squirrel0311

Well there is already a thread similar to this one but it mostly focuses on the radar which is something I wish was gone from tanks. I do believe they should have a Situational Awareness Circle but not a radar. UNLESS!... There is an Air defense system within …eh…1km?…Then I’m ok with tanks having a radar because that information would be linked to them. Also, ground vehicles shouldn’t show up on tank radar. They’ve tried that before and there is usually too much clutter. (Trees, buildings, cars, hills.) As for active protection systems: Yes I would love to see them implemented but they should come with the ability to turn them off and adjust options just like the radar should. This is how I would like to see it work… (You may disagree but I want you to read the bit about balancing at the end.) First, every Heavy and maybe Medium armored vehicle would have an Early Warning Hub and an Active Protection System. The EWH would sit on top of the turret and detects when your vehicle is being Radar scanned/locked, laser designated, or if you sustain a hit, which direction the shot came from. The down side would be that since it sits on top of the turret it would normally be destroyed after the first hit. This would give the crew a critical advantage by knowing the general direction of the threat but it wouldn’t hold their hand and turn them into an all seeing killing machine. For an added bit of realism…it could be disabled with an Anti-Material Rifle before the attack began. (Just like how vehicle optics should be. Check my wish list.) Radar Scanning Aircraft: (This one is a maybe since it might be hard to make happen and I'm not really aware of any radar detection systems...at least none for tanks that work.) When an enemy ATTACK helicopter gets within range to see your tank on their radar, the EWH would simply PING ONCE and a yellow light would display in the corner view finder/ dash interior. (Whenever that comes out…) This is simply to let you know a real air threat is present somewhere. If the helicopter leaves the area it must be gone for...10seconds for the system to ping again. Otherwise the light would just fade and come back. You should be able to disable the noise completely though. It shouldn’t ping for individual helicopters, just have it ping once if one or multiple attack helicopters are present. It also shouldn’t turn on for transport helicopters because most don’t usually run ground scanning radar. Laser Designation/Radar Lock: When your tank is locked onto by a plane, helicopter, shoulder fired missile launcher, or being laser designated….. A red light should begin flashing accompanied by an alarm. This would give you the ability to deploy a smoke screen but… THE APS CANNOT SEE THROUGH YOUR SMOKE SCREEN. This means rockets fired into the smoke screen will hit you if you’re still sitting there. Ideally there would be an optional feature to have it give you a general direction of the threat as well based on which side of the vehicle is picking up the signal, it could be changed to ignore friendly lasers at easier game modes too. The APS destroys missiles and rockets, it has a limited number of reloads that can be completed from inside the vehicle (1 or 2 Max) and it should take 2-3 seconds for the system to reload those spent pods. It doesn't stop tank rounds and probably wont stop RKG-3's (Something I wish they had in the game.) I'm betting it would still be pretty effective even at close range against rockets and missles.... I think that if you got close enough to defeat it.. You'd probably catch something from the blast of the hit or the failed attempt by the APS. It should also injure friendlies within....eh 5m of whatever side it activates on. (That would be a good way to get kills, wait for APCs to unload troops and then fire so they're hit with your explosion plus their own.) After the reloads have been used the APS must be Re-Armed at a Re-arming station or a truck. If you re-arm at a truck then someone should have to get out of the tank and do this. (None of that pull up next to a tank and re-arm from the safety of the vehicle, junk.) Personally I don’t care if they all work the same way in game (In fact I might prefer it.) but I want them to at least look different. The Russian Arena system and the Israeli Trophy system both come to mind. As far as using what is currently out….Well that’s fine but then again some systems are noticeably more lacking than others… I can’t help but think that those systems will probably have found ways to work around those shortcomings by the time 2035 gets here. For instance….The Arena system does not self-reload and it uses (as far as I can remember) Radar to detect incoming missiles and rockets. This means it’s probably more susceptible to detection clutter. The Israelis first had the Iron Fist and was later put aside in favor of the Trophy system. The Trophy System can reload itself and uses …Thermal and movement detection I think?.... I’m sure it still has flaws but it’s probably better than radar. Balancing: I know lots of people say it’s the biggest problem with ArmA 3 but I disagree. Everyone has their own opinion on what the core or core feature of ArmA is but to me and a lot of others (Including ones who hate balancing.)…it is the EDITOR. The editor gives you the ability to build your own scenario or even your own game without much knowledge or experience in the gaming field and then go play it by yourself or with friends. The problem in my opinion isn’t balance but simply a lack of customizable options. Every faction should have comparably equal capable vehicles. And certain across the board features (The not accurate ones.) should come with the option to be easily disabled. If you want to make a lopsided mission with one mighty CSAT force and a few NATO guys running around on the other side with only pistols, then that is perfectly fine. It doesn’t mean that NATO shouldn’t have any tanks with machine guns or anything like that…just means that you shouldn’t put them in your mission. If you’re talking about balance in the single player campaign then I might agree it’s bad and could easily kill the story. But if you’re talking in general and especially on a multiplayer level then I strongly disagree. For instance if you’re playing a multiplayer game that gives players the ability to choose what they want to use (e.g. weapons, vehicles, etc…) everyone tends to instinctively choose the best stuff. If they can’t choose the best stuff then they instinctively want to be on the best team with the best stuff… Imagine playing on human teams as an insurgent or low budget military against the NATO or CSAT. You get machineguns and rocket launchers; they get tanks and planes with thermal and what not. You’re on an island…you’ve only got so many places to go…without balancing, a mission like that wouldn’t be very fun. (Goes back to that part about optics on tanks should be destroyable.) The main thing is that all these features should come with the ability to easily turn them off or customize them in the editor. I’m not talking about typing in script either, I mean check the box for EWH. Check the box for APS. Click the tab to customize features. (I wrote this out yesterday but couldn't post it. :/)

I understand your concern and I feel the same way. However......There are already quite a few threads about changing the User Interface menu and this particular thread doesn't say anything that those other threads haven't already. :/

