Lhowon

I'd like pretty much every military to be represented in the game - more content is always good. Obviously that's not feasible though ;) As one of the largest developing powers on the planet - and one which could potentially see major conflict - India wouldn't be a bad choice for a mod. On the other hand though the large majority of India's equipment is of foreign design. As far as I can tell they have few "original" weapons or vehicles with some notable exceptions, but it might be a bit pointless when none of the equipment feels unique. I'd prefer an Army with more unique weapons like the British, Germans, Chinese, etc.

I'd like to see ACE try to include more content mods from other people, the British and Chinese ones for example. It would be fantastic to see different countries represented in ACE - you could even combine several mods to flesh out each "faction". Imagine how awesome it would be to have a mostly complete British and Chinese faction in ACE by default. Obviously that would depend on whether the original creators would want that - and I could understand them not wanting to as credit can get a bit lost in a big project like ACE.

Wow, only just checked this out and I'm blown away, that's some excellent work you're doing. I would love to see the Chinese in the game, they're a very interesting Army with a mix of unique modern equipment and stuff they've bought from Russia for years.

While I'm sure everyone would like to see this in game, it should be noted that it's not actually that useful for the large majority of players. Really only those with TrackIR might benefit and even then it's not going to help much. The effect is useful in real life because you aren't always going to be pointing the gun dead straight, so you can use the sight as a guide. In the game you always point straight so it's not really useful. It's more of an aesthetic thing than a gameplay advantage.

That's my point though - I don't know much about how the engine works so I can't prove it, but it seems possible to me that rendering the crosshair uses different technology to rendering the scopes, and it's also possible that trying to combine the two would result in graphical errors that aren't easily fixed. If I am remembering the dev quote correctly I think this is the case. I also remember attempts in ArmA 1 to do this, and I think the closest people got was adding a red dot to the crosshair, so that when you look through the scope (with freelook) it has the parallax effect, and the dot also stays when you hit right click. The obvious downside is that you have a red dot projected out from your gun, so it's not a proper solution at all. Check this thread for an example of people trying to mod around this problem. Unfortunately I can't dig up the dev quote just now, I think it is buried in one of the massive general discussion threads. EDIT: I did find which seems to show the effect working properly, but there might be side effects the maker isn't listing. I hope it can be done because it is a cool effect, but on the other hand it's not all that significant.EDIT 2: Okay it seems that the above effect works fine for some people, but for other people with different hardware etc. it produces graphical bugs.

I remember a dev post saying they experimented with this and found it created graphical glitches or something like that. So if I'm remembering correctly it is a technology issue, just a graphical one. Probably something about how the engine renders scopes makes it hard/impossible to do.

Those are some very nice looking weapons, great job man.

LandTex, RKSL countermeasures, VopSound/RH Helis/TRSM tracked vehicles

Looking forward to this hugely Mandoble, please release soon! ;)

Well I've been running the beta patches for awhile, and with the latest one I decided to try changing the Smoothing option just to see what it does. When I changed it back to default the movement was not the same as before - it's now very abrupt and sudden, so moving the mouse a bit makes the view move very fast. Before it was smoother, now every move is like a jerk. This is with the X and Y axis on almost the lowest they go, and no amount of fiddling makes it better. It's not an issue with the Smoothing, it's more like a mouse sensitivity problem - moving my crosshair from one point to another is very sudden instead of a smooth swing. All I can think is that BIS changed the values of the mouse settings in the latest beta patch and me changing the settings made the new values kick in. It's very annoying to play with, almost headache-inducing with the view jerking every time I move the mouse. Problem is, uninstalling the Beta patch and going back to normal ArmA 2 doesn't help - the problem remains. Any help would be appreciated. EDIT: I've tried removing my .cfg profile and running the game, it doesn't help.

Thanks for that, I think around those values are the best compromise for now (though I like more smoothing). It still feels too "quick" in turning but I think I can get used to this after awhile. Cheers.

Well I've been running the beta patches for awhile, and with the latest one I decided to try changing the Smoothing option just to see what it does. When I changed it back to default the movement was not the same as before - it's now very abrupt and sudden, so moving the mouse a bit makes the view move very fast. Before it was smoother, now every move is like a jerk. This is with the X and Y axis on almost the lowest they go, and no amount of fiddling makes it better. It's not an issue with the Smoothing, it's more like a mouse sensitivity problem - moving my crosshair from one point to another is very sudden instead of a smooth swing. All I can think is that BIS changed the values of the mouse settings in the latest beta patch and me changing the settings made the new values kick in. It's very annoying to play with, almost headache-inducing with the view jerking every time I move the mouse. Problem is, uninstalling the Beta patch and going back to normal ArmA 2 doesn't help - the problem remains. Any help would be appreciated.

