Tu-199/Yak 131 and Other Fixed Winged Possibilities

[roshnak 41]

Eh, I kind of feel like the the front half and back halves of the A-135 belong to two different planes. Kind of like they didn't do much updating to the nose of the A-10.

[clydefrog 3]

I think you are either being overly negative or posting without thinking.

The ArmA 3 model design is incredible, the models are extremely crisp and have tons of detail (If you turn your graphics settings up accordingly) So I don't see how you can say they have "Poorly modelled the A10" when the modeling is very good.

However, I assume that you meant that the A10 was with the other ArmA 3 vehicles with its "horrible design". Although I can't really agree with calling the vehicles design "horrible", because it's not like BI made up the designs. The A10 and the Yak 131 are both real aircraft, although BI have changed up their original look a bit, the core design is still there. Same goes for most of the vehicles in the game, except for a few like the Mi-48 and the civilian cars... So If you don't like the designs of the vehicles, blame the companies/militaries that made them, not BI.

The quality is not that great, I have seen better looking mods for example these for Arma 2:

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=16253

go and look at those helicopters in game and check out the models and detail, they put BI's efforts to shame. And by the way some of the Arma 3 vehicle are absolutely awful for detail and quality, look at the "hellcat" helicopters, they look like low res versions like what you'd get in one of their mods you've not paid for (e.g. BAF). It's really poor quality.

As for the new planes I can't believe we waited so long for them and that's what we get, they don't look very good (I personally think the A146 looks awful) and have stupid names to go along with it.

[Bee8190 10]

I think the stealthy A10 looks somewhat reasonable. It's a popular plane and BI didn't want to take it too far and eventually screw up the plane so to speak. I quite like it and the nickname is funny - wipeout lol :)

The opfor jet is quite nice as well, just little too low sitting? I can also appreciate the rocket overall detail

although I've too noticed little inconsistency, especially the texture on the A10 which is not very detailed at all and seem rushed out like the warning signs, which are all blurry and the whole vehicle skin is much less resolution compare to other vehicles.

But now, the sound/s bit

Just to clarify though, I don't care for 100% accuracy of everything, not at all, and most of the time I'm happy to settle with authentic enough, as long as I can get immersed that is.

Now I am not even sure anymore if its the in game audio engine or the sounds itself but has anyone actually heard the A10'a gatling cannon?

As ridiculous as it may sound it's literally so bad that if it's not some sort of punishment by BI then I feel sorry for the audio engineer who thought it's even reasonable sounding. Thank you for the aircraft but it's shame

that I have to disable those sounds while flying and firing as complete silence is better than listening to the A10 fire.

[CaptainObvious 95]

The sound of the gatling is quite good when piloting the plane, but while playing as infantry on the ground, the sound should be a lot more violent IMO.

[ajsarge 10]

I like the design of the Stealth Hog. Until I look at the the engines and want to puke. They're high-bypass engines that get their thrust from the air moving through the exterior ducting than the interior combustion chamber. Having the tiny exhaust on the back is ugly and the bit swept forward to connect to the mid fuselage is ugly.

I would have mounted the engines in a combined pod that blends into the aft fuselage/empenage.

(OxO)

__[ ]__

^Kinda like that^

[RushHour 11]

Haven´t been playing (probably will later) but is the gun/sound on the A-10 correct in that you´ll first see the explosions then that iconic rumble coming a second after? (assuming you stand on the ground next to the target)

Also seems a bit silly with the stealth thing when the whole bottom of the wings is filled with missiles.

Edited March 15, 2014 by RushHour

[Nuttex 10]

I really don't get the thought behind the Stealthhog. Making the engines blocky won't make the plane itself all that stealthy - you've still got weaponry hanging outside under the wings. And then there is that warthog picture on the nose... Why is everything blocky in future?

Oh well, I'm just glad that we're getting some new content. I am wondering where that F-35 still is, seeing how it's been on official screenshots since the announcement of the game.

http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2011/08/Arma3_screeenshot_PCGUS_05_exclusive.jpg

http://www.rapidfiregames.com/sites/default/files/pics/arma3/ss-024.jpg

Not to mention other stuff that hasn't been added yet (or just was cut from the game) despite being shown on the screenshots:

http://www.imfdb.org/images/f/f5/Arma3_-BenelliM4.JPG - Benelli M4

http://www.imfdb.org/images/c/c7/Arma3_ksg.jpg - Kel-Tec KSG

http://www.imfdb.org/images/1/18/Arma3_xm25.jpg - H&K XM-25

[roshnak 41]

Oh well, I'm just glad that we're getting some new content. I am wondering where that F-35 still is, seeing how it's been on official screenshots since the announcement of the game.

