5LEvEN

To quote my self.. "Please give me a source for where BIS said arma was an infantry simulator? I have not seen it in any of there advertisements, nor I have I seen it in any statements made by them... As I have stated before... I think people believe arma is an infantry simulator because it's the best simulated part in the game, but I have yet to see one developer state it is an infantry simulator. I believe arma is more a general combat simulator (based on advertisements, features, content, and game play), which is it's flaw... Nothing in the game is not in need of improvements to make it more of a simulator... Aircraft and land vehicles are the worst simulated by far... Which is why you see a push from a lot of people to increase it's simulation... Also since arma already has great infantry simulation with just minor improvements needed, I do not see this at all as too much work... It should be one of the main focus's for arma 3 (increase simulation of land and air vehicles)... Honestly what in the world do you think will take them a year to do involving the simulation of infantry? Revamped animations are not necessary, but is wanted to make movement more fluid (so don't try saying animations as something)..." Also unlike arma 2, I don't get up to around 400-500 knots in the a-10c for DCS. My max speed was 340 knots, and I average about 220knots. Lemnos is supposed to be 2.5 times bigger then takistan, and I can make the a10a in arma 2, which is moving at least 400knots work in that small enviroment. Also lemnos is surrounded by water, and the water just keeps going and going. So the enviroment is big enough for the a-10c, and is definetally big enough for helicopters. As I stated in my quote, all vehicles should be improved, this also means the targetting and counter measure systems. Also the handheld AA weapons could be improved as well. Now what in the world makes you think that you need the map to be hugely populated? Also IDK about you, but I would be flying for CAS, which means I WAIT untill I get the call. So untill then I am just enjoying the view... If the simulation is bumped up, it would be nice if some people learned how to use the 9-line system....

It would be a feature you could enable or disable... And I forgot to mention, if it has passenger seats and you didn't pay for it, you can use those. But you cannot fly it/drive it. You could gun it depending on the vehicle. For example the guns on the black hawk a player without paying for it could use, and use the passenger seats, but a player that did not pay for the DLC could not ues the pilot seat. I agree it goes against that, but if it's the only way to add the level of simulation that Eagle Dynamics offers, then I would go for it. That kind of simulation can be very costly on the developers both in money and in time. If you got any better ideas on how BIS could implement high quality simulation to vehicles, then please share. Because from my understanding the developers probably won't do it because of time and money. This solution would make it worth their time.

I would like this Say on server Arm they have high quality simulated vehicles enable. This would mean that players with and without the high quality vehicle DLC could join it, but only players who paid for the DLC can use the simulated vehicles. So lets say you made the DLC for the apache, the black hawk, the m1a2, the A-10C, the Ka-50, and the MI-8. Player Joe who has bought none of the DLC can play on that server as normal, but would not be able to use these vehicles. While player James who bought all of these vehicles will be able to use all of these vehicles. And player Bob who bought the MI-8, and black hawk, can only use those two vehicles. Basically this would allow highly simulated vehicles in game to players who want it. You would not need to pay for all of the vehicle DLC's to host a server with this feature enable, but (as stated before) ONLY players who have paid for it may use the vehicles. I think this could work, and that many would pay for the DLC's. I know I would pay for almost every single vehicle. Especially the apache and A-10... Also if server Arm decides to load a mission without this feature enable, then the default arma 3 would be used. EDIT: Players who do not pay for the DLC could still use the gunner seat (depending on vehicle), and still use passenger seats.

Is it possible that you could do a high quality simulation for a vehicle, then sell it as DLC? For example make a high quality simulated A-10C, and sell it for like $X. Then do this for a variety of vehicles. Ugh, trying to think how to explain my idea... Cause there is more to it then that... Say on server Arm they have high quality simulated vehicles enable. This would mean that players with and without the high quality vehicle DLC could join it, but only players who paid for the DLC can use the simulated vehicles. So lets say you made the DLC for the apache, the black hawk, the m1a2, the A-10C, the Ka-50, and the MI-8. Player Joe who has bought none of the DLC can play on that server as normal, but would not be able to use these vehicles. While player James who bought all of these vehicles will be able to use all of these vehicles. And player Bob who bought the MI-8, and black hawk, can only use those two vehicles. Basically this would allow highly simulated vehicles in game to players who want it. You would not need to pay for all of the vehicle DLC's to host a server with this feature enable, but (as stated before) ONLY players who have paid for it may use the vehicles. I think this could work, and that many would pay for the DLC's. I know I would pay for almost every single vehicle. Especially the apache and A-10... Also if server Arm decides to load a mission without this feature enable, then the default arma 3 would be used. EDIT: Players who do not pay for the DLC could still use the gunner seat (depending on vehicle), and still use passenger seats. PLEASE could you at least give this idea some thought :D

MEV Striker with one of these http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/4220163 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4391161.stm After all its in the future, this is not too far ahead of its time. All they are trying to do is shrink it. If you do think this is too much future for you... Then please open your mind, and look around you....

