Iffn

In order to adress the confusing number of topics mentioned, I decided to make a list: -I totaly agree with your first post. There are currently 4 PR-modifications in progress, classic bf2, ArmA 2, Vietnam and Normandie and I don't think Vietnam and Normandie will ever get done. BSS is already known for starting, announcing and not releasing mods like brickfield and bf2 battleship. -PR is not sacred to me, I know the problems blud is having with the pr-devs and I'm on his side. If bf3 would actually be a strategy-fps, even if it's like counter strike and not a dumb run-and-gun game I would probably leave PR behind me and never come back but it isn't. -ArmA 2 and ACE/ACRE are good mods and prove the abilities of the AmrA 2 modding engine but they are tech-mods and aren't playable in it self. That's why I support mods like PR: ArmA 2 because they combine playable missions with new technologies I think the whole thing is starting to get rediculous again so I would like to end it sometime soon...

I'm just pointing out that all your recent posts are about you not liking Rroject Reality. The problem is that Project Reality is the only military game which allows our group to play together and to fight for one objective, and in this co-operation, everyone is able to fly, drive or walk what ever he is good at to fit into one team and to make the final strategy possible.

you had some good points, now you're just being childish...

The .pdf manual looks amazing, It's nice that they make Youtube tutorial videos but I would like it with more gameplay and less "show the menue" Can't wait to play it myself but it looks like the Callenger 2 woun't be in the first release... !mental

i think this should explain my problem better than any of my 10-line posts: thx to Outlanders for posting this pic a while ago in the chat box. And if you want an other example and this one was even mady by EA:

@Bones I have nothing against a company who wants to make a awesome, arcade style FPS like Brink or Quake but why do they need to sell it as a serious military simulator? I'm not telling them to reinvent the wheel or WASD but adding some dynamic gameplay elements rather than spending all there money on a interactive movie shouldn't be to much to ask for.

@bones money argument and to explain my hate-o-raid: EA and DICE will get there moneys worth anyways. The problem is that they dumb the game down just to avoid any potential risks. They already proved with games like Battlefield 1942, the Sims and Spore that they can be veary inovative so why do they clone CoD and Bad Company and sell them with some new cinematics? I don't care if it's not the most hardware consuming game out there, it's possible to make a good looking game which uses less advanced render technologies but I don't want to pay for a game which is against any new gameplay features. For example, there are hunderts of ways how you could use commanders, squads, civilians, hidden ammo caches, player built outposts, ground, sea and air vehicles, UAV's, hidden locations in large, non-linear maps and different weapons and ammo types to create an amazing combat enviroment but why does it need to be a staight forward "run and gun"-game with nothing intersting about it?

About the video Chaz posted: Finaly, I see some flying parts and it looks like in bf2. but I wonder how they controll these cockpit views like in 1:42. There are basicly 2 problems with the consoles: The first problem is that the current consoles are already 6 years old which means that there hardware is not able to deal with to many players and objects. The second problem is that console games are usually played by 14-16 year old kids who just want to see some explosions and feel like a "hero in war" without any intersts in slower, team based games like Project Reality.

BF3 CoOp: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gc-11-battlefield-3/719048 Thx to the console gamers, the max human player count is lower than in a L4D2 campain... (Yes, 2 is the max http://www.neoseeker.com/news/16673-battlefield-3-co-op-is-two-player-has-exclusive-missions/ ) They were able to make a better version of Project Reality but they made a COD-clone... !fuk

great video Semler, good to see that more VG-members are making good quality videos.

this, same in posting a new thread, download section looks fixed:

do you want us to post bugs in here too? for example, the download section and the post editing screen got messed up http://www.veterans-gaming.com/download.php

Voted yes, I'm all for a new look. I know it's still wip but can you bring back the ts-server info and a background image or at least make it 100% black?

