Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

5LEvEN

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    280

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by 5LEvEN

  1. Posted

    That's a really bad idea, 5LEvEN.

    The current model of crappy textures is much better than disallowing the use of content which goes against one of the main principles of this game - "you can see it - you can drive it"

    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.

  2. Posted · Edited by 5LEvEN

    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.

  3. Posted · Edited by 5LEvEN

    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

  9. Posted

    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.

  12. Posted

    I keep reading about 560ti's dying after 3 or 4 months.

    Especially if you're someone who has their system on for long periods of time.

    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...

  13. Posted

    For games like Crysis 2 and BF3 (judging by the trailers) that show the full body, are those basically floating hands or are you seeing the same 3rd person model just in first person view? Because if so, then BIS could do something like that. Would greatly support CQB gameplay while not having floating hands.

    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.

  14. Posted

    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...

  15. Posted

    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.

  17. Posted

    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...

  18. Posted

    Yeah I'm greedy I like to nail them all in one pass. I see there is a new HEI pipper for DCS A-10C even more fun to remember while straffing.

    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.

  21. Posted

    P.S: whats with the Poll question?

    I don't think I would....

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

    I believe that requires the marksmanship principles in order to get a good grouping.

  23. Posted

    Thats what its designed to do in particular using the gun against the 23mm gun on the Shilka which has less range IRL the A-10 can destroy it before the Shilka fires back. Its not tactics but weapons employment that I was refering to regarding CCIP. The USAF F-16 manual covers the reasons why bombs miss! And thats from a variety of reasons not just wind etc But also if you are attacking a tgt on a hill, valley. Its a very good manual and its why I can bomb very small buildings in F4AF, FC2, DCS A-10C. DCS A-10C the altitude you're setting is the Min low altitude not altitude of the tgt for CCIP or CCIP CR. Its actually easier to also drop in CCRP because of the TGT pod which is another good method. For FC2 the A-10A is quite limited in delivery methods because it does not have a tgting pod. So CCRP is through the HUD only the other altitude setting is the BA Burst Altitude for cluster bombs although its done manually by the ground crew the pilot can still set it in the A-10A, F-16, (haven't yet found it in the C :D)

    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...

  24. Posted

    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...

  25. Posted

    I have DCS A-10C too but we are talking A-10A here BTW elevation data is gathered by the Radar Altimeter taking a slice in front of the aircraft which is how it knows for CCIP. SU25 uses a different method by employing a laser range finder.;)

    The game is set in the future... So I think if BIS is using the A-10A then they really don't know what they are doing when it comes to aircraft... The A-10A is slowly being phased out (upgraded) to the A-10C... Which is why I am talking about the A-10C not the A-10A.... BTW using the radar I have always found that my aim using the CCIP is always off...

    EDIT: Even at this very moment the A-10C is the primary A-10... So yeah, the A-10A is outdated...

×