Jump to content
progamer

A Large Fixed Wing transport aircraft for Arma 3

Recommended Posts

The developers have not confirmed this yet, so it could be just another discontinued vehicle for the game. We do not know wether dyslexi made this with current info or with new information. Making a reskinned future C-130 would just be plain lazy for them. The A-400M is the C-130's successor. And is a very logical choice for a transport aircraft in Arma 3. It appears like dyslexi used the AllInArma mod to take those photos. Because hopefully we would see the A-400m for NATO and mabey the C130 as a plane for the AAF because they wouldn't have the money to buy a better transport aircraft.

---------- Post added at 02:29 ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 ----------

It is the Arma 2 C-130 and unless AAF is getting a transport aircraft then it's a placeholder.

i doubt its a arma 2 model.

unlike the other games they have redone all the models ingame from scratch (part of the reason ARMA 2 launched with more) i doubt this one will be. i would guess its either a holdover from 2010/11 where they where using old assests, or its a new model

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i doubt its a arma 2 model.

unlike the other games they have redone all the models ingame from scratch (part of the reason ARMA 2 launched with more) i doubt this one will be. i would guess its either a holdover from 2010/11 where they where using old assests, or its a new model

They mean that the model in the game currently is just the wreck model of a C-130 from ARMA 2. It may just be a placeholder for a new model, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The C5, C17, and An-124 are good for another 40 years with upgrades, hell the C130 has been in service for almost that long. Proof of concept is the B52, F4 (Which is still in service in some countries). You must realize the only thing the Air force really replaces as it ages are the Fighters, even some of those are 30-40 years old, however they have been massively upgraded.

And the only way for a C130 to be stealth is for it to be broken up into pieces and transported by electric powered 18wheelers. Those damned things fly over my house every few months at low level, sometimes AC130's, and i tell you good sir, no way in hell will that thing ever be stealth.

But the C-130 is being replaced by the A-400M which does look similar to the C-130.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the C-130 is being replaced by the A-400M which does look similar to the C-130.

The c130 is replaced by the a400 in real life, not in the armaverse. Besides, i think planes like c27 spartan, or the smaller airbus cn235 would be a better size choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The c130 is replaced by the a400 in real life, not in the armaverse. Besides, i think planes like c27 spartan, or the smaller airbus cn235 would be a better size choice.

The current vices ingame include some of the latest versions of vehicles. The C-27 is much large than the A-400M and the A-400M if you read through this thread carries many already in game vehicles realistically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The current vices ingame include some of the latest versions of vehicles. The C-27 is much large than the A-400M and the A-400M if you read through this thread carries many already in game vehicles realistically.

1. C27J Spartan is quite a lot smaller than the a400M

2. You cannot have a vehicle carry another vehicle without the attach to in RV engine, so well, is not all that important, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2. You cannot have a vehicle carry another vehicle without the attach to in RV engine, so well, is not all that important, is it?

As far as I know this can be implemented. At least I have seen some mods that are studding it ( for example in the video from FFAA 6 where they use a landing craft to carry vehicles ).

Anyway, that would only be a cool feature, but not game changing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as I know this can be implemented. At least I have seen some mods that are studding it ( for example in the video from FFAA 6 where they use a landing craft to carry vehicles ).

It's possible since A2 v1.01 via attachTo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's possible since A2 v1.01 via attachTo

And the body dragging that was shown at another VBS video (more recent) and Dean also mentioned for DayZ SA this week, couldn't be part of PhysX too?

I mean, you can use attachto to just "glue" two points but let PhysX handle their interaction with each other and the world instead of havin a whole object made "solid"?

(dunno if I'm beign clear enough, just a fair question)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if someone found this before me, anyway, in the animation list in the editor, I've found these:

Plane_Transport_01_Cargo

Plane_Transport_01_Pilot

There are only the names, the animations are not there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PhysX. Not sure it is possible in ArmA3, but i am sure it is not possible to keep people, or vehicles for that matter within a compartment, without them bumping into each other and exploding.

And the body dragging that was shown at another VBS video (more recent) and Dean also mentioned for DayZ SA this week, couldn't be part of PhysX too?

It surely is, but i see no point in comparing 2 separate products, that even though are based on the same architecture, are developed by 2 separate companies (BI and BIA).

I mean, you can use attachto to just "glue" two points but let PhysX handle their interaction with each other and the world instead of havin a whole object made "solid"?

