ricnunes

Humm, I see. So this is an ArmA2 limitation, correct? I always wondered why no guided weapon ever locked on infantry in ArmA (for example a Javelin - which for example was used to kill snipers in Iraq and Afghanistan), now know why. Thanks for the reply Franze.

No, I'm not asking for or talking about using the TAB key to lock infantry. What I'm talking about is using the "2" key menu and then select the appropriate number to lock/designate/select (or whatever is the appropriate name) the intended infantry soldier. This is what happens with the gun when you are using TADS as the sensor of interest and you have also have the acquisition mode set to TADS. Again if you use the gun (TADS sensor and acquisition) and then use the "2" menu you can "lock" an infantry soldier that the gunner is currently seeing, so if the gunner can use the TADS to point the gun towards an enemy soldier he also can use TADS (in real life) to fire a Hellfire missile against an infantry soldier. Indeed you engage enemy infantry with Hellfires if you are the gunner (turning on laser, locking the laser and than point the laser towards the enemy infantry) but what I'm asking is the ability when the player is the pilot so that he can order the AI gunner to engage infantry soldier with Hellfire missile - currently it's only possible to order the AI gunner to engage enemy infantry with the gun.

A bit in line with the previous Hellfire (and laser designation) discussion I want to suggest the following (for a next version): - Give the ability to lock infantry soldiers with laser Hellfires, afterall the process of "locking" a vehicle or an infantry soldier with a laser Hellfire is just the same in real life (just need to point the TADS at the intended target and it just doesn't matter what the target really is).

Personally I have no doubts that your flight model for this Apache addon is by far the best FM in existence within any aircraft ever made for ArmA! Yes, we shouldn't expect DCS fidelity or even EECH fidelity but nevertheless it's still EXCELENT inded, even more when considering the ArmA limitations. And I'm glad that you're keeping this flight model as it is! Yes, I agree with you on this one - The EECH Vortex Ring effect seems to be at least a bit exaggerated.

Yes, you're correct ataribaby and I stand corrected. Thanks for the correction. Inded I confused Retreating blade stall with Vortex Ring. Anyway, Vortex Ring is also modeled in the EECH (at least in the modded version, althrough I'm pretty sure that the original EECH also modeled Vortex Ring).

"Modded EECH is plain crap compared to even the original EECH FM", are you real or joking??? I must admit that's between the weirdest thing that I ever read around these forums - If there's one thing that the modded EECH improves VERY much over the original is the Flight Model. Regarding the retreating blade stall, this happens when a helicopter is hovering too much over a certain place because the air becomes saturated which causes the blade stall. If you use pedals much when hovering the air will become saturated much sooner which could cause the blade stall sooner. Don't tell me that this never happened to you in DCS:KA-50?? Or don't tell me that if you apply full pedals in KA-50 that the helicopter doesn't turn fast as it does in with this mod?? If you say no, than there's something odd on your part (or you aren't applying full pedals, or you don't use full realism setting in KA-50, or you're having problems with your controller). Yes, the KA-50 flight model is very accurate and I know that, perhaps the most accurate helicopter flight sim, at least regarding coaxial rotor helicopters but one thing I can guarantee to you, simulations such as the modded EECH, Jane's Longbow 2 or Search And Rescue aren't that less realistic in terms of flight model than DCS:KA-50 as you're claiming! Actually after my experience with the modded EECH, Jane's Longbow 2 and Search And Rescue I didn't have any difficulty in adapting and flying the KA-50 in DCS:KA-50. Also note that there are considerable differences between coaxial rotor helicopters and "conventional" main rotor and tail rotor helicopters and as such those differences are probably reflected in both DCS:KA-50 and modded EECH (for example) so one must exercise caution when comparing both sims, for example....