I won’t say it’s a bad idea, in fact I like a lot of the aspects. In reading it though, it does seem a lot more complicated. On top of that, there is absolutely no way it could be implemented into the game without (as others have said) pretty much scrapping everything and starting over. I agree with the others in that I wish you could open guns up on the ground the same as you would a backpack. Like others, I also wish that the 3 Weapons slots allow any weapon to be placed in those slots. Each weapons slot should have 6 Attachment slots If the weapon doesn’t have room for 6 attachments then you just wouldn’t be able to use those slots. Muzzle,top rail, scope, Left Rail, Right Rail, and the big one…. BOTTOM RAIL… This would be how you attach under barrel grenade launchers or maybe under barrel shotguns… Who knows, maybe even a Grip Pod or Bipod if they ever include that function. I understand that in most cases the top rail seems unnecessary but it would allow a more realistic approach by allowing the addition of an inline Thermal sight such as the PAS-27. You would keep the PAS in your backpack until you needed it, then go to inventory and attach it which would convert your RCO to a thermal sight. You could also use the top rail for leaf or quadrant sights for the UBGL or whatever else people can think of. Here is a picture of how I would like to see the inventory changed. http://i57.tinypic.com/313t5cn.png Notice how the Muzzle, Top Rail and then Scope are all in line just how they would be on the rifle. Underneath the muzzle box is the Bottom Rail, again like it should be on the rifle. I think this is key in order to quickly add attachments in the correct/desired place. Ideally each box would have a label but I didn’t feel like putting them in. MZ =Muzzle, TR=Top Rail etc… Then look at the pistol and see that since it doesn’t have side or top rails those are crossed out. I would like to see faded red icons but I can’t draw that. Finally we have a feature that I very much want to happen…. CONSOLIDATE AMMO BUTTON! – In addition, each weapon slot should have a little button that that consolidates ammo if the weapon uses magazines or even belt fed ammo. Say it takes….20 seconds to complete? About the User Interface: As I’ve said before, including in my wish list. I prefer the more traditional gaming control configuration….in other words… I WANT MY NUMBER KEYS BACK! I’ve been told several times that it’s too arcade for ArmA but I disagree. All Tactical Gear is invented to serve one purpose…To make access/use of your gear FASTER and EASIER! This is the function that the number keys fulfill. However, more importantly than that, I feel that all the controls should be customizable and separate from other things. (Infantry, Ground vehicles, Boats, Jets, Helicopters.) Anyway, this is how I’d want my row of number keys… 1. - Primary Weapon 2. - Secondary Weapon 3. – Muzzle Thump/ ALT Weapon Menu. (Tap = Muzzle thump with current weapon. Hold= Open menu - choose knife/bayonet, fix/unfix bayonet, Assemble bayonet WIRE CUTTER, or Load tracer / special ammo if equipped in chest rig.) 4. - Bottom Rail Attachment – Bipod or Switch to Under-barrel Grenade Launcher or Shotgun. (Hold to open rose and select ammo type. This is only an option for under-barrel weapons.) 5. – Medical Menu (As with all the other menus, you would have to hold the button or else it closes and stops. This is to simulate using two hands and working.) – This would also allow a more complicated system….Victim appears to have chest and leg wounds – Examine (Remove gear, check for exits.) Victim is suffering from sucking chest wound…. It opens THEIR IFAK and gives you a list of steps that you have to choose in the correct order before the counter runs out. 6. – Side Rail Attachment function/menu. (Hold to bring up a menu that lets you SET Left and Right attachment options for current weapon. E.G. Flash light and laser – Laser only- IR laser only- IR light only...etc. TAP key = Operate function that you set. “Turn on†and “Turn offâ€. 7. – Launcher/Third Weapon (Note: This weapon would be stored along your backpack so it takes longer to get to. Ideally the primary weapon would just drop into the weapon catch but since this is ArmA well settle for swapping out weapons. Can’t change the animations now anyway.) 8. - Specialty Gear (Mine detector, UAV Terminal, or anything else.) 9. - Explosives Menu (Choose and place explosives / Disarm and pickup explosives (need to be explosives specialist for most except the simple stuff.) ....Link explosives :P ...mark explosives... Detonate.) I would make it where you could control up to 5 explosives at a time and set them off at once or in however you choose them. The first 5 explosives you set would light up little number buttons at the top of the menu. You can click on them to select or de-select in any order and then click detonate. 0. – Specialty Gear or…. Detonate Explosives (I would rebind this for personal preference.) The Side Rail Menu could still work especially if they included something like the PEQ-16 which includes a Flashlight, IR floodlight, IR Laser, and Visible laser all in one. (Hold to open Menu and choose what functions you want to operate then release. When you just tap the key it operates those selected functions.) Grenade Menu – Thanks to all the different options I think I'd like a menu so I could quickly choose what grenade I'd want to use. (Hold the menu button, Move the mouse to the right grenade, click, release and it is now equipped. e.g. Frag, Smoke, Incendiary, Strobe, Chemlight, Molotovs, or Rocks.)

http://www.militaryfactory.com/imageviewer/ar/pic-detail.asp?armor_id=320&sCurrentPic=pic1 M-ATV is the current hunter but both look so much a like. .....Probably won't matter in game anyway.

Yeah, ideally though I would make both armored versions(HEMTT/Tempest) impervious to anything less than .408 so that means if you shoot any of the hard plate armor with 7.62 – 9mm it won’t do any damage no matter what direction.*Behind the cab on the HEMTT* (Yes realistically with enough directly flat hits and or certain ammo the metal might dent and you could possibly start punching through but it would more than likely take a lot of rounds.) The same goes for the windows… The simple way would be to say they are “bullet proof†to 7.62 - 9mm but after about 10 rounds they shatter and make it near impossible to see out of. http://i61.tinypic.com/15iogk.jpg …and with enough hits… http://i58.tinypic.com/f1a8w9.jpg (This is from an IED, but you can still get an idea of what visibility would look like after about 10 scattered rifle hits. *Notice the bulge*) However, realistic bullet resistant windows would be nice…. I don’t know what the engine limitations are but it would be nice if they could withstand, let say…. 10 hits of 7.62, 15 hits of 6.5, 20 hits of 5.56, before penetrating. I don’t know about the pistol rounds….50 hits of .45 and 90 hits of 9mm? I’d say it would probably just need to be negligible. (Please keep in mind that these are just numbers I pulled off the top of my head to make it somewhat realistic, useful, and still fun. Also trying to keeping up with a plausible advance in technology/materials.) I’d change that Tempest Repair Truck and give it back to the infantry as a transport. Tempest MRAP Transport: “Bullet proof†Cab and cargo (troop compartment.) - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/KAMAZ-63968_Typhoon_armored_vehicle.jpg Tempest Open Transport: “Bullet proof†Cab/engine ONLY and Open UNPROTECTED cargo area. Tempest Covered Transport: “Bullet proof†Cab/engine ONLY and Covered UNPROTECTED cargo. Tempest Repair Truck: “Bullet proof†Cab ONLY …Give it a wrecker body with a spare parts container. – http://www.flickr.com/photos/40208496@N03/5061927303/ (This is what should happen with the Repair HEMTT too! It should also be able to actually tow vehicles, same with the tracked versions.) HEMTT Armored Transport: “Bullet proof†Cab and troop compartment Vulnerable to top attack. – http://i62.tinypic.com/mrz1mw.jpg HEMTT Armored Open/ Covered Transport: “Bullet proof: Cab and unprotected cargo Open/covered. ….You all get the idea from here. I’d still keep the current HEMTT trucks in for other mission making fun.

I understand and agree with what you’re saying however, thanks to the way the damage system works I don’t see the un-killable vehicle as a huge issue. The reason is…(Unless I just keep getting some kind of glitch over and over again.) if you shoot out …2 tires? …maybe 3 on an armored vehicle like a Hunter, Ifrit, or Strider….it’s like the windows aren’t even there anymore. (I hate that it works that way but until they fix it….might as well use it.) Keep in mind I’ve only experienced this while playing against other players; I tried today to set up the same situation using AI but they either won’t shoot at me or they won’t stay in the vehicle after I shoot out two tires. :( Can anyone else set this up and make it work to see if I’m correct or not? As for the Kamaz Typhoon (aka Tempest) – I’ve been wishing for this vehicle from the start and I’m glad it’s finally here. I’m also really glad they chose the version with the crease in the front rather than the flat sloped front because I feel it would look too much like the HEMTT from a distance. Then again it might add some interesting challenges for establishing POS ID. (IFF-Identify Friend or Foe) http://www.wallpaperup.com/94989/2010_KamAZ_63698_Typhoon_6x6_military_d.html As I said above…since I’ve been wishing for the Typhoon and knowing that it was armored. I have also been wishing that they had added or will add an armored cab and transport/cab versions of the HEMTT. http://data.primeportal.net/transports/sanders/ahemtt/Armored%20HMMIT3.JPG (I like the look of then vented armor plates on the front.) http://i58.tinypic.com/kagxaf.jpg (It’s a model but there is the same type of vented armor kit for the door.) http://www.arl.army.mil/www/articles/905/image.1.jpg http://imageshack.us/a/img203/9830/1114360.jpg (Better turret.) I think it would sort of level the playing field yet still add some diversity. For instance - The Kamaz Typhoon is fully armored and enclosed with limited side gun ports. The Up Armored HEMTT Transport would be armored on the sides but open on top. http://i62.tinypic.com/mrz1mw.jpg Or Covered but still vulnerable to gunfire from above… It could have a Medium machine gun mounted for protection up front. http://i58.tinypic.com/2nkm4pz.jpg It would be cool if the troops in the back could stand and fire out but I don’t know if that’s possible with how things are set up right now…engine issues? Even though they don’t really use the Up Armored HEMTT transports anymore now that we have sloped armor 7 tons. - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/MTVR_MAS_Pretendo.JPG (For those that don’t know...About where that tarp on the top starts is where the armor ends allowing troops to stand and return fire.) This might be a good choice for a US Forces DLC. The Russian Forces DLC could get the new URAL - http://i57.tinypic.com/316sojm.jpg

I don't mean roar as in the same loud way that the GE F110 jet engines on an F-14 Tomcat rattles windows and vibrates your chest when it does a low level full afterburn turn. Yes High bypass engines are MUCH quieter yet they do still roar with air rushing through them. I'm not sure if you watched the first video but that loud static noise as the plane is coming towards the camera and passing is what I'm referring to (0.07 – 0.11 And a few times after that.) As long as the throttle is forward that sound isn't going to go away the closer you get to it. (E.G. 3rd person, above and behind the engines.) The low speed air mixing with the high speed air makes it quieter yet that high speed air is still making some noise. At slow speeds yes the engines whine due to the blades, at higher attack speeds, they still have the faint roar. I live next to an airbase and used to have them fly over my house about every 3 months. When they had airshows I could go in my backyard and watch them do mock attack runs, when he cuts and turns he would fly right over my house then as well....Hissing roar and a whistle. (As opposed to the Blue Angels pass over which was Nothing but maybe a a faint howl and then a loud roar thanks to the much greater speed.)

Well I'm only talking about the pilot's perspective. In the cockpit - I'd say a muffled roar with a fairly loud whine. 3rd person (Outside above and behind the engines) I'd say it would more than likely get pretty roary... As for passing by..Yes I do hope they get the sound to match the video. Far= Nothing , Close=Slight roar, Overhead=roar, Passing= Quick fading roar and then.....Dat whistle! WOO WOOOOOO haha :P

In regards to my question - "Does the engine noise loop get on anyone else's nerves?" Right now it sounds like it has a delayed pulse engine or something. This is what I think it should sound like. ....A steady roar with maybe just a little bit of a turbofan whine or at least take that awful pulse noise out and just make it a constant roar.

Yeah that pull is pretty terrible. :( I don’t want to put my flaps down because as far as I’m concerned that old A-10 is feeling pretty strained as far as power and speed is concerned. Both are crucial in making an escape after a run. (Climbing fast and getting out of there.) The overall controls just feel kind of wonky. I find it funny that a future version of the A-10 doesn’t have a simple stabilization computer to keep it flying straight and level. :/ Hopefully it’s just a bug and will be fixed soon….. I can’t even check my map without worrying about diving into a mountain. Also.... Does the engine noise loop get on anyone else's nerves? After about 5 mintues of flying I want to mute the sound. :/

Yep, I’d say the days of the Humvee or other Light Up Armored vehicles as main modes of transportation are fading fast. In Afghanistan you’re not even allowed to go out in Humvees anymore. Thanks to the threat that IED’s pose, you’d be nuts to want to take a light vehicle over something like an MATV. Heck even MATV's have trouble considering they're the lighter more off-road capable version of MRAPS. They aren’t using old artillery shells anymore; they’re buying buttloads of fertilizer at dirt cheap prices and packing it into barrels. You don’t have to penetrate the armor when you can just flip the vehicle so high and violently that everyone inside goes splat or wishes they had. I realize every situation is different but in other parts of the world those materials are pretty easy to get.

Ok, I hope more people take note or this because here is the thing that really annoys me with these Vehicle/Aircraft threads… It’s important to remember that most vehicles built today are done so by Contractors/Companies. NOT BY GOVERNMENTS OF COUNTRIES. A government might set the criteria for what it wants and a company based in that particular country might build it but that doesn’t mean it’s going to be exclusive to that government/country. Companies are out to make money, therefore the best way to do that is open their product to the WORLDWIDE MARKET. Just take a look at IDEX, RAE, or DSEI. This philosophy isn’t just exclusive to eastern companies however I would dare to say that if something was restricted, you’d have a better chance of getting what you wanted from them. I. G. They sell to someone allowed to own the product and then that person sells to you. On top of that you have to remember CSAT is a coalition. This is taken from the website – “Set against the context of foundering economies and civil unrest across the west, CSAT has risen in prominence over the last decade. Investment in SHARED CIVIL AND MILITARY TECHNOLOGY and the aggressive pursuit of opportunities and partnerships throughout Asia, South America and North Africa has led to a sharp increase in strategic tension across the globe, as traditional spheres of power and influence are encroached upon.†TURRETS: Although they do occasionally get swapped to different vehicles, it’s normally not between different countries so yes I agree with that. (Here’s a Boxer with a Puma lancer type turret http://i57.tinypic.com/vxe07r.jpg and here’s one with some sort of artillery http://i60.tinypic.com/kdac68.jpg) I wrote out a big list of how I would have changed and distributed the vehicles to each faction but since it’s never going to happen I won’t bother going into detail about it. There’s a link in my wish list if you’re interested. MLRS and Mobile Artillery: Although I don’t really hate it…I do agree they could have done much better. NATO: M207mlrs Or HIMARS XM1203 NLOS-C Or HS2000 CSAT: Astro II MLRS - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Avibras_ASTROS-II_SS-30.JPEG I’d keep the Sochor, I think it looks better than the current Russian mobile artillery. Haha AAF: (I would have given the AAF the Israeli vehicles including the Scorcher but that’s because I would have mixed the Nato vehicles up to look like a coalition… Leopard 2, FRES IFV, FRES or Marshall variant anti air, Marshall, and hunter.) BTR-K and Tigris – I don’t mind the BTR-K so much. It might be a Czech turret but it still looks plausible. For the Tigris however….maybe they should have just used a BMPT Terminator as a make believe Anti Air variant. http://i57.tinypic.com/21mulhw.jpg - (Slap a radar on it.) http://i61.tinypic.com/10r4k2a.jpg I’m at work so I can’t get on and look but does the AAF Gorgon and the CSAT Marid have the same turret? If so then that needs to change. I agree the strider should have a telescoping commander viewer and that the AAF should use the M2 HMG / HK 40mm GMG. The CSAT should use the KORD and maybe…30mm GMG? Personally I love the tandem HMG/GMG turret. I do agree that it would be better if each side looked different. Nato: Should keep the one in game. http://imageshack.us/a/img684/263/capturefhd.jpg AAF: Should get a less costly looking, bare bones version. http://i59.tinypic.com/s2tz14.jpg CSAT: I’d like to see a mini version of the big 30mm turret on the Otokar Mirzak. Give it the top mounted commander viewer too! :P http://imageshack.us/a/img528/686/hud5fdvb35fdg.jpg http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img826/6311/huh545dfgg.jpg

Well I'm not sure how it's set up in game but as far as real life goes.... Plate carriers are usually light weight bare bones devices used to hold ballistic plates, sometimes they have space or pockets for (Kevlar) soft armor backings behind the plates to give added protection and comfort but not always. - http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/alternateforce_2258_4661417 Armor vest are just what they sound like, vest with soft armor (kevlar) pannels inside, sometimes they have pockets for ballistic plates to give added protection against higher caliber rounds. They're usually hotter and bulkier than plate carriers but give added protection agains fragmentation. - http://marinesmagazine.dodlive.mil/files/2011/10/MAR_Q211_SB_Trim_Fat_01.jpg LBV or Load Bearing Vest offer no protection against rounds or fragments and are used just to attach gear only. - http://tac-force.com/images/view.aspx?productId=118 I'd say that if it has carrier in the name it might have ballistic plates inside, and if it's the carrier modeled after the Crye Precision carrier then than that chance is even greater. Try it in the editor and see. I've also heard that the CSAT uniform provides the most protection overall.

Yeah, a while back I noticed the controls are linked together too. Too bad... I wish the vehicle controls were different in every vehicle. Luckily I don't use Left and Right Turn. Helicopter Controls: Collective Up - W Collective down - S Roll Left - Mouse Left Roll Right - Mouse Right Rudder Left - A Rudder Right - D Plane Controls: Throttle Up - W Throttle Down - S Bank Left - Mouse Left Bank Right - Mouse Right Rudder Left - A Rudder Right - D Flaps - Z Landing Gear - C