(dunno if I'm beign clear enough, just a fair question)

I haven't tested it myself to be honest, but i know it has been tried since alpha and it doesn't work that way. What might be possible (once the new tools are released that is), is to have a working trailer. The physix LOD is not really documented, but based on my experience thus far, i don't see things like walking in vehicles and vehicle vs vehicle interaction going further all that much. I might be wrong though, but is not the thread for this sort of topic anyways

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The C5, C17, and An-124 are good for another 40 years with upgrades, hell the C130 has been in service for almost that long. Proof of concept is the B52, F4 (Which is still in service in some countries). You must realize the only thing the Air force really replaces as it ages are the Fighters, even some of those are 30-40 years old, however they have been massively upgraded.

And the only way for a C130 to be stealth is for it to be broken up into pieces and transported by electric powered 18wheelers. Those damned things fly over my house every few months at low level, sometimes AC130's, and i tell you good sir, no way in hell will that thing ever be stealth.

The developers have not confirmed this yet, so it could be just another discontinued vehicle for the game. We do not know wether dyslexi made this with current info or with new information. Making a reskinned future C-130 would just be plain lazy for them. The A-400M is the C-130's successor. And is a very logical choice for a transport aircraft in Arma 3. It appears like dyslexi used the AllInArma mod to take those photos. Because hopefully we would see the A-400m for NATO and mabey the C130 as a plane for the AAF because they wouldn't have the money to buy a better transport aircraft.

Well... the C-130J is still in production and being bought by quite a few nations, as is its smaller brother, the C-27J. For comparison, at least a few years back the average age of USAF aircraft was ~35 years or so (if not more, can't remember). C-130 itself has been in production for the past 49 years, the H model alone was for 32 years. TBF, the Super Herc fits in just fine with most "Western" stuff ingame, seeing as they're currently in production, too: (stealthy) Blackhawks, Comanches, Merlins, Littlebirds being all flown or in service in the 90s, with Merkavas, AMVs, M-ATVs and Fenneks being current issue. Hell, some NATO countries are already getting rid of their M-ATVs and Fenneks...

The A400M isn't really a full C-130 replacement, seeing as it's about twice as big. It's more of an option for the nations who don't need, or want, the strategic capacities of the C-17 that much, but still want some and a bit more oomph that the Herc. Since most nations will hire something like An-124 or use the NATO C-17 pool to do most of the heavy lifting to theater, the A400M fills the niche of organic strategic airlift capability that's needed only occasionally, and also serves the heavy end of tactical airlifting. It all really comes down to figuring out your mission profiles, load factors and what you can afford.

FYI, the C-5 production line was shut down two decades ago, and the -5M upgrade program almost didn't happen, while C-17 production is barely going on. Meanwhile, An-124 production is getting a reboot, then again the thing was a commercial success in the first place and has been easing the loads on C-5s and C-17s during the recent sandbox games era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I might get in trouble for posting this here because it’s similar to my wish list but I did add a few different things. I personally don't see any need in adding the massive heavy lifters, although the C-5 Galaxy is probably my favorite transport (Love the sound of those engines.) I just can't see any need for something that big with any of the map sizes that have been created for Arma 2 or 3. A medium sized aircraft is really all that I would consider necessary, anything larger would just be for fun. Also since it's the future, I think we should use our imaginations a little bit and look past just the plain old fixed wing aircraft.

Now here is the part where I’m torn… I like variety in planes… certain planes do certain things better, that’s why I don’t really like assigning one plane to a specific group. I think they should just be customizable. (I.E. paint jobs and markings) On the other hand I can see having a game where 3 sides clash and giving them distinct aircraft with uneven capabilities could be a small problem for those who just want to have fun and not have to plan for how to best utilize their aircraft given the limitations. (Public Multi-player)

So if we gave them similar capabilities based off the rough draft of limitations I set in my wish list it would be this...

All aircraft can carry 80 troops or 2 tanks but the Quad Rotor and Tilt Wing could only do so if they executed a rolling takeoff and landing, otherwise they could only take off and land completely vertical with 1 tank.

In addition the Quad rotor would be slow and cumbersome in helicopter mode but it would be able to move side to side whereas the Tilt Wing would need to rotate and then move forward or backward. The A400M would be able to take off and land in relatively short distance and would be quite nimble.

