Curious about airplanes and helicopters.

[Tonci87 163]

+100. Seriously, I don't care if they have to disable IFVs, tanks, soldiers, etc. from shooting at helicopters and planes all together, because it'd still be better than having pilots in fighter jets getting sniped by BMPs, planes getting shot down from thousands of meters away with one gun shot from an MBT (that really just destroys the fun in trying to line up for a gun run or a dumb bomb drop), etc.

You are using ACE right?

[elpresidente 1]

Likewise, while there is the old rumor about a TKOH flight model for helicopters, I don't believe that we have had anything else rumored to be implemented from TKOH into Arma 3.

It's not a rumor http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?135549-Arma-3-amp-TOH&p=2166652&viewfull=1#post2166652

Edited January 30, 2013 by ElPresidente

[scrim 1]

Yep, using ACE.

[Tonci87 163]

Yep, using ACE.

Then yes, tanks will shoot you if you come to close wich is quite realistic^^

[scrim 1]

Nah, not when I'm in a Harrier/F-35/A-10. Considering the noise a tank makes, and the limited possibilites the crew has to see around the tank, they shouldn't actually know where I'm coming from if I'm far out, and they should certainly not be able to hit me with cannon shots at more than a thousand meters away. They shouldn't be able to hit me at all with cannon shots when I'm in a plane. AA gunnery is extremelly hard with automatic cannons from IFVs against even slow moving aircraft. It should be impossible with tank cannons against fast aircraft. One example would be from "Bullet Magnet". When they initially landed at the Falklands and the Argentinian fighter jets started doing low attacks against the ships, hundreds of vehicles, machine guns and soldiers opened fire on them. There were several thousands of rounds, just counting the larger caliber weapons capable of knocking them out of the sky. The result was one single lucky hit from a Scorpion/Scimitar.

[Tonci87 163]

Nah, not when I'm in a Harrier/F-35/A-10. Considering the noise a tank makes, and the limited possibilites the crew has to see around the tank, they shouldn't actually know where I'm coming from if I'm far out, and they should certainly not be able to hit me with cannon shots at more than a thousand meters away. They shouldn't be able to hit me at all with cannon shots when I'm in a plane. AA gunnery is extremelly hard with automatic cannons from IFVs against even slow moving aircraft. It should be impossible with tank cannons against fast aircraft. One example would be from "Bullet Magnet". When they initially landed at the Falklands and the Argentinian fighter jets started doing low attacks against the ships, hundreds of vehicles, machine guns and soldiers opened fire on them. There were several thousands of rounds, just counting the larger caliber weapons capable of knocking them out of the sky. The result was one single lucky hit from a Scorpion/Scimitar.

Well look, a M1A1 has modern FCS systems that can track a target. And if that target doesn´t change speed or vector it will get hit, even at 1km. The problem is with the speed of the airplanes. They are just to slow.

Example: The SU-25 has a RL Top speed of 950km/h while you can barely do 550 in Arma and to reach even that will take you a ridiculous amount of time. Not even speaking about the problem that you loose too much speed when flying turns.

Also if you get hit by a tank, then you were definately to close. Try engaging from larger distances, greater hights. Fly fast and don´t fly above the enemy.

[scrim 1]

Nope, the FCS isn't capable of tracking target regarding those parameters. It is built to track ground targets, not quick moving planes. Not to mention the low chance of a tank actually detecting a plane about to attack it, or the extreme difficulty in actually tracking a jet for the gunner. He's got a narrow field of view, and the sight isn't even quick enough to actually keep the aim on a jet moving towards it. Further, the lead it gives doesn't increase the elevation of the barrel, so it'd be aimed at the point where you lased the jet to begin with. In the 1-2 sec it takes to get the lead, the jet will be long gone. Not that any of that really matters, since it's T-72s, T-90s and BMPs that have done it. IRL, those vehicle classes can't do that. It is extremelly hard against close slow moving targets when you can fire several shots quickly, and simply not feasable with a tank cannon. And if I can't approach armour targets on a steady course, then how can I possibly hope to use either my gun or dumb bombs? It doesn't matter that the A-10 in ACE has a computer that calculates when to drop the bomb, or a sight that moves up and down according to the range if I can't maintain a steady course for more than a few seconds after the vehicle is actually visible with even the highest view settings.

[chortles 263]

It's not a rumor http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?135549-Arma-3-amp-TOH&p=2166652&viewfull=1#post2166652

Rumor as to whether that's still the case. :p

[metalcraze 290]

No APC/Tank will hit a quick moving plane.

But why shouldn't it hit a slow moving plane? When you do attack runs you slow down your plane to 300km/h which from ground observer's perspective is MUCH slower than from pilot's.

After all the dedicated AA vehicle - Shilka is just 4 machineguns stacked together to put it bluntly. And it's highly effective. A random APC will be just 25% as effective.

And M6 Linebacker? It has 1 gun. And it's used as AA too.

ArmA is not hitscan. Bullets still need to travel all that distance.

Edited January 31, 2013 by metalcraze

[Jim 1]

The AI shooting down planes system at the moment is highly unrealistic. I do hope that changes in the future because of how annoying it is. I like to fly the A-10 and unless I'm going as fast as the aircraft will go I get shot down by an APC or a tank. It's very annoying because it's very unrealistic.

