BadHabitz

Are you sure it's an empty yellow MI-48?

Yes please!And thanks for the update!

That's not really fair. A2 is a mature game. Just like when I bought Sims 2 for my daughters, and then all of the expansions... but when Sims 3 came out it was just as basic as the base Sims 2 game. A sequel is never going to have the polish and content that a mature game with expansions has.I happen to like A3 the way it is and the way it's going. Call me a fanboy? You might make a case for that, but I'm not going to be biased in my observations. I just like the game to the point that I'm not going to scream that the sky is falling just because BI hasn't solved my pet peeve. And I'm not too worried about critic reviews. I doubt most of Arma's sales in the past have been the result of critic reviews. This series spreads by word of mouth across the internet. But, I would hope a critic gives a good review and goes on to say they can't wait for the campaign to be released.

You'd think there would be. It's not game breaking, but it would be nice. Just make it so the soldier is holding an iPad type of device.

The single player campaign will be distributed in three FREE DLC's after release. I would hope they introduce a BLUFOR and OPFOR aircraft in those.But I do agree with people that are frustrated that some things are in while others are out. Seems like some messed up priorities. I'll wait until we see what's coming in the free DLCs before I grab my pitchfork and light my torch.

I don't see how we've been sold out.

Not when you need Steam to play A3

Wow, sounds like A2 sucked.I don't understand. People loved A2, but A3 has better graphics and animations and it's the worst batch of code on the internet. Sheesh...

It's an industry standard. If developers mention any dates, no matter how liquid or solid, it becomes a 'written in stone' promise and the chant of "lies" ensues if the date isn't met.

That's what I was saying. I can find my group's server just fine in the A3 browser, and I can download my mods from Armaholic and my group's forums. I have no need for PWS.

Since the possibility of the project becoming vaporware if you wait too long to officially release.

I would like to send beers to whomever is responsible for that change.

We should be hoping for official fixes to avoid having to use third party programs. We should have everything we need with the A3/Steam combo. If something doesn't work we should get it fixed. PlayWithSix was good for A2, but it would serve the game well to make that program obsolete and unnecessary.

I think this boils down to timing. They want the official release on 9/12. If they have to include more official aircraft later on in a free DLC, then so be it. I have the supporter edition, so if jets come out in paid DLC I'll still get it free, but I'd be disappointed with the business practice. I'll just be happy that the game will have an official release, so some of the big patches that broke lots of scripts/missions will be less likely.

My only concern is that I don't have enough free time to play this game as much as I'd like.

Flight II has no reason for a tow tractor, since there's no hangar or any reason to move a helicopter around on the flight deck. I would be they still have a RAST to aid the helicopter land during rough seas. Flight IIA has the hangars so they have a RAST for the purposes I've explained. You can view this page for a picture of the flight deck on the DDG-81 (a Flight IIA) and you can see the two RAST tracks on the decks heading towards the hangar doors.

No. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?158772-Big-PHYSx-compatible-ship-LCS-2-technological-demonstrator&p=2458503&viewfull=1#post2458503

Don't think so. I was on a Spruance DD-963 class and we used the RAST system, which I would bet the Ticos and Burkes would also use. The RAST reels the ship down to the deck, and then the apparatus slides on a track in the deck to pull the helicopter into the hangar.

Like this?: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?158772-Big-PHYSx-compatible-ship-LCS-2-technological-demonstrator

Any updates?

I'm not well versed in modelling, but this post might be of some use to you: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?156976-US-Destroyer-Ship-(WIP)&p=2429208&viewfull=1#post2429208

Modders have already taken care of this.

The mobile CV is the poster child for the movable ship/walking on deck/vehicle landing dilemma. I'd like to see it, but for my purposes I think a static CV is fine. All a CV does anyway is travels from one spot to another and turns into the wind (to conduct flight ops) inside of a navigation box. Functional smaller ships are more of a priority, as they will move from one area to another to conduct a myriad of different tasking. Something else that Id ask be considered for this Arleigh Burke project are boat davits, so RHIBs can be used for VBSS on static merchant ships. Having a nice static merchant ship with walk-able corridors, cargo hold and wheelhouse would be awesome.

The 5 inch guns normally have a 20 mile range, which is plenty for NGFS (or Naval Surface Fire Support I guess they're calling it now). Even if you're 5 miles offshore you still get 15 miles of power projection. I honestly don't see a need to go much further. As it is, 15-20 miles of NSFS range should cover most of (if not all of) the land mass of Altis. Inland strikes would be handled by precision-guided munitions from aircraft, or TLAM strikes. NSFS is more for shore and harbor barrages. You can use whatever ships you want for your Carrier Strike Group, I'm just saying you don't have to feel stuck using a certain ship because you need certain capabilities. You're not going to get upgraded capability if you choose Zumwalts over Burkes and Ticos.

The 5/64 gun mounts on Burkes and Ticonderogas can use Mark 171 ERGM rounds, which can get you the range you're looking for