Yesterdays post created some controversy. The accusations of bias flew yet again which was a bit amusing (considering i know what i've already written), as did the spectre of confusion. (what's next the Salmon of Doubt?) So lets start today by clearing a few things up:

1. I do not, nor have I ever worked for BIS or 505 Games.
2. I am not married to nor do I live with any BIS employees. (Loved the rumour I lived with Placebo btw where that came from i'd really love to know)
3. I do not have a secret dev copy, unreleased patches or a pre release copy of the 505 version of ArmA2.
4. I do not deny the existence of bugs. In the context of yesterday's article focused solely on the island itself I didn't find anything bug like specific to my own system or my exploration of the island.
5. I can only comment about my own experiences, other people's PC performance issues are their own.
6. I did not set out to 'big up' BIS with the first blog. I didn't slam the island because I like it, apart from the smaller (15x15km vs 20x20km of Saharni) size and how that impacts aircraft etc I cant really find anything to complain about specific to the island. Considering how many objects and trees there are on it runs very well. It looks great and I found it to be far more immersive and believable than any other large scale game environment I've played with. I think its almost worth spending the cost of the game to get it.

The more pessimistic of you reading this blogs will argue that I have an "unreasonably positive" (love that quote) view of ArmA2. I'm not blind to the inaccuracies, bugs or problems, some of them annoy the hell out of me. A few people have made comments about how I glossed over the bugs in the first ArmA2 blog about Chernarus. C'mon guys, it was the first post out of many. Give me a chance to get started will you!.

As for the objective of these blogs. I said yesterday, as well as being impatient to try out the new game and engine in more detail I wanted to see if the bugs were as bad as people have said they were. So far I've found some problems but nothing like some of the hardware issues others have reported. Keep reading the blogs and you'll find out more.

Now for Today's offering: USMC Equipment Part 1.

This article turned out just a bit longer than i planned so i've had to split it in to two bits.

USS "Khe Sahn" (LHD -9?)

There are lots of people asking questions about the LHD USS "Khe Sahn". Most of the questions revolved around what it can do, can you use the lifts, the hanger deck, the weapons etc. Sadly the answer to nearly of all these questions is "no". And that is more than a bit disappointing. On the 505 Press day we had a brief run around on the deck but not enough time to try everything else out. So today I thought I'd take a proper look around and post some pics for those interested.

The model itself is a static object. More correctly its made up of several static objects placed in Visitor while making the island. To people not familiar with the modding process, this means its not movable and cannot be placed via the mission editor. It also means its limited to the Utes map only. Its not available on the main Chernarus island which is a bit puzzling and more than a bit disappointing. But I'm sure there will be a community made solution to that available soon.

However you can't really do much with it anyway. The AI will walk around on it but they don't seem to follow move orders on the deck, stubbornly standing still and staring at you. (Which is oddly reminiscent of baby sitting my two nieces. They don't follow orders either!) I doubt that's its a problem with the AI though more likely the pathways in the LHD model.

There are a lot of limitations that come with the carrier. The AI cannot land or take off with either the Harrier or X-35. Helicopter could be scripted to land on predefined spots though so in that respect the LHD is a very nice piece of set dressing for the story line and training aspects.

On the side decks and superstructure are some nice models of Phalanx CIWS, SeaRAM and Sea Sparrow Launchers. None of which work! Which is a wasted opportunity in my opinion It would have been so much better and impressive if these weapons worked. The opportunities for MP control and capture missions would have been fantastic.

USMC Air Power

Moving along BIS have given the USMC some new toys to play with. We now have several new aircraft to play with and some reworked ArmA1 classics:

X-35B (I'm never going to call it an F-35)

Now BIS have called this a F-35B. It isn't, the model BIS made replicates the prototype airframe used to prove out the concept. In the real world its not combat capable, carries no weapons and has no internal weapons bays. I could spend a few paragraphs listing out the faults and inaccuracies but I think saying "they made the wrong plane!" is enough for now. Don't get me wrong. its a nice model, really well made its just not an F-35B.

That said, onto the in game issues. The flight model is pretty good. Its easy to fly, responds well and the new throttle control is a huge improvement over ArmA1. I'm not really impressed with the cockpit though. The real F-35 has no HUD so neither does the in game counterpart. Flight information is provided by a Helmet Mounted Display (HMD), sadly there isn't much useable instrumentation in the cockpit so you are reliant on the real horizon and the speed and alt figures in the upper left of the screen. The lack of an artificial horizon means it very easy to become disorientated especially at night. And the thing my, non arma playing, friend picked up on immmediately is that the bombs and missiles appear from no where below the plane. Which in his colourful venacular was "just plain shite looking".

