comp_uter15776

Just noted the Panther has the same issue with the camo netting around the skirt armour too.

Not sure if already mentioned, but (ver 1.83.144462): Edit AMV-7 appearance Turn on all components Turn off all components Some netting remains on the autocannon?

I think adding throttle carets to the HUD would improve the SA significantly when you're flying. Applying an arbitrary % throttle value in the top left corner doesn't do much to help the pilot establish whether their current throttle setting will keep them on their FPV. If anyone doesn't know what I'm referring to, this photo from a Eurofighter Typhoon HUD video shows the throttle carets, which I've highlighted in red. Simply put, when these are below the FPV the aircraft is telling the pilot "your current speed is unsustainable for the FPV you are trying to hold". Similarly, when the carets are above the FPV, the aircraft is saying "you'll overshoot at your current throttle %". When the FPV and carets are adjacent, the aircraft will indefinitely fly the vector because it has sufficient speed at the throttle output. I found this most critical during carrier landings, where one had to guess at a rough % that would keep the FPV from falling below the carrier glidepath and into the sea, or from overshooting. While the AOA indicator helps somewhat, throttle carets are also applicable to other scenarios that don't involve landing, especially when attempting to maintain high performance turns. If the carets are below the FPV while turning, the turn cannot be sustained. If they're above, the turn circle is elongated and your turn becomes more of a banana in shape. When the FPV and throttle carets are adjacent again, the aircraft is able to continue turning at that output.

Will we see programmable CMS/loadouts? For example, a kind of DTC (data transfer cartridge) could hold the weaponry selections but also countermeasure profiles; as with the enhancements to sensors naturally chaff would be more beneficial versus RADAR and flares for IR (and if you really went all out, RF decoys for magnetic signatures). The following video sums up some current-gen capabilities of DASS (Defensive Aids Sub-System) well, so I think they would fit well within the confines of a near-futuristic scenario: The video does also touch on the variety of SAM/RADAR functionality, i.e. having a FCR but also LAS RADAR that could greatly increase the potency of the SA-10s demonstrated in this video, but any networked air defense. Thus, you could have: Integrated mobile SAM/RADAR (i.e. SA-6) Networked SAMs (i.e. SA-300) - dependent on targeting and surveillance RADAR assets Surveillance RADAR (i.e. 76N6 CLAM SHELL) - for initial detection of aircraft Target tracking (FCR) RADAR (30N6 FLAP LID) - for target illumination and guidance MANPADs (think Titan AA)

In real-life scenarios you might want to turn off say, the GPWS because you are engaging in NOE flight, or alternatively if you are being consistently lit some kind of suppression of RWR is useful as there comes a point where you "get the idea" and it becomes nothing more than a distraction. Of course, there are also emergency scenarios where you are looking to shed electrical load and such.

This is quite incorrect. It's current implementation allows for fairly accurate tracking of other aircraft which would be highly reliant on RADAR and not IR or otherwise. It would be also how altitude would be calculated if not via a barometric calibration. Additionally passive sensors can be turned off, as can just about most systems in modern aircraft (and especially futuristic ones). Given that ArmA 3 is set in 2035, it would be extremely unusual to find such a high tech aircraft without some form of radar capability anyway. Edit: Also, reading back to the OP, I would have to say I prefer the previous symbology (or at least, some kind of differentiation) with respect to confirmed allied/enemy contacts. It's another aiding factor to be able to recognise that in scenarios where you must maintain high SA, you haven't buddy spiked/are aware of those 3 bogeys/etc. I prefer the NV spot too, I think there's actually less ambiguity there (the hemisphere representing ground with the flared lines suggesting spotting). If I'm flying and quickly glance at my SOI to see the red crosshair, I would rather not have to take that extra small step of mentally analysing if it is the laser or NV spot. Back to symbology, the affiliation being tied not only to colour but also shape is how NATO goes about it too (which I presume is where you derived inspiration from). Hemisphere for friendly air, square for neutral/friendly ground (no need to overcomplicate here), triangle for enemy air and finally diamond for enemy ground. I've omitted seaborne and subsurface because I doubt you'd implement sensing these assets anyway.