There isn't going to be an F-35. Those screenshots are of the Arma 2 F-35 that was being used as a placeholder in Arma 3. It probably wasn't a good idea for them to release those screenshots without that warning.

[Dwarden 1125]

and who said the blocky engine is for stealth ? :) maybe it's because there are hardened plates protecting the engine ? ;)

[nghiakhungdien 10]

There isn't going to be an F-35. Those screenshots are of the Arma 2 F-35 that was being used as a placeholder in Arma 3. It probably wasn't a good idea for them to release those screenshots without that warning.

that's mean we will get a true F-35 model(the current one in real life) in the future?

[babylonjoke 22]

that's mean we will get a true F-35 model(the current one in real life) in the future?

Nope.

Anyway the model looks great, even if it's not my style of airplane design, the cockpit as well it's bloody amazing. Good job, that was a pretty surprise. :D

[odie0351 67]

that's mean we will get a true F-35 model(the current one in real life) in the future?

Not likely man, what Roshnak means is BIS ported the F-35 from AA2 to use to show off the island from the air. Although it could have originally been intended to be kept in game, or not, I'm not BIS so I'm just assuming here, but either way it was removed and most likely wont be making a return anytime soon. Unless they redo it as part of a DLC later down the road. It would be nice to have it come back some day, I like the Wipeout...well except the name;) but something with better multi-role capabilities like the F-35 wouldn't go amiss.

That being said, am I the only one who would like to see a black textured variant of the Neophron, maybe with an air to air loadout. Being as both of the CSAT helo's have black variants I just think it would fit.

[telejunky 0]

I guess the thing with the F-35 (http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2011/08/Arma3_screeenshot_PCGUS_05_exclusive.jpg) tends to be the same thing with the V-22 Osprey (http://cdn2.gamefront.com/wp-content/uploads/gallery/arma-3-8-15-11/290412_223952534318151_192181357495269_571779_2530641_o.jpg) and the same thing with the trapeze shaped railgun on csat tank and the nemo mortar... :-/

[RushHour 11]

and who said the blocky engine is for stealth ? :) maybe it's because there are hardened plates protecting the engine ? ;)

Just don´t...

[Tonci87 163]

and who said the blocky engine is for stealth ? :) maybe it's because there are hardened plates protecting the engine ? ;)

Hardened plates make much more sense when they are shaped round. Helps to deflect bullets ;)

[masonddg87 16]

I guess the thing with the F-35 (http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2011/08/Arma3_screeenshot_PCGUS_05_exclusive.jpg) tends to be the same thing with the V-22 Osprey (http://cdn2.gamefront.com/wp-content/uploads/gallery/arma-3-8-15-11/290412_223952534318151_192181357495269_571779_2530641_o.jpg) and the same thing with the trapeze shaped railgun on csat tank and the nemo mortar... :-/

Use your words. I'm not understanding what you are trying to communicate.

---------- Post added at 23:49 ---------- Previous post was at 23:26 ----------

It seems that a lot of people a are happy with the model of aircraft that BIS has relisted. As for me, I am not. Like someone said earlier in the post, the model are out of place in the time period that they are set in. The A/O-10 by 2035 would have been replaced by the F-35. Let alone the other two models that have been given (force feed) to use. But I understand the reason of the decision. To bring the F-35A/B (No C model due to ArmA core focus on being a land warfare platform) up to date would bring the game closer to the VBS market. So here we are stuck with old, out dated equipment that would not survive a 2035 battle field. But we may get to see this play out in reality if NATO, Russia, and Ukraine conflict get hot. I would like to see a CAST aircraft lineup to reflect where the trend is head now. Not a rehash of a bunch of old out dated aircraft. That's just being lazy. But I still love the platform to death.

Edited March 16, 2014 by MasonDDG87

[Dwarden 1125]

Hardened plates make much more sense when they are shaped round. Helps to deflect bullets ;)

that depends on material you use ... also there are quite many reasons why it's flat and round ... :) imagination is the limit to find conspiracy lore ;)

[Nuttex 10]

Use your words. I'm not understanding what you are trying to communicate.