I was hoping for customizable map icons as well. In fact ideally I would like to do more than just be able to turn them off. In certain modes I like the fact that enemy shows up on my map and in certain cases it could be very useful to have that function. For instance…My headset broke and so I’m reduced to playing with a pair of old Sony Walkman speakers until I decide on what headset I want to buy. Because of this I think it would be great if there was an option to have nearby enemy icons appear when they make noises. (i.g. Shooting, reloading, talking, and walking.) Although unrealistic because you would have to be looking at your map, it would help provide a bit of situational awareness to those lacking directional sound. Note: I don’t think the positions on the map should be exact…but instead just provide a general direction, just show the blip moving around wherever they are in direction to you. On easy mode it would show up as a friend or enemy but on normal and all other modes it would show up as purple (Unknown). …Unless they are talking. In addition, I would have changed the map difficulty levels to something more like this… Easy: Your icon and friendly icons are always shown on the map. Enemies in your direct line of sight appear on EVERYONE’s map. Normal: Your icon and friendly icons are always shown on the map. Enemies in your line of sight appear only on your map. Hard: Only your icon and persons (Friend or enemy) who are in your direct line of sight appear on the map. Hardest: No icons appear on the map (Yours, friendly, or enemies) You must mark everything manually. For the hard and hardest settings to work with AI there would need to be some kind of Position Check feature where the AI would radio their grid and it would show up on the map. In HARD mode, friendly icons would appear as stationary blips until the next Position check, turning from a dark color to a faded color after 10 seconds. In the HARDEST mode, friendly icons would appear as stationary blips but only for about 10 seconds. I’m still hoping for this to happen too. This is my suggestion for the map symbols. Basically you would have 10 save slots for your most commonly used symbols. Along with the symbols you can also save what color and what text are accompanied with them by simply typing in the text, picking the color and dragging the symbol to an a empty slot WITHOUT hitting OK. OPERATION: Open the map and double click on the spot you would like to mark as you normally would. Simply use the up and down arrows like normal to change the symbol. Choose the color by clicking on it with your mouse cursor. If you'd like to save text with the symbol, simply type what you want in the text bar. If you don't want text then just leave the text bar empty. Once you have everything set up, simply move your cursor over to the big symbol and drag it to an empty slot. DO NOT HIT OK unless you also want to place that symbol on the part of the map you double clicked on. If you only want to save symbols BUT not place a marker on the map at that time you would simply hit cancel to close the window after you've saved your symbols to the save slots. To clear a save slot you must move the cursor over the slot and press delete. Simply dragging a different symbol over a filled slot WILL NOT replace it. This is to prevent accidental replacement during "Oh crap I'm getting shot!" combat.

I wasn’t aware that the engine doesn’t like to play with fast moving jets… In that case, I think it makes it an even better idea to keep jets to a minimum. Personally I see ArmA as more of a Ground Combat sandbox, and while I’m not opposed to aircraft by any means, I just don’t see a need in spending Vanilla resources on a vast variety…especially if they won’t respond correctly. So with subsonic jets in mind, my vote goes for… NATO: Textron Scorpion (2 seater, 25mm caseless :D) - http://media.kansas.com/smedia/2013/12/13/06/46/30Aim.SlMa.80.jpeg CSAT: YAK – 130 (2 seater) AAF: L-159 Alca (A-143 Buzzard) Perhaps if the FIA ever stole, laundered, or raised enough money they could purchase a Burt Rutan ARES Mudfighter. - http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/KleinBernhard/4825L-1.jpg - And if Private Military Contractors are allowed in, perhaps they could bring an upgraded OV-10 Nog with them. - http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/attachments/military-aviation/32823d1366907106-what-up-f-35-part-ii-ov-10-nog.jpg I’ve always wanted to see and OV-10 nog with contra rotating propfans and targeting array domes near each wingtip that allow the gun underneath to swing to the side and fire from an orbit pattern.

Yep! That's what I was going to say. Russia doesn't really mind who they sell to...Just because someone buys their guns doesn't mean they are friends. It's just business...

Well I’ve always liked the more traditional gaming layout and I have to admit when I first saw the key layout for Arma I was a bit overwhelmed at the seeming mass of cluttered controls. Here is what I changed… Q - Lean Left E - Lean Right LShift+W - Sprint W - Forward S - Backward A - Strafe Left D - Strafe Right F - Prone to stand Ctrl+F - Firemode C - Crouch to stand R - Reload Z - Scope mode (I hate the default click thing) x - Compass (I use this too often to have it set to k) T - Tactical Pace G - Throw Grenade (Keeps it out of the way to avoid accidents) Ctrl+G - Cycle grenade (Though I also have a button to do this, just haven't changed it.) U - Cycle Grenade (Keeps it far enough from G to prevent accidents) V - Inventory Hold Space - Hold breath 2x Space - Step over Alt - Get Out 2x Alt - Eject LWindows - Lights/ laser Ctrl+w/s - Stance changes [The button in between Right Windows and Right control?] - Open chat [<,>] - Change channels Right Shift - Toggle walk M - Map N - Night Vision (I'll probably change this...) B - Binos I - Watch J - Notepad H - HUD Page U/D - Elevation End - Manual Fire [+] - Zoom IN [-] - Zoom OUT Mouse Buttons: LMB - Fire RMB - Back RMB Hold - AIM (I also have this set to zoom so that when I aim in with a reflex or iron sights it automatically pulls it up close.) Scroll - Craption menu MMB - Select from the Craption menu Mouse side buttons: 1MSB - Zoom 2MSB - Look (I think these are the correct names... Zoom leans in and look lets you move your head but snaps back when you let go?) The stuff that I didn’t mention is the junk I rarely use therefore I don’t exactly remember where I put it. Haha In addition I wish every key was able to be bound to the player’s preference. I with the user interface menu only dealt with interactive things like doors and stuff. This is how I’d want my row of number keys… 1. - Primary Weapon 2. - Seconday Weapon 3. - Launcher, Third Weapon, or Muzzle Thump (If they ever add a melee feature.) 4. - Medical Rose (As with all the other roses, you would have to hold the button or else it closes and stops. This is to simulate using two hands and working.) 5. - Grenade Rose (I think I'd like a rose so I could quicky choose what grenade I'd want to use. Move the mouse to the right grenade, click, release and it is now equipped. i.g. Frag, Smoke, Incendiary, Strobe, or Chemlight.) 6. - Switch to Underbarrel Grenade Launcher or Shotgun... 7. - Specialty Gear (Mine detector, UAV Terminal, or anything else.) 8. - Inventory? (Open the window, CONSOLIDATE AMMO, Load tracers, Arrange gear....so on and so forth.) 9. - Explosives Rose (Choose and place explosives / Disarm and pickup explosives (need to be explosives specialist for most except the simple stuff.) ....Link explosives :P ...mark explosives... Detonate.) 0. - Detonate Explosives (I would rebind this for personal preference.) The main point should be that every key on the keyboard should be able to be rebound. If this is already the case then I guess I can't figure it out because I don't see the number keys in my options.

