Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

5LEvEN

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    280

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by 5LEvEN

  2. Posted

    While there at it they could also improve the hit boxes as well... I have noticed some shots hit perfectly in the head (blood comes off head, point blank, 5.56) still does not kill sometimes. Don't know if its because of poor hit boxes, but whatever is causing that needs to be fixed.

  4. Posted

    Unless you can suggest a better method that is more realistic concerning the aircraft we have, don't moan.

    For example, can you make it so that you can slew the Mavericks on the A10? Can we have a fully functional Longbow on the Apache?

    In arma 2? No. In arma 3? We will have the capability to make it happen. With RTT you CAN have the most realistic targeting method possible.

  6. Posted

    I like the ideas. But I would not like the dev's to spend time on them. The reason is we have the basics, and these would be used in naval combat or missions involving ships and divers. This could be accomplished by the community as a mod. I don't see any mission potential (unless we get more powerful computers) that could use all of those in MP. Which is why I would rather have it be just a mod made by the community.

  7. Posted

    Seriously, when can we have the whole "you must be registered for at least 6/12/18 months before being allowed to post" thing enabled?

    Would surely reduce the amount of spammo' tard threads like this...

    Because I wouldn't be able to post :)

    ---------- Post added at 05:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 AM ----------

    Why do people think the Mando mod is realistic? I mean really? Its just a more complicated version of the current arcade targeting system. In real life aerial vehicles use radar, MPD, MFD, visual, and Forward air controllers to locate targets... Tanks would use Thermal, normal visual, scopes, maybe radar, and friendly forces to locate targets..

    ---------- Post added at 05:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:34 AM ----------

    Bi-pod support is just a small part of a larger problem, and that is weapon support in general. A system for weapon resting similar to what has been implemented in ACE (or better yet, Red Orchestra) is nothing short of absolutely necessary for an infantry simulator to be rightly considered highly realistic.

    I consider the tab-and-shoot thing to be less of a concern, as ArmA is first-and-foremost an infantry simulator. Mods should be sufficient for this sort of thing.

    I don't remember a Dev ever saying arma was first and foremost an infantry simulator. I think everyone ASSUMES that because the infantry are the best simulated as of right now... Taking away the Tab targeting system adds difficulty for the crew and pilot of vehicles. It makes it more realistic...

  9. Posted

    BIS should do some quick research about the safety measures put into place to prevent explosions and protect the crew inside the vehicle.

    A T-72 is more likely to explode when heavily damaged then a M1A2... The shells for example are kept in a easy to access compartment that keeps them safe in the abrams...

  12. Posted

    Just to be sure... Obsolete does not mean it will be useless, nor does it mean it will not run games at max, it just means that it is not at the cutting edge any more. The 990X is now obsolete because of the 995X, for example. A component is obsolete the moment there is something newer/better out. Buying a computer today, could mean it is obsolete a few months from now... If you are referring to the definition of obsolete that means it is not made anymore, then a computer today won't be obsolete for some time (unpredictable).

    If this computer is primarily for arma, then PLEASE wait tell arma 3 is out. If you need a new computer, but want one that will run arma 3 max, then buy a decent rig, and wait for arma 3 to come out before committing that much money for an even better rig.

    You can spend roughly $800 to get everything, but an OS that will run 99% of games that have been made at max..... Thanks to the outdated consoles :D

  13. Posted

    I would wait on buying a computer if I was you. AMD is supposed to be releasing their bull dozer chips, which is supposed to kick intels @$$ (but who knows). Also Nvidia is supposed to be releasing their 6 series GPU based on the Kepler architecture. So if your patient you will have an even better computer.... Or get it a little cheaper...

  14. Posted

    You do know that was cancelled?

    Yes, but it was cancelled because of money issues. Which to be honest, it will probably cost more to R&D and field a new vehicle for the marines, so I think the decision to cancel will probably back fire....

    It's not like the Comanche which was really unnecessary to try and field, a new vehicle is needed to replace the outdated AAVP7...

  15. Posted

    I think that's more of a mission design/server setup issue myself. If the general consensus is an optional simulation model, or even a plugin/module option, then it's down to mission balance.

    In order to keep it balanced in a mission, fixed wing attack aircraft would have to be taken out... Unless you're going to have it appear for a few moments for some air support then disappear....

    /off topic

    I would much rather see fixed wing attack aircraft gone and have armor and rotary aircraft properly simulated to be honest. As of right now the only realistic thing on the A-10 is the simple things like the ADI on the HUD and weapon load out, everything else is at best semi-realistic. I could make a new thread just for all the improvements it needs.

    /on topic

  16. Posted

    I understand your concerns about placing too much emphasis on an element of the game outside of it's core interest.

    But in the interests of expanding that core interest I think a helo FM is worth exploring, instrumentation and all. Of course, the other thing that goes hand-in-hand with improved helo modeling is improved tank/armour modeling. It can be said that helo warfare and tank warfare are two glaring weakpoints in ArmA, and yet both are necessary to the franchise for realistic infantry modeling.

    I'm not too interested in fixed-wing modeling, IMO the ArmA worlds have always been just too small for effective simulation of those, IMO ArmA has always been a helo-sized theater.

    I agree with most...

    Lemnos is supposed to be 2.5 times larger than takistan, so it is much more capable of fixed wing aircraft support, but is still a little small. If you make the tanks and helicopters realistic, but leave out the fixed wing aircraft, then you are putting the fixed wing aircraft at an advantage (if the fixed wing aircraft stay the same from arma 2). You have to go all out to not make anything unrealistic, or overpowered compared to real life. Helicopters having a realistic targeting system, while the current a-10a having the same targeting system would obviously make the a-10a much more easy to kill with. So you either have to remove fixed wing aircraft (c-130 could stay as it does not kill :) ) or make the fixed wing aircraft accurate as well...

  19. Posted

    Flying around Takistan with the TKOH beta, I found it next to impossible to fly, keyboard & mouse and joystick. The issues were the ridiculously huge dead-zone with my X52 in the RV engine and the incremental throttle with keyboard. (what sucks is I don't have peddle controls using my HOTAS throttle and the mouse.) Ideally, the "thrust" would be handled like it is in ArmA now, with the option for analogue controls. Another thing I wouldn't miss is the torque effect, I know I have always said I wanted to see proper torque; but with the keyboard (What I'm sure 90% of the community, including myself, uses.) it was very difficult to fly, and right pedal with keyboard just counteracted it. The differential of lift was nice, however over-done and not conducive to flying with keyboard and mouse (or even joystick for that matter, due to the dead-zone issue).

    I am using a x52 controller, and I did not have any problems with dead zones. I also tried mouse and key board same thing... I can fly without any problems with or without my joystick.

    The thrust controls are not handled properly in arma 2... When the throttle is at 0 it should have no power, not put on speed breaks. It should also correspond to the position of the throttle. For example 50% on the throttle should equal 50% thrust. I have tried both analog and the increase and decrease thrust options for both of my joysticks, neither of them work proper.

    When flying in take on choppers do NOT fly like most of you do in arma 2. Make the movements of the joystick or mouse smooth and small. Think ahead and plan ahead with your controls. If you try to fly like arma 2, then you will most likely spin out of control...

  20. Posted

    Considering the scope of ArmA 3, when you consider imlplementing any new feature you have to ask "what does it do for the gameplay?" IMO 100% functional & accurate instruments is not going to do a lot. I (and I would guess that most casual players) barely even notice the existing instruments in game. To me they are nothing but eye candy.

    And as I've said many times before, aircraft are the part of the game that require the least amount of attention. I mean they're already very close to sim-level while the ground/naval aspect is so far behind...

    You have never played a flight simulator then.... Naval combat is not seen in arma.... Infantry combat is already up to par with current limitations, yes, minor improvements are needed... Soft skinned vehicles are already being improved with things like physx, and are not needing much more other than damage improvements, which every vehicle in arma needs. Armor and aircraft are still quite far from being a simulation.