Really the physx question again? Guess I was right, it hasn't been stated enough, and I was being sarcastic when I said that....

The screens look beautiful.

I like the new screen. It gives me the feeling that a storm is coming :) . It really does look more real

I don't think third person needs to be fixed at all. If your playing in 3rd person then...

This is not needed to identify friend from foe, its needed to identify who is john and who is sam in game. It's needed so you can identify your own teammates from each other. It would really make things much easier when you're trying to coordinate something with someone when you know what they look like in game. As of right now I have to have a name above the players head or remember any unique weapons a teammate is carrying to help me identify who it is. But with this, that would no longer be needed.

So basically I could look like this :D I think that this kind of a feature could be very good, and help the player become more recognizable. In game its kind of hard to tell who is who without names over their heads. So this could fix that problem for sure.

To explain this please look at the picture I have drawn. The blue line represents your viewing angle. The red line represents the trajectory of the bullet. Basically your aim is off because of perpesctive... I hope that makes sense :)

I have never heard of this problem. I have read and watched many reviews of the card. Gone on forums to see discussions about it between actual owners of it. Yet, you are the first to say this...

I am pretty sure crysis 2 is not just floating hands. You can see your legs move with your body as well... ---------- Post added at 10:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 PM ---------- About the campaign. I would love for it to just ease the player in. From basic training all the way up to maybe special forces. I always felt that in arma and arma 2, that I got to command the squad way to early. Not everyone is an arma vet, so think about the new players. This could definetly help them.

My memory is a little bit rusty on this, but some years ago the US military was investigated because of the amount of headshots to the enemy. They suspected we were excuting people, but they discovered it was because our soldiers where accurate, and when only given the option to shoot the head (enemy head is only visible) that this would be expected... The accuracy of how civilians shoots is really irrelevent in a game like arma. Its the accuracy of the soldiers that matters. The USMC (which will probably be the main blufor faction, because its on an island, and its NATO), train with their rifles for a considerable amount of time. If you were to train for the same amount of time, you would probably be proficient with it as well. So how about instead of civilians giving their opinions about the accuracy, some people from the armed forces give us their opinions...

I honestly don't know which security system is the best, so I will not vote... At the very least they should improve the server logs, so that you can see who is spawning the JDAM on players for example. I got banned from the xx-team-xx server because I was not a regular and it got hacked while I was playing on it. I didn't get unbanned until someone vouched for me, and said I was not the hacker basically. Took 2 weeks, if it wasn't for someone vouching for me, I probably would of been banned indefinately, and I am actaully surpised that somone vouched for me, as it was my 4th or so time on the server, so I didn't think anyone would remember who I was... Basically I would really like it if they improved the logs so the type of thing cannot happen.

No. This would make it more difficult then real life. Also it could make new players not want to play.

Good concept. Thanks for re-finding that video DMarkwick. That video also displays another problem with the AI. They need to cover each other like you would do IRL. I am not going to explain exactly what they should do, but they should use the MOUT tactics in that type of an area. If there was an MG or a squad set up on the road perpendicular to the squad at the first position they set up at, when moving to the second position they would of been dead...

Yeah, they changed it in the lastest patch... Now you put your target basically in between the two dots... They always seem to be changing just the small things in this game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87H2ynPGaDw&feature=channel_video_title I was thinking long range engangement. In your video it seemed a little close :)

Looks great! :D

Heres you answer from SUBS17 when I posted the same... I don't think anyone knows, but the OP... :)

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=60293

I guess it was not said I was talking about the GAU-8/A (btw its a 30mm) with CCIP... I rarely use the CCIP for bombs, I use CCRP for bombs, as it is just as accurate and keeps me away from AAA fire, and also from SA-13, SA-18, SA-8, and the SA-9, or make my exposure to them very limited... Although when dropping bombs without a tail kit to correct for variations, it is a little less accurate, but will destroy the target... In the A-10C you are looking for HOF, and RPM for CBU's... When adjusting weapons check the DSMS profile page, and the DSMS Inventory page...

I use the tactics given in the USAF A-10 manual... I do not use the same tactics for the A-10 as the F-16 because they are different aircraft that perform differently... Using the same tactics for each method (CCIP using radar and manually inputting elevation data) I find that inputting elevation data manually is much more accurate... If BIS is going to include an A-10 at the very least I would like proper CCIP sights for the gun... As of right now I have to get in within 1000m to start firing on the target so it hits, but in a simulator like DCS I can start firing at 2NM away... Kind of a huge difference...