---------- Post added at 23:49 ---------- Previous post was at 23:26 ----------

It seems that a lot of people a are happy with the model of aircraft that BIS has relisted. As for me, I am not. Like someone said earlier in the post, the model are out of place in the time period that they are set in. The A/O-10 by 2035 would have been replaced by the F-35. Let alone the other two models that have been given (force feed) to use. But I understand the reason of the decision. To bring the F-35A/B (No C model due to ArmA core focus on being a land warfare platform) up to date would bring the game closer to the VBS market. So here we are stuck with old, out dated equipment that would not survive a 2035 battle field. But we may get to see this play out in reality if NATO, Russia, and Ukraine conflict get hot. I would like to see a CAST aircraft lineup to reflect where the trend is head now. Not a rehash of a bunch of old out dated aircraft. That's just being lazy. But I still love the platform to death.

Think he meant to say that MV-22 is probably missing from ArmA 3 for the same reason as F-35 despite being shown on screenshots from 2011.

It does make me wonder as to what stops BI from just porting F-35B from ArmA 2 into A3 - it's not like Hellcat isn't retextured Wildcat from OA: BAF (same applies to Mohawk in A3 and Merlin in BAF). Besides, how would addition of F-35 bring ArmA 3 any closer to VBS than ArmA 2 already has?

Edited March 17, 2014 by nuttex

[RushHour 11]

]The A/O-10 by 2035 would have been replaced by the F-35.

Comment of the century.

[five_seven5-7 56]

and who said the blocky engine is for stealth ? :) maybe it's because there are hardened plates protecting the engine ? ;)

I understand it is much easier to pick up a existing model then apply a facelift due to the schedule , but for a low speed aircraft, close air support with extra protection wasn't better a ac-130 gunship?

[roshnak 41]

I understand it is much easier to pick up a existing model then apply a facelift due to the schedule , but for a low speed aircraft, close air support with extra protection wasn't better a ac-130 gunship?

Not really. You have to consider that BIS probably wanted a single-seat aircraft with minimum air-to-air capabilities to match the other two aircraft already in the game.

Beyond that, the AC-130 is pretty much a sitting duck when it comes to any kind of air defence at all.

[paecmaker 23]

[/color]It seems that a lot of people a are happy with the model of aircraft that BIS has relisted. As for me, I am not. Like someone said earlier in the post, the model are out of place in the time period that they are set in. The A/O-10 by 2035 would have been replaced by the F-35. Let alone the other two models that have been given (force feed) to use. But I understand the reason of the decision. To bring the F-35A/B (No C model due to ArmA core focus on being a land warfare platform) up to date would bring the game closer to the VBS market. So here we are stuck with old, out dated equipment that would not survive a 2035 battle field. But we may get to see this play out in reality if NATO, Russia, and Ukraine conflict get hot. I would like to see a CAST aircraft lineup to reflect where the trend is head now. Not a rehash of a bunch of old out dated aircraft. That's just being lazy. But I still love the platform to death.

Its not the first time a vehicle has been refitted from mothballing(USS Iowa was reinstated twice). Instead of creating a brand new vehicle updating an old design with new engines and a few new features has been done many times before. Also we dont know if the budget hammer would come down as hard in the Armaverse as in real life.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Here is my take on things. The game is Infantry based. Yes. However, when you add certain things to the game to a certain extent, it makes it harder to balance it out. Now, balancing isn't something that should be in arma in my opinion, everything should be base on real life counterparts. For example, if i get hit with a 50 cal bullet from say a mounted machine gun, one hit from it should kill me. Same thing with a hand held .50 cal. Ok, now we work on up to assets, all part of the infintry focus, presenting the ground forces with an opportunity to call in support to strengthen their movements, tactics, overall control over a situation. However, depending on whats going on in the mission, its important to keep in mind that its up to who ever created the mission to supply both or all three forces, with what they decide is necessary for it to be either a one way street so to speak, or, a fair battle.This being said, adding in Air to Air aircraft is not a bad idea as long as it isn't to be abused. For example, the f-35 in arma 2 didn't cause any problems in terms of foul play. Neither did the Harrier (Av-8, or B varient). Though the AAF have their hands on long range Air to Air weaponry, it doesn't always mean they will be flying against Opfor or Blufor aircraft. The new Fixed wing are by no means OP, either. Both are meant for their jobs, CAS, however, the Tu-199 (Yak-131), in real life, its counterpart the Yak-130, was based for BOTH Air to Air and CAS training. They could make an AA version if they wanted. They could also make a two seat version if they wanted. Depending on the scenarios, and maybe even if it fit into the singleplayer, or base game, its up to the devs to choose if that would fit. Air superiority jets for both teams, could be a little interesting, seeing as if we were past the whole balancing thing, it would be necessary to add in more ways to take down Aircraft. For example, Patrol Boats or Gun boats with AA titan Turrets such as the ones you see on static platforms, which than goes back down to the infantry level. