.Taffy

Certainly detail won't be the same as ArmA but as you say some parts may be decent enough for ground based missions in that game. Perhaps if mission makers also then built up the detail in small areas of the map they wanted to utilise then that would be good. You could create an invasion mission, maybe you're fight focuses on couple of small towns but over the water you see a real time battle for the whole city playing out...it certainly be true to form for the game, making you feel like a 'small cog in a big machine'! It would be great if something could be done that allowed cars to recognize the road parts of the map and follow them, even if it is very basic.

If you enlarge the image on the Manta page it shows that the Carriage Hook (presumably used to carry Walruses) is part of the Tertiary Systems. This implies that the Primary and Secondary Systems (primarily weapons) can still be carried while the Walrus is attached. Unless of course there is a weight limit that prevents this from happening. Perhaps you can include all these but fuel consumption increases the more that is carried, limiting flight time?

That sounds like a very effective means of controlling player's actions, but won't that make the position of Commander that of moderator for the game as much as tactical commander? It might make the role unpopular...

Well exactly, it's just that in my experience games tend to start with a plan and briefing before it starts and then more planning and organisation on the ground. Mission makers could 'set it up' so that people are already where they need to be to get straight on the aircraft and then briefing and mission planning can continue from there. Unless of course there's more to the mission with operations to prepare for the invasion and such...

This sounds brilliant. Perhaps in these types of mission the creator could set it up so the briefing and planning is largely carried out in flight...if the conversation along the way isn't considered stimulating enough.

F1 Deal Explained In a bid to save costs the BBC has opted to share coverage of F1 with BSkyB, allowing Sky Sports to to show all races and qualifying live while the BBC only shows half the races and the rest as "Extended Highlight". This will cost them about £20 million as opposed to £60 million. According to the Concorde Agreement between Bernie Ecclestone, the FIA and FOTA (teams association) coverage must remain on Free-to-Air television so as to maintain the value of the sponsorship deals that the teams depend on for finance. This has prevented Sky from gaining exclusive rights and this sharing deal (which will last several years) is the only way they could gain coverage. While I expect this from Sky and Ecclestone, I feel that the BBC has betrayed Licence Fee Payers. What do you think of this, even if you do not much care for F1 what are your thoughts on this sort of activity and the spread of Subscription TV? I've avoided mentioning a certain Media Mogul embroiled in much of this though if you like, feel free to bring it up! Rants welcome!

And let's not forget a Range Rover Sport and a Challenger II MBT...or do I have my training grounds mixed up?

I remember giving that a go once, impressive and enjoyable but a bit of a pain to use with a keyboard. Will have to try it again if it's still free see how it's changed.

Bernie won't get more viwers, and he knows it. It's just a nice lump sum of cash to add to his retirement fund as far as I can see. The BBC got between 3 and 5 million viewers per race which while a small share of the global audience is still very good for BBC. It's also the advertisers key demographic. As for the BBC remit I imagine they would argue that showing half the races and 'maybe extended highlights' does mean the are continuing to carry a major sport, even though it's insulting bullshit that everyone sees through!

The BBC coverage has indeed been excellent, though I'd happily lose it to be able to see all F1 races live. Due to the concorde agreement, BBC could have given it up and allowed Channel 4 to pick it up or better yet share coverage with another like Channel 5! It just seems to me that BBC have selfishly thought it better that they get to cover it even partially than make sure licence fee payers get to see the whole lot. @Mr. Charles, I increasingly ponder a life in Germany in future over the UK as common sense seems to prevail over greed there. As to German F1 coverage it reminds me of a time in 2008 when I was on holiday in Spain with some friends and we (sadly) decided that the Silverstone Grand Prix and the Wimbledon final were more important than the sun. I was greatful for the German TV channel in the hotel that allowed us to switch over for coverage whenever ITV went to ad breaks.

Perhaps, but the way this limitation is implemented could be done in a way that doesn't make you feel like you are fighting the mouse so much.

I'm quite impressed with the way the AI handles driving, the few niggles are nothing compared to how bad it can get on other maps. Well done, really looking forward to this one!

This is great to hear. I wasn't even born when Carrier Command was released but from what I've heard it is exactly my kind of game. To hear that CC:GM is living up to that is very promising.

Would that be Ian Oliver (gadgetmind) who appeared on the forums a while ago? http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=86600&page=2

Whilst there may not be a lot of information on the updated website yet, I was wondering what you make of the background image? http://www.carriercommand.com/ In the top left hand corner there is a 'UCC' space ship in orbit around a planet (presumably Gaea). It's clearly artwork but is it there because that orbiter plays a role in game? Is it to hint at a role an orbiter could play on release or in future? Or is it just artwork to make the front page a little more interesting and exciting?

Not a major dissapointment really, just interested. The game is already impressively ambitious. Thanks for the reply Johny!

I also think that anchorpoints would be the best option. They would particularly be helpful in urban environments making sure buildings are properly used for cover.

Which of course make sense with ArmA 3 being set many years in ArmA 2's future. So while as Ivan says it does not directly carry on from that point, parts of the plot may intertwine...

Perhaps this might be a good place to start..the significance of the ARG. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=119602 We know that a map supposedly detailing an invasion plan of Europe was left by Spukayev, the intended target of a mission in the Harvest Red Campaign. Who was Spukayev, and why did he have the invasion plans in his possesion?

I do think that a move sytem along the lines of Full Spectrum Warrior, Brothers in Arms or Company of Heros would work for ArmA. It may be unrealisitic and and I don't want to see the game dumbed down but I see such a feature as being similar to the peripheral vision indicators that account for something that should be possible in real life but can't be implemented in game. For instance in real life you'd be able to order your squad to take cover behind a wall, and while I have seen the AI in ArmA 2 intelligently take to doing this on occasions, they also just as often stand with half the soldiers on the wrong side of the wall and the other half on the right side but facing the wrong way. Personally, I think it would make urban combat in particular more realistic and enjoyable, though I do worry that it would lead to the game being dumbed down over all and wonder if it could be implemented in a way that avoids that.

Just tried it and I'm glad to say it works, no more invisible carrier! Good job, thanks!

I'm having the same problem with the invisible carrier, which is a shame, though I realise the problem is most likely on my side. If anyone can think of a reason why this is happening I would greatly appreciate a solution.

I will buy A3 but continue to play A2, and enjoy the mods and user made missions as there are so many still out there. Personally I hope many of the current mods still see fit to continue developing for A2, at least for a while, rather than drop development to focus on porting.

I don't think MW3 did very well, it was BF3 that carried the day, but please, this isn't an ARMA 3 thread, much as I love the series.

Yeah it was noticing the similar thread in the ARMA 3 section and then seeing CC on the list to that prompted me to make this post. Unfortunate that ARMA 3 didn't win in its category but I beleive the debate about that is already quite lively in the other thread.