NATO FORCES: Quad Tilt Rotor - Basically it would be about the size of a C-17GlobeMaster and in fact I think the body should look pretty similar except I think it would be neat if it could open up the nose like a C-5 Galaxy, that way you could pretty much drive up the rear ramp to load up and straight out the front when you land. (I think this picture looks kind of ugly, maybe it needs a vertical tail fin similar to a C-2 Greyhound.) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/jhl-image41.jpg

OPFOR: Tilt Wing - Something that looks like an IL-76 but slightly wider and with counter rotating props and a tilt wing. Something kind like this- (I actually like this picture, it looks like a C-17) http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/boeing-vertol.jpg and the propellers - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Kuznetsov_NK-12M_turboprop_on_Tu-95.jpg The engines should be larger though and it should have a turbo fan on the back (needs it for stabilization)…or just leave that bit of realism out completely. If you haven’t seen the XC-142 here you go. :P

GreenFor: A300M - Upgraded to be slightly wider with the ability to accommodate 2 tanks. It should be quick, maneuverable, have excellent braking and the ability to reverse direction on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the other assets in game in relation to what is available today I believe a slightly overhauled contemporary transport plane would fit ArmA3 quite nicely, for instance an overhauled C17 for the NATO troops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PhysX. Not sure it is possible in ArmA3, but i am sure it is not possible to keep people, or vehicles for that matter within a compartment, without them bumping into each other and exploding.

It surely is, but i see no point in comparing 2 separate products, that even though are based on the same architecture, are developed by 2 separate companies (BI and BIA).

I haven't tested it myself to be honest, but i know it has been tried since alpha and it doesn't work that way. What might be possible (once the new tools are released that is), is to have a working trailer. The physix LOD is not really documented, but based on my experience thus far, i don't see things like walking in vehicles and vehicle vs vehicle interaction going further all that much. I might be wrong though, but is not the thread for this sort of topic anyways

Well, just saw this now. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, just saw this now. Thank you.

and its a shame the dev's haven't said anything about this area either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dan;2512957']and its a shame the dev's haven't said anything about this area either.

they did really early on in the alpha.

walking in vehicles is completely out.

firing in vehicles is probably a new engine version

bipods are possible but require some of the engine code to be modified to get the best result

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well since its the year 2035, VTOL capabilities should have been mastered, and the MV-22 proves that, so maybe the 2 aircrafts for transport could be the

V-22 Osprey/V-280 For infantry (Though the prototype will likely change a lot before it actually enter service)

http://en.academic.ru/pictures/enwiki/86/V-22_concept.jpg

V-44 Pelican/quad tiltrotor For Infantry and vehicles (source: http://machinedesign.com/archive/long-time-coming ).

http://images.machinedesign.com/images/archive/sprey0500jpg_00000032053.jpg

http://media.desura.com/images/groups/1/3/2044/v44.jpg

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b186/aangkai/4aeb03e5.png

http://www.afwing.com/intro/v22/Quad%20Tiltrotor.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/jhl-image40.jpg

Vote if you want:

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=14864#bugnotes

Edited by nightovizard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

V-22 isn't big enough to carry any armoured vehicles, which I think is what people (me anyways) would like as well as troop transport. With a "large fixed wing transport aircraft" you want the ability to transport APC's etc. around the map instead of having to drive them all the way there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
V-22 isn't big enough to carry any armoured vehicles, which I think is what people (me anyways) would like as well as troop transport. With a "large fixed wing transport aircraft" you want the ability to transport APC's etc. around the map instead of having to drive them all the way there.

I know thats why i said v-22 for infantry and V-44 for vehicles though it could transport infantry too, and many of them. (Kinda like a C-130)

why not the Speed Agile as a tactical transport, if the game is set in 2035 ? that's lockheed proposal for a C-130 successor :)

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:4ed2785f-832c-4f7f-8a7b-1d820cb2b07a

sure thats one cool loking aircraft! But it has to land in an arfield or somewhere it wont crash, thats why VTOL would be an advantage, anything could happen 22 years into the future.

Edited by nightovizard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see a jump capable aircraft honestly. The closest is the Osprey (which has smaller cargo area the the Chinook) and as pointed out can't carry crap. Great bird, just limited in some ways. Honestly I'd like to see a C-17, but the reality is the c-130J model will be in service at least that long, and is more suited to the small runways on the map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt if the large cargo transport that we're all gunning for is going to be able to carry an MBT - the C17 can I think...but only 1. What we also need to supplement MBT and other heavy vehicle transport, is a large hovercraft type vessel. Remember, the key word here is SUPPLEMENT not REPLACE. I think we still need both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×