2 CAS Aircraft remain unknown. What if?

[SharpeIP 10]

Are you kidding? The flight model is bad. I can take off of all the airports on Altis easily. Too easily...

You should see about releasing it as a mod.

It's very techy to get set up - you have to have a dedicated server on windows that you can install a C# windows service on, then you have to have a PHP Server with a MySQL Database...and then every Falcon player has to have another C# script running in the background. It's a ton of work, and you have to know what you're doing. There are no config files right now either, so you'd have to recompile the code for each different person...plus it needs way more testing (want to help?).

You might notice in the video though, we're also outputting all our data to a web map so we can use it with our tablets while we play. (The original idea was just to have a BF4 style Commander's Tablet, but once we had that adding Falcon 4 support was childs play...) That part of the process is simply using INIDB and a C# script, and that C# script can be run by any player with INIDB to handle the web upload. That part should really be released if I can find the time to clean the code up and write instructions for it...

[SissiSaatana 1]

I've given up on decent CAS support in ARMA 3.

The flight model (if you want to call it that, I wouldn't) doesn't behave like anything any other sim models, and the map itself doesn't even really support the jets in game. Have you ever tried running the CAS jet off one of the dirt strips on Altis? The runways are just short of the maximum distance needed to take off. The one in the upper North West is bordered on both sides by trees AND power lines. I had a unique experience with that last night when I plowed into the power lines at full speed, and then just fell to the ground completely intact and barely damaged.

Anyway, to get my ARMA 3 CAS Fix, I've gone the other way and built a software bridge that lets me drop a GBU in Falon 4.0 BMS and have it land in ARMA 3.

No more bad physics for me when I'm flying, and I get all the benefits of Falcon 4.0 BMS Air-to-Air combat. Win-win-win.

Regrettably, Bohemia will not let me post new threads, or even links in my thread, or PM any users, but a quick YouTube Search for "Falcon 4 to Arma 3" will show you the quick little video we put together. Please PM me if you own both games and are interesting in testing.

EDIT: link:

hah well that's quite literally outside the box idea ^^ and personally love falcon but few questions, Will ppl see your aircraft(anykind?) in arma that u fly in bms? and how do u check what the hell are u shooting and where are u hitting? ie u don't exactly have altis in bms theaters (at least last that I checked xD) overall I would really like to know more I try to pm u and your utube vid ^^

ps. pretty pls implement bms flightmodel and f16 to arma :cool: lol

[SharpeIP 10]

Will ppl see your aircraft(anykind?) in arma that u fly in bms?

The speed of the update from Falcon to Arma is to slow to allow for this. At best, it would be wildly out of sync. 9/10 times when I drop GBU's in Falcon I'm doing it from 10k altitude. Most of my friends in Arma never set their draw distance above 3000m. That means a Falcon aircraft at that altitude would be just outside their max view distance, and very tiny to boot.

and how do u check what the hell are u shooting and where are u hitting?

Right now we're reading coordinates and creating mark points. We found this actually works best with someone monitoring our webapp, and having them tell the pilot to trigger a mark point when he overflies friendly ground positions, but we're working on improving the accuracy of our system for translating Arma 3 coordinates to Falcon Longitude/Latitude, so Arma 3 players can just read coordinates and have them input directly as a steerpoint in Falcon. We have plans to upgrade the script to drop on a mark point and have the GBU guide in Arma from a Laser Designation on the ground.

ie u don't exactly have altis in bms theaters (at least last that I checked xD)

Altis is based on the real-life island of Lemnos, which can be found in the Aegean Sea. Conveniently enough, someone has already created an Aegean Sea theater for Falcon BMS.

ps. pretty pls implement bms flightmodel and f16 to arma :cool: lol

This would be my preference too. The aircraft flight model and avionics are just terrible in Arma.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Well that's awesome guys, even though a bit off topic, but hey, glad to hear you came up with something. Second, it's been confirmed NATO, and CSAT CAS craft are close to being mass produced and used widely in their forces for the Armaverse flashpoint. Though, even better, a competition has been announced, and community devs can make mods for prizes. One possibility includes a full game change. What if someone were to create something along the lines of "Take On Airplanes" with an enhanced flight model? Just a thought.

[Kaxii 11]

I thought it might be a F35 for the US as shown here:

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I thought it might be a F35 for the US as shown here: http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2011/06/b2cfcc91-43879.jpg

This in particular has been long touched on many times. Images used as place holders just to tease, but really used to test the Fixed Wing PhysX Engine back in early Alpha-Pre-Alpha phases.

[Kaxii 11]

But wouldn't it make sense to0 use the F 35?

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

It would, it it's the version that's being produced today. The one you see used in Arma 2, is basically the X-35 mainframe.

Comparison

X-35

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/X-35.jpg (590 kB)

F-35

[doln 10]

Bohemia have confirmed the F35 will not be coming

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

^this

Though, i'm curious as to what the confirmed NATO CAS will be... Absolutely curious.

[doln 10]

I will eat my hat if its not this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS_Mako/HEAT

Has the same engine as the Saab Gripen, which was recorded for Arma 3, is a cancelled prototype, fills the same role as the Yak-131 and the L-159, and it looks cool as hell

[Kaxii 11]

Rather not, way too trainer-ish looking. Why can't Bis choose a NATO or US aircraft rather than choosing the most indie looking or an israeli vehicle?

