Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Eagle-Eye

  • Birthday 08/31/1989

Contact Methods

  • Steam Name
  • Twitter Handle
  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

ArmA 3

  • ArmA 3 Player Name
  • ArmA 3 XML Remark
    Trust your pilot, but keep your seat belt fastened.


  • TeamSpeak Name

Recent Profile Visitors

976 profile views
  1. Forum graphical glitch?

    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.
  2. Forum graphical glitch?

    "Google Chrome Version 64.0.3282.186 (Official Build) (64-bit)" on a Win7 x64 OS.
  3. 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
  4. Make Arma 3 Great Again!

    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];
  5. [AWE][GAMENIGHT]OP Winter Blues on 05/01/2018 at 19:30 UTC

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

    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.
  7. 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.
  8. greencolored teamnames on the map

    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.
  9. Wait... It Can Float?

    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 ...
  10. 8-man Squad kit setups.

    SL and medic are fixed, but for the remaining squad members, I'd say, cater to your objective, expected opposition and preferred tactic... E.g. Objective: Get intel Expected Opposition: Platoon-sized infantry with a few motorized assets Preferred tactic: Stealth => Since you want to go in and out without being spotted, keep weight low. No or low-level vests / helmets. That way, when engaged, you can break contact as quick as possible simply by running away. Multiple guys with binoculars or medium-/long-range scopes for scouting and planning ahead. Everyone has a silencer and 1 guy carries LAT, just in case. Preferred tactic: Guns blazing => You plan on going loud sooner than later, so survival trumps mobility. Take heavy vests and helmets that can withstand a hit or two. At least 1 with LAT / MAT, at least 1 with LMG / MMG, and at least 1 assistant with extra ammo. Rest can be riflemen to do quick boots-stuff like running point, clearing buildings, securing areas, getting the wounded out of harm's way, ... If you don't expect motorised but mechanized assets, drop LAT and go for MAT immediately. Reason to believe there will be mines and / or IED? Take an EOD with you. Need to commandeer an enemy vehicle and bring it back to base? Bring an engineer that can repair it, if needed. Etc.
  11. AWE and its future

    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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. AWE Repo updated

    If simulation is in any way realistic, unless terrain masking works to a T and you like hugging trees, you shouldn’t fly in ArmA when there’s an active SA10 around. Period. Depending on version, the real SA10 has publicly known engagement ranges between 40 and 200km laterally (read: bigger than most ArmA maps), from 10ft (3m) to 98,000ft (33km) vertically. Probably the only way to engage it from the air would be to send in an armada of SEAD aircraft, from all directions simultaneously, and have a dozen CSAR helo’s on standby. With ArmA’s limited focus on air combat, you’re definitely up against all odds.
  15. On Teamleads

    I don't come on AWE anymore, as I don't like the half-half environment it aims for (which IMO creates more issues than it solves), so I don't know its current status, but I'd like to chip in my two cents, if you'll have them. If not, continue to next reply. I'm wondering: wouldn't this be a lot easier if you just enforce that a squad's first slot to be filled is that of SL? After that, everyone's free to chose whatever he wants or the mission requires, but if nobody picks the TL-slot, it's SL's job to assign one per team. Preferably, that someone is just a regular rifleman, since he doesn't have a specific task/role to fulfil, but in the end, someone has to do it, even if it's the AT or AR... Once someone does slot in as TL, he takes over team command of that team. (if need be, give him some time to settle in and get his situational awareness up) I'm also reading a lot about communication issues, which IMO is the base principle of any coherent operation. Skimp on that, and you're just creating noise and headaches. Basically, it doesn't matter who's running around with what radio, as long as your radio discipline is on point. If a grunt wants to run around with SR and LR radios, for better situational awareness or to learn the ropes of commanding, let him, but make it clear that he doesn't transmit. EVER!! It's a trickle-down system, so the higher up you go, the more you have to say. - On LR, you should only hear PlatCo, SLs and assets. If TL has access to a LR, he may use it, but only to report his SL is down and whether or not his squad needs assistance from another squad or asset. Once SL is back up, TL gets off the LR wave immediately. Calling in support assets (Vortex, artillery, CAS, ...) should ONLY be done, or at the very least approved, by the acting commander, in my opinion. He's the only one with a complete overview, and he should know and dictate what is needed where first. That's how you keep things simple, clear, concise... - On SR, most talking is done by SL and TL, with the occasional sighting/contact calls or suggestions (!!) from team members. I've seen it happen in other places as well that Sgt_NewGuy goes for the TL slot, while Mjr_LongTimer takes the AT slot. Even if TL is doing a fine job, at some point during the mission, AT will yell "Red, set up on that wall" and TL will be like "Ehr... I'm TL, why are you giving commands?" AT: "Oh, right. Sorry. You have the lead." *10 seconds later* AT: "Red, 1 o'clock, white building, move out" => TL gives up, and lets AT assume control. No corrective action from SL in any way... Finally, to answer the question on how to make TL more appealing. I think this quote sums up what I think about it. If the people you're supposed to be controlling want fun over tactics, and that leads to them not following your orders, you're useless as a leader (goes for both TL and SL). You don't need that fancy LR radio, AT or 7.62 capability etc., as much as you need a change in community mentality.