maffa

that i already answered in several posts, but thank you for asking :)

this is true and i cant understand how people can cope with it. less armies, less variants... if there were at least a scheme of completion, like "we are at 40% of release version". Moreover they dont really need to take any documentaion, they are just making things up... Jets are the top of the food chain in arma because you dont know how to play it, and/or arma dont have any instrument to let you play it right as well. You would need AA batteries, offensive and defensive CAPs, E3 , all in an area as big as the aegean sea as a whole. In order for your A10 to operate there must be a couple F15/F22 hoveing over it some thousand feet above. You can have it supporting whatever your SOFLAM may light up, but AI controlled, why not? Symmetrical war means that two conventional armies are facing each other. If one side has tanks i cant see why the other cant deploy its own tanks, instead of A10s. And if the war is asymmetrical (i.e. you are guerrilla fighters or other kind of irregular troops) all the more reason for not having an attack airplane at your disposal. The answer for a tank doesnt need to be an airplane, it could also be an attack helo like the Apache, or another tank (or two, for that matter). Just giving out options, see? In any case in general all those arguing that there's less than A1&2 are right, fixed wing or not. cos you keep forgetting about helicopters... oh that i wholly agree. it seems BIS found its little cache of slaves that will finish their job and make it complete for free, and they get the €€€... this is luck! (until someone goes to review what happend to FSX and MS flight, again, and how little long this little trick can go forth)

yeah, i know. that was sarcasm :D

hi craptakular. What you need to understand (and i tell you this because i myself understood this only recently) is that A3 is placed in the future. So nowadays stuff may not or surely wont fit in anymore. This is nothing like A2. So it will be a different game, with different strategical approaches and depending of the final game balance, different purposes and audience. I personally hope AllinArma will work. When i signed for alpha i didnt fully understand the scenario was something along the lines of Halo or Planetside.

Let me correct you: let the people asking for something that doesnt belong to the scenario waste their time, because it seems they are not going to get any. You are blind to the fact that you are as partial as me on this issue, as you imagine your back covered with imaginary friends that back you up. I say that because i feel like that, too. I take for granted that one that prefers Arma over CoD is because its a better simulation and is not in for frags or whatever they are called. But i dont know anyone that isnt in for a mature game and simulation, so who am i to speak for multitudes? Let put it like this. My solution wont waste any dev resource to make something that shouldnt be there in the first place, while yours will. And since theres a long to-do list to go thru, i think at the end of the day your requests wont get you anywhere. As i said, i am here on A3 because i hope AiA will work. I bought the game in the hope for better graphics and game engine to apply them to today's weaponry and scenario like A2, but if the simulation experience will be unsatisfactory i and my clan will stick to A2OA and ACE and that will be it. So you are right, i can edit my missions in order to exclude the things i dont like. Unfortunately i cant include the things that doesnt exist like bipods, windage or a better wounding system, because there isn't any at the moment, and i will have to wait for our extraordinary modder community to include these much needed features. These are my personal priorities, that are unlikely to pass thru just like your jets, but i feel they belong to the scenario while jets dont. And all in all I must oblige to you the fact even if A2 was a simulator, or could be converted to a simulator because it has a reality to adhere to, at least, this sci-fi scenario allow all kind of tweaks and tricks, so why not having a jet that... uh... i cant seem to imagine what you would with that on such a tiny island, sorry, but anything you'd like to, okay? I can surrender A3, in fact im much satisfied with A2+ACE so have your way, ask nicely and see what happens. Take what i wrote in my first post as a reason why there may be no jets in the game. Nothing will change if i convince you or you convince me, we are not the ones managing the roadmap and allotting resources, so if i made my point clear, and made yours (i think you did) we can end it here :) Regards.

So this issue really reduces itself to casuals vs simmers, isnt it? I wont requote i would like to keep the discussion going without decading in petty bickering. I dont know how many of each group are out there, and what would happen if one side would wave goodbye. My perception is partial, as yours. The existance of VBS somehow gives you the chance to send people off from your pretty arcade game, as if someone playing (well, top of mind) FSX and wishing for a better simmed aircraft could be sent away to some flying school/military academy sim pod, because since something better exists on the world, hence all that stands below is not a simulator. But then when i go to ArmaIII site, i read "the latest installment [sic] of the tactical military simulation", and i dont really know who to believe to anymore, the ones that actually make the game, or Harry from the forum. The possibility to edit your own missions and to play great permanent campaigns on ongoing servers allow a great variety of gameplay and game styles. You could also play minecraft with tanks, should you wish to do so. DayZ is another example of what you can be capable of doing with the flexibility of the editor. This doesnt defeat the final goal of the game, i.e. providing a simulating experience of a battleground. But -as you admit- unless you tweak and twist them until they become sort of crappy helicopters that cant stop mid air, jets dont belong to this scenario , as well as space shuttles, strategic bombers and ICBMs. They arrive from outside and go back outside. Sure, since CAS means Close Air Support it implies that the goal of the mission is to get near the frontline, unlike deep and/or OCA strikes that usually are performed far from it. Yes, A10s too start from way back and way back they return to. They may fly lower and slower than a F16 or F35, but they will go back, far from the frontline, once they are done doing what they had to, because this is they way they are employed. This is airforce doctrine, and sincerely it's also common sense. The fact that F35Bs can hover doesnt mean that they can be employed like helicopters, they hover for taking off and land on carriers and unprepared landing sites, so in a way it would be peculiar to see an F35 on a battlesite because they should be flying 4000 and more feet above the ground so they may be there but you shouldnt be able to see them. Helos are just *perfect* for Arma's scope and purpose, they fit in just like tanks and APCs and humvees. I will repeat myself and suggest, again, a turboprop aircraft like the Super Tucano, that happen to fly closer to what A2 F35 used to, has a good array of weaponry and all in all it woulndt fit too bad. Lastly, i wish to be clear by saying that, if not in its proper usage, i dont want to put any in depth aircraft simulation in the game. I know it cannot be done. For this very reason, i would like jets to be removed as playable objects and treated like external support. With this, you will achieve a truer "combined force" simulator game thingie.