This was brought up earlier in the thread and was countered with the locality of the fade - the person only? whole server? nearby units?

Can confirm I too do not see the VEHICLE GET IN or VEHICLE GET OUT waypoints in the list.

This really. I'm not quite sure but I wouldn't wish to play anything less in depth functionality wise than arma in the RV engine. I would be of the mindset that there are better engines to enact a 'social' game in - something more streamlined. Besides as zooloo says, the server browser is already clogged with RP stuff I don't care for. (Filter-out mode plz?)

I personally love it. Paid for the DD version (£40/£50?) and it currently sits at my most played game of around 700 hours. Interestingly most of these were around the alpha/beta, because as we reached full release I got very busy in life. Even so I would not hesitate to purchase it again, the concepts for DLC are good and very fairly priced. The DLC model is also one of the best things to happen so far. As others have said, I'm not a fan of the RPG/Altis Life stuff because of the lack of coordinated milsim teamwork, but I appreciate that everyone can have it their way™. Looking forward to the Helicopter and Marksmen DLC now!

You've described here the issue and solution all in one. It seems like many people forget that ArmA 3's "life" has only just begun, whereas people are viewing ArmA 2 based on all the content there was to offer, including the expansion OA. That's where a good few more assets came into play; but I imagine the ordinary ArmA 2 was just as bare once upon a time. ArmA 3 is also set to have an expansion after these upcoming two Premium DLC's, so there is lots to play for and hopefully we should see a huge wedge of features and content added in to the expansion, which will become what was the OA of ArmA 2, probably.

I haven't actively participated on this forum in a while, but I feel I must contribute my opinion. I don't understand what the problem people have with it. You're not meant to be using those DLC vehicles, if it were any other game. That's why they're paid DLC. You buy them, and you can use them. So, I think they're being pretty damn fair when they even let you board as things like a passenger. Then they also allow you to join MP games with the content in and observe, so you're not prevented from entering certain servers just because you didn't want to pay. People are saying "what if someone wants to use a vehicle but they can't because they're not a DLC owner and then no-one can take control if the other pilot dies..." well, that's the incentive to purchase the DLC. Remember, it's not a granted right that you can use those assets, it's a little something just to tide you over. You're not meant to have full control and be able to zoom about when you haven't paid for it. Plus, they even give you the mechanics for free. You want sling loading? You got it. You want firing from vehicles? You got it. Not at any cost to anybody, you could continue merrily on your way without purchasing the DLC and you would still get your nice new features. That's the thing, you are paying for content so why would you be able to pilot that vehicle or use that weapon, when you have advanced flight models and (maybe?!) bipods etc for free? That's their side of the bargain, if you will, and if you pay you still get a nice bonus. So yeah, when people are complaining because they can't fly or drive or whatever then I'm thinking no, you shouldn't be, because you're not entitled to anyway. I fail to see any reasoning behind why you should be allowed to operate content which you don't own. imho, they've been pretty lenient at the minute with their restrictions. What other games permit you to play alongside DLC owners and even access portions of them? I can't think of many, if any. /rant tl;dr - People are complaining about being unable to use content they haven't bought?

BIS release everything of theirs on the dev branch a few days before a release (or in the case of advanced flight models, a month almost). However, the new helicopters will be most likely non-accessible if you haven't got the helicopter DLC, otherwise you can place it down and observe it, but not actually fly it (as is with the new premium DLC system).

Wow! I happened to miss this :( I'm very sorry to see these comments go un-replied. I appreciate some of the missions are rough around the edges. I am going to be refining all these listed here when summer vacation starts around the 23rd of July (this year! ;)). I will hold off speaking on those as what you said seems to be very fair and as these were made a while back some things could be less than what I remember them being. I also have some more ideas lined up verrrry shortly, including updating the pack, so I hope you'll bear with me! Kind regards, Comp_uter15776 P.S. Ghosthawk down is actually regarded atm as a stress test as the amount of AI, triggers and syncing is unbelievable! Still, I'll fix it soon!

Go for it, I can probably get you the scripts so you don't need to import. However, importing is rather easy!