I meant my Lhowon.ArmA2Profile file. I guess I'll just have to keep fiddling with the settings - perhaps it's something I'll get used to, but it's very annoying atm.

Oh woops, didn't notice there was a beta section, my bad. I'll post there, thanks for the advice.

Haven't gone through the thread and don't know how to search / add to the tracker, sorry: - Anti-Air vehicles continue to fire at aircraft that have been shot down EDIT: Might be more of an aesthetic thing, but the Hind "distance texture" (sorry don't know the technical term - LOD?) is too bright, so the transition is jarring from an almost white texture to a dark one.

But they don't work the same galzohar. If I do exactly the same as Regular difficulty I go: 1. Choose missile. 2. Look at target. 3. Hit TAB to select target. 4. Fire. This doesn't work. The missile will not track and it won't hit.

If you're playing on Regular or below just hit TAB to select the target and fire - the missile will guide itself. However on higher difficulties I honestly don't know. I've tried the T-90 (Refleks) and the BMP-3 (Arkan) and both don't select targets which is to be expected. However when you aim directly at the target the missile flies into the ground. When you aim to the side it misses. When you try to guide it it won't follow your scope. The only way to make it hit is to aim above the target to compensate for drop, but this is completely unguided and there's no indication of how high to aim. I assume I'm missing something, but I can't work it out off-hand. I can't make right-click work to select targets either. They clearly don't work the way they do on lower difficulties though. It's not like the Javelin or Stinger where you do have a lock it's just invisible. The BTR-90 (Konkurs) works like the TOW though - it follows your aim.

The CDF also use the Shilka - the insurgents will have stolen it from them. I disagree that the Shilka is bad. It's a bit hard to use as a player unless the target is quite close, but when it is the Shilka is devastating. The AI on the other hand are good at using it at long range and it can be deadly, especially against helicopters. The Tunguska is much better though due to its amazing missiles. Also in real life it can still pose a major threat to any low-flying aircraft.

Thanks a lot, this is very handy.

Add this to the init field of the MLRS: this addMagazine "ARTY_12Rnd_227mmHE_M270"; Go into Target Artilley then make sure you are aiming at a target far enough away - the MLRS has a massive minimum range (as you'd expect) meaning you have to be very far away. Just move your mouse up or down until the targeting lines appear.

I think it's testament to how well BI balanced the sides this time around that Russia and USMC are so close in the poll. Here's a quick comparison of what I think the equivalent vehicles of USMC and Russia are, and which is best - just because it's fun :p: Tanks T-90/72 vs M1A1/A2 - USMC wins Light Armour BMP-3 vs LAV-25 - Russia wins BTR-90 vs LAV-25 or AAV - Russia wins Vodnik - no real comparison, but Russia gets points for the BPPU which can take out a LAV-25 very quickly. Cars UAZ vs HMMWV - USMC wins UAZ AGS-30 vs HMMWV Mk. 19 - USMC wins Seeing as Russia doesn't even have a UAZ with MG, I guess the Vodniks are supposed to fill the role of light armed transport, so: Vodniks vs HMMWV M2/M240/TOW - USMC wins. The Vodniks are big targets, while the Humvees are nicely versatile. The BPPU is nice but seems better as fire support than a transport, especially in urban areas. Anti-Air Tunguska vs M1097 Avenger - Russia wins Artillery BM-21 Grad vs M270 MLRS - USMC wins Helicopters Ka-52 vs AH-1Z - USMC wins, but it's debatable - I give the Cobra the edge for its rotatable cannon Mi-8MTV-3 vs MH-60S/UH-1Y - USMC wins. The Mi-8 gets points for having heaps of rockets, but isn't versatile like the Huey and doesn't have the miniguns. MV-22 - no real comparison, USMC gets points for having a versatile transport chopper with large capacity Mi-24P/V - no real comparison, Russia gets big points for having these very effective choppers that bridge the gap between transport and attack helicopters Planes Su-25 vs A-10 - USMC wins AV8B - No real comparison, USMC gets points for having a plane that has both unguided and laser guided bombs for potentially devastating air support Su-34 vs F35B - Russia wins. Clearly the F35 is the better fighter, but it's just so limited in a ground-attack role. And even in an air-superiority role it only has 2 AA missiles compared to the Su-34's 4. Its GAU is too hard to use effectively, and its LGBs need someone lasing targets (or can be dropped unguided, but with limited accuracy). The Su-34 has 6 AT missiles and 40 S-8s... it's just so much more useful than the F35, despite the F35 clearly being the better plane. So in my opinion: Tanks - USMC wins Light Armour - Russia wins Cars/Light Transport - USMC wins Ant-Air - Russia wins Artillery - USMC wins Helicopters - Draw Planes - Draw The Mi-24s almost push Russia to winning Helicopters, but they lack too much in transport and the Cobra gives USMC enough of an edge to make it a draw. The A-10 almost gives USMC a win in planes, but with only 2 Mavericks compared to both the SU-34 and SU-25 having more AT missiles (albeit somewhat inferior ones) I'd call it a draw. So in conclusion as far as vehicles go, both USMC and Russia are very well matched. Their vehicles call for differences in tactics that can make for interesting gameplay - for example Russia can rely on Light armour for effective supprt of infantry, while USMC can counter with either Helicopter or Aircraft CAS.

Yes it removes the lock-on HUD element, but the lock is still there, you just can't see it. If you want to target a vehicle with the Javelin in my experience all you have to do is put your sights (when looking through the optics) over the vehicle - it will always target the one the crosshair is over. If there's only one vehicle in the general area you can probably just fire without aiming, as it will have locked onto that vehicle. It's just with multiple vehicles that you have to be more careful. At least that's how I think it works. A bit off-topic sorry but I don't want to start a new thread - does anyone know how to get the Refleks rocket on the T-90 working in Vet/Expert? There's no visual lock and I can't manual get a lock by right-clicking, but when I put the sights over an enemy tank (in the same way as the Javelin) and fire the rocket just flies into the ground. It also doesn't seem to follow the sights at all. The only way I can get it to hit the tank is by aiming some way above the tank to compensate for drop, which suggests it isn't guided at all. But I thought it was a guided rocket, at least in the same way as a TOW if not fire-and-forget. And even if it isn't surely you should be able to jsut aim at the tank and have it fly straight...

Bear in mind that by the last ArmA 1 patch VON was working perfectly and was excellent, at least in my experience. So the technology is clearly there, it's just not working properly yet in ArmA 2. And Nazul, unless I'm completely forgetting BF2 doesn't have all the different channels - group, side, vehicle, etc. - and certainly doesn't have direct, the most impressive part of BIS's VON. Clearly it's not a fair comparison. I think it's such an important part of the game that it's pretty inexcusable for BIS not to have it working for release though.

I don't really see how the Marines have a clear superiority. For example: Tanks: M1A1/A2 vs T-90 - Yes the M1s are better, but the T-90 has the guided Refleks AT rocket, and the main gun is still capable of breaking the turret or immobilising an M1A1/A2 in one hit, and the second hit will kill. And tank battles are more about who gets the shot first and is in a better position than anything. If you catch an M1 by surprise in the T-90 then there'll be nothing stopping you from getting the kill. It's not a very uneven match in my opinion. APCs: BMP-3 vs LAV-25 - this is a joke, the BMP-3 is so much better in practically every respect that I don't think it's the right comparison, but the Marines have nothing else. The BMP-3 is far tougher, has both a 30mm and 100mm cannon, a guided AT-rocket, and 3 MGs. Bear in mind the LAV-25 is the best APC the Marines have, so as far as APCs go Russia wins by a mile. BTR-90 vs LAV-25 - so how about the lighter wheeled APC vs the LAV? Sounds like a more fair comparison? Even the BTR-90 dominates the LAV in nearly every respect. It has far better armament - 600rpm cannon, guided AT, automatic grenade launcher, MG - and even has stronger armour from what I can tell. AAV - has worse armament (and I think armour) than all the others and has no real anti-armour ability. So Russia clearly dominates in light armour. Helicopters: KA-52 vs AH-1Z - debatable, but it's obviously close enough to not give one side any big advantage over the other. The obvious advantage of the Cobra is that its cannon can be freely turned which is very useful for CAS. On the other hand the KA-52 has 12 Vikhr rockets which can be used both against ground and air targets, vs the Cobra's 8 Hellfires. Both are superb attack helicopters in game and well-matched. UH-1Y vs Mi-8MTV-3 - Why is this not a valid comparison? Sure its no Huey to fly, but it has a large passenger capacity, an MG on the nose, side and rear, and a huge number of unguided rockets. I'd give the win to the Huey for sheer versatility (I'd hate to try a tricky insertion in an Mi-8) plus its superior door guns, but the Mi-8 has a great potential in a limited attack/CAS role given its huge rocket supply, which the Huey lacks. Mi-24P/V vs.... what? - Here's the kicker when it comes to comparing helicopters. What exactly do the Marines have to counter the Mi-24s? Nothing as far as I can tell. And you cannot underestimate the abilities of the hinds. They are potentially devastating in an attack / CAS role with powerful unguided rockets, cannons (both fixed and movable), bombs, and potent AT-rockets. On top of all of this they can transport a squad of 8 men. So I'd argue the Russians aren't outclassed by the Marines, they just have different helicopters for different styles of warfare. I could go on obviously, but you get the idea. I just don't see where this big gap in technology is supposed to be. I'm personally very impressed by how well the Russians stack up against BLUFOR this time around.