Eagle-Eye

Tanoa had a regular crowd when the MOB was on the large airport on the center island, and with randomized instead of sequenced AO's. Not sure if that was still I&A 2, but things definitely started slipping once the MOB moved to the smaller island airfield southwest. David once made a bridge connecting a few islands on Tanoa. That would be a relatively easy fix for the mobility issue. To connect all the islands, you probably won't even need an hour to build 2 bridges to connect the main islands, and make it look something like this.

Doesn’t really need a mod. You could make a basic script to remove one Taru and spawn another. I don’t know enough about coding to do it myself, but I’m thinking something along the lines of: - 1 specific helipad for Taru swapping - 1 officer/object with an addAction to spawn the different Taru’s - when you try to spawn a Taru, it checks whether there is another Taru within range X of said helipad. If not, nothing happens. - if a Taru is found: remove vehicle, sleep some to avoid overlap, spawn the new one. It’s a bit clumsy perhaps, but it might work and provide what’s requested.

I agree on the head tracking and pedals, but it's not because some of the most respected pilots in ArmA use M/Kb that it's necessarily the best option. When you're used to a controller, taking the controls with M/Kb feels completely unnatural. YMMV and all that. That being said, I have almost 2 decades of experience with those "full HOTAS crazy setups", without ever having any problems, but no matter what I try, I just can't make it feel right in ArmA either, so I'm using a middle way: keyboard buttons for throttle up / down, the joystick on a Logitech G13 for pitch / roll, and pedals for yaw. In terms of controller motion vs input, I'm guessing the G13 stick might be somewhat similar to what Mad Eye Moody knows from his RC flying, so if he can get it hooked up, he could do just fine. I have no idea if and how to connect that controller, though. Maybe try one of these links that explain how to connect your controller to a computer, and see if ArmA recognises the axes? https://www.propwashed.com/taranis-fpv-freerider-windows-10/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-rDT70OY0M

Not sure if it's related, but I've changed the background image from the Apache to the daylight carrier, and I haven't had it since.

"Google Chrome Version 64.0.3282.186 (Official Build) (64-bit)" on a Win7 x64 OS.

Hey guys, Not sure if this forum-related, or an issue on my end, but since a few days, maybe a week, I've been getting some graphical glitches on this forum. It could happen on any forum page, sometimes it just flickers a few times before it returns to normal, other times it's persistent until a page is loaded in (new or refresh), at times it doesn't occur for a very long period of time / many loads, so I haven't found a reliable way to reproduce. I haven't noticed any weird GPU behaviour on my end, and I only get the issue here, so I'm guessing the issue may be somewhere in the forum code? Anyone else happened to also notice this? Cheers, E²

SDAR ... The rest I agree with wrt underwater warfare. I don't see why the enemy would assume it's safe, though? Their country is being invaded. They should be up in arms constantly. As such, spawn them in as "aware" and "reactivate" its behaviour at each waypoint using this command, if that works? [_grp, 2] setWaypointBehaviour "AWARE"; If changing behaviour isn't what you want, I also found this. Haven't tested it at all, so I'm not sure if this even works, or if it's the same command for every single vehicle in the game... Basically, you're destroying the headlights, so they can't be used even if they wanted to. this setHit ["light_l", 1]; this setHit ["light_r", 1];

What time does this start? Calendar says 6.30 PM (unknown if that's GMT or CET), this topic says 1930 UTC (2030 CET).

Doesn't always have to be DCS, so here's some BMS 4.33 (Nevada Theater). Tasked with defending a ground objective, 5 pilots of our virtual squadron went head-to-head against 18 aircraft (1:3.5 ratio) of another virtual squadron.

Feedback from Vortex 2: Initially: F-16 A-A Later: A-10C A-G + Overall, good mission design + Good plan on movement / holding areas. + Good use of VRP / IP. + Overall, proper comms with FAC and between Vortex. ~ Personal opinion, but having 500+ hours of Falcon BMS experience (and many more unlogged in other CFS), I think it accounts for something: IMO, despite JETS DLC, fixed wing combat in ArmA is FUBAR and hardly enjoyable, especially A-A. For this mission, I think at least 1 rotary wing (AH64, AH1Z or even AH6) would've been better to provide close air support. - Before in-game briefing, nobody seemed to have any idea what the mission was supposed to be, what assets we had available, which opposition we would be facing, ... - No ability to choose loadout on the aircraft. Might've made air assets slightly more capable had they been able to swap their JDAM for AGM or GBU. / "Vortex 2, FAC, need immediate CAS support 300m north from Command's position" .... Yeah, where is that exactly? You're moving around clearing the area, we're buzzing around at 240kmh (at least; so that's 4km/min), so getting actual visual acquisition of your location is almost impossible (tremendously hindered by ArmA visibility as well) without any markers, and there's hardly any time to check the map for markers. Provide some form of visual reference (smoke, laser, flare, easily distinguishable area points, ...) or 9-line as much as possible. / Often encountered in ArmA: Commanders and/or FAC don't really have experience with air assets, so they don't quite know their SWOT. Ie., when FAC asked for the immediate CAS support mentioned above. At this point, I had just completed a gun run and was still turning away from target (and maybe 500 - 1000m away from where that CAS was needed). Even with a slow-moving yet agile A10, I need to move away from target for at least 30 sec (2 - 3 km) to turn, be able to lock on something and target it properly.

