CaptainAzimuth

Ok, something really hit a soft spot on me, and that would be the Flight ceiling that Bohemia decided to add in Arma 3. Why. Look, I honestly don't want this to feel like Battlefield 3, even though i love Battlefield for what it is (not comparing here), the freedom and realism of flight in the Arma series is something i die for. I really do think the BI should get rid of it. The Ceiling is set over 3000 feet. In real like, even WW2 aircraft's can fly at an altitude of 30,000 60,000 feet. I think they need to improve on the immersion of flight rather than implementing restrictions. Though, there is something else they can do. In real life, the higher you go, the less matter of air you have to react on a physical surface of an aircraft, thus making it harder to pull of maneuvers. I think they need to make it just like that, and maybe have it realistically where you cant really fly too well over an altitude like 20,000 or something. They also don't have that second layer of clouds that forms at highers altitudes, but that's ok for now. Just get rid of the Altitude restriction. It kills.

Let me clear this up, as of right now, there are going to be 2 jets. The L-159 ALCA for Gfor and Opfor, and the F-35 for Bluefor. Don't complain, even though the full game is being released soon, doesn't mean that's make all end all content. They stated that its possible to have content released later down the road, just like in previous games they've had. Appreciate what is now.

Hey DarkSideSixOfficial here, with a thought on air power. Ever since Arma 2, i have noticed a few things that bugged me in the Fast Air element of Arma 2. First being they don't have Afterburner. Second, flares don't shoot straight down in one use like in real life, and one of the jets has two seats, but can only controlled by the pilot. Like the L-96ZA. But it came to thought about a more, realistic approach to this in Arma 3, to make things a ton more polished. How about if you can now use your Afterburner, but at a cost of more fuel consumption? It has been done in jet mods, but being a military sim, i don't feel as if the jets that should be able to go as fast as they do, are doing me any justice. Now, as for the flares, i want them to be just like in real life, one flare out for fast air, except for helicopters. Helicopters are the only aircraft that should shoot flares off to the side. Third, do you guys think it would be awesome to be able to have at least like, one 2 seater jet for each faction? It would bring some interesting play to the mil sim, and make it more polished. Those are just my thoughts and opinions. If you have any answers and questions or feedback, would be great.

Implementing DCS, is not what i had in mind, just enhancing Arma as what it is. Maybe another day when Arma can support maps 400-500 KM bigger, than DCS would be hella reasonable. I would not say that the speed is too much to handle, just watch my Maritime Operations video on YouTube, i use Afterburners, and yes it gets you places fast, BUT, not too fast. Not only is it not OP, it does take up fuel faster forcing the pilot not to be reckless. As for the flares, i just think realism is the hot spot. It would be nice not to waste flares because of burst mode, and dispensing two at the same time. I've lost my life too many times because the loss of flares. I will most definitively prove these things when the full game is released by doing a video, showing all the reasons why it would fit Arma 3's environment perfectly.

So your telling me, that i can change how high one aircraft can go? Via, config?

Hey guys, DarkSideSix here (AKA The Professional Canadian) Hey, here is a really good question, along with some interesting notes i have put together myself. ARMA 3 has a setting of 2035. That being said, out of all of the sophisticated vehicles to choose for Air Power, why the ALCA? The ALCA is ok, but in terms of a war based in 2035, i do believe that the Czech's would choose even the Gripen over the ALCA. The ALCA is a Subsonic (An aircraft incapable of passing the sound barrier) The Gripen has a way better chance of being the fighter in 2035, hell even the F-16 Block would be a really nice use in air power. Here comes the other question, as to why does the OSCAT (Iranian based Opfor) have the same aircraft as the AAF? Again, being 2035, a really good choice of air power for Opfor would be that new fighter, Iranian saeqeh fighter, like an over hauled F-5 with a dual V tail. This would make Arma 3 a whole lot more interesting instead of having all the same assets for different teams. The final question i have, is why use even if it is the ALCA, from the Czech pack. Same cockpit, same pixelaation as in the Czech pack. Its like porting Chernarus from Arma 2, and leaving it in its very lowly pixelated state. I think these things need more thought in my opinion. That would make the game in its final state, a ton more polished, not to mention a more efficient flight model (physics) for fixed wing aircraft. Example of the saeqeh - Example of the Gripen - http://www.milavia.net/news/images/gripen_hu1.jpg

Well, there is an advanced drone, and it will be Unmanned, i don't know the name of it. The Pak-FA or, T-50 ont he other hand, is a Russian Stealth Multi-role, i think, and i don't know if Russian plays a part in Arma 3. The F-35 is a possibility, but i do believe that BI has to change the version of F-35 from the one used in Arma 2, to the more present, undated F-35 model. As for that predator, i think its neat that you can now use a drone without hopping in the pilot seat as in Arma 2. Ahahaha, good old days. They show an example via. Arma3Official Stream on YouTube.

Very true. I have heard rumors during Alpha stages that Opfor could have possibly played an Eastern, Iran type role in the game. No factions other than Nato and Greece were stated, but that is simply my assumption and curiosity.