laverniusregalis

I doubt even by 2035 that would either exist or be effective at all.

Of course not, that means he wishes it does, if it doesn't.

So do it from third person.

Well, let me elaborate on my previous point: I'm sick of seeing the AKM/AKS and the M16A2/4 right now. I think we need something a bit more unique, but similar, since the game is in 2035. My thought was for CSAT recon units to get an AK-12 weapon instead of the KH2002, and for NATO recon units to get an M27/417 weapon instead of an ACR. Moreover it would be nice to see some randomized weapons for the FIA units, so that each rifleman for FIA isn't created the same. One might get the TRG, one might get an Mk20, the other might get a Katiba.

Oh god off with the AKM's head already...

Feedback tracker.

But nobody would do that, much less the AI. Tank would just feed them a shell in the face first.

Ahem.

Would it be possible to actually do this? I'm trying to get an ally to take off from a position at a hangar but when he taxis to the runway instead of using the taxiway he just crashes into the control tower. The two problems with using unitPlay instead of the AI so far: 1. The jet floats when my recording is being played. 2. It seems all velocity is killed after unitPlay stops. Any help?

Making missions and realizing how bad@voiceacting I am. Now I only do AAF/FIA voices because I'm okay at those.

Join the club, I want to hop in my Abrams again. But, I really don't see, beyond the odd army lineups, how the game is less realistic. Everything except the balanced-y feel of the two armies feels fairly good to me. Yeah, ArmA3's got its issues, but it isn't the end of the world for me, because at least now I don't feel like a robot when I walk.

>Coilgun on a tank >2035 >Takes place after a large war of some kind and after economies go to hell >'Sci-fi' Hmmmmm... Seems more plausible than you'd think....

I really was hoping for better differences in factions, yeah. Why do both factions have tracked SPGs? Why didn't it go like we thought it would - NATO gets a modified Marshall with an artillery system, CSAT gets the thing they do now.

It's very simple. Future = allowed so deal with it. At least that's my understanding of the situation. Which also explains US NATO forces using something based off of the Merkava's chassis but not using the mortar, or similar things.

CIVILIANS CIVILIANS CIVILIANS Get it?

Most of A3's stuff didn't get an official designation/they needed a license to use it. So they made up their own military designations, just like how they called the SCAR the Mk16/17 (real designation) they had to come up with their own here. Simplest explanation?

Be nice to him, I don't care who's right. You don't need to break eachother's jimmies.

Ah, thanks.

Kylania posted this a while ago, but I'm bad@editor and can't figure out how to check for BIS_bravoGo to be true. Could anyone help me out here?

I would, but the last time I tried DCS or Falcon BMS I said screw it, I'm coming back to ArmA.

It blows stuff up, it's plausible, and it works. Therefor it is fine with me.

I think he means the PO-30 Orca.

I must agree, we need a better AA/AAA system.

this setbehaviour "SAFE"; [group this, getPos this, 250] call BIS_fnc_taskPatrol;