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

[tinter 184]

Well this thread has 80 pages and 800 posts. I don't think you can blame them.

[supergruntsb78 67]

Well this thread has 80 pages and 800 posts. I don't think you can blame them.

81 pages and 802 posts now :p (sorry couldn't resist :p )

i am using these planes for some time now and yet these are the best (atm) can't wait for the new Su-35 Paint schemes (just to have more diverity)

[lugiahua 26]

I love this addon since Arma1!

But I must point out that it seems the 20mm cannon is quite underpower, I can't even reliably take lightly armored helicopter like hellcat. The only way I can shoot them down is by a diving attack from the top, and hope to hit engine/motor or the pilots.

and I think the hull strength could be slightly higher like the one from Arma1.

[SidanHeath 10]

I love this addon since Arma1!

But I must point out that it seems the 20mm cannon is quite underpower, I can't even reliably take lightly armored helicopter like hellcat. The only way I can shoot them down is by a diving attack from the top, and hope to hit engine/motor or the pilots.

and I think the hull strength could be slightly higher like the one from Arma1.

On the contrary (to me at least), I find strafing runs with the 20mm can tear apart MRAPs and trucks and disable light armour; etc the Marid.

I agree helicopters are a pain to destroy but an AA missile will do the job much easier if you can surprise them.

Great addon by the way! Probably my favorite so far ;)

[lugiahua 26]

On the contrary (to me at least), I find strafing runs with the 20mm can tear apart MRAPs and trucks and disable light armour; etc the Marid.

I agree helicopters are a pain to destroy but an AA missile will do the job much easier if you can surprise them.

Great addon by the way! Probably my favorite so far ;)

I feel that 20mm on Super Hornet has good splash damage, but too weak in AP value.

When it hit helicopters, it does not penetrate the hull like in real life, hence cause little damage to the interior or crews. (unable to disable the engine)

[Coltace 10]

All I wanted to say was Thank You ! love the aircraft, love everything about it! keep up the phenomenal work !

[Crielaard 434]

Been toying arround with this mod and it indeed IS good.

Now...it may be a little nitpickinf but the aircraft stalls arround 130kmh in level fllight. That is roughly 70kts. A way to low value obiously. But I persume its to compensate for Arma's confined AO.

Accepting the above I want to point out the aircraft has a negative AoA when flying over 300kmh. That brings trouble if you want accurate unguided bomb deliveries from low-medium altitudes. (1000 - 3000 meters)

The bomb, when released from the rack, will also drop a little faster than it should due to the angle it starts with (but recovers to a normal trajectory quickly). There for, when using RL bombing profiles, it will drop short of target since it will continue to calculated profile lower.

Edited February 3, 2014 by 87th_Neptune

[james_manring 1]

Would you consider adding the Arma 2 hangar classname to the list of buildings that activate the Service Menu?

[CyclonicTuna 87]

Been toying arround with this mod and it indeed IS good.

Now...it may be a little nitpickinf but the aircraft stalls arround 130kmh in level fllight. That is roughly 70kts. A way to low value obiously. But I persume its to compensate for Arma's confined AO.

Accepting the above I want to point out the aircraft has a negative AoA when flying over 300kmh. That brings trouble if you want accurate unguided bomb deliveries from low-medium altitudes. (1000 - 3000 meters)

The bomb, when released from the rack, will also drop a little faster than it should due to the angle it starts with (but recovers to a normal trajectory quickly). There for, when using RL bombing profiles, it will drop short of target since it will continue to calculated profile lower.

It actually has nothing to do with the size of the map. The RV engine has its own measurements of speed, distance, depth etc. They do not fit a real world scenario.

But besides that, even if they could fix it, it wouldn't matter for the bomb drops as you disbribed them. Because Arma has horrible simulation of lifting bodies. Bombs in Arma don't drop according to real physics, they follow a trajectory, which is basically a straight line towards the ground during unguided drops.

I made a thread about it a while ago and zapat made some video's to prove my point: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?171179-Bomb-physics

The red one has a GBU12 class, acted upon by the engine. The blue one is a regular barrel class acted upon by a custom script that simulates gravity at 9,81 m/s squared:

Edited February 3, 2014 by CyclonicTuna

[Crielaard 434]

Interesting

When did you make this video?

Did several profiles with releases from up to 1200m. And it was spot on. (Taking the negative AoA in account)

If what you are saying is true, using the gun-cross would be the way to go on dropping bombs. *starting arma to test*

---------- Post added at 17:09 ---------- Previous post was at 15:54 ----------

*Back*

Oke...I did dozens of tests.

The bomb follows a trajectory, pitching down and picking up speed. As the bomb gains speed the pitching eases out arround 300km/h and is almost null at 500km/h. At this point the bomb falls at an angle of 50 degrees down.

This actually is what the GBU12 and Mk82 does in real life. Which makes sense...since my bombing tables are correct. (taking the negative angle of attack in account)

Maybe the physics have been improved since the latest update?

---------- Post added at 17:32 ---------- Previous post was at 17:09 ----------

Rectifying my findings.

When using create vehicle, the physics seem to be screwed. The bomb falls out of the sky straight without any aerodynamic effect.

However when using setvelocity, the bomb seems to have a weathercock effect. So that means the entire movement of the bomb is based on the velocity which will end in certain pitch angle and falling speed.

So you are right the physics aren´t realistic. And THIS may be the problem with the slight deviation of the release tables.

In short. Manual release tables work. But the engine doesn't get it 100% right.

Interesting looking at the game engine at work like this! :D

Edited February 3, 2014 by 87th_Neptune

[CyclonicTuna 87]

Well I didn't make those video's, a guy by the username "zapat did". But the point is, Arma doesn't simulate lifting bodies. An unguided bomb like shown in the video, should follow a trajectory similair to a bullet. It should just be a big arch down, the size and shape of which is dependent of the speed, drag, wind etc.

