saul

@Peybolman - We will be releasing a small (and I mean small) update to the F18 with HRP included, stay tuned.

Keeping Up Foreign Relations

@Melvin - Have you changed the key bindings for Afterburner and Tailhook which should be E and S by default. These are the keys for Seagull fast forward and back under the development tab in controls.

Then came the Kinetic rod strikes, nuke EMPs, and the Chinese. Your arguments are now invalid. Have a good day!!!

@Astro - Honostly I don't know what would be causing your problems. I find ARMAs flight physics to be simple enough to use mouse and keyboard. I do know that "Brakes" refer to wheel brakes.

@All - So this past week has been very busy for John and me as we are neck deep in Su-35 development. Work will continue on the F/A-18's however we will not be releasing an update anytime soon as to implement much of the improvements and new features we will need the ARMA3 mod tools and time. The Su-35s Flanker-E is coming along beautifully and the screenshots below will attest to that. Enjoy!!!

No problem. I've seen what you are talking about, a couple of my friends still serving mentioned it. The new M4/ M4A1s haven't even begun rolling in yet and if Murphy's law still applies most of the "new rifles" will just be kit replacements. At least that is what happened when the US services switched to the M16A4/A3 and M4/ M4A1s with the picatinny rails.

Awesome work Robert, always love your weapons. My only critique would be to add some wear and tear (realistically). Right now the rifles are so clean that they look fake. My whole six years in the Army Infantry I think I only saw four brand new rifles and a good majority refurbished. Weapons that see combat gain a lot of wear and tear around the muzzle, mag well, and just about anywhere else that may make contact with the shooter, the ground, or other objects. I'd say focus on leading edges of various parts. Here is an example: On the subject of recoil, I wouldn't change a thing. The AR-15 rifle series has remarkable low recoil for it's .223 or 5.56 rounds. This is due to the rifles design incorporating both a buffer spring and modified flash hider. The flash hider has five holes cut into the top of it with a solid base. It also has a cone shape feeding from the end of the barrel outward. This allows remaining gases (those not used in the gas impenchment system) to expel forwards and up. The gases actually push the rifle down just slightly enough to negate the typical upward movement. The buffer spring resides in a tube built into the rifle stock (both M16 and M4, M4 being visible). The buffer absorbs a good majority of the rifles recoil to include the round being fired, the gases pushing the bolt back and the buffer pushing the bolt back forward. So a shooter that is following proper fundimentals of marksmanship (aka body position, sight picture, breathing, and trigger squeeze) should be able to negate any to all recoil for the rifle. So again, hats off Robert, good work.

@all - As far as our built in missilebox I can say this much, as John stated earlier. Once the GPS/ INS system is in place for the GBU-30 family JDAMs that will be pretty much it as far as any major changes for a while. That is unless BI becomes magical fairies and delivers detailed separation between target and weapon types which is sorely needed. Ideally we would love to have proper weapon systems for both aircraft (F18 and Su35 for those not paying attention) but it is just not possible now with how much the mod has grown.

@LordPrimate = We are looking into HRP, :D

Currently we are not going to make any additional skins for the F-18s. As of a little while ago we are focusing all F18 development into fixing current problems and implementing the last few features whilst building the Su-35. Much to do and not much time to do it.

@Brad = it's possible, are there any respawn scripts that you are using in the mission for the F18?

@Izaiak = Ok, now this begs the question of are you lasing your own targets or is someone else lasing them for you? If you are lazing your own targets, then there is a certain sweetspot that is pretty close before you can tab target the laser.

@Warlord = At this time no. If BI ever creates more authentic AA, ATG, and SAM weapon systems for fixed and rotary wing aircraft we will probably look into ECM tech. Possibly might even create the EA-18G Growler variant if we have time. Until BI decides to include authentic radar capabilities into ARMA 3 it is most likely not going to happen. Update: Yes we know that ARMA 3 v1.05 broke many bits and bobs of the F-18. We are working diligently to fix these issues. Look for the full update 1.5 sometime this week.

@izaiak = I don't believe any of those mods are causing any problems with the missilebox. I know that for tracking the laser designater that view distance (I believe specifically object view distance) plays a factor as well as altitude, speed, and angle of attack. If you can, try setting your view distance out to 5k (object should be like 2 to 3k) and try to track a laser target. @Flash = AWESOME!!! Wolf = Possible, Yes. Do we have time, no. Sorry :( AND more Sukhoi awesomesauce XD http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/5503/9epr.jpg (122 kB)

As far as I have researched for the F/A-18 E/F the ejection seat is the Martin Baker Mk. 14 NACES seat under the SJU-17 designation. The main recovery parachute is housed in the headrest and deployed by a rocket which is located on the left main beam assembly. The parachute contained in the top headrest of the seat is not directly attached to the seat but rather to the pilot using the MA-2 type torso harness. In this image you can see the parachute straps coming out of the containing lid of the headrest and MA-2 connections resting on the backrest of the seat.