The only way I think it would be possible is if everybody stuck to their chosen squad. Then you could have blue for Alpha, green for Bravo, purple for Charlie etc. (this goes for squad markers at least, not sure for individual members) If you leave Alpha and group up with a member of Bravo and Recon to form a self-assembled squad, however, you lose that functionality.

That the heli can float boggles your mind, but that you weren't sliced into a dozen pieces when jumping through the rotor isn't worth a mention? Okay ...

As I've mentioned several times before, my opinion is that the main problem on AWE is the different mindsets (casual <=> team-oriented <=> milsim). As such, my suggestion: have a place on AW for everyone, 24/7. Pretty sure you could reel in old-timers who left, or a whole new group of players by doing that. E.g. EU1: as is, vanilla public casual EU2: as is, vanilla public casual EU3: as is, modded public team-oriented EU6: public milsim, vanilla and/or EU3 modset TBD On EU6, there is room for banter ONLY in between missions. From start of briefing till end of debrief: A-game only, very strict application of hierarchy and rules etc. EU3 and 6 get dedicated game nights (weekly, bi-weekly or monthly depending on how much AW can muster) with pre-made and/or Zeus missions. There should be no extra development required, except removal of arsenal restrictions. Seeding missions on EU6 could be I&A or Stiletto, depending on modset, as the mindset is what makes the real difference in their execution. Second suggestion, for EU3 and 6: Get rid of as many rules as possible, and keep those you keep to the point. KISS-principle, basically, let common sense dictate what can and cannot be allowed, and the mindset should do the rest. E.g. the rules of a milsim-community (2 servers: 1 vanilla, 1 modded) I play on can fit on a half A4. (see spoiler) Compare that to AW's ruleset. Even if you look ONLY at the rules for AWE, most of the words used can be omitted and are really only there to fill the page. Because of it, by the time you're halfway through, you've forgotten what you read at the beginning. To give a few examples: Rule 5.1 "Use of Teamspeak is mandatory." => Of course it is, otherwise you can't use TFAR / ACRE. Put that in a guide called "first connection to AWE", not in the rules. Rule 5.2 "Teamkilling is not allowed" => Why do you need the examples, if the list isn't meant to be all-inclusive anyway? Not to mention that on AWE, you should expect players to know why you don't TK in the first place. (remember, common sense ...) Etc. Also, as a side remark, the link to the most up-to-date rule set for AWE sends you here, where the last update was January 25th 2017. However, the topic containing the rules has a different set and layout, but was posted June 22 2017? Which one is current? My 2 cents.

That is has always been like this doesn't matter. The purpose of making a link with that flight sim network is to show that even if you change the rules, general aim etc., you cannot accommodate such opposite groups without both agreeing to meet in the middle, which is (almost) never going to happen. At some point in time, you will have one or more members from one group requesting X because it would make the experience so much more in line with how they want to enjoy the sim, but (some members of) the second group will not agree to that (as-is) because it is not in line with how they enjoy it. If the request is denied, you will undoubtedly lose some members from the 1st group. If the request is granted, you will lose some from the 2nd group. If the request is adjusted to meet in the middle, both sides will likely feel like they had to give in to the other group. Probably not enough to break with the network immediately, but that's where you will get that underbelly festering, especially if it happens often.

Have read the whole topic, but won't reply to anything because I'm not "in the know" enough, except this: In my experience, you just can't combine the two. I'm part of an online flight sim network (built and supported by volunteers only as well) for over a decade now. Back when I started, its member base belonged mainly (maybe even only) to Group A. They wanted to do things just like in real life, and had the rules, procedures, training, ... set up as such. Around 2010, members from Group B began joining the network in larger numbers. They just wanted to fly and didn't need / want all those strict procedures, didn't care about training etc. In 2011 or 2012, the networks motto became "realistic, within limits". Nowadays, both groups hate each other to such extent that people go out of their way on the network (incl. disconnecting) to avoid someone they know belongs to the other group. At least once a week, there's a topic somewhere on the forum where a member from Group A complains about actions from someone in Group B, or vice versa... Admittedly, it has worked for a while, but something always festers in the community's underbelly and in the past 5 years, that network has been very close to imploding several times because of those differences (last time was less than a month ago) I'm almost certain the same will eventually happen to AWE, if it hasn't already. If in any way, this is then how my reply links to this topic as a whole.. I'm just putting a theory out here now, but maybe Stanhope belongs to Group A, the thread starter belongs to Group B, and the personal beef between them is because Stanhope is (or was) in a position where he can / needs / is expected to enforce the rules, whereas other members from Group A are not? Once again, I don't know either one enough and haven't been on AWE for months, so it's just a theory.