young man i browse the interwebs since 1995 and i have some grasp of the english language, so i positively dont think ive ever gone off topic here. Thread title: "there should be multiple jet in the release version" - "no, there should be none at all, because this this and that" Since im going to ignore your threats feel free to push the triangle of dread and report me, i trust someone more internet savvy than you will make a better judgement. I agree with you, nothing gives a morale boots like some air support, but either they (as in 2 or 4 of them, because it's they way AF does things) make a pass up high in the sky, drop their things and go back to their bases, or if you want them loitering around use helos. Do a little effort and use the things as they are supposed to, cmon... It all depends on who planned and balanced the mission... a tank can make minced meat of tens of foot soldiers in seconds.

Comp_uter15776, thank you for taking your time to read all i wrote expect the part were i wrote that i AM a Falcon simmer, which is the last line but one to be honest, and the part where i explained (quite lenghty) that anyone thinking an F35 place should be at 1 km from enemy forces should be better playing Farmville, which is the wall of text over the last line. Also, this excuse "if i wanted a good military sim id join service" is silly. I like playing in front of my pc a some hours a week without making a life decision and risk my skin. Please dont ever use it any more. Having jets on Arma is a nonsense. Why not having a battleship on the top of a mountain? Only with wheels or tracks, because since this is not a simulation and people want just have some fun, i mean, who am i to prevent someone having some fun? I also play (or used to, really, before discovering A2) microsoft FSX. Its cycle of life should be taught as an important marketing lesson not only for the videogames market. They decided that hardcore customers were a lot of pain. Modders sold their work based on FSX, and MS didnt get a dime. So they thought to make a very shiny new flying game, only not simulator, no, you fly around the Hawaii, and everything is detailed to the petal of the rose in the porch of the old lady. And no one bothered to buy this detailed jewel of inconsistent activity of fying around in a cage because that would identify you as someone mentally disordered. So, at the end, every FSX customer kept their copy dear, and new people wishing to have civil flying simulations buy XPlane because their producer develops it only for hardcore simmers. So whats the morale? If your customers are simmers, you better not screw up doing arcade stuff or it will go commercially FUBAR. Lastly, i also know something about real life planes, and i tell you that you dont know what you are talking about. They cannot be compared, not as a simulation, not as a representation, not as a placeholder. Planes dont float nor strutter nor glide ascending the way all planes in A2 do. And i dont even want to go into avionics. But even if they were a PMDG or F16 BMS quality planes, it would be of no use nonetheless because you dont keep your planes on the front, period. This may make some casual less caring player happy, but "hardcore" players know, and get pissed. Once you lose your fame of being a "sim" you become a "FPS for fun" like all the others, only without the marketing the others have.

i respect your opinion, and more your tastes, but fixed wing stuff in A2 is an insult to anyone that know how military jets are and work. They are subpar, less than sketched and out of context for the reason i wrote. The presence of Altis doesnt move an inch the situation. This is not what planes are, this is not what planes are for, this is not the place where planes should be. For a game that aspires to be a simulation it would be better that they are took away altogether from players and kept as indirect support for bombing or paradropping. You cannot do all and well, so no matter what some dev aspirations may be, you can do only so much with one engine and budget. I would focus on putting some more effort on land vehicles, that stink almost as much as planes, before messing with aerial warfare, which, as i already said, is a world apart. A "simulation" that requires a single key one soldier and 2 seconds to start a Tusk and have it fire at will has a long way to go before "combining" stuff. I would piss in my pants with joy for having a map as large as the korean insula for a huge permanent campaign with plenty of soldiers tanks planes cruisers carriers and so on, but i have a home pc and Arma (arma 3 neither) will not be that sim.

I'm sorry guys, im only here because I hope AiA will work, but i need to tell you all this havoc about wanting to play a futuristic scenario the same way you play the present is laughable. Of course you should be able to be more precise from a longer distance than now. Its called progress. Warplanes dont fight the same way they fought in the 40's, in the 50's and in the 70's, because jet propulsion, rockets and radar guidance respectively changed the rule of the game... also troops dont fight the same way since the 40s or 60s 70 and so on. The problem is what comes with playing (and messing) with futuretech is that you also must devise a way as HOW future wars will be fought. Any succesful futuristic scenario brings with it an underlaying doctrine that copes available technology with the situation at hand. Snipers having an infotech inside their sight is perfectly plausible and should be implemented. How do you cope with it? Who knows? BIS should tell us: how do the fighting powers cope with omnipotent snipers? For instance, all troops are either machinegunners or snipers? The same applies to tanks, helicopters and all the futuretech they are throwing in. If you dont intend to give a complete coherent scenario, dont even bother to sell science fiction.

no such thing as stealth, nor for vehicles nor for troop. Maybe vehicles may have some sort of low RCS, but in the meantime radar analytics may have been improved so back to square one. As per foot soldiers your first shoot will always give you away, no matter if you use suppressors or silencers. Only a handgun with .22LR ammo may be suppressed so that the cracking sound would be muffled but i dont think it will included in the game, and the other option, melee, is neither. so...

Hello. This is my first post here, and i hope to receive a better and warmer welcome than the OP even though i am 10 post his junior. I share with him the disillusionment about this sci-fi tom clancy-esque scenario and place all my hopes in AiA, but I beg to differ about air power (as in "fixed wing fighter/attack planes") usage in Arma. I am no English native so you will have to be extra nice with me for my funny ways. So, back in topic. Making a long story short: planes have always been the smelliest turd in the game and they have always been out of context, so so long and thanks for all the laughs. Making a long story average: a war theatre live on the balance of three elements: aerial dominance, sea dominance, ground dominance. Its common knowledge that aerial dominance gives you the initiative, enabling the winning side to score by up high and jumping beyond (or hitting hard) the fronline. This aerial war is fought by air superiority fighters, in the number of tens and hundreds, together with C3/AEW&C planes, AG planes and such, on a front line much wider than the ground's. Behind these planes there's a whole supply chain to keep them nominal once their mission is over and come back to base. Now: whats the use of a single, lost F35 in a base on aspeck of an island in the middle of the Aegean Sea? It's a laughable idea, really. A single military jet on an island is a nonsense. The only value they may have is to play the role of precious, stationary targets to blow up on a incursion mission. This doesnt mean that there shouldnt be fixed wing jets at all in the game, only they should be AI controlled: transportation, ground attack, air defence, whatever strikes your fancy: they take off hundreds of miles away, climb to their assigned flight level, do the thing they need to do from up high, be it to drop a GBU or some dumb bombs, turn their tail and go back to play golf with their colleagues and friends at their air base, far away, secured and protected from all evil. This is the way you fight air warfare in an all-out war. Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan: all modern wars where jet fighters were employed they never fought from the very place they took off from. Its simply absurd having a multimillion dollar/euro worth piece of technology in a hostile place. Anyone in his right mind would take it elsewhere safe, and if there's no anywhere else safe to stash your precious plane, it means you just lost. Whatever the map BIS may come up with it wont ever be large enough to accomodate objects that fly to the speed of sound ten thousand miles above the ground -unless someone want to make something as big as the Korean insula, 200.000 square kilometers give or take, but if your Ifrit breaks along the way its gonna be a long walk home... Moreover, anything flying in A2 was so ludicrously ugly to see and fly that i personally wont shed a tear for missing the chance to fly a shiny piece of tech with the flight model of a baloon. There's a single excpetion, that is the Super Tucano, a turbprop COIN plane, which is sturdy, slow, dumb and cheap enough to fit in the scale of Arma. Also his flight model is almost as basic as a cessna 172 so it could be well represented with A2 flight model. Helicopters are a completely different game. They can and must stay near the front line, they are sturdier and more expendable, in a scenario where aerial dominance hasnt been set yet and geernal balance is not s straightforward, they gain a great weight and importance. It was theorized during the cold war that WWIII would have been a helicopter war -maybe someone older here will remember Amerika, the 90's miniseries, that was the idea. Besides, its no easy to move helicopters in and out an island, so i must confess i dont know the surrounding area of Stratis but it may even be that they were been stranded there sooo... they are there to stay (until relief). In short they are more in context with the infantry focus Arma has. Bottom line: an infantry sim and a fighter jet sim are two different things. They move in different worlds, have different times, different priorities, different concept and shapes of frontlines and battles, and they shouldnt be mixed. I am sorry to say this, but even if you (generic you) are fond of your memories of when you epically flew your A10 to relieve your team from a tough situation, such actions are just plain dumb. The very idea that maybe, somewhere, sometimes, in some server, someone took a F35 down with an RPG and that made his day, makes me wanna hurt a kitten. All these things were a nonsense and still are. Maybe this someone took his time to write in a forum that the animation of the bolt coming out of his L115A3 is not just right, who knows. In order to have a good simulation of a ground war, what happens up above should be of no concern to the grunts. Everyone do their job, and if the bomb fall on you, it means that your airforce is on the losing side or its a blue on blue, and either case you cant do nothing about it. I say all this out of love for the experience i enjoy playing a rifleman in Arma, a fighter pilot in F16 BMS, and reading about military strategies and doctrines. Nice to meet you. :o