Sorry, but did you ever play a high fidelity helicopter sim before?? ACE2 doesn't count as a high fidelity helicopter neither do I consider it to have a good flight model fidelity for aircraft (for both rotary and fixed-wing aircraft)! If you play any high fidelity helicopter sim such as DCS:Ka-50 or the modded EECH which are much more realistic than ACE2 will ever be (and probably any other ArmA2 helicopter mod, regarding flight model) and between the most realistic helicopter flight sims available in the PC you'll see that if you use full pedals the helicopter WILL TURN FAST, specially at low speed and/or hover! That's how helicopters "work" or fly in real life. ArmA2 in both vanilla or ACE2 mod got the tail rotor modeling very, very wrong! Or also, did you play Take On Helicopters, which like everyone knows has a much better FM than ArmA2 (and any ArmA2 mod)? You'll see that the tail rotor authority is very sensitive indeed! If I have to criticize the pedal turn (tail rotor control) in this mod I would say that above 60knots there should be some authority with the pedals although not as sensitive as below 60 knots. But in general terms this tail rotor authority with this Apache Addon is IMO quite good and MUCH BETTER than anything that I played before in ArmA2 including ACE2. Also like it was said before, don't forget that the Apache is an extremely agile helicopter. So what do you mean with "tweak the flight model so as to prevent too quick turns"?? If you mean hover and turning too fast with the pedals (even becoming a bit uncontrollable) that's very realistic indeed. Indeed if you hover, specially at high altitudes and use the pedals (specially too much) your helicopter can or could likely suffer from a retreating blade stall which BTW, isn't modeled in this mod (or in any other ArmA2 mod that I know of). And NO, it's not easy to fly helicopters, they are the hardest type of aircraft to fly and control... ---------- Post added at 18:57 ---------- Previous post was at 18:36 ---------- For what's worth I'm enjoying the campaign missions very much since it has some very original missions (for example I enjoyed very much the one that you must save those 2 pilots, yourself - very original indeed), with the exception of those 2 (Pin Drop and Hallowed Ground) but like I said the main reason was the UH-60 more than the enemies themselves, so a hold command for the UH-60 would certainly be very welcome. I must say that I completely agree! One of the reasons why I enjoy playing with the Helicopters in ArmA2 (even before this addon) despite it's limitations (arcadish flight model, very arcade avionics specially sensors, simplified damage mode, etc...) it's the infantry modeling and their behaviour - the AI infantry ability to engage you like real infantry, it uses cover like real infantry, it boards and unloads from helicopters like real infantry, etc... DCS, while not being the worse combat flight sim regarding infantry modeling (perhaps between the best regarding this) it doesn't come close to ArmA2 infantry modelling and since helicopters work very closely with infantry, you get the picture, I guess... And IMO this awesome mod solves the problem of arcadish flight model, very arcade avionics specially sensors, simplified damage mode, etc... regarding the AH-64D Apache helicopter in ArmA2! Now I just wish that all other helicopters were modelled like this AH-64D but I know that's a bit of dreaming... (well dreaming doesn't cost anything, does it?)

Well I used both 5.56mm (with M-16, M-4 and SCAR) and .50 cal (with M-107). With 5.56mm I had a very hard time to penetrate the windows (at the pilot torso level) which is probably expected and I had almost no difficulty penetrating (again at the pilot torso level and frame below the gunner) with a .50 cal (M-107) which again seems to be expected (except for the gunner's frame part). But if you hit with a .50 cal (and 5.56mm as well) at the pilot's head level or in part of the gunner's side glass it simply doesn't penetrate. ---------- Post added at 18:59 ---------- Previous post was at 18:38 ---------- I now reached the Hallowed Ground and yes I HATE the mission (but not you, rest assured LoL). Please don't get me wrong but I simply won't waste hours of my life passing a mission that's almost impossible not only because the enemies involved but mainly because the UH-60 departs much sooner than you can (this was already mentioned by someone before) and there's no control or orders that you can have over the helicopter (something that would certainly happen in real life -> such as don't go there or wait here or something along those lines). What I did was, unpacked the campaign missions (unpbo) then opened the mission with the editor and added a wait trigger to a waypoint (before entering the "dangerous airspace") which is activated by radio Alpha channel (only after using radio - Alpha is when the helicopter goes towards the pickup point and resumes the rest of it's mission). By personal experience with this modification this mission was still HARD AS HELL and I had to try several times to pass it (just like you pretend) but it doesn't make it almost impossible and at the same time gives the player some time for planning which is IMO always interesting and important to have in ANY KIND of mission. IMO, I would advise you to make something like that - One thing is to loose because you were shot down by the enemy and another very different thing is to almost always loose a mission because the UH-60 is a "Kamikaze" that doesn't even wait for you to provide the pretended escort!

Hi, first of all thanks for the v1.2 patch! I noticed in the v1.2 changelog that one thing that was supposed to be fixed was "cockpit glass invulnerability." but regarding this I noticed that there are still issues: - While there are improvements on this regard, if you hit the pilot side windows at the head level the glass in never penetrated but if you fire at the pilot's torso level than the glass can be penetrated (which is an improvement regarding previous versions). Regarding the gunner's side windows I didn't see improvements, since the glass is impenetrable but you can kill the gunner if you hit the frame just below the glass (just like in previous versions). ---------- Post added at 19:51 ---------- Previous post was at 19:45 ---------- What I do is pressing the "*" key (numpad keyboard) and use the mouse to point and select any cockpit button - I do this in any flight sim that I play, anyway and I also use TrackIR. Note that moving the mouse after pressing the "*" key doesn't disable the TrackIR but it may "un-center" your view, but you can always press the "5" key in the numpad keyboard to re-center your view again.

Finally I was able to pass this mission but only because of a matter of pure luck which I confirmed by opening this mission with the editor. What happened (and also includes some tactics that I previously used in other attempts) are:

Well according to BIS universe regarding Chernarus, West is still Chernarus - Actually the map that is called Chernarus is just one province of the whole country of Chernarus (located the most northeastern part of Chernarus where Ethnic Russians and Pro-communist guerrilla have considerable support). Russia should be located North and not West. Anyway, I can understand your idea behind this mission but I still think that we should at least have an Ammo Truck so that we could at least equip Stinger missiles since it's almost impossible to engage those Ka-52s with guns plus defending ourselves and the UH-60 at the same time! The Radar Hellfire (AGM-114L) should IMO be included in the mission (with the ammo truck) because there's so many targets to engage including those nasty Tunguskas that engaging with laser Hellfires one target at a time while exposing ourselves is again an almost impossible mission. So my new request regarding this mission: Add an Ammo truck with Stingers and/or preferably Radar Hellfires as well.