[chortles 263]

Because it was indeed supposed to be a NATO aircraft? ("Supposed to be" clearly doesn't stop BI, considering the Comanche.) As for the trainer/light attack design... that's a not-unheard-of trend for fixed-wing CAS in the world, 'heavy' aircraft like the A-10 and Su-25 are actually outliers.

[Kaxii 11]

But are unused by the more powerful countries like: USA, UK, Sweden, Russia, etc etc. Also it says that it was meant to be a trainer anyway not really a CAS

[-Gews- 1]

Because it was indeed supposed to be a NATO aircraft? ("Supposed to be" clearly doesn't stop BI, considering the Comanche.) As for the trainer/light attack design... that's a not-unheard-of trend for fixed-wing CAS in the world, 'heavy' aircraft like the A-10 and Su-25 are actually outliers.

I actually wouldn't want to see A-10s, I've seen some people express that they would like that plane to be included. The first production models came off the line in 1975, it would be 60 years old by 2035! That would be like modern-day troops using a plane first produced in 1954.

And anyways, the only reason so many people even like the A-10 is because of the iconic 30mm GAU-8/A. Without that cannon, the plane wouldn't be half as cool and everyone knows it. But the thing is, in all probability, the cannon would be very ineffective against modern tanks. It might damage tracks, optics, etc, but it's not a tankbuster :j: I've seen a figure of 2.3 inches penetration at 1000m when considering the plane's speed. Even T-72M1 has almost 16 inches of protection on the glacis, 7 inches on the upper front of the turret. Lighter vehicles, troops, fixed positions, okay.

But against a 2030s Merkava variant I see little use for the cannon. But if BIS made the cannon ineffective against tanks, including certain AFVs (which it should be with the new armor penetration system) then people would probably complain, "the cannon on the A-10 is ineffective, fix please". So for every reason, A-10s are not suited to ArmA 3.

[progamer 14]

I actually wouldn't want to see A-10s, I've seen some people express that they would like that plane to be included. The first production models came off the line in 1975, it would be 60 years old by 2035! That would be like modern-day troops using a plane first produced in 1954.

But against a 2030s Merkava variant I see little use for the cannon. But if BIS made the cannon ineffective against tanks, including certain AFVs (which it should be with the new armor penetration system) then people would probably complain, "the cannon on the A-10 is ineffective, fix please". So for every reason, A-10s are not suited to ArmA 3.

The A-10's lifespan was extended. And what makes you think the in game Merkava is better than the current real life one? You realize the vehicles would be a lot different from what they are now if BI made them into future versions. A-10s have more than just a mini gun and then why would the mini gun have to be good against tanks? They carry more weapons than that.

[-Gews- 1]

The A-10's lifespan was extended. And what makes you think the in game Merkava is better than the current real life one? You realize the vehicles would be a lot different from what they are now if BI made them into future versions. A-10s have more than just a mini gun and then why would the mini gun have to be good against tanks? They carry more weapons than that.

Extended, yes, service life is apparently expected to extend to 2028. However by that time it will be in its final years and there may already be a replacement, and I doubt they would send their most aged equipment to the most serious war zones. Anyways, the gun doesn't need to be good against tanks, it has more uses, the point was if the A-10 was introduced, I would expect it to have unrealistic values. For example in ArmA 2, they made the direct damage SEVEN times as powerful as 30x165mm AP, and it also had an indirect damage value which was much greater than hand grenades! That had to be a deliberate decision based on people's expectations.

So I would not want to see it because it would most likely be extremely dated, and also likely have unrealistically exaggerated performance.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Extended, yes, service life is apparently expected to extend to 2028. However by that time it will be in its final years and there may already be a replacement, and I doubt they would send their most aged equipment to the most serious war zones. Anyways, the gun doesn't need to be good against tanks, it has more uses, the point was if the A-10 was introduced, I would expect it to have unrealistic values. For example in ArmA 2, they made the direct damage SEVEN times as powerful as 30x165mm AP, and it also had an indirect damage value which was much greater than hand grenades! That had to be a deliberate decision based on people's expectations.

So I would not want to see it because it would most likely be extremely dated, and also likely have unrealistically exaggerated performance.

I kinda agree with this, for one, i don't want to see the A-10 due to when it was produced, all the way to now. Also, it's performance would be good, but it just wouldn't fit the era. Though, i have high hopes for what BI is introducing, no word of what it could be yet. I'm hoping it's new, fresh, and sexy... And it not too OP, but does it's job... And i hope there are two seat versions for all.

[blackjacktom 10]

Do you think that the Buzzard will get an update when the 2 new aircraft are released?

It's still missing some pretty important things like a working bomb-sight and HUD that is usable at night.

[chortles 263]

In an odd way, it'd be one way to "establish AAF as being a lower-tech military" if the BLUFOR/OPFOR jets get those and the Buzzard doesn't. :p

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

In an odd way, it'd be one way to "establish AAF as being a lower-tech military" if the BLUFOR/OPFOR jets get those and the Buzzard doesn't. :p

I guess we have to wait and see. Until than, its down to classical dive bombing.