remember a few years back, that other game came out, Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising, and everybody was claiming it was going to be an Arma killer, and that it was going to be the new franchis staple. It had a lot of similairtities: Large island map, vehicular combat, realistic ballistics, combat support etc. And look what happend. Within a year that game was dead, Arma II was released and now everyone was playing that. And peopel are still playing it regerously. Then in a final desperate attempt, Codemasters pushed out some horrible sequel that I actually bought but never finished because it was that terrible. But Dragon Rising actually had less bugs overall, than Arma 2, it had stable mulltiplayer at launch, it even had very fancy animations for a lot of gun handeling. Some things it did better than Arma to this day. But Bohemia didn't respond in any way, they just stuck to their own agenda and kept on trucking, releasing patches and DLC, and in the end it even turned out more succesfull. So if any rival to Arma does arrise in the near future, I doubt wether its going to matter much, if the past is any indication. So to awnser your question, I don't think that Bohemia is the only company capable of making such a game. The real question is, will there be any developer who seriously wants to challange this game and this community. And if there is, will there be direct changes to the Arma franchis because of it? Because I feel like Bohemia just doesn't really care about anyone or anything but their own community, and their own game.

Huh?! Where does that other drone store its fuel? Are you sure they weren't making a data connection or something?

Not that it really matters, the entire Arma 3 lock on system is broken if you ask me. Flares work on random occasions, sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. And I find you can almost always evade a missle by going to the deck and hiding behind a hill or something.

Mighty fine progess randomslap! Those internal weapon bays are looking good!

I find this concept from H.A.W.X 2 more realistic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKL4TU7WWyA Its bascially an extra long and wide carrier with an extra command tower. I don't really see the point in having 2 runways to be honest. It would be cool to have but its not like a Nimtiz can't already launch enough aircraft quickly enough. Besides, the catamaran configuration is great for stability on small ships, but it horrible to have on an large ship. It would bascially mean 3 times the drag, and with a ship that size you don't need extra stability in rough waters. Let alone the stresses on the points where the two runways meet the hull, it would need an impossibly strong metal to build.

I doubt it, like maionaze said. BI have their own plans. And they're not pressured by a publisher to compete with one title or another in certain features. Besides, even if a miracle engine appears that beats the RV engine on any level imaginable, that doesn't mean that good games will actually be developed for it. Because you can moan and bitch about Arma all you want, but If were honest, when it comes to hardcore military combined warfare simulation, there are few titles that came as close as Arma the last 10 years. And I don't think that's likely to change anytime soon because you would need to wear very firm shoes to approach an audience like the harcore military simulation type, and claim you have the game they want that accomplishes anything they wish and more. Because its a very specific audience, so if you fail to deliver, not only will you be stuck with a game that your target audience doesn't want to play, but also the rest of the gaming world. I think people should be a little more appreciative of Arma in general, I'm not saying they can't ciritisize, but the whole "lacking features and content", and "steam sucks" argument is getting a little old. You're still playing it! I dare you to name a game that does everything Arma does, and also have such an active and lively community that literally releases free new content every day. I dread that day that developers are going to try and force money out of such a situation, which I fear will soon come. And I'm glad that BI have been so generous on that subject for so long. That is ultimatly the strengh of BI and Arma if you ask me. The developer aren't idiots and know exactly what they can and can't accomplish, but nevertheless the whole Arma series is very ambitious, perhaps even to ambitious some might argue. Regardless, I think if you want to change BI, you have to change to get the community invovled, because they do listen, and if something is feasable, they will try to implement it.

I'm pretty sure its not actually. I read in a devblog that the devs of Red Orchestra wanted to simulate lenses, that's why you have the image warping at the edges of the scope, it was something that was harder to achieve with PiP because PiP only allows for a direct image to be placed over the screen which would then accordingly need to be adjusted. The system they used works more like a lighting engine casting a dynamic shadow, only the shadow isn't a shadow but a dynamic warped image that partly covers the screen. This is much more flexible, and allows for features like the lens moving accordingly when the sniper turns his gun to reload a round and. I could be wrong though, I'm not an expert on these things.

I think they shouldn't use PiP for the scopes, it seems, illogical, PiP is used for exactly the things that it is used for now like functionals screens inside vehicles. It just seems unfit for scopes, scopes need to be accurate and not have a lower framerate and resolution than the rest of the world. The PiP feature as it is doesn't seem all that usefull. I don't know what they do in Red Orchestra 2, its definetly not PiP, but they should use that: I mean hell, even Call of Duty uses it nowadays so how hard can it be anyway?

Bohemia have been developing the RV engine for almost 15 years now and I think they'll be hard pressed to switch to anything else. From they're prespective its very benificial to have an engine that they own themselves, saves a lot of time and money. You have to think that if they were to transfer to an engine that then haven't made themselves, they would have to educate themselves into being able to work with it. Let alone the fact that they would have to create a game from scratch, developing new code, new assets, new models new configs you name it. Having said that there are some really cool projects going on that I would like Bohemia to get on board with, even if it meant not making an Arma game. I think, although having progressed really slowly and still in very early stages of development, the Outerra engine still looks very promesing. Integrated physics, seamless amospheric rendering, and ofcourse the projected size of the maps that could be achieved with it. http://www.outerra.com/wgallery.html I own the alpha of this. It runs really smooth and has excellent lighting and physics engines. Ofcrouse its still very empty, only grass, trees and sand, and it remains to be seen how its going to tackle AI, but I'm still very positive. I also think that it would be a good option for a future BI game because unlike most interesting projects being developed alongside military/simulation, Outerra is actually being developed by gamers for gamers, and is meant to be used for commercial games. Therefore it actually takes into account consumer hardware and capabilities, instead of some of the real simulation engines which do not focus on making a smooth player experience and are sometimes horribly optimized for consumer hardware. That euphoria thing looked nice. But I question how something that script heavy would preform in a game like Arma. Imagine entire platoons being shot to hell. What they showed in that video was just a little tech demo with nothing much goig on. I doubt wether gaming is at that stage yet, but interesting concept non the less.

This is really cool. I think BIS should've implemented this feature in A3 to begin with, its much more realistic than just zooming in your view. But its a shame that the pip feature of Arma 3 is so poorly optimized.

Yeah that's correct, titled tailfins are one on the new features of the SE. They use the regular F-15E to test individual systems that will be integrated in the SE once completed, that's why the experimental SE doesn't have the tilted fins yet in test video's. Here's a mock-up of what the SE is supposed to look like once finished: http://i34.tinypic.com/1ortbk.jpg (705 kB)

Hey randomslap, quick question. With the "hud mounted on pilots helmet", do you mean the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System as shown here: http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=15520&mode=view (340 kB) Or something else? If so, will it actually be possible to target things for instance beneath you or beside you, and "see" thrue the cockpit floor? Because as it stands, Arma 3 only allows for you to lock target within like a 30 degree field of vision in front of the airplane. John Spartan and Saul who are making the F-18 also want to implement this at some point. Maybe you guys could come up with something together?

Really cool to see that so many modders are stepping up to actually improve the game rather than bitch about what is lacking. Great work guys, I will definetly give this a try once its released.

I think Nodunit could help you out with that.

Well it doesn't make use of the same angular techniques, and lifting body cross section reduction as say the F-22 or the B2. But in theory it could make use of the same radar absorbent material used on those aircraft. Which would bring it alongside orther semi-stealth aircraft like the B1B. Except ofcourse the F-15 is much smaller to begin with so would have an smaller radar cross section than the B1. But in radar reduction-precentage wise I could see it being on the same level.