We will look into pro :D

@ProGamer = Need more detail on the leading edge flaps twitching. If the Nimitz is involved this is a known bug caused by the aircraft carrier itself. Again this is a pre-release version with the full 1.5 version to be delivered next Friday. Do not mirrior please, thank you.

I think people are forgetting that the AAF only have a companies worth of soldiers (roughly about 140 +/ -) on stratis and this whole campaign episode takes place over a day period. It would make sense if the less experienced, poorly equipped AAF would pick their fights against the experienced 20 +/ - NATO troops. It's also possible that the AAF didn't know how many NATO troops actually survived the initial fighting. It's a story, it's entertainment, and honestly there are WAY TO MANY IFS to really be able to say this or that is what is happening for sure outside of what you experience as Cpl. Kerry.

Very few issues on my end. Worked with mods. I did have a slight audio bug where I could only hear speech out of my left ear so I ended up having to use radio text and subtitles to get all of the conversations. @NMDANNY = I think you are over-thinking the story a bit much. The first campaign episode only takes place over two days. In the beginning chaos it is very possible that a handful of NATO soldiers were overlooked until later in the day on the 7th. The AAF only had a companies worth of soldiers on the island (if you check the maps prior to each mission, it tells you), four platoons with some CAS support. To a point it makes sense that they wouldn't go all out on those NATO soldiers as they didn't know one how many they were up against and two they needed to hold their positions that they had. Camp Maxwell was an abandoned military post and until the AAF regrouped and realized what was going on again it would be easily missed. Air Station Mike 26 was taken down during the dismantleing so the gear there doesn't work and they would need the proper radio equipment to make the long distance call (assuming cell phones were jamed, lol). All I'm trying to say is don't take the story out of context, it's a story. If you want reality set up a checkpoint in the editor with a few buddies and check civilian traffic for six hours. As for the AI, I agree to a point, only real problem I had was the final mission as well where only four of us made it out alive, lol.

Here are the innate problem with your argument. First ARMA's flight physics are WAY off from real life flight in multiple ways. This isn't because the engine cannot handle the flight characteristics but rather the game is simplified for commercial use essentially creating arcade gameplay rather then simulation. Atmosphere, gravity, wind, air pressure, weather, non of these actually effect the aircraft in flight. The reason you may feel that the aircraft is SUPER maneuverable in turns or the like is that you don't get the gravity or wind effects pushing back against the aircraft. The only real way you can notice that you are making super tight turns (which in RL would not be possible) is noticing your speed dropping to stall levels. If you tend to fly the aircraft like a normal pilot would (maintaining speed in turns, etc etc) then you will notice that the aircraft performs exactly as it should. Secondly this project is in dire need of the new mod tools for ARMA3. Much is left to be done in the flight model, features, and the like but cannot be completed due to the lack of new software (such as PhysX). Everything we have managed to pull off with the F18s has been done using the older tools. I ask that everyone be patient until those tools are released. Now perhaps we can develop some sort of script that will allow the player to not over turn or over stress the aircraft (a governer of sorts). Keeping all of the maneuverability of the F-18 without the super unrealistic ARMA flight physics. Time will tell. For now, don't make 20 g plus turns :D

@Gavin = Laser Designater is a weapon and not an action menu option. You will need to cycle weapons on the F/A-18 F version with the ATFLIR pod mounted. @Izaiak = You need to elaborate more on your GBU issue. What mods are you using besides the F18? Are you self designating? etc etc. As for the leading edge flaps this will be fixed in a later update.

@Pro = The plan is for both aircraft to be airplaneX, unfortunatly we will need the new mod tools to fully implement that feature :/

@Tuna = I see no mention of a SU35E (which doesn't exist), John labeled it as the SU-35 Flanker-E which yes we are working on SU-35S (mistakenly called SU-35BM). This is why you see no front canards and the like. AND yes we are planning on thrust vectoring for the 35. @Wiki = Currently we have no plans on allowing the canopy to be opened manually outside of the player getting into the aircraft. This is an animation limitation as stated before many pages ago. Though we could work around it we currently have many bits and bobs on our plates. As for the improper labeling on the F, it will be corrected in a later update along with many many other things.