Now going back to the removal of radar from ground vehicles… Although I am against the “All seeing eye†I wouldn’t mind some kind of Situational Awareness system. Something like a hub that sits on top of the turret and continually scans… As a missile or heavy rounds come in, it registers and alerts the crew to the direction and general bearing of the threat (Within 10 degrees.) However…since it sits on top of the tank it should be one of the first things to go out after taking a hit. Although it’s a defensive system, the Active Protection System comes to mind… (Which by the way does use radar but not for situational awareness and like I said before mountains, tree, buildings and things like that tend to mess it up in close quarters.) Of course not every country will adopt a system like the APS however, I think that it’s not too unrealistic to think that as more and more conflicts arise and most of them being in some sort of urban or built up area…Tanks will be used and in many cases, inevitably lost due to the use of inexpensive and easy to use weapons systems. This trend will more than likely continue to push for the advancement of armor but also a realization for the need of better situational awareness. I can imagine more resourceful people coming up with some sort of cheap short range radar hub that scans in close proximity, it’s linked with a compass and as a hit is taken it registers the direction of where the missile came from so the crew can react. After the engagement, if the hub is damaged it can simply be unbolted and replaced along with any armor… Only the necessary pieces would be exposed, the computer calculation parts would all be inside the armor protected turret. This takes me back to my wish list about tanks… Armor Optics Vulnerable to Small Arms Fire: Any mounted weapon with a remote viewer SHOULD be vulnerable to small arms fire IF YOU CAN HIT IT. For tanks and APC’s at least, they should have a redundancy system. The periscope view ports (the 3 slots on the driver’s hatches) should be used only as a last resort after their good optics have been destroyed, but even the view ports should be able to get shot up so bad that you can’t see out. Obviously I know that 3rd person will make this feature useless but it should still be added. It’s too bad that the devs didn’t think of this before the models were made. I would have given the gunner a primitive periscope sight mounted next to and looking down along the bore of the main gun so it and his coaxial machine gun would still be somewhat effective. The backup gunner sight would be receded inside the armor of the turret in order to help protect it better. The down side is that it wouldn’t be thermal or night vision, it wouldn’t have zoom and it would have a severely limited field of view...something to the equivalent of looking down a large magnified rifle scope. (Scenario) You’re hiding in a building and a tank pulls up beside you and stops in the street with no infantry support, you should be able to shoot out the optics of the tank partially or completely blinding it if you can hit all the cameras and view ports. Better visibility and DETAIL for armored drivers Turned In: This is supposed to be the future...No one would make an armored vehicle with only one available view port unless they have absolutely no idea what they're doing and didn't learn from WWII. You can even see 3 distinct view ports on the driver hatches of the vehicles in Arma 3 right now, you should at least able to turn your head and look diagonally. Ideally the view ports would have...eh 135 degrees field of view? Also again, this is supposed to be the future… the drivers should have a dashboard with a screen that shows at least a rear facing camera that is Night Vision capable (ideally it would have a forward facing camera as well). And if you really want to get fancy... the driver's front facing camera should be connected to a slave system on their helmet like an Apache gunner... where ever he turns his head is where the camera looks, so that it would be just like if he was turned out. It doesn’t need thermal or anything super fancy just give him the tools to see where he’s going. (Night vision and a little bit of zoom to identify IED’s and mines.) We have web cams that can zoom, pan left, right, up, down, rotate 360, and track faces…I can’t see why we couldn’t mount a camera on a tank under the turret for the driver. (OLD not as important top part) Well I was at work and in hurry so I didn’t get to write everything I wanted too. I don’t like the radar capabilities as they are and I wish it would change, however when I say “taken out†I mean removed from standard gameplay. (Normal and hard) It would also be nice if you could choose in the editor what types of vehicles are detected. (Air, ground/Marine, missiles) I don’t have much experience playing with AI but if they are allowed to keep their radar than that is a serious problem as well. As for the air scanning radar…It might be neat but like I said you should be able to choose to equip tanks with it in the editor and choose when to when to turn it on and off in game. When you decide to turn it on, aircraft in that area are notified that they are being scanned and an easy lock-on able blip appears on the radar. In regards to the Apache Longbow radar… It’s a Target Acquisition radar so it IS used for scanning but like I said before that doesn’t count because it’s Air to Ground. If I remember correctly it works by scanning its surroundings and matching the radar signatures that it reads with a database of known vehicles… When a match is found it relays that information to the crew for positive ID/action.

As far as I know there is no ground vehicle based radar system in use or being proposed. For the most part I think terrain and objects (buildings, trees, cars) would make it pretty much useless. As for the Apache’s radar and other aircraft systems like it… I wouldn’t say that count’s because it’s Air to Ground which is realistic. Ground to Ground radar is where the problem lies. Radar waves would more than likely be bouncing off every tree, building, and friendly resulting in one giant blip. I think it might be cool if you could actively scan the air for enemy aircraft but it should come at a high risk. When you scan with your air radar, enemy aircraft in close proximity would or should probably be able to detect that you are actively scanning in which case that might prioritize you as a threat on their radar screen and allow for an instant lock or something… AGM-88? In addition they could keep the radar feature as something that you turn on and off… perhaps if you drove to the top of a bare hill and turned it on you could scan and find enemy armor but then again it would be pretty useless if you have to drive to the top of a big hill and expose yourself in order for it to work. I’d personally rather they just take it out for ground vehicles. Radar should only pick up aircraft and it should only be on the Anti-Aircraft vehicles.

Your thread start is fine but for future referrence there are several threads already up that have to do with fixed wing CAS aircraft so next time try to post in one of those instead. They don't like it when people start new threads on topics that have already been opened. I like the Yak 130, I think it would be a good choice. Another option would be the excercise of that "artistic freedom" with the creation of something like this... The Qaher -313 http://mod.ir/sites/default/files/images/f313.16.jpg It could act as Iran's multi-role answer to the JSF. (Yes I know that the plane doesn't really exist or at least that it's a model, hence why I say use the artistic freedom.) As for the helmet, I'm pretty sure that's already in the game although I don't know if they are planning on making it function like the real one.

