F/A-18 Super Hornet and Su-35S Flanker E

[CyclonicTuna 87]

Constructive? I pointed out obvious flaws in the design of this mod. How anyone can pretend like it makes any good sense for an airplane, THIS airplane no less, to behave the way it does is quite frankly beyond me.

It's so goddamned bad it comes around and goes full circle - becoming entertaining because of its awfulness - but having a jet flying 500km/h backwards isn't something I'd like to see in any of the missions my group plays.

Is it really that hard? I mean, you went to kindergarten didn't you? They explained what all the funky symbols mean and how you should pronounce them.

I should have seen it coming though, join date Dec 2013, let me guess DayZ? Ofcourse it hasn't come up into that skull of yours to try and READ, before you start making claims. Arma isn't a flight simulator, it was never designed to be, nor have Spartan and Saul ever claimed they would improve the flight physics. Everything is SCALED, to fit the measurements of the RV engine.

Now, lets try this again shall we?

Welcome to Arma. Arma is a game that aims to bring together an open world, military sandbox with the focus on combined arms. This implies that the game walks the line between simulation and videogame to accomodate players from diffrent disciplines to a certain degree. You don't have to be an expert at driving a tank, flying a helicpoter, piloting a plane or sailing a ship, because Arma allows for everyone to play every role. with a steep but short learning curve.

Now if you want to fly planes. There are dozens of wonderfull flightsims out there like DCS, BMS, FSX etc, that will fullfill you're needs. However, if you're looking for a great time with friends, immersive missions on a combined arms scale, Arma will most likely please you.

Now ofcourse I know I probably won't have to say this because obviously you know everything better but this is a W.I.P, WORK.IN.PROGRESS. So please be a little more considerate, or constructive.

Edited January 24, 2014 by CyclonicTuna

[BadHabitz 235]

Is it really that hard? I mean...

CT, no offense, but I'd recommend that if he crossed a line you should just report the post and state your case to the moderators. Going off on him isn't going to get you anywhere, and I'd hate to see you get into trouble trying to correct people that likely won't take kindly to your advice.

[CyclonicTuna 87]

CT, no offense, but I'd recommend that if he crossed a line you should just report the post and state your case to the moderators. Going off on him isn't going to get you anywhere, and I'd hate to see you get into trouble trying to correct people that likely won't take kindly to your advice.

Perhaps they should make me moderater then ;) I apprecaite you're concern but anyone who knows me on the forums or in real life knows that I don't kid around with these type of things. What you see is what you get, I don't twist words in order to make it sound more appropriate. So what If I get a few infractions, at least I'm honest, I'll never bullshit you.

This guy was calling Spartan and Sauls work out for really no reason, and calling it a "joke" and "laughabale" is totally uncalled for. If I report it, he'll just get a message from the moderators that he shouldn't do it again, and he'll never understand why. By confronting him directly, I hope he understands his mistake.

I was confronted in the same way many times and It has showed me often times that there's no reason for critisism without substantiating it.

Edited January 24, 2014 by CyclonicTuna

[odie0351 67]

Constructive? I pointed out obvious flaws in the design of this mod. How anyone can pretend like it makes any good sense for an airplane, THIS airplane no less, to behave the way it does is quite frankly beyond me.

It's so goddamned bad it comes around and goes full circle - becoming entertaining because of its awfulness - but having a jet flying 500km/h backwards isn't something I'd like to see in any of the missions my group plays.

Here's a piece of advice, if your too lazy or inexperienced to do something yourself, don't complain when someone does it for FREE. Berating the modder's efforts on something they do in their spare time is nothing less than idiotic. If you have found genuine issues or have special requests regarding the mod than state them in manner that doesn't make you sound like your a spoiled brat that didn't get what he wanted for Christmas! A little bit of tact and common courtesy can go a long way.

[x hunter33 10]

Testing out the su-35 and all I got to say is... is this some sorta joke?

What logic lies behind the decision to set the stall speed at 105km/h?

What logic lies behind the decision to limit cruise speed to 777km/h?

It's like I'm flying a fisher price (or maybe just battlefield) version of this jet and not something that attempts to convincingly model the actual aircraft's flight characteristics. Now I know the latter is technically impossible with the limitations of the arma engine but what we have here is just plain laughable.

Seems like someone is gonna have to start making his own mods since he cant appreciate the hard work done by others...

[overhaul 10]

Everything is SCALED, to fit the measurements of the RV engine

See here's what I don't get, these are the same guys that made the super hornet, right?

How come the su-35 isn't scaled in proportion to that jet?

[CyclonicTuna 87]

See here's what I don't get, these are the same guys that made the super hornet, right?

How come the su-35 isn't scaled in proportion to that jet?

Because they're not the same?

[HitmanTwoActual 188]

Because they're not the same?

Agreed. The F/A-18 and the Su-35 are not the same in proportion or size. That is why they are not the same in game.

