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.

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.

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.

Late response, but just got back from a few weeks abroad. I can not remember being a legendary man either, but to answer your question: pretty much the only time I use autohover is when I need to check something in Zeus, or know I'll be spending a longer-than-usual time checking the full-screen map while airborne. In my opinion, there's only 1 option: At anything less than 1 km, you're fully committed to your plan for the LZ you are heading to. The only possible thing driving you away from landing there is if something screws up your approach entirely, generally that means bad preparation, a pop-up threat or an aircraft malfunction. My COA in that case would be: 1. Ingress to planned LZ 2. Land and/or drop troops 3. Egress to a safe distance 4A. If Mr. Hol-Van-Pluto got out, I'll RTB 4B. If he is still in the back, THEN I'll check where he marked the LZ and if / how I can get there

Please do add to the “good LZ placement” that besides designating a suitable LZ, it also needs quite some preparation on the pilot’s side. (First of all, knowing where the LZ is, then terrain and threats impact ingress and egress route, wave-off possibilities and alternate LZ’s, ...) And give some pointers to the things a pilot occupies himself with during several phases of flight (you can just link to Dslyexci’s flight tutorials for that) I’ve had far too many soldiers jump in the helicopter, remain silent throughout the entire flight and then 1km from the planned LZ: “Hey, I’ve marked LZ Hol-van-Pluto on the map, could you take me there instead?”

Well, there's always this video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BczhT1ByrXA

Probably deserving of its own topic if further discussion is requested / required, but in my opinion, one of the main disadvantages I&A 3 has in relation to 2.x is the location of the main base and how you progress... After a server restart, unless an admin fast forwards (which they almost never do, AFAIK), you lose all progress you made earlier, meaning you keep repeating the same AO's and hardly ever get to the far side of the map. With a base in the middle, you could work in all directions again, rather than a linear one. It may be less realistic, but improves gameplay and AO variety. If you really want, however, you could make a central base more realistic by adding the FIA or another (fictional) local resistance group in the scenario. 1) You continue to play as BLUFOR like I&A always has, including (most of) its full arsenal. After FIA has secured the airbase, NATO was able to get a foothold in the centre of the island, and you operate from there. 2) You switch factions to the FIA, starting with civilian and other less advanced gear. At certain fixed AO's, special locations / gear are made available; or for every X random AO's completed, some arsenal limitations are lifted. You wouldn't start there, but one of the first objectives would be to annex the airbase, so you can operate from there and get some NATO support assets.

You're right. Corrected.

With the upcoming DLC, maybe one of these is feasible, depending on how they adapt game mechanics: Clear minefield (timed as side mission; could be used un-timed as an AO sub-objective as well) Our enemy has placed a minefield near X. Aside from bringing our push forward to a halt, it's also a major hazard to the local population. It's your job to clear it as soon as possible, but note that we don't want you to take unnecessary risks. It is believed the enemy has at least a few squads protecting this defensive barrier. Free-fall leaflets (timed; could be used as an AO sub-objective as well) For the past few days, the enemy has been using drones to spread propaganda leaflets among the population. So far, by the time we've arrived on scene, the drop had already been completed and the drone long out of sight, so we were unable to locate the drone operator(s). Just a few minutes ago, a drone was seen heading to X. We finally got a real shot at finding them before the drop is complete. While we don't know the location of the operator(s), we do know the drones have a maximum range of 2km. Hostage rescue (timed) To coerce us into backing off, the enemy has taken an entire native village population (roughly 25 - 50 people) hostage, claiming they'll kill someone every 5 hours as long as there is an allied presence in the region. Because of the enemy's propaganda efforts against us, we're losing the hearts and minds of the local population rapidly, but rescuing these hostages could definitely be a favourable turning point. We're on a clock here, so better get moving!!

A lot easier would be to use Revo's 3DEN Enhanced for a moment, and edit the Load Coefficient. That way, you could also edit each unit / role individually. E.g. While a regular rifleman has a load coefficient of 1, an autorifleman would be trained to run around with some extra weight on his body, so his coefficient could be 0.8. In the end, because of the way ArmA uses a single stamina level regardless of role (AFAIK !!), they'd both have the same amount of stamina in the field.

Air defence towers are too close to the runway, imo. A semi-bad Blackfish pilot could easily crash into them during an otherwise fine rolling take-off / landing. Further, FWIW, a gate to get outside a base I made (name: "ammo_bar_out"): 1. Trigger dimensions and shape (length, width, height; round or rectangle): very important is height, so overflying pilots don't accidentally activate the trigger. I've set the trigger as such that the longest part is at the side where the vehicle is coming from (movement: left to right). The extension on the right is so that the gate doesn't close when a truck passes through. Once the player is outside the trigger, the gate would close, and the back of the truck would be stuck. For gates where traffic is coming from both ways, it's better to make both sides equal obviously. 2. Activation here is OPFOR, but you can set it to anything available in the list. 3. Make sure REPEATABLE is checked. No experience with it, but I'm guessing SERVER ONLY would make sense for online missions. 4. The code to OPEN the gate. Special note: "Door_1_rot" is specifically for bar gates, AFAIK. To my limited knowledge, other type of gates / doors use "Door_1_move". 5. The code to CLOSE the gate. 6. (Optional) Add in a small delay for the trigger to run, to add some randomness to when the gate opens.