Well I really think this topic is a dead horse and I hate to beat it yet again…but since it’s up I guess I’ll state my view. Personally I love the future setting, although I enjoy some of the old vehicles and weapons I think for the most part….the old stuff is well…OLD. I welcome the “artistic freedom†or whatever you want to call it that allows a setting in which countries are given goodies that in realistic modern times they wouldn’t be able to afford, achieve, or both. Anytime I hear someone bring up the words “Immersion kill†in relation to the future setting, I like to get a better understanding of what they’re talking about. Are you referring to the Arma 3 single player campaign? Or Are you talking about Arma 3 content as a whole game? If you’re referring to the single player campaign then I might agree with you. I haven’t really played much of it so I can’t say too much about it. However, if you’re referring to the Arma 3 content…well then that’s a whole different story. I don’t think you can compare a new release vanilla game against one that has been around for many years with countless mods and content carried over from a completely separate game….unless of course you only look at A2 vanilla vs. A3 vanilla. (Which is what I will be using for comparison.) As I said before all the junk in the previous games has been done before and I kind of feel like it’s day has come and gone. Arma 2 came out in…2009? I don’t remember any of the vehicles being prototypes except maybe the JSF, Viper, and Venom; although I don’t really remember what vehicles were in the vanilla and what vehicles were add on. 1. Although I don’t have any real problem with the current maps, I agree that I hope they add more. 2. Well as I stated before, I don’t know in exactly what context your speaking but for the most part… You ask where all the funds come from? I suppose that could be a valid “immersion†point but personally I think it’s looking a little too deep into the story. If you really want to know then I’d say you could assume that as before in the real world... no one learned their lesson. We could say that the countries involved in all these economic crises managed to stay afloat… things didn’t necessarily get better but they sort of panned out…. However, because things weren’t allowed to completely fail, the politicians began their own massive campaigns to reassure the people that there was never any need to worry. Once the sheeple shut their eyes the governments went back to spending spending spending! …Which in turn dug a deeper hole. In short… they weren’t broke before but now that they have all these new toys…they are. 3. As I said I haven’t played much of the single player campaign so I’m not sure if you’re referring to something more specific involving the independent forces but on a whole I think it’s fairly reasonable why you wouldn’t see any HMMWVs or M16/AKs. They’ve been phased out. So far Arma 3 seems to be focused mainly on the frontline units in combat… These units are the first ones to get the good stuff. Depending on how much money they want to *spend*, (*there’s that word again*) it’s entirely possible that they managed to swap out all the old service rifles with the new MX series. I’m sure the M16/AKs are still around but you won’t find them on the front line. The same goes for HMMWVs they’re probably kept back home for utility purposes on base or they’ve all been sold in government liquidation auctions. In fact, the HMMWVs are already being phased out so by 2035 I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that they quite rare to see in service anywhere. For vehicle assignment I agree that there are some dumb choices…same with the turrets but to me that isn’t a huge deal since countries sell stuff to each other all the time. Although the Leopard 2 is accurate for Greece, I think most people would have rather it been saved for a German Forces DLC. I think the Israeli vehicles and guns could have been given to the Altis forces… Perhaps as a last ditch effort by Israel to save some of their equipment and continue the fight later… The equipment made it out but the crews never did? I too would have liked to have seen an upgraded Abrams Tank ( Crew of three, Auto loader, Caseless ammo, 120mm “at leastâ€, 7.62mm coaxial, .50cal Commander.) However one thing to remember is that in the game they are listed as NATO not US… I saw some people getting pretty upset over how American the NATO forces looked…I won’t get into all that but I can say as I did in my weapons list that it would have been kind of neat to pick the best type of vehicle from each of the real NATO forces and add it to the NATO force in the game. (e.g. XM1203 NLOS, Leopard 2, FRES, Marshal variant (anti-air), Marshal, Hunter or foxhound…ect…) Again I think this is probably of a failure to acquaint yourself with the time setting than it is an inaccuracy in the game. You have to remember that the year is 2035. Technology is getting cheaper and more common by the day; things that seem like extra luxury features today will probably be seen as standard by then. Just think about a cell phone in 1999 vs. a cell phone today. If you want to see your low tech vehicles just look along the roadsides or in the field…that rusted husk of a car or truck is all that’s left. As for the weapons…some of the icons are still around (M2, Mk18) I agree. I know some people have said how stupid it is that Iran would have something like that but I disagree. Iran is always coming up with some sort of high tech futuristic JUNK in an effort to seem more technologically advanced than what they really are. Case in point… http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/02/us-defense-experts-unimpressed/

Fun Fact – The MI-28 actually does have troop carrying capability. It’s not intended for transport but it does have the ability to fit about 3 people in a small compartment in the back if a rescue situation ever arises. http://i.imgur.com/WMosA.jpg

