hudson78

Your statement is like going to a football game and talking about how much you wish baseball went back to the 1969 strike zone before the rule change. This is a discussion about a United States Air Force mod. The F14 was a US Navy aircraft (and some are still inventoried by Iran but I doubt they are truly operational, they are mostly used for propaganda flights these days), it was removed from service in 2006. :) I am excited to see the next release of this mod.

The UH-1N is used on the special operations side of the house as well. http://www.americanspecialops.com/images/photos/usaf/uh-1n-helicopter-hr.jpg (327 kB) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/UH-1N-5.jpg (1571 kB) Up until last year the USAF had UH-1Hs. They retired the last one and sent it up to NY. http://www.helis.com/h/uh-1h_73-21721.jpg http://www.helis.com/database/cn/33625/ The UH-1N is still used though in both special ops and base security roles. There are 62 total in active duty roles. There are almost as many UH-1Ns in service as there are Pavehawks in service. http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104464/uh-1n-iroquois.aspx I always thought the camo pattern on the special operation wing Huey's was cool looking.

This.

The teleportation issue happens with the second use. For example you fly to the first target set the auto pilot, do work and then take back control of the aircraft. Then you fly to a second target at a different part of a map and when you set the auto pilot again the aircraft begins warping back and forth between the first and second targets. If you fly to a third point and set the auto pilot the aircraft will warp between that third point and the very first point you set the auto pilot too.

I have the same issue. I would really like a simple map marker auto pilot system. I love the mod though.

I think you are being polite. :n: The questionable ballistic capabilities aside, those things look like they would seriously effect your visibility as well as restrict your movement. How do you get a proper cheek weld and I wonder what it is like trying to take a drink in one of those things? In my mind these things are more show than go. Given the choice of being lighter, agile, faster and consequently more exposed is better then being bulky, heavy and slow in my own personal opinion. The risk of being exposed is worth the trade off in speed. Ops-core, (the company that makes the BLUFOR helmet already in the game), makes some armored side covers for their FAST helmet. http://www.ops-core.com/Up-Armor_Side_Covers_Ballistic_P35C20.cfm Or if looking like a cool Spartan warrior is what you are after, Crye Precision makes "Chops" for their AirFrame helmet. http://www.cryeprecision.com/C-122/Headborne-Systems On the subject of helmets I would really like to see lighter non-ballistic helmets added. Ops-core makes a FAST Carbon helmet that while looks a lot like the ballistic FAST, is made of light weight carbon fiber shell. It gives you a system to mount NVD's, lights, but without the weight.

You still didn't anwser Specta's question. It is a good question and I pose it to anyone here saying that Arma 3 doesn't look as good as it should. Give an example of a milsim that is as expansive as Arma 3 and looks as good or better than Arma 3. I haven't seen one yet. I am not sure what some here are expecting but the graphics in this game are really good. In a lot of games you either get substance or pretty shinny things to look at. BIS has done a good job of giving players both.

This is still an Alpha man. This is like complaining about what color your car is before you get buy it. From my time spent playing the Alpha it seems to me that the terrain is still not finished. If the game was in Beta, I could see where you have a point, but at this stage in the build it is alright IMO.

Those are the GPNVG-18 from L-3. Once a little known piece of special operations gear, they have now become mainstream enough to be sold on websites to police officers and military personal..assuming they can afford the 30K price tag. http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/clasky/GPNVG18_16.jpg (281 kB)

First let me prefix this comment by saying that one video of a solider in contact does not support your claim. The military (speaking for the US Military), uses technology all the time in major and minor ways. Just because you didn't see it on a youtube video or in a photo doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't currently in service. Products like the Harris Tactical Chat are used everyday by soldiers in Afghanistan at every level of operations, including infantry, to give status updates, share target and movement information between units. The devices used range from desktops, to laptops and handheld PDA's. This is just one technology used that is part of an integrated technology battlefield. These systems are force multipliers. They allow soldiers to do more with less. Moving forward and looking towards 2035 this ideology and practice is only going to continue to pick up pace. I disagree with your assessment that a military that is using more technology will be at a disadvantage to a low tech conventional force. It is hard to move pieces on a battlefield if your OPFOR knows your every move. Any sizable amount of armor or aircraft they throw out or up will be pounced on either by strike aircraft or QRF's. This eliminates the ability for an enemy force to use little more than small arms and forces them to fight an insurgency rather than in a full scale capacity (sound familiar). This is where your IED's come in. However even on that front technology is starting to inch ahead. By 2035 I would think they science of detection and disruption would create a situation where the only viable IED's left would be command det and even then I am not sure even those would be that successful. Even in our time IED detection/disruption is already very good. Sure, people do still get killed by them, but that in my opinion is only because of the numbers of IED's placed. If you cover a countryside with enough IED's the laws of probability are such that eventually you will be successful. At first I was like you. I wanted ARMA to stay conventional. However the more I thought about it, I am glad it is just a little ways in the future. I think that a setting in 2035 makes the game more accessible. You can still play the game in a conventional manner if you choose or you have the ability to use technology to change the face of the battle. In my opinion the idea of a 2035 setting gives everyone more options. I feel in some ways ARMA 3 has fallen short on the technology currently. I realize this is an ALPHA and things might change but when I look at the NATO soldier I find myself asking; "Why Multicam?" Why not one of the camo's that are in development now, something like Kryptek or the ADS Transitional that is in development? Or the night vision for example. The system currently in ARMA 3 is hopefully a placeholder. There are systems online now that far outpace what is currently in the game. There is a lot more but what I am getting at is ARMA could have really went all in on the future side of things. However at this point it seems that they have toned things down a little. Take a look at the PEO Solider Portfolio sometime. While there are some items in there that are :391: whoever approved that should be fired, there are also some really neat things in the works that will change the battlefield both now and in the future. Check out pages 187-188, the Nett Warrior system. https://peosoldier.army.mil/portfolio/#1