I'm not saying that the infil and exfil routes should be the same, but the exfil route should never involve passing into the "heart" of the enemy zone. And the current exfil route doesn't give you or the UH-60 any chance of escaping enemy fire unless you know, after playing this mission too many, many times what enemies can engage you during exfil and for some miracle being able to destroy them before they destroy you or the UH-60M. Being said that and since the infil route is from the south the exfil route could go west (instead going north and then east like the current exfil route or south like the infil route). Also not being able to choose our weaponry in this mission (there's no Ammo truck) and therefore not having access to equip Stinger Missiles to deal with lots of enemy air threats (Ka-52s and Su-34s) and also not being able to mount AGM-114L (radar guided Hellfires) to deal with very dangerous threats such as the SA-19, makes this mission very exaggerated from a difficulty point of view. Please don't get me wrong, and afterall this is IMO the best addon ever made for ArmA2 so far, but missions like this makes the campaign very, very frustrating. I understand that there's the need for some difficulty, but making missions so difficult than only one kind of tactic will work doesn't combine which such a great and realistic addon -> The idea behind this mission (Pin Drop) is itself great but again it's too exaggerated!

Maybe I'm a bit nitpicking but the Pin Drop mission in the Tarnished Gold campaign is bit on the impossible side: -> IMO, it doesn't make any sense that the Helicopter that you're supposed to escort after dropping the SpecOps team instead of turning to the fastest, nearest and safest route to get out from the hostile area (which could be something like turning WEST and then SOUTH) the helicopter that you're supposed to escort does exactly the opposite (turns north and east) and goes even deeper inside the enemy hostile area. Don't get me wrong but even the dumbest mission planning officers wouldn't plan nothing like this! Together with this you have to face enemy Ka-52s, Su-24 and Tunguskas, this IMO makes this mission: Mission Impossible! IMO and as a request and feedback, I think the UH-60 should turn home thru a fastest, nearest and safest (Southwest outbound route) or even not having the exaggeration of Russian units (specially the aerial units).

Well I think that may depend on a personal taste level. Actually I think that currently I'm prefering the ACR DLC even more than the BAF DLC (which IMO is also good). The reason that makes me liking the ACR more than BAF is that the list or units, weapons and vehicles is much wider and complete -> For example with BAF you don't have support vehicles (Rearm, repair, refuel and ambulance), MBTs (Main Battle Tanks) and fixed-wing aircraft while with ACR you have all these type of units. Never understood why BAF DLC never came with support vehicles (Rearm, repair, refuel and ambulance) and MBT (Challenger 2) for the British forces! Also the BAF campaign is 4 mission long while the ACR campaign is 8 mission long with some very original missions, some of them never seen in any ArmA games (as far as I know). Unfortunally both BAF and ACR campaign aren't Co-Op playable, a feature that I wish all campaigns in ArmA had! But I do agree that both ACR and BAF DLCs are much superior than the major letdown that was the PMC DLC.

Are you having some sort of mental menstruation or something?? Really, since when or where did I say that the ALL units or ALL KIND of units in OFP/ArmA/ArmA2/ArmA2:OA are balanced? As far as I know the title of this thread is "Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?" so this thread as far as I know or understood (but I admit that I haven't read all the 20+ pages of this thread) is regarding any possible balancing (making both sides as equal as possible) in future ArmA3 (and consequently other possible future 'milsim' products based on ArmA3). Regarding this my oppinion is clear and simple: the 'balancing' should be similar to OFP/ArmA/ArmA2/ArmA2:OA which is to say, Almost NONE or NO balancing at all (each sides have their own strenghts and weakeness). If there is to be some 'balancing' to be made this should be based on REAL or REALISTIC facts (such as the one that I mentioned) and never by balancing units (making a M1 Abrams with the exact same features/capabilities than a T-90 for example). I also agree that making the game more realistic such as remove the instantaneous 'TAB' locking key could in the end make the game: 1- More realistic. 2- And also more 'balancing' because with the instantaneous "instantaneous 'TAB' locking key" any "rookie" can kill dozens of enemies - In real life systems like the Apache gunship helicopters are extremely deadly but they require lots of training hours for a pilot/crewman to be effective with this helicopter (the same applies to any other weapon system such as tanks, airplanes, etc...). But one must also be carefull by simply removing "instantaneous 'TAB' locking key" -> The lock key in a gunship helicopter simulates the pilot ordering it's gunner (in case it's an AI) to lock the next available target. Perhaps more than simply removing the "instantaneous 'TAB' locking key" is to make the weapons behaviour much more realistic like for example in order for a laser guided missile (Hellfire for example) or SACLOS missile (AT-6 for example) to hit it's intended target that same target must always be locked (unit the missile hits the target) or else the missile would fail to hit the intended target. If a missile such as the Hellfire is already flying towards a target and the player changes the target than the missile would follow the new target (with the risk of not having enough 'energy' to reach the new target).