So ArmA3 gave us a reason to go in the water.. Now I am thinking, Epic Naval Warfare

[MavericK96 0]

Why the hell he did get a warning?

If I had to guess I would say it's because this should be in the suggestions thread?

However, I don't really agree with that since I wouldn't want that thread to become cluttered with talk of naval warfare, so honestly I don't really see why the warning was issued.

Never mind, it was for "writing in all caps" apparently. Must have been edited before we saw.

[ledhead900 10]

Correct, I had the "epic naval warfare" emphasized in all caps. Clearly I was in the wrong, I should have better read the rules of the forum as this did not fit into the caps used to highlight important bits, strictly no caps in the titles rule. I am not usually an all caps kind of guy, in fact that infuriates me just as much as it probably would somebody else, in this instance I thought it may have been acceptable as I was trying to emphasize the excitement, may have helped if I put an exclamation mark at the end.

It was edited or must have been before you guys saw it, I do not know if the warning will ever go away lessons learned.

[chortles 263]

I was thinking more along the lines of other naval carriers like barges to carry platoons of tanks and men, or modern day support class like in WWII Omaha beach all the infantry arrived on those personal craft to shore. They have the thing I am trying to remember the name for in Battlefield3, ah yes this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/LCAC_19970620.jpg and http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/5666661907_17ef53704d_b.jpg.

So you're thinking of landing craft then... you may be happy to know that there's some such mods in the pipeline for Arma 3. :) As well as those in Arma 2... to my knowledge though, I believe that without "proper" roll on/roll off (RORO) capability in the game engine (not just walking men on moving ships) you'd end up with something like this:

Although I recognize that a landing craft should in fact be stationary when offloading vehicles, I'm not sure how to implement the transit without some sort of scripting, i.e. "lash to deck/release" like Gnat used for securing helicopters to the frigates or to Sea Fighter, or in the case of an "open air" LCAC or L-CAT such as the EDA-R the fore ramp (much less the EDA-R L-CAT's raising/lowering platform, or an enclosed lander like the old Aist-class, Gus-class, Lebed-class (here's a Lebed-class with disembarking troops), or the current Zubr-class (NATO reporting name "Pomornik"; inflated and deflated, with vehicle debarkment here, and this image of its weapons)... at least, not without BI doing more with the engine, specifically in terms of ground vehicle friction with a moving naval vessel deck! Sure, character movement on moving ships and helicopter landing (although you can forget about getting out unless the ship is at something like 2 km/h, a landed rotor-wing seems to do just fine -- but the "sticking" prevents the Buzzard from moving, so a moving carrier is out for fixed-wing that isn't vertical-takeoff) are on people's minds, but what about ground vehicles and moving with the ship's deck (friction) instead of, like the Man class sometimes, staying in place while the deck moves out from under it unless you actively move it about?

Fortunately, every lander that I've seen comes in under the 60 meter single-model geometry envelope limit, so at least we wouldn't have the inherent problems with "multiple models" piled up on top. :D

As for scuba I could think of couple things of interest.

http://www.divinglore.com/Genesis/images/Misc/MilitarySDV.jpg

http://www.armedforces-int.com/upload/image_files/Military-Diver-Propulsion-Devices.jpg

Now this is interesting -- not only is it "within the scale and scope of Arma as the devs think of it", but back in early July Aplion -- the modder behind Hellenic Armed Forces Mod (HAFM) posted screenshots of a two-rider "Torpedo Sub"; I am not aware of whether this vehicle was ever made publicly available. Aplion said at the time:

Well, following mankyle's help here and working a little bit on submarines, I saw that the "submarineX" is the only class for (the obvious) despite that for surface ships there are two classes, the "shipX" and the "ship" class ...

So anyone can make a "ship" without using the physics model but no-one can make a ... "submarine" without physics model ... ok probably you already know that.

Here is my 2 seated submarine using the "submarineX" class (the only one for the subs) ... its working fine but still the pbo needs to be unbinarized in order to avoid CTD in-game ... probably we have to wait for BIS new tools ...