    Instruments are things like counter measures, gauges, MPD's and MFD's (and all that is displayed), HUD, and all controls are instruments in a real aircraft. I would hardly call those eye candy...

  21. Posted

    Why does a future setting mean a completely different game with different weapons? Why not a future date, but with current weapons and gear. Maybe you could change things that are known facts to be changed. For example ACU to Multi Cam. If you keep it like this, it will be realistic, won't be far fetched, and will still be in the future. Besides I thought it was NEAR future not 20 years from now....

  22. Posted

    Instruments CAN be done right. Take RKSL's Lynx and Puma addons for example, every single instrument works and is accurate.

    eo1kNmagy10

    There are more then just gauges when you are talking about instruments. For example the MPD's... Which without RTT are not capable of being fully functional.

    ---------- Post added at 12:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 AM ----------

    The fact that they cannot be changed does not mean they are not functional, you are provided the horizon and compass in the digital cockpits, and the Operation arrowhead longbow goes a step further by including digital altimeter techincly it should have more but eh those are the basics.

    As for helpful, as said..direction of flight, angle to ground and altitude are all pretty helpful bits of information.

    Unfortunately there are no mods that change the vehicles MPD's specificly due to certain...rules, but there are workarounds, most often aditional or different displays are part of community addons, there are some pretty amazing things you can do as well (this is an older WIP example on an addon)

    http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee200/NodUnit/Arma2%20and%20Operation%20Arrowhead/arma2oa2011-04-2712-42-34-75.jpg?t=1303926297 using helicopter radar to track vehicles both allied and enemy, tracking range can be adjusted between 10KM, 5km and 2.5km. Targets are displayed as class types, a reticle appears on the locked target and an X will replace it to display the hit via missile. Eventually range to target and missile distance will be tracked along with direction

    Uh, I should of been more clear. Information that is not already indicated on the HUD. So for example a flight plan. I also meant in vanilla not with mods. Mods are great, but make finding multi player games difficult, as the server has to have those mods or enable them...

    ---------- Post added at 12:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 AM ----------

    I don't want ultra realistic flight controls in ArmA 3, I wouldn't mind an improved flight model (they've come a long way since OFP), but if I wanted to have to buy a joystick to fly a helicopter, I'd play take on helicopters, FSX or DCS: Blackshark... I play arma for the semi-realistic all in one package.

    You can fly FSX without a joystick. You can fly Take on helicopters without a joystick. I bet with a little work you could fly DCS without a joystick (you would have to change the controls that is all). Having a joystick just adds to the realism, it is not necessary....

  23. Posted

    It has been done.

    But... it does... :confused:

    But this is off-topic.

    In what mod where you able to change the MPD's? And on top of that was it even displaying useful images?

    /off topic

    The gauges in the A-10A in arma display incorrect data on most... That means it is not functional. Load up arma and look at them, I already have to double check my statement... :rolleyes: I don't consider something a feature, or functional unless it actually works. The gauges are present, but do not work.

    /on topic

  24. Posted

    MPD's already exist and have since OFP, in Arma2 you can see virtually all modern helicopters have them but don't use max potential (mainly due to the amount of work for them).

    You can even have multiple MPD's with selectable screens via scripting. Render to texture would be the case of working camera's like this

    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.

  25. Posted

    I agree for FAC to work more realistically then you would want the aircraft modelled better. Not so much the FM thats the problem now its a combination of issues. Look at the JSF it needs a clickable pit or at least a TGT pod view for LGBs. And a working radar, with a few features added to the aircraft it could imensely improve the CAS and Air support provided by aircraft. Like the boot camp JSF mission you cannot drop those bombs accurately as there is no CCIP sight in the HUD or tgt pod view for locking the enemy tank. These are not big issues all are probably already possible in A2. As for vehicles if they modeled it in more detail are we talking checking engine oil etc? Thats a possibility with mods like ACE2 there is that possibility I think.

    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(?).

×