[overhaul 10]

The f-18 ingame is a lot closer to its real life counter part than the flanker, that's what I meant.

[CyclonicTuna 87]

The f-18 ingame is a lot closer to its real life counter part than the flanker, that's what I meant.

Not really, in Arma 3 the F-18 barely pushes the sound barrier. Whilst in real life the F-18 manages mach 1.8. Almost 2000 kph. Same goes for the SU-35. Only in Arma 3 the Su-35 has a tighter turn radius and slower stall speed, which is pretty much what it comes down to in real life aswell.

[overhaul 10]

Not really, in Arma 3 the F-18 barely pushes the sound barrier. Whilst in real life the F-18 manages mach 1.8. Almost 2000 kph. Same goes for the SU-35. Only in Arma 3 the Su-35 has a tighter turn radius and slower stall speed, which is pretty much what it comes down to in real life aswell.

The F-18 does mach 1.8 only on arfterburner and flying clean at altitude, and barely pushes the sound barrier when not.

The su-35 is known to be able to supercruise at a speed of at least mach 1.2 (actual top speed classified) and has a higher stall speed than the F-18 at 130 knots.

That you would scale down the performance of the su-35 for arma I can understand, that you would do so in a way that's completely inconsistent not just with reality but also other mods by the same author, now that I cannot.

Edited January 25, 2014 by overhaul

[saul 24]

@All - next person to start a flame war in our thread gets the meat hammer.

Second, the Su-35 is still very much a work in progress with much left to be done and tweaked. Do not make the mistake of thinking since its .98 Su35 or 1.5 or 6 F-18 that they are almost done. Quite the opposite. We have big ideas for these aircraft, but like all ideas they take time to bring into creation.

[vengeance1 50]

I worked with John_Spartan on the first Arma 2 F18 and he put his heart and soul into it, now you guys have done the Arma 3 F18 and the SU-35, just wanted you to know how grateful most all of us are that you made them in the first place. Thank you for what we have guys and thanks for continuing to improve them for all of us.

[John Spartan 89]

@All - First of all as mentioned by Saul and correctly noticed by few then release version of SU35 carries "BETA" in its description. At this point there are three scripts WIP [afterburner, stall, braking].

Since the treads discussion has been derailed a bit, lets turn it back to something we can all benefit from.

Speed of aircraft in Arma 3 and Arma 2.

Lets go back to A2 first when we released the first version of FA18's. In A2 vanilla aircraft F35 and SU34 [by BI] are set to default speed around 900-1000 speed units. Why I am calling them speed units, not km/ph is because of small similarity I have noticed and observed behind BI logic of creating flight model. In real life bouth of jets mentioned have similar Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.6 cruise speeds, and if we look up values for those in m/ph not km/ph they will make more sense since they start matching with a slight inaccuracy. Also game engine and performance + gameplay is taken in account. Also to compare if we place a F35 on the map and allow it to fly over in cruise speed and latter try to find similar vids on youtube it looks similar visually. It's not a match but close enough for a simple flight model we have. I would tend to belive that A2/A3 fixed wing speed units are more likely displayed wrong [mph instead of kmph]. For me it feel like any other vehicle speeds are in kmph and scaled properly where for fixed wing the speed should be displayed in mph without a need to change anything in config. I might be wrong - correct me - observations and ideas?

Also performace if speed set to actual RL km/ph the map is to small in first place, also performance is affected on "low end " pc to unplayable, and finaly in game flight model starts playing fun jokes.

So based on that decision was made to scale speed for these jets.

F/A-18, top speed on afterburner 1100 [aprox], landing speed 160-175 [aprox]

SU-35, top speed on afterburner 1450 [aprox], landing speed 120 -130 [aprox]

with such values gameplay is maintained and also we have some feeling of speed without significant performance drop or issues.

There are things that probably we wont be able to simulate, even thou with new setmass commands we can attempt to manipulate models behaviour with or without weapons loadout to a bit more realistic manner [still concept]

a small video about SU33 and it's capabilities on low altitude

we have not jet found a solution to simulate this. As far as we know then Su35 has two modes for a fly-by-wire system built in to separate low and high altitude behaviours and this is also something that has to be taken in to account - this aircraft indeed is extremely manoeuvrable and agile on high and low speeds.

So this will take us a while to get to a final flight behaviour. Also it depends what BI is planning to do with fixed wing class in general. I would like to believe that something big is coming down the pipeline with feature updated of Arma 3.

@Myke - thanks mate.

Edited January 25, 2014 by John_Spartan

[Feint 137]

Will this mod ever be compatible with Feint's Track-IR mod, Head Range Plus?

Regarding the improvements in TrackIR that BIS introduced with Arma3 that I expanded on with my addon Head Range Plus, to get more degrees of freedom in the cockpit, you would change the following for the F/A-18 (not tested):

class ViewPilot
       {
           initFov = 1;
           minFov = 0.6;
           maxFov = 0.85;
           initAngleX = 0;
           minAngleX = -65;
           maxAngleX = 85;
           initAngleY = 0;
           minAngleY = -150;
           maxAngleY = 150;


                      // ADD THE FOLLOWING LINES (adjust for the specific space limitations of the aircraft cockpit)
                      //How far can the head be moved to the sides left and right
                       minMoveX = -0.2;//-0.1;
                       maxMoveX = 0.2;//0.1;

                       //How far can the head be moved up and down
                       minMoveY = -0.025;//-0.025; // CHANGING THIS TO -1 HAS NO EFFECT
                       maxMoveY = 0.1;//0.05;

                       //How far can the head be moved forward and backward
                       minMoveZ = -0.2;//-0.1;
                       maxMoveZ = 0.2;//0.1;
       };

The main problem is with the way HUDs are implemented in Arma3 so far. Once you add the ability to move your head right and left, the HUD no longer lines up properly for targeting things like guns and rockets. You can see this in the way the A-143 is when using my addon. I believe the problem would best be described as the HUD not being "boresighted". Also, you would need to make sure the cockpit LOD has the wings, tail, back of the cockpit, etc. all visible. Often, those pieces are removed from that LOD in order to optimize the gameplay (increase FPS).

Hope this makes sense and answers some questions for the fans of this functionality.

[John Spartan 89]

@Feint, we have trailed your discoveries to make it Track IR friendly.

And as you mentioned its the pilot lod, model needs to be redone.

HUD is not an issue, with some tweak's in parallax section it can be fixed. Thai main issue would be actually that weird head movement where you can see pilots models neck, we are working on fixing that on F model for gunner but with setting like that it just looks really weird. So we need to do some more trails on this + remodel the cockpit's, not only the FOV, the whole model proportions need to change slightly because of A3 engine rendering ways to look properly.

We will discuss this with Saul, he is goanna make a final call, since he uses Track IR, I don't, so if he will say that he is happy with other glitches this causes as a side effects then we goanna add it with future updates.

Edited January 25, 2014 by John_Spartan

[Feint 137]

@Feint, we have trailed your discoveries to make it Track IR friendly.

And as you mentioned its the pilot lod, model needs to be redone.

HUD is not an issue, with some tweak's in parallax section it can be fixed. Thai main issue would be actually that weird head movement where you can see pilots models neck, we are working on fixing that on F model for gunner but with setting like that it just looks really weird. So we need to do some more trails on this + remodel the cockpit's, not only the FOV, the whole model proportions need to change slightly because of A3 engine rendering ways to look properly.

We will discuss this with Saul, he is goanna make a final call, since he uses Track IR, I don't, so if he will say that he is happy with other glitches this causes as a side effects then we goanna add it with future updates.

Coolio. I just did a test to see what it would look like. Yeah, the HUD looks fine. Cockpit model looks fine to me honestly. The only thing that looks remotely so-so is the nose of the plane looking slightly lower resolution than the rest of the plane, but that's not any kind of a big deal. The rest of the plane looks great from the cockpit as far as I can tell.

I didn't notice the "visible headless body" at all with the settings being 2.0 and 2.0 for side to side and front to back, but I run an FOV that's a little more realistic than most other players it seems (a little more zoomed in). If someone's running a fisheye field of view, they're going to see things that I don't. But to me, that's personal preference. I'll post a video in a little while as a demo of what I found.

EDIT:

Edited January 25, 2014 by Feint

[CrazyBaron 10]

not sure what are this...

http://savepic.net/4403231.jpg (105 kB)

http://savepic.net/4450334.jpg (122 kB)

- HD textures

also textures not feel HD =\

[lordprimate 159]

i am pretty sure i mentioned that i have already got this working for the F-18 and it works perfectly. I literally just copy and pasted the Buzzard config and renamed it to the f-18... i haven't seen any problems with anything in game. just my $0.02.

[HJohnson 16]

Seems like someone is gonna have to start making his own mods since he cant appreciate the hard work done by others...

He does ironically.

[Moon_chilD 200]

Hey, I get a error using the Vehicle Respawn by Bohemia.

Sorry for the crappy picture I was a bit helpless making a screenshot (dohhhh) and now I don't have the time to start Arma again:

Edited January 26, 2014 by Moon_chilD

[geoffw 10]

Hey, I get a error using the Vehicle Respawn by Bohemia.

i get the same thing.

[bIS_fnc_moduleRespawnVehicle] Vehicle 5146f040# 1770532: jc_js_fz_fa18e.p3d of type "js_jc_FA18E" has simulation "airplane", must be "carx", "tankx", "helicopterx", "airplanex", "shipx", submarinex"

[saul 24]

Again, for the 1000th time, the respawn module DOES NOT WORK with the F18 or Su35. We are working on a module for the aircraft for the next updates.

[kremator 1065]

^^ Unfortunately some people, new to the forums (and some not), fail to read threads before posting.

[zach72 1]

Maybe worth putting a FAQ on the first post?