[nodunit 397]

That is not so much ACE as much as it is AI precision, I had a similar encounter in OFP while testing a fixed wing. came in to attack something and a tank knocked me right out of the sky, awkward moment to say the least.

Edited January 31, 2013 by NodUnit

[Tonci87 163]

The AI shooting down planes system at the moment is highly unrealistic. I do hope that changes in the future because of how annoying it is. I like to fly the A-10 and unless I'm going as fast as the aircraft will go I get shot down by an APC or a tank. It's very annoying because it's very unrealistic.

Well again, it isn´t the FCS that is unrealistic, but the speed of the aircraft. get BIS to make Aircraft faster and you will have a much better time :)

[NoRailgunner 0]

Well one can estimate that a very slow flying aircraft (or hovering helicopter) on a predictable flight path can be better hit than a maneuvering aircraft at higher speeds. Imo it would be good if the AI precision and hit percentage using non-AA weapons/vehicles/static would be reduced especially if there are some ground battles going on. AI could also use some kind of self-preservation instead of getting killed with blazing guns in suicidal attacks runs. Of course BIS needs to improve the AI usage of weapons, AOA, speed and altitude (AI pilots are still crashing into hills and objects). Btw how many BIS devs are working on A3 "flightsim" and AI development??

[chortles 263]

Unfortunately that first part is what we don't know -- other than the one bit with the AH-9, we've seen nothing in 2012 "flightsim" related in Arma 3 or even discussed by devs.

[dysta 10]

I am more likely curious about airlift in both tactical and strategic deployment, all kinds of war must involved with military logistics, delivering food, ammo, weapons, and even tanks and construction materials.

Why there's no game that seriously portraying such importance of military logistics, even in ARMA series by far. Something like French Army need serious help for troops delivery by lending C-17, An-124 and C-140 from many countries, since the French air force don't have any bigger planes.

Some mods like IL-76 for ARMA 2 is pretty much portraying the fact there: The faster you can deploy the troops to the battlefield, the more advantage.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Dysta

[NoRailgunner 0]

Dysta - because such "logistics" for many players are just too boring to enjoy and because you will need huge distances to make it worth to enjoy for those players who want this kind of fun. Imo even Chernarus is too small for modern airlift or air combat with ("bigger"/transport) planes. Sure it can look nice but that's all....

[dysta 10]

Dysta - because such "logistics" for many players are just too boring to enjoy and because you will need huge distances to make it worth to enjoy for those players who want this kind of fun. Imo even Chernarus is too small for modern airlift or air combat with ("bigger"/transport) planes. Sure it can look nice but that's all....

I see......

I just rather find it less likely when tanks and ammobox just pop up from nowhere, instead of having a plane to deliver them.

[CyclonicTuna 87]

Then you should be happy since there's support actually. As the WIP mod proves for ArmA2. And even better - with TakeOn they did clickable cockpits and with render-to-texture capability it is now possible to have separate tracking cameras like in real combat planes/choppers.

Franze & Co also stated they will port AH64 to TakeOn with new functions and if BIS will keep its new physics in ArmA3 - there's a chance we'll get a proper AH64 in there at least.

Really!? Oh that's awsome actually :D. I really liked MMA, but those camera's were just uncontrollable at some points, espcially with lots of AI envolved., the framrate sometimes dropped to like 1 fps.

[MxJames 1]

I literaly cannot wait

[chortles 263]

Really!? Oh that's awsome actually :D. I really liked MMA, but those camera's were just uncontrollable at some points, espcially with lots of AI envolved., the framrate sometimes dropped to like 1 fps.

Yeah, TOH was a case of "narrower focus and thus greater detail" which shows the possibilities of Real Virtuality even if it's outdated, and ground vehicles have already demonstrated RTT capabilities with dashboard monitors and maybe some surfaces like side mirrors (or was that the AH-9) -- at

, Gaia points out a mirror in the AH-9.

For what it's worth, in addition to my earlier links,

of the GameStar.DE interview's helicopter portion with the clearest view of the Arma 3 helicopter HUD that I've seen so far! Vehicle name, components (HULL, ENG, INST, MRDT, ATRQ), airspeed in km/h, height in meters, and I believe that the white bar is/may be the fuel indicator now? minimap circular radar with numerical bearing (of your facing apparently, not the helicopter's nose) in the middle, and in the upper right corner the weapon HUD that works the same way as the infantry/vehicle weapon HUD, selected weapon, fire mode and ammunition remaining, which in this case is 2000 rounds for "2x M134 Minigun 7.62mm" or 24 "GAR" unguided rockets, albeit without a zeroing distance...

The only HUD difference between the E3 and Gamescom builds is the lack of a squad command HUD and that when switching to unguided rockets the Gamescom build has a little "HE" on the left of the weapon HUD, otherwise all of the helicopter HUD elements are identical; later on in "Gaia at GC" video as the helicopter takes damage from incoming fire the damage indicator boxes go from white to yellow to red.

Interestingly enough, although the action menu itself is up for revision, it was still in use in the Gamescom build, and a list of in-flight action menu options that I saw in that build: autohover on, engine off, eject, landing lights on, collision lights on.

Also, I just noticed this one, but back at Gamescom Gaia said that "we are still evaluating whether to use Take On Helicopter's flight model", but he didn't qualify that statement.