Amentes

You know, I'd love to hear what Giddy thinks about this. He made a post with an idea that I, personally, was all for. But at some point, it was turned around almost 180 degrees, and I haven't read anything by him since.

So what you're saying is, you're basically hijacking Giddy's post, and his opinion no longer matters?

You'll need some way to govern what channel people choose to go on. Add to that, when you get a newbie coming in, you're gonna have a major issue getting him on the right channel, let alone ensuring that he even knows how ACRE works in the first place. You're also gonna be dealing with terrain obstruction, which is gonna make communications between teams on the ground a lot more difficult than you're used to. The list goes on. If you can make it work, more power to you, but there's a reason why so many of the people actually using ACRE are shaking their heads at this.

ACE is fairly modular, many of the more advanced systems can be toned down or entirely disabled. ACRE is a bit of a different beast, and speaking as a regular user of it, will be hard to incorporate without also having some manner of prearranged structure, in effect a rank system. I see no reason to oppose such a server, but it has to be pointed out that the idea of using ACRE and expecting what I might describe as a "loose gameplay structure" seems somewhat unreasonable from the perspective of an avid ACRE user.

I have. You're linking a bunch of posts from people asking for a less modded EU#3 gamenight. Nothing to do with setting up a new server.

Giddy lists a "less intrusive ACRE", but not ACE. I'm no expert, but I don't imagine ACRE's gonna get a whole lot less "intrusive" than it is on EU#3 in its current form. The general gist I'm getting from talking to people on TS, both recently and in the history of EU#3, is that ACE and TFAR/ACRE have been the mods keeping people off, as they can be somewhat overwhelming to newbies. So no, it has not been said multiple times that people want only ACE and ACRE. No offense, but that's just factually incorrect.

Fair enough Josh. In that case, let me just say, as far as I can tell from what is being written in here, the mods keeping people off EU#3 are ACE and ACRE, and the total size of the download. If there's a demand for a server running weapon and vehicle mods, I have no issue with that. Just don't call it a "stepping stone to EU#3" if it's basically just the EU#3 modset without ACE and ACRE. If a stepping stone is required, tone down the medical system, lose some of the other ACE features like Advanced Ballistics, make ACRE as easy as is possible and relax the rank structure.

Not wanting to play with a rank structure is all fine, but this part here I have to take issue with. The list of rules for EU#3 is very reasonable. Don't TK Don't ruin the fun for everyone by raping AOs with CAS. Obey the orders of your superiors. (Which are, in 99% of cases, perfectly reasonable.) Play your role. Those 4 are really the gist of it. Everything else is simply subsets of those four, intended to specify a selection of actions that could easily end up resulting in you breaking any of those four major rules. The common violations involve shooting in base and throwing items in base, which is mostly done by newbies who get reprimanded once, never to do it again. I can't for the life of me see how this ruleset could even remotely be hard to follow. As far as I can tell, ACE and ACRE are basically the only two mods they DON'T want on a modded server

So I'm being told that Marksmen shouldn't use the vanilla NVS or the modded Visual and light amplification sights?

I've yet to have an issue loading a pre-made kit. Am I to understand that loading a kit with an item that isn't obtainable in the server arsenal causes the ACRE issues that some players have been experiencing the last few days?

There are NV scopes available now, and you can generate a kit in Virtual Arsenal and load it on server with the NV-only scopes on.

Keep in mind a damaged helo could be leaking fuel, so repairing that leak can often be the first step. If you don't do it in time, it'll leak out and no amount of repair will help you.

Sounds good to me.

When on the ground with a damaged aircraft, the first thing to consider is whether gaining a large amount of altitude is safe. How did you get damaged? If enemy fire, is it likely to get you again if you elevate? Once you make that decision, you either A: Go to a low and slow crawl using rudder and very little collective to limp out to a safe area so you can transition to B: Get yourself at least 50 meters off the deck, and then start the "Rock-out" procedure, which involves continually tipping your aircraft back and forth so that your rotor disc, your lift, is always pointed towards your velocity vector. Rock out will eventually get you into either stable forward flight, or stable sideways flight. If you're sideways, you can either just go with that, or you can roll away from your velocity vector and start Rock-out again. Either way, you'll eventually be back around base again. if you're feeling frisky, you can come in for a landing on the repair pad. If you do, make sure you let your fellow pilots know that you'll be in the area with a damaged aircraft, as you will likely be somewhat more erratic in your flying and will be harder to predict. There's no shame in landing on flat ground and driving service vehicles out to the aircraft. None. Depending on the size of aircraft and severity of damage, I'd go as far as say that it should be preferred to play it safe. If in doubt, bite the bullet, take your punishment for getting hit, and drive those vehicles out. When performing a landing away from the pads, you can either attempt to go into a hover over an open area with no obstacles near you, and just set the bird down. Once you lower collective, your spin will drastically decrease and you should be able to keep it all under control with rudder inputs. Alternatively, you can attempt a Run-on landing, which involves coming in at speed, lightly touching down while at speed, and then letting the aircraft slide to a stop. Keep in mind, most Helicopters in ArmA 3 will explode if you attempt this at above 40km/h, so be gentle.

Wrangling the Greyhawk camera at 2000 meters is an artform. Keep working at it

Might sign up to pilot, if you'll tell me which aircraft are gonna be used? I might practice a bit first.

I agree, there's no need to be negative about a game that kinda doesn't have anything to do with the AW community, but it could be argued that this is about the video and how much Koyote likes it?

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5QGploHhl9_XaxDiHZKamg/videos

I was expecting some Dain Ironfoot in here. I am disappoint.

Playing the Betas, I realized quickly that it wasn't for me. I guess it sorta reminded me of a mix between DayZ and WoW, without any of the good parts of either, and I've seen nothing of the full release to make me think otherwise. I'll be waiting for Escape from Tarkov

Not if it's crashed near the AO.

Agreed, I don't really see what the alternative to the Action Menu would be. It may be a bit clunky, but I'm used to it, and it works fine. As for jumping, yeah, vaulting is better. Jumping only leads to bunnyhopping.

While I'm not active on the Publics any more, I'd ask that you keep in mind that getting a Repair Specialist to actually do his job, isn't always that easy, if at all possible. If the Pilots are getting worse, I can only assume that everyone else is too. Judging from my experiences back when, that could easily mean that being unable to explosively destroy a grounded helicopter would necessitate a respawn. It may well be necessary for the pilot in question to personally fly out that repair vehicle, if a lifter helicopter is even available for use. It seems to me this would require serious enforcing on the part of Repair Specs too, as well as ensuring that fellow pilots lend a hand if a refuel is required, something I don't see specified in this change of rules?

Doesn't seem to me like something that'd be client-side only, but it might actually be useful on #3. We tend to break things. I wonder what the limits of this would be as well, i.e. could I use a Chinook to lift a boat towing a boat? Maybe I'll experiment.

The flight being unstable has no real impact on the UAV's ability to keep the laser on target. It will stay locked in place, rain or shine. You're looking to avoid bringing the UAV into a position where the camera can no longer stay on target due to translation limits. Switching out of pilot, thereby letting the AI take back over and start bringing itself back into the orbit you likely had it in prior to taking control, is in my experience the most effective way to both ensure a good paint all through the drop, and ready the bird for another strike in a timely manner. It's also hands-free, and lets you look at what you did to whatever you were dropping bombs on.