I understand what you’re saying and like I said before… low ready should be changed. However I still see it as a real estate on screen problem more than an outside animation problem. (It should look like you’re looking over your RCO rather than beside it.) What you suggested would be nice as well but not completely necessary, here’s why… This isn’t necessarily wrong, especially if you’re in a wide open area or an area with long streets and alleys. If gunfire goes off right next to you (i.g. Rounds snapping over your head) Then yes you might duck down and go into an Alert / Low Ready Carry as you sprint for cover… But if gunfire erupts a moderate distance away (Some place where you don’t immediately see the shooter and rounds are not snapping over your head.) then you would begin scanning as you make your way to suitable cover. If the soldiers/AI have RCOs or some sort of magnified optic on their weapon, then looking down the sight to scan the terrain is a good idea. (Real life example: Afghanistan - We wouldn’t be able to locate and positively ID the enemy half as effectively as we do without Acogs.) While I agree that this can be a pain especially when playing with AI, it still comes down to IFF. Identify Friend or Foe. As far as looking relaxed goes I suppose I agree that they should be using the New tactical or Alert carry (Pictured) when no threat is near, but that shoots back up to the first answer if they're being engaged. Also in the picture I added please note the part about how Low Ready and Ready are practically the same thing and in combat they should and often do become the same. This also cycles back around to cover, concealment, trigger control and IFF. Now this I might agree on. Although I don’t find it too difficult to distinguish, I think it would still be nice if the Stance Indicator remained on screen and also included a T for Tactical Pace and maybe even an A for full auto, S for semi, or B for burst since I know someone who keeps forgetting to set their weapon. Haha (Indicator should be small though.) Ok so here is yet another sweet picture I drew to display the different stances as well as explanations. I also included an alternate stance that is commonly used though it doesn’t really have a spot in any military manual as far as I know. 1. NEW TACTICAL CARRY – I’m calling it new because most of the military manuals still just refer to the old 2 point web sling (Which requires the rifle to be slung on the shoulder.) This method is achieved by the use of a 3 point or one point sling and allows easy movement into other positions as well as quick transitions to pistols. The weapon is simply allowed to hang across the front of the body and the user keeps one hand (Firing hand) on the pistol grip to maintain positive control of his weapon at all times. The buttstock is not in the shoulder pocket but is held close to the shoulder due to the characteristics of the sling. The definitions for situational use of the NEW and OLD Tactical Carry are still the same. - Tactical Carry is used when NO IMMEDIATE THREAT IS PRESENT. (This is how soldiers should stand when they are relaxed and no knowledge of enemy presence is near. They should even jog and maybe even sprint like that as long as they’re not running from gunfire… Maybe they’re hurrying to load up on a truck and go do a training event or something…or maybe some salty Lance Corporal is yelling at a bunch of boots. Haha) 2. OLD TACTICAL CARRY - This is the one documented in a lot of the military manuals. (USMC for me) This carry was used with rifles that had a 2 point sling so in that sense it’s out of date. However, this position is still used when employing the rifle bayonet and there for it cannot be counted out completely. (Notice that I placed it second in the lineup instead of first because it still has a significant use and is very similar to the ALTERNATE CARRY pictured below.) 3. ALERT CARRY - The Alert Carry is used when enemy contact is LIKELY. Engagement of the enemy is faster from the Alert than from the Tactical Carry. The weapon is placed in the pocket of the shoulder (Although it doesn’t always have to be.) and the barrel is pointed down at about 45 degrees. (This is to help avoid serious injuries thanks to negligent discharges and Jittery/near sighted privates.) This is also known as Patrol carry or Patrol ready. Your head is up, both eyes and ears are open and you’re scanning for threats. The ditty is – Alert to the dirt. (This is the position a soldier/AI should use when entering/ patrolling through enemy territory, distant gunfire can be heard but not seen due to obstacles and what not…or when sprinting. (Modified so he pulls the weapon more across his body to keep from banging it on his knees.) 4. LOW READY – (Please note that for instructional purposes only, I drew the weapon slanting down. This is to show the soldier’s/AI’s line of sight looking just over the top of his optics. Remember what I said earlier about Low ready and Ready becoming the same thing in combat, I’ll explain when I get to ready position a bit more.) The Low Ready position is employed when CONTACT WITH THE ENEMY IS IMMINENT. The weapon is up with the buttstock high and firm in the shoulder pocket. The barrel is pointed as accurately as possible at the suspected enemy position but lowered (if need be) just enough to allow the soldier/AI to look over his optic and scan for targets with both eyes open. Sight alignment and sight picture are achieved as a target appears and the shot is fired. It’s the most common and fastest position for engaging multiple threats. Keep in mind that a lot of the older manuals do not call this low ready…it’s simply called ready. The reason why is because they do not account for the use of optics. Another thing to consider is that slight downward slant of the muzzle… It’s been said that this is to also help with the possibility of shooting friendlies in a vital area. While in training this is true but in combat…not quite as much. (See Ready position) It’s more about the Optics on top of the weapon limiting the soldier/Marine’s view. (This should be the position that is taken when in Tactical Pace…kind of like it is now. The weapon stays up but when you hold shift to sprint then it dips down. Only when sprinting, not when moving to contact (different from the Non tactical pace jogging.) 5. HIGH READY – This is an older, less common and more outdated position. I won’t get too far into it but it does need to be mentioned. The situation for using it remains the same as low ready although it’s not as fast. It good for not sweeping your muzzle across the backs of your buddies heads in close quarters, for wading through high water, or pushing through thick brush. 6. READY – (Money maker) The enemy or location of the enemy is known and visible, CONTACT AND ENGAGEMENT IS IMMINENT. The weapon is high in the shoulder; the Marine/Soldier/AI is aimed in, looking through the sight with both eyes open if possible. If the enemy is behind cover and assuming the Marine/Soldier/AI has found a reasonable spot to aim in, wait and engage….(As soon as the enemy sticks his head out, he’s dead.) As I stated before, this ready definition does not correlate to the old manuals. In addition there are lots of people who will be getting stuck on the difference between the READY and Low Ready positions because of the slight muzzle slant of low ready. However as I tried to demonstrate in my picture, notice how the man’s head is dipped down tucking his chin and looking through the sight. The rifle is completely level as if pointing at a close range target…. It would be extremely easy for him to point his weapon, look through the sight, engage, and simply lift his head to scan rather than let his muzzle droop. This is why I say that LOW READY AND READY become the same thing in REAL combat. You see a lot of movies with SWAT teams keeping their guns pointing down as they go into a house but that’s Hollywood. YOU KEEP YOUR MUZZLE POINTED AT THE TARGET or possible area where a target could be. People might think that a tiny bit of movement isn’t going to affect your aim but when loud things start going bang or you’re on a roof scanning for where that last enemy ran to, it can make all the difference of popping the insurgent peeking out of a window before he has a chance to get you. Alternate Carry: Chicken Wing – As I said you won’t find this in any of the older military manuals…might be in the most recent ones though… This position bears striking resemblance to both the OLD Tactical Carry and the Alert. It’s most commonly used to maintain positive control of the weapon when reloading either a magazine or M203 grenade launcher. It’s also an easy way to carry your weapon when fatigued while still allowing you to point your muzzle towards the enemy.

Well no what I'm talking about is a process kind of like....I think it's Planetside 2.... the map is divided up into sections so that if you're playing in one area you're not effected by what's going on at the other end. In my mind I would gladly take a second or two lag when crossing sectors rather than playing at a low frame rate the entire game. Or better yet have some way that you only send and receive information pertaining to a certain radius around you. Imagine a map like Altis with several cities like what you would see in GTA 5... On the west coast there's an invasion taking place...Troops securing the beach, tanks rolling through the streets smashing and blowing up cars....Taking part in...in the words of Conan… What things are best in life...."To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women." And on the east coast you're cruising through the city in your convertible, just hearing the news of said invasion on your radio. Now you have to drive to your local militia gathering and begin preparations for the impending onslaught.