One fantastic feature is the X-35's VTOL. You will probably hear me prattle on about this for some time. It wasn't something i could really test at the 505 press day no one had a joystick and I've never been a fan of keyboard and mouse for flying so I left it alone we thought it was just the same old ArmA1 system. It was a very pleasant surprise to find out we were wrong. Its become my favourite aspect of ArmA2 I've found so far. BIS have reworked it especially for the X-35 and MV-22 (more on that later). Gone is the STOL take off and gradual descent of ArmA1's system. Now you have the ability to control the rate of climb and descent from your throttle. There are some limits though. Conventional take off and landing is closer to the old STOL function. The stall speeds are rather low and the nozzle and doors have a habit of popping open below ~300kph whether you want them to or not. But its worth it for the fun you can have trying to accurately land an X-35 in someone's back yard safely :P

There are some very nice new features in the engine now too. It takes a moment or two to realise unless someone tells you but you start to see nice touches. For example the Airspeed in the top right corner changes colour (green to red) if you drop below stall speed in aircraft. Push open the throttle, regain your speed it reverts to green once you have enough lift again. Its a small thing but it adds to the whole package. There are other small things that detract from the whole too. Aside form the obvious system bugs there are also things that prevent the missions from working properly.

When you get the game you are encouraged to try the Boot Camp to learn how to handle various bits of kit and features. One of them is "Fixed wing training". This starts out nice and simple, telling you how to hover, transition to conventional flight etc. Complete these manoeuvres and fly a circuit through a series of rings (very reminiscent of X-Wing from the early 90's) and land. Next you are given weapons and told to attack a tank and down an SU-25, this is where it gets interesting. The X-35 carries 2x AIM-9X Sidewinders, so bye-bye Mr Su-25. A GAU-12 Gun (Which on a real F-35B would only be available in a non stealthy pod) and 2x GBU-12 LGB which require a laser target. So without a laser designator for the tank we only have the gun! Not really a huge problem but something of an oversight it seems.

After you dispatch said tank you are given the option to try a conventional landing at Utes airbase or a VTOL landing on the LHD 3km SW of the island. VTOL for me i think! So I follow the ATC instructions (these are just a set piece dialog and not interactive) and approach the ship. Engage the 'Auto hover' and drop the gear and flaps. Pitch up slightly reducing my throttle to bring my aircraft to a hover. Little more throttle to stabilise my height and gently slide over the deck. Reduce the throttle until my gear touch down and kill auto hover... however I'm now sat on my ass with the nose in the air! (See pics).

It seems the nose landing gear land contact point is 1m lower than it should be making the F-35 incapable of landing correctly on the Khe Sahn's deck. I repeated the exercise a few times on with the same effect too. I'm surprised this wasn't caught in the BETA tests either. Its an event sure to be repeated by many players.

AV-8B Harrier

This is almost the same as the ArmA1 Harrier. Its had a slight facelift and a new suite of weapons. Cosmetically its identical (I still don't like the model) but the new specular maps just ruin it. The entire thing looks like its been shrink wrapped in plastic. it shines horribly. These aircraft should be matt with very few shiny areas. Right now it looks like someone went mad with 600 litres of Turtle wax. Its the same with most of the vehicles in ArmA2 actually, at some angles they just look naff. Change the angle and all looks fine again. Its just a little more noticeable on the Harrier because of the monotone grey colour scheme.

Unfortunately the Harrier hasn't gotten a VTOL revamp. It retains the old ArmA1 setup which was disappointing. I can see the logic in it - real world fully loaded Harriers cannot take of vertically - but the ability to control the ascent and descent after transitioning to a hover would have been greatly appreciated. Its not all doom and gloom though. The 'shiny new' Harrier now comes with a new loadout. We still have the LGB version (6x GBU-12 & GAU12 cannon), but now we also have a nice swing role version with 6x Mk82 conventional bombs, 14x Hydra unguided rockets and 2x Sidewinders and the GAU12 Cannon of course. It gives, a perhaps unrealistic, but welcome multirole CAS option for those Evo and Warfare games.

AH-1Z Cobra

Another ArmA1 classic, again not much new. A slightly new loadout too. You now have 2x AIM-9X on the wing tips. I've never seen this config operationally myself but I am told its not unrealistic. As with the Harrier its received new specular maps and benefits from the new hemispherical shading. But like the Harrier and other light grey comrades has that "Turtle Wax shine".

