• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

637 Excellent

About dragon01

  • Rank
    Sergeant Major
  1. I agree wholeheartedly. For a team of that size, a "PR guy" mostly responsible for replying on the forum could be useful. A quote from the forum rules, please. "Requests for information" were not forbidden last time I checked. This wasn't asking for progress, BTW.
  2. I should note that there is no actual rule against requests. Some pages back it was stated quite clearly by the moderators. The "no request" policy is something RHS team can only ask the community to abide by (a request, if you will :) ). There's no rule to skirt, and I think that also asking to refrain from questions about unreleased/hypothetical content is asking a bit too much. I don't know about others, but English is also not my first language (though I use it without any difficulty unless I have to speak), but I'm capable of simply ignoring things I don't want to answer to. I only reply to posts which are worth replying to. :)
  3. I don't remember exactly, but someone said he was working on it at one point. Of course, that might have been the same guy who later turned out to be offering you a stolen model. Either way, it was some time ago, I don't remember exactly. Also, are you sure you're speaking for the team? Considering Redphoenix posted, a few posts above yours, an unambiguous confirmation that Stryker isn't currently being worked on (not to mention all confirmed WIPs)... :)
  4. Just FIY, the latest adjustment to CCIP didn't help. Xi'an rockets and bombs still hit nowhere near the reticle. Tested with pilot-operated weapons, dunno about the gunner.
  5. This isn't a request. He asked whether they are working on something, not asked them to work on something. I'd rather not see the definition of a "request" expanded to cover "any question whatsoever about content that isn't in the current release". IIRC, Stryker was even in the works at some point (though I'm pretty sure it isn't now).
  6. Not only landmines, but any type of AT weapon, including RPGs. The blast of a HEAT charge is actually much less deadly than the molten metal jet, so if the vehicle is nailed with an RPG you're more likely to survive if you're sitting on top. It's also an advantage if you come under attack, you can dismount rapidly, have a good FOV and freedom to fire your weapon, which the interior doesn't provide (the firing ports are of little use most of the time). Riding inside is pretty much only for when you're dealing with extreme weather, NBC conditions or driving at maximum speed (that is, on a road through an uncontested zone).
  7. Just had a thought, would that be possible to get a van configured as a minibus? Two rows of seats, with an aisle in the middle (or three rows, with an offset, one seat wide aisle). Pretty sure I've seen similar vans configured like that IRL. This would be useful on Malden, which supposedly has a bus network, but no actual buses are anywhere to be seen.
  8. It'd be great if you looked into it for TacOps DLC, or failing that, ArmA4. Rainbow Six had this thing where terrorists would randomly surrender upon facing you, instead of shooting. You could then handcuff them and they'd be out of the fight. We would probably need a more complex system (for example, AI has no way to retreat in good cover, is vastly outmatched and is alone or has lost most of the group it started with), but this is something to think about. Likewise, if Revive gets expanded to have full AI support, it could be an interesting mechanic to allow you to revive and capture enemy units. Enemy medical vehicles would also pose an interesting question and would encourage the player(s) not to be too trigger-happy.
  9. I really think that it should be required to somehow equip the mine detector for it to work. IRL, you can't detect mines and shoot at the same time, or at least not reliably. You should have to take the detector out instead of the gun. Failing that, at least make it a GPS/Terminal slot item (you temporarily lose navigation in exchange for demining ability). The range is more or less fine (remember, we're not talking about detecting buried mines), though it could probably be a bit less. Also, I'd suggest that the mine detector react to other things (spent steel magazines, junk, pieces of gear, etc.) to make it a bit more of a challenge to use.
  10. Is the camera shake feature something like @laxemann's Immerse? Basically, a shake whenever there's a powerful explosion nearby (or, in case of really powerful stuff, some distance away).
  11. Yeah, it finally got a proper designation. I believe that the operational bird won't be much different externally from the prototype.
  12. Ah, good old 29 stumps. :) The version for A2 was great, it effectively allowed you to take the good (training areas) without the bad (remoteness, the smell, temperatures, drought, soul-crushing misery...). :)
  13. Would that also be possible to add, for example, dud artillery and mortar shells? Possibly also regular air-dropped bombs. Cluster warheads are notorious due to the sheer amount of submunitions that they carry, but unitary warheads can also fail to detonate. While missiles typically either get pulverized if the detonator fails (not to mention that at those speeds, the impact has a good chance of setting off the charge regardless) or fly off into the wild blue yonder, bombs and artillery shells fall near the target zone and continue to pose danger if they do not explode. This would add serious difficulty in case such kinds of UXO are present - a buried cluster bomblet will take your leg off if you trip on it, but a 155mm artillery shell can take out your whole crew. Using the drone would also be tricky around those things.
  14. I'm talking about what you hear when, for example, you assemble the UAV and hover it right next to you. While controlling it you should hear what is going on around your character. It would be useful to have some awareness of what is going on around you while flying the UAV around.
  15. Laws of physics don't change. It's not the motors making that noise, it's the air being pushed down by the rotors. Same problem as with making "stealth" helicopters. You can make them hard to see or detect on radar, but cancel out the noise? Forget it. You can reduce the noise somewhat, but most of those ways won't work on a quadcopter anyway. All you can do there is fiddle with the rotor blade shape, which can only get you so far. Of course, if you fly high enough, the noise won't be audible from the ground. Still, if you're close, a drone is a very noisy machine.