b101_uk

I would much rather the dam ill thought out space bar function was removed in its entirety, so when you select any unit/s by default defers to the old system rather than the dam annoying quick order context driven farce, which would save pressing backspace all the time.

yes has seen the modular buildings, but did not know BIS had/have mentioned it. ---------- Post added at 07:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:04 PM ---------- I like the strategic map with its real time overview, its schematic breakdown of the command structure and ability to start missions like shown in the second live community broadcast. :)

Mind you, right now the HEMTTs/Zamaks can be scripted to act as refuel/repair/rearm, but I don't recall when BI made "vanilla" replenishment vehicles? (Although I've since learned that the Mk 6 mortars in Arma 3 can be resupplied by sufficient proximity to a "vehicle ammo" box of that same side.) Well there is a photo of the front half of a HEMTT with what looks like a PLS/DROPS body. http://www.arma3.com/images/screenshots/large/arma3_e32013_screenshot_09.jpg As you can see the front bit of a shipping container, the main purpose of PLS/DROPS system (the body the container is sat on) is ordinance transport THEN general purpose logistics after that, though quite what a container would be for :confused: unless it’s an implication of being able to move multiple “body†types around with parts for bases, fuel &/or ordinance I don’t know.

Mmm Well firepower AND logistics can only really be some form of tracked IFV platform with larger main gun if its combined in one vehicle, or maybe self-propelled artillery/MLRS if there were different variants of the trucks to cover the logistic elements needed to resupply them with ammo.

Is it hot muzzle flash, try firing to the sides, if that is the cause it should be much reduced.

I believe part of the problem is inconsistency between the authority of different control methods AND that the ranges and linearity of some analogue axis is screwed up mathematically, in that +100% to -100% of the physical axis ends up as something less and as low as +50% to -50% which then gets shuffled up to fit in the +100% to >0% zone while ignoring the <0% to -100% zone. Collective axis for instance, you are either forced to use half the axis range, thus end up with an overly sensitive top half of the axis and a none functioning bottom half, or if you used a method to get it working across its full range you then end up deficient in the minimum collective value forcing you to map a digital button to the analogue collective down axis to yield the same decent rate as a keyboard. You get a similar effect if you map an analogue steering wheel axis to vehicle steering, you end up ~1/2 the steering angle of the keyboard working a none linier fashion even though none is applied, it’s as if a +512 to -512 axis just ends up as 512 split as +256 to -256. Try mapping an axis you know works like the lateral cyclic axis or the rudder/tail rotor of a joystick etc to vehicle steering and compare it to the steering angle of the keyboard. Take throttle brake applied to a combined axis of +256 to -256, turbo mode ends up being mapped to the very beginning of the reverse and forwards axis rather than the very end of the forwards axis and it also feels that while the physical axis extends from +100% to -100% the game is using +99% to -99% which causes when at or near the the centre point to osculate between +1% and -1% perpetually causing maximum forward speed or maximum reverse speed when the physical axis is at/near the centre position. Try mapping an axis to the throttle/brake function like your collective or forwards/backwards cyclic axis of your joystick then position the joystick at/near the centre point, in essence there should be NO input, now switch to keyboard to make a throttle/brake/reverse input, you will end up in a perpetual forwards/reverse change as the “0†points (physical device & game) keep sliding past one another switching between +100% to -98% and +98% to -100% In essence as far as I can tell there are only 3 principle axis in the game that work correctly with parity between keyboard and a controller, they are the cyclic function and rudder/tail rotor function, every other principle axis is screwed up un some way mathematically be it steering of vehicles, collective or throttle>brake<reverse function.

There are a few tanks with 3 hatches and 4 crew, dose this also not compute? ;)

But how many soldiers don’t carry compass as part of their standard kit.

It would be worth noting, the green “portable†military type buildings the doors should open outward, this would be so they are self-plugging from external blast and blow-out with internal blast, this also would permit access in their retracted/disassembled/packed state. Likewise you could argue at least one door on the bigger “office†type building must be a fire door which must open outwards NOT inwards.

Find a picture of one flying with the wing stubs with armament attached I would be very surprised given the very well documented lack of power and deficient climb rate and they seem to be missing the hard points for the stubs to attach! They dream all sorts of things up early on they cannot or won’t deliver on. ;) Anyway I have found some more photos, also from Ft. Rucker as apparently BOTH RAH-66 are there in storage lockups. The images I posted above are the earlier RAH-66 with almost identical cockpits just with the rear missing the RMPD, the later RAH-66 (The Duke) has significantly different instrument panel between the front and rear, the front has 2 extra RH displays and no landing gear warning lights or master caution and is much higher than the earlier front instrument panel with a lower front seat, while the rear instrument panel looks just like the earlier one but with an extra box on top with two MPD's in and has landing gear warning lights, master caution including fire suppression also fire suppression for the gear wells and a higher seat position. Newer front cockpit: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-jv9xJ9iC7lg/TsvjdqhtljI/AAAAAAAAF-8/SI6WpyMQQPU/s800/PICT1715.JPG https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-n6T58dhiX24/TsvjdMDdN2I/AAAAAAAAF-4/uPTyHfnwMjM/s800/PICT1712.JPG https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Ns2Lrk_1Qkw/Tsvjg9vWH1I/AAAAAAAAF_o/9J7IRLr5Ax8/s800/PICT7541.JPG Rear cockpit: https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-O4OC-5qNnPU/TswCQvS1-OI/AAAAAAAAGB4/vjH9SrM6C1M/s800/PICT3165.JPG A view from the side flying, who has the better view over the top of their instrument panel! https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-9AlZGWFX-Wg/Tsvi2_2JF6I/AAAAAAAAF-M/sjLwhe_G-dw/s800/Col%252520Howell%252520Comanche0007.jpg Note seat headrest height: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-iVaXVVBHj2I/Tsvje7IbxQI/AAAAAAAAF_M/f7RmLoeFTng/s800/PICT7533.JPG So, on the strength of the images of the later (newer) RAH-66 taken in 2011 at Ft. Rucker and given the rear seat appears raised while the front appear lower would indicate the direction development was going was rear seat pilot, front seat WSO.