The flight model though does feel slightly different. I'm not sure what has changed - the AH1 still drops like a brick high speed turns - but it does feel a bit more stable now.

UH-1Y Venom

For those of a technical leaning they will recognise some of the features of the AH-1Z on the UH-1Y. A lot of the components and systems are identical to reduce cost and increase availability in the real world models. BIS have done a really nice job getting the details right. Its a very nice accurate looking model and it flies so well. Heavier feel than the AH-1 but not as sluggish as the UH/SH-60s. Lots of people are going to love flying this. I've had lots of fun in the valleys around Chernarus in this puppy.

The Venom is part transport and part gunship. Armed with 2x M136 Miniguns in the doors and Hydra rocket pods for the pilot. Aiming is via a retractable sight which is a very nice feature if not a bit hard to see through at times. Which apart from the Turtle wax finish at some angles is its biggest drawback. The glass used on HUD and sights is usually non reflective optically correct plates. This looks nice and the way the light catches it is very pretty but its awkward to use. Its a bit like looking through a smokey room which makes using it to aim with difficult at best.

I've read on some forums people complaining that that AI aren't holding the minigun's grips. Given the range of movement and the limitations of the animation system this is pretty hard to do. Ask any modder about anims and most will make the same sucking noise through their teeth that car mechanics make when you ask for an estimate for repairs. Its not easy to do. Well the sucking noise is, but making animation with such a dynamic and free range of movement is a nightmare so i think its fair to give BIS a break on this.

MH-60S Knighthawk

One of the reworked classics,  the venerable old UH-60 is now available in it latest state of the art naval incarnation the MH-60S.  Designed to replace the aging CH-46 Sea Knight in missions such as vertical replenishment, combat search and rescue, special warfare support and airborne mine countermeasures. While the United States Navy retired the airframe on September 24, 2004, replacing it with the MH-60S Knighthawk, the Marine Corps plans to maintain its fleet until the MV-22 is fully fielded. The replacement process is expected to continue through the other medium helicopter squadrons into 2014.  In this context BIS have chosen not have a CH-46 and focus solely on the MH-60S. 

The model is essentially the same model as the UH-60 in ArmA1 with several changes:

• New all glass cockpit
• M240 replace the M136 miniguns. Which apparently uses the wrong mounts.  It should be a M240H with the thumb trigger setup and no butt stock.
• Several new lumps and bumps on the model for the MH-60S setup.

Overall its nice and fun to fly.  The flight model is still quite heavy but it is a bit more controllable than the old Blackhawks.

MV-22 Osprey

When I heard that ArmA2 was going to have a V-22 I stopped working on my own concept model. Why? Well VTOL in the OFP and ArmA engines has always been a pain so we were looking at a fully scripted system. When BIS confirmed the presence of the MV-22 it suggested that they had a solution to the VTOL issue so we may have been wasting our time trying to develop an alternative. Bis' solution is to use the system created for the F-35. Which I admit didn't really seem ideal at first. Honestly I'm not really satisfied with the solution but it does work very well combined both the plane and helicopter aspects of the flight model. It allows you to taxi along the ground and do STOL take offs like a plane. But when you need the helicopter functionality turn on auto hover and then you have some pretty good helicopter like control. Its not perfect but its a pretty good compromise. And with a little bit of practice I think it will be very popular.

And on to the bad bits: well the inability to open the ramp seems to be an issue for some people. Personally I find the flight model, particularly the roll rate to be very cumbersome. And awkward to fly at low level. The "Turtle wax" issue extends to the cockpit too i'm afraid. And I find the flight instruments to be next to useless. The model while really good does lack finish in one or two minor areas. E.g. the in-flight refuelling probe just finishes as a blunt cylinder. There should be a ball probe valve on the end. And of course on production models it is retractable and it is normally retracted during flight ops to prevent clashes with objects and deck equipment. And oddly the dampers on the landing gear dont seem to work all the itme when on the LHD deck. Again none of these are huge issues but a bit annoying if you are a detail and realism freak like me.

C-130J Hercules

There's not much I can say about this. Its the C-130J from VBS2 and its disappointing. There are several reasons. The first is cosmetic, it just doesn't look as good as the MV-22 and UH-1Y models. After the obvious effort that went into the MV-22, UH-1Y and the other new models as straight off conversion of an old model is a let down. You can say "what does it matter a C130 is a C130 is a C130… it makes no difference to the game" and you would be right. But when you put it next to the MV-22 and compare build quality it doesn't really stand up. The fuselage textures are mirrored. C-130 only have one crew access door on the left side and none on the right. C-130Js dont normally have wing tanks, they dont need them. Only KC-130J Tankers have them. Even then there are 4: 2 Tanks and 2 hose carriers. The ramps aren't animated There are other things but it all mounts up.