Now I don't know what kind of tests you did, but I did a lot of tests aswell. And I found that as long as the GBU doesn't have a target, meaning its unguided, it follows a line of about 50 degrees untill it hits the ground.

A guided bomb like a Jdam or a GBU with a laser target, has some lift of its own, thatw why pilots can lob them. And that why they can program a certain trajectory in the cockpit in order to give it maximum penetrating power or maximum range of instance. But Still they arn't as "floaty" as they are in Arma. It just doesn't make sense that an unguided bomb falls that slow and shallow.

The outcome of all this means that bombs in Arma will never impact as they're supposed to:

[xendance 3]

Well I didn't make those video's, a guy by the username "zapat did". But the point is, Arma doesn't simulate lifting bodies. An unguided bomb like shown in the video, should follow a trajectory similair to a bullet. It should just be a big arch down, the size and shape of which is dependent of the speed, drag, wind etc.

Now I don't know what kind of tests you did, but I did a lot of tests aswell. And I found that as long as the GBU doesn't have a target, meaning its unguided, it follows a line of about 50 degrees untill it hits the ground.

A guided bomb like a Jdam or a GBU with a laser target, has some lift of its own, thatw why pilots can lob them. And that why they can program a certain trajectory in the cockpit in order to give it maximum penetrating power or maximum range of instance. But Still they arn't as "floaty" as they are in Arma. It just doesn't make sense that an unguided bomb falls that slow and shallow.

The outcome of all this means that bombs in Arma will never impact as they're supposed to:

Hmm, what's the point of that video?

[Crielaard 434]

I tested by dropping the bombs from all kinds of attitudes and speeds. Then observing closely what the bomb does.

Then I did the same in the editor just with the createvehicle and setvelocity command. In this last case it behaved funky, exactly as you described.

So somehow the bomb behaves differently somehow when dropped from an aircraft.

Fact is:

1.When dropping the bombs at lower speeds it becomes more accurate. At the 300kts (550 kmh) profiles it is accurate enough to make pilot error and engine error indistingishable.

2. At 400kts (750kmh) profiles the bombs obiously fall a bit short. (Im talking 50 meters at an 1000m release altitude. But I think this is most likely due to the weird negative AoA of the aircraft at these speeds. The bomb starts with a way different AoA than where the tables are made for.

[supergruntsb78 67]

Hmm, what's the point of that video?

perhaps to show how a bomb would be able to hit a target dead on ?

[CyclonicTuna 87]

Hmm, what's the point of that video?

I started a thread a while back ( http://forums.bistudio.com/showthrea...9-Bomb-physics ) to bring to light the fact that bombs in Arma behave very strange. This guy names zapat took it upon himself to do some tests as a result of my claims and like Neptune, came to the conclusion that the RV engine adds a very weird physics to a bomb when its dropped from an aircraft. It doesn't behave at all as it should, Arma doesn't simulate lifting bodies, gravity and drag properly.

[saul 24]

Interesting discussion.

[Crielaard 434]

It sure is. :)

Saul, would you be able to edit the characteristics of the F18 to have arround 0 AoA when flying 1000km/h and about 13 AoA when flying 240 km/h?

That would make it more realistic AND makes some weapon deployments would be more realistic.

(Ofcourse you will need to chage some drag values to. Ill gladly help...although I have never flown the F-18 IRL. I can help you based on my experience with the F16 and L39)

[lincolnlou 10]

When does the F-22 and F35 come out? The F-18 and Su models are amazing!

[xendance 3]

I started a thread a while back ( http://forums.bistudio.com/showthrea...9-Bomb-physics ) to bring to light the fact that bombs in Arma behave very strange. This guy names zapat took it upon himself to do some tests as a result of my claims and like Neptune, came to the conclusion that the RV engine adds a very weird physics to a bomb when its dropped from an aircraft. It doesn't behave at all as it should, Arma doesn't simulate lifting bodies, gravity and drag properly.

Yea I'm not disagreeing about the oddities of bomb physics.

I just found it rather odd that you used a computer generated video with "The outcome of all this means that bombs in Arma will never impact as they're supposed to:". FumeFX is a simulation program for fire and dust, the explosion in the video isn't real ;)

[x hunter33 10]

When does the F-22 and F35 come out? The F-18 and Su models are amazing!

What do you mean... they havent announced anything yet -.-

[saul 24]

@Lincolnlou = You guess is a good as mine, as we have no plans on making a F22 or F35.

[CyclonicTuna 87]

Yea I'm not disagreeing about the oddities of bomb physics.

I just found it rather odd that you used a computer generated video with "The outcome of all this means that bombs in Arma will never impact as they're supposed to:". FumeFX is a simulation program for fire and dust, the explosion in the video isn't real ;)

Well... it looked very real. It wasn't really about the explosion as much as it was about the speed and angle of the bomb.

[x hunter33 10]

Would it be possible for you to make a Blue Angels texture for both F-18 E and F?

[Zlin 10]

Would it be possible for you to make a Blue Angels texture for both F-18 E and F?

Ooooo. That would be sweet!!!!

[saul 24]

Hello all, just some teasers for the upcoming updates which are still a little ways away. To answer Hunters question no we will not be making a Blue Angels version of the F/A-18s however we will be releasing the PSDs so that players can create their own textures for the aircraft.

Enjoy: Su-35s Flanker- E CSAT Edition

http://imageshack.com/a/img809/4315/qppy.jpg (380 kB)

http://imageshack.com/a/img854/5057/cf4w.jpg (573 kB)

http://imageshack.com/a/img716/6514/fyz5.jpg (661 kB)