Surface ... http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v648/aplion/arma32013-07-0521-19-18-52_zpsc29ba019.jpg

Underwater ... http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v648/aplion/arma32013-07-0521-18-53-15_zps2233bd29.jpg

Aplion also about a week later posted this:

@mankyle ... any progress with submarines diving speed values (I don't even know what are these values in fact) ?

As you did, I have also my Sub diving but in very slow speed ... http://prntscr.com/1f6g8q ... it is a significant progress I believe but still we have to find out what will speed up the diving speed process (so far I've played with almost all config values but none of them seems to be relative with diving speed).

What I've seen is that a much smaller size model dives much faster and this troubles me a lot ... it seems that is is not weight matter but size.

Ofcourse we still have to wait for BIS new tools to binirize the models using physx ...

If you're wondering, the submarine at the link bears pennant number S110, which corresponds to the decommissioned-in-2011 Type 209 submarine Glavkos. I'm not sure of its in-game dimensions, but the first three variants of the class (Glavkos is in the first) all come in under the 60 meter limit (the third by only half a meter), so it can be at 1:1 scale as a single model. (Whether it actually is at 1:1 scale in-game, only Aplion would know.) Likewise, the South Korean Chang Bogo-class -- based on the Type 209/1200 variant instead of the Glavkos' 209/1100 -- also comes in under the 60 meter limit, as does the Dolphin-class (Israeli), the Challenger-class (Singaporean), the Type 206 (decommissioned from German service but two modernized 206As are in the Columbian navy, with two other 206s for spare parts), the Type 212 (in German, Todaro-class in Italian service)... and the Södermanland-class/Archer-class (Singaporean and Swedish respectively) are just barely over at 60.5 meters... though actually less than the Ambassador MK III's 60.6 meters. :)

Note though that I haven't found any nuclear submarines that didn't exceed the limit, so for "compliant with the Arma 2 geometry envelope limit" submarines you're basically looking at air-independent propulsion (AIP) and/or diesel-electric propulsion.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Chortles

[GottyPlays 10]

Gnat;2528419'].... and some of us a sick of whiners who didn't research what they were buying. BI's forumula has barely changed in 10 years.

Then i don't understand what your replies was for? :O it's so unreal to expect devs to do something on these forums? lol whats the point of the thread

[chortles 263]

Just so that everyone reading this is aware, JDog has formally and publicly granted TeTeT "permission to work on porting and improving the Nimitz for the community, and its perfectly fine to distribute those fixes and even overwrite the version already on Armaholic, if that makes it easier/less confusing for the community." Where's that "IT's HAPPENING" GIF... :D

[BadHabitz 235]

Once/if Chops finishes his DDG project then I'll be content and happy. Anything after that is just bonus stuff.

[ledhead900 10]

Awesome stuff, yea I agree after all the stuff in this thread has been said that large boats on the maps of this size are not plausible, for large boats I would consider one scaled carrier static model simply to use for a staging point and the landing craft mentioned by myself and above are perfect examples on what Naval stuff would fit into the ArmA design plan.

[chortles 263]

Fortunately for you, ledhead900, there will be just such a carrier static model in Arma 3 with the Nimitz mod. :D And it is at 1:1 scale, according to the original modder.

[ledhead900 10]

Great, then I just need to figure out how to package that with my mission on workshop :P.

[chortles 263]

You'll have to wait for the Arma 3 Nimitz to actually be released first. :p For what it's worth, here's the state of the mod in Arma 3 with CBA_A3 and the F/A-18E/F on a dedicated server as of the 6th of October:

Two days later TeTeT posted a new config.cpp and several altered scripts -- although to use those requires unpbo'ing the carrier mod (i.e. jdg_carrier.pbo) and replacing the scripts then repbo'ing it -- and on the same day JDog subsequently granted TeTeT sole permission to distribute their porting/improvement of the Nimitz mod. There has been no such release in mod form from TeTeT, so until then the only option would be to make use of that new config and the altered scripts, if you already have the software tools and know-how with which to do the above (un- and re-PBO) to the existing Arma 2 Nimitz mod.

