Eagle-Eye

If you're into realistic flying, that's an excuse. That said, there's a minimum proficiency required to get and keep the jet airborne, but ultimately, you decide how far you want to take it. Some build physical cockpits and have multiple manuals with standard and tactical operating procedures, checklists, aerodrome charts, technical data etc. (basically: mimicking real life flying), others just like to fly at Mach 2 with their hair on fire, tossing weapons at everything that moves 40NM away.

Luckily, the breathing sounds are a lot less noticeable while you're actually flying, especially once things get a bit more active. Not quite sure now if that'll be the case next time, though.

Hey everyone, I've seen a few topics appear about DCS, but none about Falcon BMS. Anyone flying that? To give you an idea of what it can be like, and how intense it can be, a video of our squadron flight yesterday. (this video will probably also explain why I like flying on our servers that much ) Cheers, Eagle-Eye

Not entirely true, unfortunately. Some vehicles (heli's and jets most definitely, not sure about UAVs or ground vehicles) seem to have a "super-sensor" that is capable of finding every guy in an AO, regardless if the pilot/driver/passenger actually saw anything. For example, an AO on Tanoa is +70% dense forest (Galili and Temple come to mind), impenetrable from above even with the IR sensor of the Darter or Greyhawk. While it's a severely limiting factor for UAV assistance, it's a Godsend for pilots, because they can fly over the AO with relative ease and safety. As they're cruising over the AO at 200km/h, they'll completely remove the fog of war, and highlight every vehicle and soldier in a certain radius. Don't know how far that radius extends, or if it depends on speed and/or altitude, but I think it's far too large (sometimes up to or beyond 1km, I noticed). But to compensate for that, for some odd reason, looking straight at a squad with the Darter camera will often NOT make them appear on map.

Don't think they will, since EU1/2 are public servers. Public servers tend to go for "lowest common denominator", to include/attract as much people as possible, even if that's less than realistic. If you're looking for more realism (semi-milsim, or tacticool as it's sometimes referred to), try the AW Enhanced server. That being said, I'd be interested in a test run and see what the community feedback is, to be honest... + Would perhaps give recon, snipers and UAV some more purpose than just killing stuff. - Could make it really hard to find the last few guys in an AO. Having a heli or jet fly over usually reveals those units now.

Personally, I'd keep LZ designation mostly in the hands of the pilot and let soldiers "pick their fit". - Pilots are expected to know both their own and aircraft's capabilities and limits best. I know this can be a lot to ask for on a public server sometimes, but in general, it works out alright. - There's more to an LZ than just what looks nice and cosy. Terrain and objects, route in and out, threats at and around, distance, available landing area etc. They're just a few factors that impact whether an LZ is suitable or not. It takes some mental preparation to consider those things, which is not always optimal, or even possible, when you haven't chosen the LZ yourself. - Pilots should have a better air picture (overall air traffic, enemy air defences, ...) than the foot soldiers, through direct communication amongst each other (which is why pilots are strongly advised to join Teamspeak, or at the very least create a closed pilot unit in-game for use of group chat / VON). - It's not for nothing they call it the "Pilot In Command", so in the end, he's the one deciding if, when and where to drop people off. Again, it has to do with own and aircraft limits, but also possible unexpected events. E.g. LZ turns out to be hot and pilot diverts = DO NOT give him a bad attitude for saving your virtual life! (which happens all too often unfortunately) Of course, passengers are allowed to make requests, but that shouldn't be the standard operating procedure, and people should understand their request may not be granted. In case you're wondering why: I fear what will happen if you give passengers that amount of input, is that there will be dozens of LZ's marked at AO, side, PRIO and even the middle of nowhere, because almost everyone has their own ideal position or is completely oblivious to their surroundings. Eventually, it will become impossible for the pilot to just find the requested LZ on the map! To give you such an example, that happened to me just yesterday actually (though it's definitely not a solitary case).. I was inbound to an LZ and about 900m from landing, a passenger requested to be taken to a specific LZ he marked on SIDE. I told him to standby, as I was at that time fully committed to my own LZ... Later, I checked the map and noticed his LZ was just very slightly more to the north (±85m. Yes, I checked ). My gripes in that situation: 1) I clearly informed my passengers which LZ I was going to. 2) Even if someone did miss that info, direction of flight should've made it very obvious which LZ I was heading to, especially at that point in time. (though to give him the benefit of the doubt, my speed was still high, as I only really start reducing speed at ±500m) 3) The LZ I was heading towards was marked on SIDE, as was his, so I seriously doubt he didn't see it. 4) He stayed seated until I told him to get out. 5) Because of delay on ground, a jet was able to position himself and strike us all with missiles. 6) Obviously, I was the bad pilot for dropping everyone off in a hot LZ and I should be kicked.

