5LEvEN

The ones in arma/ofp are not fully functional MPD's. You cannot change the screen, and it only displays the ADI (if I remember this correctly). Thats like saying the A-10A has had gauges this entire time, because it is modeled, and some work.

True, but we have to start somewheres. A simple outline is you would need to add interactive cock pits (and higher resolution), MFD's and the info to go into them (TAD, TGP, TGT, DSMS, ect), interactive HUD, Auto pilot (fixed wing), counter measures, and a better flight model. How can you add MFD's in arma 2? I thought you had to have RTT to add those(?).

True.... Its up to the older generations to teach the young ones about variety in PC gaming. :blues:

I have tried tanking, even more boring :( ... I personally think arma should be in all-in-one simulator :D . The aircraft have realistic flight models, and avionics. The armor would have the equivelent (if I knew what it was I would name it, but I do not :o ). The soft skinned vehicles are already getting improvements (physx for example). The infantry already got it made compared to everyone else though, but still room for some minor improvements. I think what every single flight simulator is missing is real people being helped. If I was transporting real people to and from battle it would be much more entertaining. If I was helping by providing CAS to real people, again it would be much more entertaining. I believe this is the reason why you see people from hard core flight simulators coming to this game, and wanting realism for the aircraft. I and others see the potential that arma has. If arma was an all-in-one simulator it would draw people from every other simulation, it would have a larger community, and make more money (good for the devs :) )....

RTT = Render to Texture. It would allow the MFD (multi functional displays), with TGP (targeting pod), and the cameras on the Mavericks to display. I agree with the proper counter measures though, but those are usually to get away or buy some time for killing the threat. With the way you can Tab to cycle identified threats in arma you will never be able to hide... P.S. I can help you out with DCS A-10C, but my knowledge for Black Shark is still limited as I have not dedicated enough time to it. I find its time consuming to get something done, but not difficult once you have learned the controls and functions of everything. Also having a basic understanding of each threat helps (like weapon range for example).

About the controls... I am guessing you do not have a throttle with your joystick? Arma does not actually use the throttle on my saitek x52 correctly. It's basically an expensive version of the Q and Z keys... Some of the buttons on it arma will not even detect also...

I agree, but also disagree. A simulation is not what most people think. It is far from perfect for one, and usually makes it seem as if it is proper, but is not. An example being the CBU's from DCS. Certain things must be properly simulated. For example a T-72 should be destroyed if hit by an AGM-65D. An M1A2 should not be destroyed by an RPG. You have to simulate damages to an extent as shown. In comparison to dedicated simulators like DCS, and FSX, Arma's flight model is arcade. In comparison to BF, Arma's flight model is more realistic. Arma's current flight model works, but is still arcade. I consider it arcade because it is not a proper simulation. A proper simulation meaning, it has simulated everything to the extent that it seems realistic. For example DCS is a proper flight simulation, but it has not simulated infantry properly, because it would only need it for a forward air controller, which is minimal, and can be done without infantry simulation (no one is playing as infantry basically). In arma's case it is more of a infantry simulation, but because there are real people flying aircraft for the infantry it requires a proper flight model. The flight model and controls affect the way the pilot does things, it effects it to the point where the pilot has to learn new techniques and the different flight model. I realize that you don't care for this, but the pilots do. Arma's flight model for me, is just not that fun to fly. It does not require the precision, attentiveness, and skill that the real thing does, thus it is boring to me. Adding a realistic flight model would only affect the infantry in a negative way if an inexperienced pilot is flying, which I thought you wanted to avoid(?). If you want people on your server who don't crash the aircraft, and leave, then get a realistic flight model, and avionics. With those two things, you would be able to avoid things such as the crash and leave problem. Also you would have proper CAS, and transport. In a dedicated flight simulator, I can set up a flight plan, and follow it with precision. No more checking map, or place a way point with the Ctrl+LMB to go somewheres. Although at first it can seem more difficult to set-up and follow a flight plan in a dedicated simulator, trust me it is not. In my opinion it is much better. I prefer the challenge the dedicated simulations offer. Which is why I would love to see that in arma. Yeah, I could go into DCS and give CAS to some AI, or FSX and transport some imaginary people, but that is just not the same as helping out REAL people. It is much more fun to know you are actually helping real people win a battle. Also keep in mind, a lot of the things we would like to see are not needed. Just check the wishlist... If arma is an infantry simulation only then, anything dealing with vehicles being accurate outside of basic damage, basic models, and speed is out of the question. I personally think arma is more then just about the infantry...