[Peaty 10]

I personally would love to see a hovercraft capable of transporting one or more tanks plus smaller support vehicles although assets on Land and Air are already servilely lacking and hope BIS don't touch the Naval aspects till the ground game and CAS game are good. Also some more boats and gunboats would be awesome as a sea invasion is the coolest entry to an AO with the exception of Air (Heli).

[chortles 263]

Unfortunately the TL;DR is that you might as well just throw your wishes into the addon request thread, although thankfully the hovercraft that you're thinking of and "gunboats" (depending on what exactly you mean) seem to be perfectly doable; while I harped on the "60 meter limit" from Arma 2 multiple times on previous pages, I understand that most if not all of what you may have in mind for both all come in under 50 to 60 meters length-wise. :D (I specify 50 to 60 meters instead of my earlier 60 meters because of this from RKSL-Rock, Suma and Icewindo.)

[Hatchet_AS 201]

Well lets see, this one isn't particularly confidential these days, and is coming sooner than later. Along with a couple other somewhat profound static surprises not too far behind. One of which is a remodel of a model commercially available (for those who look at these things). About all I can leak at the moment.

Although not carrier class or naval warfare with big boomsticks, we think/hope things will blend well with some of the newer features in game relating to water. ;)

[progamer 14]

Well lets see, this one isn't particularly confidential these days, and is coming sooner than later. Along with a couple other somewhat profound static surprises not too far behind. One of which is a remodel of a model commercially available (for those who look at these things). About all I can leak at the moment.

Although not carrier class or naval warfare with big boomsticks, we think/hope things will blend well with some of the newer features in game relating to water. ;)

Is that one of those drilling rigs that has its own engines and can maneuver to new locations?

[Hatchet_AS 201]

The semisubmersible would be capable of such feats.

I would config it under shipx, but unfortunately there are still issues with moving vehicles and the man class and other things as noted in the thread and elsewhere. I sincerely hope something is done to address these issues. Until then, we'll play under the guise of it being anchored and drilling (which the model indicates fairly well). And the other large vessel (the main structure image) is 300m in length and would indeed also be capable of moving. However as noted, there are technical hurdles. On the brighter side of things, it is nice to watch AI walk the entire length of the vessels. Although that can be hit or miss across the proxies at times. Vast improvement in that department over ArmA 2 at least.

[progamer 14]

The semisubmersible would be capable of such feats.

I would config it under shipx, but unfortunately there are still issues with moving vehicles and the man class and other things as noted in the thread and elsewhere. I sincerely hope something is done to address these issues. Until then, we'll play under the guise of it being anchored and drilling (which the model indicates fairly well). And the other large vessel (the main structure image) is 300m in length and would indeed also be capable of moving. However as noted, there are technical hurdles. On the brighter side of things, it is nice to watch AI walk the entire length of the vessels. Although that can be hit or miss across the proxies at times. Vast improvement in that department over ArmA 2 at least.

If someone could create a feedback tracker ticket for the vehicle and man class issues on large moving ships, that would help the developers with fixing it. But no one who understand the problems has made a ticket yet. :(

Or you could add the info needed for this ticket here I made: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15384 though I have no idea how any of the class interaction works and what the current problems are.

Edited October 13, 2013 by ProGamer

[Hatchet_AS 201]

Well enough, I shall get involved.

[chortles 263]

Although not carrier class or naval warfare with big boomsticks

And thereby not the subject of the OP and thread. ;) Still, it's nice to see you adding more variety in the armed small craft with the Mark V.1 SOC, though as far as ships that push the size limits of Arma models/geometry LODs/roadway LODs.

The semisubmersible?

The thing about the static rigs is that you might have to set them up "multiple objects stuck together"-style according to how warships like the JDog Nimitz were, although the resultant "ship" is said by JDog to be over 330 meters in aggregate length, which would be 1:1 scale with the actual Nimitz. ;) And it's really up to you whether you want the rigs to be "movable"/"driveable" in-game or not to begin with, seeing as "static ship" is simpler. I can say that apparently the limits for Arma -- between 50 and 60 meters horizontal -- aren't so "hard" vertically; I recall Icewindo saying that he'd managed to get an object to be 95 meters tall without issue geometry-wise (at 20 meters wide).