Yasotay There was a rah-66 in a storage lockup at Ft. Rucker that was known to be there in Sep 2011, as there are some photos taken by a pilot being trained there on another aircraft type which show the inside and a side view of the cockpits with himself and another guy sat in it, there were also a set of photos taken in 2007 by another pilot, apparently both on open days. Apparently it was on display there at one point but it was removed for being “to controversialâ€. Front cockpit: (note RMPD) http://digitality.comyr.com/Comanche/img/hobbs-rah-02.jpg Rear cockpit: (note no RMPD) http://digitality.comyr.com/Comanche/img/hobbs-rah-03.jpg http://digitality.comyr.com/Comanche/img/hobbs-rah-04.jpg Rear cockpit cyclic: (note no RMPD) http://digitality.comyr.com/Comanche/img/hobbs-rah-05.jpg Going by the descriptions in various places, the "RMPD screen provides information about the operational status and modes of the weapon system, mission equipment and radio and data link ciphony" which are ALL the things you would want as a WSO and not the primary pilot, thus as the RMPD is only in the front on the aircraft at the time of cancelation it tally’s with all the anecdotal info kicking around about redesigns etc to keep up with requirements while at the SAME time neither detracts for the ability for BOTH seats to fly.

see: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9767

You know they say a picture is worth a 1000 words! So what are the chances of finding a picture of 2 Comanche flying in formation with BOTH rear pilots clearly flying while the front seat pilots don’t have their hand on the collective or while the one in the furthest one is rubbing his nose/face with the hand that would be on the cyclic/rudder (you do know the cyclic twisted to provide tail rotor inputs don’t you?). http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HnfNSu4d9Qg/TcXLlSoCgpI/AAAAAAAAB8E/1qfqCiU_2bg/s1600/rah-66-comanche-helicopter-wallpaper_1024x768_18795.jpg Alternatively if you look in arbecede “another proof†youtube link you can also see that on at least 1 if not 2 excerpts it’s the rear seat pilot flying, while in others excerpts it’s the front seat pilot, and IF you look on youtube most of what is on there is just rehashes of the same old stock footage over and over again. FYI, the front seat position was used to test new flight hardware and software while the rear seat remained unchanged and would override the front seat inputs, only once flight hardware and software were proved would they be transposed to the rear seat position, so lots of front seat piloting was needed to prove the safety and reliability of hardware/software elements, while the rear seat position didn’t need the same duration of testing. Also the FDE experiments pertains purely to the portable simulator (CPC) and later (FDE2) the full motion simulator (EDS) tests and that the CPC & EDS cockpits were “not identical to the anticipated design of the production Comanche aircraft†nor did they contain all the simulated systems, so were just button pressing human/machine interface time and motion study with pilots NONE of whom had flown the real thing. Anyway regardless IF the RAH-66 program was ever resurrected it would be to modern day requirement NOT to old outdated requirements, they would have to build ALL the test aircraft again and redo most of the systems knowing what they know now along with the technological advance they have made, they would need to FIX ALL the problems the old ones were plagued with EVEN if they used the same basic airframe design, another important factor is a bulk of the testing was never done thus the production variant was NEVER set, so whatever BIS dream up is in fact NOT incorrect . Likewise in real life many helicopter pilots who try to become e.g. AH-64 pilots just don’t make the grade and end up going back to what they were flying and you could probably say more of the same would be true IF the RAH-66 had made it into production, you could probably say an element exist in game if you don’t have good special awareness. ;)

SEE: http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setFog_array

With the lazer designator (with battery) as a ground unit or from a vehicle (land or sea) with a lazer designator, you can point at something and if there is a helicopter doing CAS assigned to you (via the support CAS module) that you have called with suitable ordinance, if you laze something and give the helicopter time to get into position they will fire upon it until you stop lazing, No doubt when we get planes, they will be able to drop bombs rather than ATG missiles like the helicopters use, as aircraft have their own CAS module separate to the helicopter module, also I would guess if a lazer was added to an aircraft it would work in the same way as for ground unit/vehicle. There is the SDV’s and the strider with lazer designator, though the strider will only work for OPFOR/BLUFOR if it was an empty vehicle that you have occupied, if its occupied by greens and they laze for a friendly side it doesn’t work, likewise for green ground units lazing for friendly sides, there are no ground units who have lazer designators by default, so the easiest way is to just get one INCLUDING THE REQUIRED BATTERY from the “supply†& “support†ammo crates respectively for quick testing.