Infantry meaning the soldiers who fight on the ground.... Thus they are not using vehicles like aircraft or tanks for example, unless they are riding in them. Which means you have a pilot and/or crewman supporting the infantry. Making the vehicles simulated properly will not effect the infantry in a negative way. In fact it would help the infantry. If vehicles are simulated correctly then the infantry can get proper armor and CAS. As of right now pilots don't really need the infantry's eyes on the ground, but if it was simulated correctly it would be difficult locating and identifying targets without eyes on the ground. In other words the infantry would be much more valuable in helping pilots locate and destroy targets. It would also mean there would be a real job for the forward air controller. Adding simulation also means proper insertion to the AO. You can't have an infantry simulation with arcade vehicles, its not a simulation anymore if you do. You can, however, have an infantry simulation with properly simulated vehicles, or without vehicles. I am assuming you would rather have vehicles to transport and support you on the ground. Am I right? So in other words, if you want an infantry simulation with vehicles, the vehicles must be properly simulated.

LMAO.... BF3 and Arma 3 are not even out yet :j: ... How can either one be nominated or win? On top of that though, they are COMPLETELY different games. :rolleyes:

Mando missiles was good for trying to simulate what the game engine could not at the time. With RTT being implemented you could potentially have a real set-up for targeting. The following is an example of how to use AGM-65H in an A-10C from DCS:

Arma 3 should have the best tutorials so far. As with each game, the tutorials got better.

I would say for easy difficulties on singleplayer only this would be useful... Unless people start playing Arma like MoH I don't see any need for this in multi-player. Side note- I have roughly 20 TK in MoH with only 8 hours of game play. The reason, because some idiot walks into my line of fire when I am already firing... Or someone walks in front of me just as I click to call in mortars the result is me and the guy dead from the mortars... I don't see why you guys are concerned with performance with these simple additions. Back years ago anisotropic filtering was actually taxing on GPU's. Now days I have yet to see one modern GPU that is effected by anisotropic filtering. Even on an 8400GS there is not 1FPS difference, or a higher load on the core GPU... In other words simple things like this should not effect fast dual or quad core CPUs, which is needed to run arma anyways :rolleyes: ...

I personally (as this is a SIM) think every aspect should be properly simulated :) .... Primarily vehicles need work, both air and ground vehicles are not properly simulated, but the maps are just to small for proper aircraft simulation to be honest. Ground vehicle simulation is a different story though, it is very plausible, but it would render aircraft useless. Unless the aircraft are properly simulated. Infantry, I would say are already simulated very well. Yeah there is still a lot of things you cannot do that you should be able to do, but those are minor things, and current simulations do have their limits.

Thats why you would want realistic flight... If the game requires a person to dedicate time to learn how to use and fly it, then you will never have a complete noob providing you with air assets or the join server and crash aircraft then leave problem... Take an average mission (for me) from DCS A10C... It takes me roughly five minutes just to power up so I can taxi to the run way. After another two minutes I am finally up in the air. Then I usually have a minimum of a five minute flight just to be in TGP range, for target verification. After another ten minutes of verifying and prioritizing targets; I will plan (if necessary) and attack the enemy targets. So after roughly 25 minutes, I finally fire a weapon. So if the player has to do that, then the player will not want to crash it, and have to start over...

Arma 3 should have accurate air defense. Just as it should have accurate aircraft...

DCS A10 Quality simulation and controls :D

Just because it is flashy and cool does not mean it does not increase realism. Destructible environments do add realism. I don't think I need to explain why :rolleyes:...

The use of the road seems vehicle based. For example a Bradley will not use the roads will a Humvee will.

I would just wait.... Thats current pricing for a decent rig. A year from now that rig could cost a few hundred less, or be completely out dated. So wait till arma 3 is released or a week before to look at prices of computers.

I agree, MP does need something for friends, favorite servers. It would make things so much easier...

LMAO you got some anger issues bro.... I never said or accused you of anything... Maybe you need to learn to read... I did read you post. The only game that has the one button play multi player is Bfp4f (that I have seen). Even BF2 which is more popular has what arma has when it comes to finding games. PC gamers expect the list of servers to choose from, most if not all PC gamers don't even use the "join now" buttons available in some games. What I hate and I mean HATE about consoles is the lack of a server list.... Now onto the others "issues" you mentioned. It is NOT BIS job to host dedicated servers, nor is it to create maps for us. Thats why they give us mod tools and the editor. The issues you are talking about with lack of types of game modes and dedicated servers are because the people who pay for them do not want what you want... If you want a server with a game mode you are going to have to persuade the host of the server or buy/rent your own server.... Voice Chat I see nothing wrong with. The in game system works vary well. IMO better than teamspeak. Although it needs bit quality improvements.

I disagree with OP.... Arma is like a bald eagle. It is rare and beautiful. Lets keep our bald eagle.

Oh how I wish arma had what steelbeast has in armored vehicle simulation though...