I have seen moving ships such as the earlier-linked frigates and submarines packs, Sea Fighter, Independence (LCS 2), and CVN Ulyanovsk (from "Legacy of Cold War Pack"), but I am not sure if any of them are 1:1 scale with their real-life/design counterparts, much less whether any of them are using the method described here where "the Heli Deck ship addons should be a separate, smaller addon attached to the main ship." Said link uses the lower 50 meter limit mentioned above, the 60 meters bit is from here: "In some cases the absolute limit has been closer to 60m but to ensure proper functions its better to stick to 50m."

I bring up the 60 meter limit since no small number of the ships that I'm interested in seeing in Arma are themselves within that 50 to 60 meter range, such as the aforementioned Cyclone-class patrol ship, the Type 209/1100 and 209/1200 submarine variants (and derivatives thereof) at ~55 meters each...

Edited October 13, 2013 by Chortles

[Hatchet_AS 201]

And thereby not the subject of the OP and thread. ;) Still, it's nice to see you adding more variety in the armed small craft with the Mark V.1 SOC, though as far as ships that push the size limits of Arma models/geometry LODs/roadway LODs.

The semisubmersible?

The thing about the static rigs is that you might have to set them up "multiple objects stuck together"-style according to how warships like the JDog Nimitz were, although the resultant "ship" is said by JDog to be over 330 meters in aggregate length, which would be 1:1 scale with the actual Nimitz. ;) And it's really up to you whether you want the rigs to be "movable"/"driveable" in-game or not to begin with, seeing as "static ship" is simpler. I can say that apparently the limits for Arma -- between 50 and 60 meters horizontal -- aren't so "hard" vertically; I recall Icewindo saying that he'd managed to get an object to be 95 meters tall without issue geometry-wise (at 20 meters wide).

I have seen moving ships such as the earlier-linked frigates and submarines packs, Sea Fighter, Independence (LCS 2), and CVN Ulyanovsk (from "Legacy of Cold War Pack"), but I am not sure if any of them are 1:1 scale with their real-life/design counterparts, much less whether any of them are using the method described here where "the Heli Deck ship addons should be a separate, smaller addon attached to the main ship." Said link uses the lower 50 meter limit mentioned above, the 60 meters bit is from here: "In some cases the absolute limit has been closer to 60m but to ensure proper functions its better to stick to 50m."

I bring up the 60 meter limit since no small number of the ships that I'm interested in seeing in Arma are themselves within that 50 to 60 meter range, such as the aforementioned Cyclone-class patrol ship, the Type 209/1100 and 209/1200 submarine variants (and derivatives thereof) at ~55 meters each...

Thanks for information I suppose, I unfortunately stopped reading at the point where you felt it necessary to identify my post as off topic. The fact that you did that by quoting half of my sentance, that effectively acknowledged my understanding of the post being 'somewhat' off topic ... is well, interesting. Thus concludes my participation here. Fortunately, some good will come of the brief interaction that did occur.

[chortles 263]

No idea why you'd stop reading when the next sentence was approving of your Mark V.1? My apologies nevertheless, and I'm glad that you were advised by ProGamer on your rigs.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Chortles

[jinzor 31]

Question; why did the OP get an infraction for his first post?

[progamer 14]

Well enough, I shall get involved.

I have a thread for discussing the issues we face with driving and walking on drivable ships here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?166815-Discussion-of-problems-that-affect-walking-and-driving-on-drivable-ships-and-vehicles

[MavericK96 0]

Question; why did the OP get an infraction for his first post?

It's been addressed already; apparently he was typing in all caps. If you click on the yellow warning flag icon it will tell you the reason.

[ledhead900 10]

It's been addressed already; apparently he was typing in all caps. If you click on the yellow warning flag icon it will tell you the reason.

They did not quite give an exact reason so hear me out. I only had the "Epic Naval Warfare" in the title in all caps I just forgot to put an ! at the end of it. So I got the infraction for three words in all caps because I thought it was appropriate for the title and was only reason I put the caps in there. Obviously I was wrong and the rules do clearly state this was not allowed.