The second is functionality and game play impact. There is so much more you could do with a C-130 in game especially with the new commands available in the engine i just feel that it doesn't really show the game off in the best light.

But on the plus side BIS have provided us with some cargo size parachutes and the ability to write our own scripted paradrops soatleast its easier to add scripted resupplies now without having to resort to attaching a small square chute to a landrover etc. Given my own experience of people asking for C-130 functions I think a lot more could of been done to make it more useful.

MQ-9 Reaper UAV

Another escapee from VBS2. I have the same two issues with this as I did with the C-130. The model and the game play. The model is OK but it doesn't quite look right. The proportions are a bit out as is the shape of the domed nose. I think its a bit flatter than it should be. If you take a close look you will see the pylons aren't closed. They have no faces between the missile rack and the pylon itself. You can see clean through. Ok, its not a huge issue but its obvious when you are in the turret.

Gameplay: I was truly gutted when I finally got to see how this worked. I had such high hopes. When I saw the UAV at the 505 Press day I immediately asked about the interface to control it. No one knew how it worked and the BIS guys were busy doing interviews. Now that I've seen it for myself I have to ask why the hell was it added when its no real f'ing use? Don't get me wrong the basic control concept is great. The new game logic modules are fantastic but in the case of the UAV system it just doesn't go far enough.

One of the fundamentals of UAV systems is the ability to lock the gyro stabilised camera turret on a specific location and have it track that spot no matter where the UAV flies. Its kind of a fundamental aspect of lasing a target. The UAV module has several key flaws:

1. BIS has created a system that has no stabilisation and no ability to lock. It does have the ability to lay down target markers but its difficult to use accurately.
2. The FLIR mode simulation is really poor. The aperture setting can be adjusted with the mouse wheel changing the image contrast but in day light its next to useless. I struggled to find anything with it when we tested it in SP.
3. Adjusting its course is controlled by a mouse click system in the map screen that moves a fixed box pattern to any point in the map you click. Sadly the AI flying you around doesn't even come close to following the preset waypoints.
4. Zooming in the (Game logic) turret requires constant key press and its limited to 4x. Flying the UAV manually and you can set the zoom level to most anything you like and it stay there.

In our one MP test it was so bad we ditched the terminal and game logic module in favour of a two man crew flying around manually. It was easier and more productive. If BIS can rework the module to work properly it would be fantastic. But right now its useless in my opinion.

A-10 Thunderbolt

Why this is in a USMC themed game i'm not sure. As far as I am aware the US Marines do not operate the A-10 so why is it here? Also where would they operate it from? (if there is a plot device dont tell me i havent finished the campaign yet). All that aside it is huge amounts of fun to play with.

This is pretty much the same as the ArmA1 A-10. The only difference is the loadout. Just like the Harrier the A-10 now benefits from the engine's new ability to handle multi proxy weapons! The stock loadout is:

• 2x AIM-9X Sidewinder
• 2x AGM-65 Mavericks
• 5x GBU-12 Laser Guided Bombs
• 14x Hydra FFAR unguided rockets
• 1350 rounds of Armour Piercing 30mm

This is a far more realistic and practical loadout than the old game engine forced on us. I can see the A-10 reining supreme in the MP arenas yet again.

Overall, these are a nice set of addons, very well made and for the most part very accurate. There are some issues but you have to be a picky bastard to get wound up about them but some issues do need fixing at some point. Finally considering the standard of "feature rich" community made addons recently i had hoped ArmA2 would include engine support for several new features by default. Specifically:

• Fast roping
• Door winches
• Chaff and Flares (we were told they were in the game but i cant find them?)
• Different target classes eg IR, Laser, Radar reflector, Radar emitter

Sadly its not to be. Most have been in high demand by the community for years and there has been community mods for some of them. But full engine support would have been really nice and made the aircraft far more useful in MP games.

That said there are some fantastic new features both visible and hidden in the depths of the engine that are going give the addon makers pleanty to play with. And given time, you are going to see some pretty impressive addons appearing in the near future.

I'll post the rest of the USMC kit in a day or two. Check back every few days for more updates

UPDATE

In the last 24 hours two community made solutions to problems have cropped up:

1. Myke has created an editor placeable LHD object
2. Kegety (resident community genius) has released an addon toget rid of the "bloom" and "blur" effects afflicting people. Please vote here

Check them out and remeber to say thanks if you like them.