Well, this could have gone much worse. Good to hear that no one got seriously injured. Thx for sharing. The P-51 didn't really take any visual damage but I guess the elevators and the rudder in the back got disabled after the collision. Btw, the mentioned planes at Duxford get maintained by the Fighter Collection, the same group that made the original A-10c Warthog training simulator for the US Air National Guard which got released to the public as DCS: A-10c Warthog

In my opinion, CoOp is all about teamwork while pvp is just a "pwn the n00b, praise the pro" game mode. This is easy to explain by looking on how to win a map in each game mode. In CoOp, wining a map is overcoming a challenge by working together with your team while you fail when your team isn't good enough. In other games, you might say that loosing in CoOp is the fault of your n00bish team members, but due to the gameplay design in Project Reality and Arma 2, it is the fault of the pro when he isn't able to lead the n00bs. Badploy is a perfect example on how this should be done. Meanwhile in pvp, wining the map can easily be explained by saying that your opposing team was consisting of n00bs or they didn't really want to play the map anyway. Since wining or loosing isn't what counts in PVP, a lot of people care about getting as many points or kills as possible without working on the overall victory of the team. I never played Call of Duty but as far as I know, it is the prime example of this principle raised to the high end. However, I don't think shooting your friends in a game is a particularly bad thing to do. One of my best pvp experiences comes from our training server where we played with one squad of humans on each side. This means that you set your self your own goals and try to stop the enemy humans squad from achieving there goal while the bots are battling each other

The landing tutorial isn't the only one which isn't working properly... I don't think you get very far with the DSMS- tutorial in the current version. However, Wagmatt, one of the lead developers of DCS: A-10c did some nice tutorials which might be more useful than the interactive one in the game itself: http://www.youtube.com/user/wagmatt

Well, the summer arrived and I'll go to Sardinia, Italy tomorrow to relax, to read and to learn how to fly an RC-plane but I'll be back on the next Saturday. To make sure, you don't get to bored, I searched on my hard drive and found an old PR-game play video which I never edited. Enjoy:

I totally agree with most of the topics mentioned in this thread and I do think VG needs to move in some direction from it's current PR position. But certain points need to be taken into an account in order to keep VG attractive to old and new players. VG's strength lies in it's strong player community, the ability to play together in a mature way by using it's admin powers wisely and by giving the players an experience they can't find elsewhere. That is why I'm concerned about the suggestion to make a PVP insurgency server since there are already multiple servers out there that do more or less the same already. My suggestion would be to create a Vehicle Warfare and/or Command and Control server since there aren't any up yet. They aren't as popular as the normal servers yet but as we already proven, when people see other playing, they will come and join and even come again when they see good teamwork. It would take a few days of playing with only a few non VG-members but I'm pretty sure that this the best way to go for VG. And for all the CoOp fans, including myself, I've been playing PR CoOp more or less frequently since I first saw the VG CoOp server almost 2 years ago when only Bludklot, Ingo and SolarFlame where around but due to the lack of content from the developer side, we need to move on to find new land to settle in. Cheers, Iffn

thx chaz, I was able to solve most of my problems by turning Rotary 1 and 2 and the Precision Slide on the throttle to the idle position

Awesome video Chaz! I recorded this drag race between an A-10c and a Humvee just for fun.

The United States Senate is in the process of considering bill S.978 and some rumors in the internet say that this will also affect streaming gaming videos. More can be read if you http://shoryuken.com/2011/06/29/trolling-the-stream-by-ultradavid/ Quote: "According to the bill as it?s currently written, if you engage in ?public performances by electronic means? 10 or more times over a 180 day period, and if either the total economic value of those performances exceeds $2500 or the cost of getting the copyright holder?s permission to perform exceeds $5000, then you can potentially get fined and put in jail for 5 years. Jail. FIVE YEARS." What are your thoughts about this?

I tried this profile and the one you gave me and it looks like both are always pressing ctrl-shift-h. This makes it almost impossible to fly especially because I'm not able to center my Track-IR anymore. Is this a normal problem and is there a way to fix it?

Amazing detail in things you will normally never see: I wish this would be possible...

Would it be possible to do a mid-air refueling training mission? There isn't a tutorial in DCS A-10c and I guess it would get some attention if we record it and put it on YouTube.

don't think so, they are using a different system by organizing there folders since 0.9 so the files loose most of there reference