Interesting boat the CB90, but it is an assault boat with capability for landing personal, so somewhat a different purpose boat to the A3 boat and it dose stop quickly for a water jet drive! however it does that well because it has a step in the chines so it will drop off the plane quickly once beneath a specific speed and it has two trim-tabs at the back of the hull beneath the water jet drives right on the trailing edge of the “V†hull, which its self is not special, however beside doing trimming like many boats they can be pushed down so they are ~ 70deg to the water surface so act like 2 big brakes that are near enough the full width of the boat which are BOTH the unusual parts (size/width and angle capability). However it still looks like they are not fool-proof! http://warboats-org-forum.41646.n3.nabble.com/file/n447244/167002046.jpg (158 kB)

EvenLease, As said above by NodUnit, Without temperature, altitude etc and without knowing IF that was at combat weight etc that is NOT really proof of anything other than just on that day in that configuration that is unknown its purported to have managed to do X speed. By the standards of helicopters, the RAH-66 at its best had an abysmal climb rate in the region of 1450ft/min (7.366m/sec), had a relatively low Service ceiling vs. the helicopters it would be around and had problems with lack of power at maximum combat weight, yet people seem to blindly/conveniently forget it was cancelled and IF it was even remotely as good as some believe then why did two big companies in aviation not pursue it further, simply because it was ultimately floored.

A crude way of doing it is to just use a suitably large negative number that you know is more than the depth. Another way is just set it to “-5†altitude (i.e. just below sea level) and let it float down and put “this setDir random 360;†However some items (e.g. cargo container) float to the surface if spawned under water before the then sink again, while the boats and amphibious vehicles need “this setDamage 1†using in their initialization box or they will float even if the health/armour slider is set to minimum.

Or alternatively, use your stance adjust keys to effectively lean, then you can use TIR5 to do the normal lean which makes you lean even further. As then e.g. at a wall corner, you can edge up to it in the “stance adjust†lean then use your TIR5 to take quick looks/fire.

If you use the set position etc initialization for a unit, it can easily be 200km from the island and in the alpha I had used 2500km as a test BUT there are problems with the sea animation that get progressively worse the more beyond 200km you get. 200km is ok for boats as you are close to the water, 300km is ok for helicopters and you could probably push 500km to 750km with aeroplanes IF you fly high enough above the sea, but at 2500km the sea shimmers lots as it appears the sea animations gets out of phase. Still ~ 200km away still gives a ~ 400km by ~ 400km area of sea and land which can mean ~1h of flying in a helicopter just to get to land or ~3h by the fastest boat just to get to the closest bit of land. Will see later if the sea at distance >250km has improved with the beta. ;)

Some small island can be quite barren, this is because there size and/or height is not enough to trigger increased rainfall like some marginally larger island, or run-off happens to fast so it ends up in the sea. e.g. http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll=39.51596,25.014839&spn=0.088991,0.209255&t=h&z=13 vs. http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll=39.9179,25.233192&spn=0.176949,0.41851&t=h&z=12

So much generalisation! The facts are, SOME suppressors reduce energy imparted into the built thus reduce range, on the other hand SOME suppressors increase energy imparted into the built thus increase range, while some suppressors neither reduce or increase energy imparted into the built but instead screw up the reliability of some fire modes, it depends on the nature of construction, suitability and explicit purpose, there is isn’t a universal correct YES/NO or DO THEY/DON’T THEY answer and to argue ANY different is a little silly. IF BIS want to slightly reduce the effectiveness of some/all suppressed weapons in A3 then there is NOTHING intrinsically wrong with that IF you assume the suppressors are made by the manufacture of the gun (or their OEM) and that the basic military criteria was reliability of the gun in all firing modes in battlefield conditions over some marginal loss in power, given the fact that the 6.5mm round is more capable anyway than today’s 5.56mm NATO and even with marginal losses from suppressor fitment would be far more capable than 5.56mm NATO without suppressor.

There are a few larger bushes that stop you/restrict you movement, there are some smaller ones that don’t, as they have very few if any “woody†branches of any consequence, so would be the sort of thing you could barge through especially with heavy cloths on etc as opposed to say with shorts, t-shirt and sandals on.

just a quick diving one of a wreck.

Not a lot, all that would happen is we could lose the likes of e.g. youtube for a bit until they move totally out of the USA too elsewhere like the UK or EU, it’s no bad thing to move stuff out of the USA anyway. ;) I hope the bill's goes through. Still if we had this sort of internet kafuffle over the past 11 years, we may have avoided some pointless medalling in country’s affairs and pointless unjust war's, instead the money-makers like youtube, facebook, google etc etc etc can whip up a storm from the masses when their revenue is at stake.