Sounds like you never flew through the tall grass...

I don't know who, how or why, but ... Then again, every landing you can walk away from is a good one. And a perfect landing, that is one where you can use the aircraft again.

As a very frequent flyer myself... Not sure if this is fixed in latest version, but turret control only works in black Ghosthawks. All others don't have this option. I've had many incidents were people landing overshoot their pad, or pilots taking off head straight for inbound traffic, so I couldn't agree more, but it's a public server, so best advise when flying (generally speaking) is to trust nobody but yourself. Approach the pads with caution if you see someone with running engines, in the assumption that they may take off any moment. Pilots shouldn't wait for a chopper to spawn (unless there aren't any at base obviously). Such behaviour may be dealt with by staff (Admins, Spartans, ...) Wrong. Preferred option: get a repair specialist / container / vehicle to fix your broken stuff, just like you would in your next point (5). There are plenty of players on (especially on EU1) to help you out. Only if that doesn't work, reach for explosives or staff. Also, unless you actually kill someone with your helicopter (which in theory shouldn't have happened if you crash-landed but survived), base AA won't even bother with you. It's a general thing that map markers need to be updated more. However, just because another pilot can't put his Huron down on a marker I placed, doesn't mean I can't do it with my Hummingbird. In any case, NEVER REMOVE MARKERS you did not place yourself, unless you know for a fact that it's outdated (e.g. information about old AO or side missions). Please check this topic:

Long multi-quote / -response post incoming. As response to the first post: 2.1 and 5 combined: I would welcome getting a score for mission objectives and not just kills, but I could see a lot of frustration because of it. E.g. is time in AO considered to distribute points? If not, does someone who has spent hours in the AO get as much points as someone who just arrived? If time IS considered but not kills (as is suggested above, if I understand correctly), what if you spend 2 hours in an AO, killing 70% of the AI in there, only to die moments before the AO is completed? Similarly, what if you're idling inside an AO for 2 hours, and kill nobody? Does the first get no points, and the second full points? Regarding side missions: will there be a difference in points gained from different side missions? E.g. the prototype tank can be completed with a single GBU, while the Intel mission requires quite a lot of sneaky work and delicate work. 2.2: How would you be able to register this? Does it make a difference if you're driving a Hunter or a Huron? 7: Partially agree, in that I'd let that depend on the map as well. Altis is ALL terrain, so a tank / APC can go anywhere he likes. Tanoa has islands that can't be reached by ground vehicles, so an extra helicopter there might be worthwhile. Then, on to the quotes: On player roles: I will always welcome more teamplay, but whenever I've brought up the topic in the past, I've been pulled down from my cloud of dreams by someone saying it's a public server, so we shouldn't expect such behaviour on EU 1 / 2. Do you expect the reward system to be that good that it will be an incentive to play your role more? About the UAV operator: Definitely leave the Darter in for all-time use. If used properly, it's a vital source of intel for troops on the ground, and its laser designator can be used for several purposes aside from guiding the Greyhawk's GBU. I wouldn't hide it behind a paywall either, as due to ArmA modelling, it's far too easily shot. I once had a Darter 300m up, 600m from the coast, and it was shot down by a guy with a scopeless Kathiba. When I checked, I saw he only needed 4 bullets to do so... Greyhawks are generally overpowered, so could be hid behind a paywall, but don't make them too restrictive either. If there's no AT or EOD available, taking down a tower or an armoured unit can be the only thing preventing you from completing an AO. Not that much of a problem on EU1, except during downtime, but it could be on EU2. (as said before, I think you need split EU1 development from EU2's, due to different terrain and community) Given how points may be distributed by time in the AO, I doubt people would be very willing to log off, thereby losing their progress, just to reconnect in another role that's needed at that time. Also, while it's to be reviewed when they actually release, the upcoming DLC's will change the whole dynamic of how to target and ID something, or e.g. how the Greyhawk operates (I definitely hope they get some love so the camera is finally worth a dime). Take this into account now before setting up something irreversible. On Zeus: Zeus can already spawn (almost) anything he wants, which shouldn't change. Please, also don't handicap Zeus by instilling limits, since the "lack of resources"-messages may prevent us from taking action when it's needed. Not sure if we should be allowed to get access to the points distribution. Not that I don't trust myself or my peers, but it won't be long until someone starts begging for points, or worse, starts claiming that a Spartan gave a friend an unfair benefit by granting him points, or took away points from someone he dislikes. Lone, as a Spartan, that's a resolute no for me. First of all, define too long? In general, regarding Zeus, I can already tell you that there will be a lot of complaints about our possible involvement in player deaths, even more so than is the case now because people will have had to "pay" for their tools. This will make us even less likely to intervene in any way. Because say, I spend some time on the server and gather enough points to buy myself a "clearly overpriced" (sure this will be a future quote) Slammer. I do, and head out to the AO, but get killed by AT or an airstrike within the first 10 minutes. Was I careless, or did Zeus have something to do with that? Quite easy to blame the other guy, and even if there's no truth to any of it, just reading the rant on side chat may give the impression to new guys that Spartans are spoiling the fun. Would you go back to a server where that happens? On teamkilling: Teamkilling already removes points, and you can go negative if you do it too much. No changes required there. Stanhope, I probably don't understand what you're saying correctly, but you make it sound as if a pilot would be punished (even if it's just 1 point, depending on how pilots earn points, that could be significant) when he is shot down by a TK'er? I doubt it would be possible to make a distinction, coding wise, between being hit by a TKer, being hit by an enemy or a CFIT?

As said, I'm pretty sure it's too much for regular use on EU1/2, but I could try it some day, if the pilots present are willing to join in on the project. AWE would make more sense, with their tacticool approach, but doesn't have the player base or focus on aviation to really need it. Maybe if you make the ATC guy function as the FAC/JTAC as well, or maybe on game nights?

Hey guys, On EU #2 a few days ago, @TomShen mentioned it would be cool if someone took on the role of air traffic controller (ATCo). We discussed it a bit, and he said he didn't really know enough about it to do it himself. Being a former ab-initio ATCo, I began explaining what we could do and would need, but for obvious reasons, the in-game chat isn't the best place to do that, so I told him I would make a document outlining some basic stuff and post it here. I just finished the first version decent enough for public release (v0.9) which you can download here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11459075/ArmA/AW/AW ATC - Pilot.pdf It's based on real knowledge and manuals, trimmed down to what I think we could use in ArmA. I know that in general, the contents of this document are (WAAAAY) beyond the scope of our public servers, I'm just putting it out here because Tom requested the info, and who knows whether some of you may use it to some extent (perhaps on AWE?). Not written in the document, but I would highly advise to only use this when you have voice communications (preferably Teamspeak, DEFINITELY NOT on Global, Side or Command chat!!) since typing everything will undoubtedly end in more than a few crashes... If you feel it's missing something, let me know, and I'll look into it. If it has no place in here, let it disappear in the abyss of old and long-forgotten topics. Cheers, E²

What isn't possible or working in the editor?

A bus / train / metro /airline has a fixed scheduled route it follows, regardless whether or not someone gets on or off. A cab driver will wait until a customer boards and tells him where he wants to go. If nobody gets in, the taxi won't go anywhere. By pure comparison, heli pilots are cab drivers... If you want heli pilots on EU1/2 to use a bus driver system, they'd have to take off and visit all LZ's around all AO's before returning to base, just in case someone might want to go or leave there. I'm pretty sure it would take less than 5 minutes for someone to start asking why there aren't any helicopters to pick him up.

Not everything needs to be put down in written rules. "Monkey see, monkey do" is one way, for example. Members of this forum can read this topic and (hopefully) see why it can be an annoyance to a pilot, so next time they enter an aircraft / vehicle / boat they don't pilot themselves, they might say where they want to go without the pilot having to ask. Those not on this forum (both regulars and new arrivals) will eventually see more and more people do this, and (again hopefully) adapt as well.

All discussions aside, in the end it all boils down to: A pilot cannot know where his passengers wants to go if they don't tell him. This is true for a single mission with multiple marked LZ's (and plenty of other possible locations), and even more so when there are 3 active missions, each possibly having multiple LZ's. The intended goal of this topic is to hopefully initiate a change in mentality so that people spontaneously tell pilots where they want to be dropped off, without the pilot having to ask dozens of times.

As a pilot, I will always mark at least 3 different LZ's on the map that I know most pilots can manage, and add in a few more that are a bit more risky but manageable with a decent enough pilot. Usually, that leaves about 5 LZ's to pick from, both at main and at side. In the rare case people still want another location, I'll be happy to oblige unless it's a clear death trap, but most can't even be bothered to spontaneously pick a mission, let alone one of the pre-designed LZ's. Why is that? IMO, pilot responsibility stops the moment you drop them off, by the way. Personally, I know I have the skill to land at most, even hot LZ's (damn, that sounds braggy ), so when people ask to be dropped off in the middle of the AO (which does sometimes happen when people want to join their squad ASAP) I'll definitely consider it. From time to time, I'll deny a request and discuss with them why, but if they insist (because as @Stanhope mentioned, some of the people that do request specific LZ's just won't get out until you're exactly on their marker) or if I can get you on the ground in one piece, my job is done, even if you're shot before you reach the first bush or tree... So what should I do when they start shooting at me?

You're right. I know it all too well. As a pilot, I'm annoyed at how many times I have to ask where people want to go. In general, I ask 3 times via vehicle VON, then 3 times again via chat, and still nobody replies. I just continue waiting until someone finally does, but I've been tempted a lot to just pick a "random location" (read: somewhere in the middle of the AO, where I know or suspect a lot of enemies are) and not care if you beat me back to base...

I feel the same way, in that the EOD and repair specialists are often overlooked and basically a "useless" role, because (almost) everyone can take explosives and there are plenty of options to repair vehicles (and if there aren't, people don't mind just abandoning vehicles in the middle of nowhere). Therefore, I think your idea is nice to give them some purpose, but I fear it can only work when there's a lot of people on. When there aren't, you can't really afford to sacrifice someone who could be useful in the field fighting the enemy, just so you can blow up 1 radio tower or a cache every so many hours (not even sure you need explosives for the cache?), or to repair the occasional broken vehicle. And that's assuming everyone actually plays their role, which is not always a given on public EU1 / 2. Therefore, I'd amend your idea as follows: - Restrict explosive satchels and charges to EOD / repair spec, but don't put artificial crutches on them by heavily reducing their arsenal to just PDWs, so they can still be useful on their own in an AO. - Restrict explosive satchels and charges to EOD / repair spec with the PDW limitation, and a few roles that would still be useful in an AO, but could realistically have received extended training with explosives. E.g. snipers / spotters / recon because of their expertise in infiltration and sabotage, or squad leaders / grenadiers because of their all-round required skill level. Some of the radio towers used to be surrounded by minefields in 2.86, by the way, but even then, a UAV operator could level it alone with a Darter and a single GBU (still can), or with a decent heli-pilot, you could actually land/hover at and place down satchels at the base without having to walk through the minefield. I don't think there's any way you can avoid that.

I'm just thinking out loud here, and not even sure if this is possible or wanted in any way, but as a middle ground or test- / transition-phase: on certain maps, you create a PvP, with one side being NATO, and the other RUS? One big problem could be to decide when (not) to spawn AI for a certain side, though.

The main problem with FOBs right now is that they are spawned in on markers, and 1 marker = 1 unit. This really limits how complex you can make an FOB, while FOBs in real life are just as, if not more, fortified than MOBs. Ways to fix this? - Change how FOB is spawned in. Create a script that can spawn entire complex structures, instead of just a few single units. - Have complex structures scattered throughout the map from the start (nothing wrong with using the bases already on the map by default, by the way) and set up FOBs in those locations. As a bonus, these can also be used in AO's in which the enemy is defending a fortified position. It's more challenging and rewarding for BLUFOR to overcome and seize an FOB this way. But doing it like that, I can almost guarantee you will run into server performance issues. (Possibly fixed by 64bit support?)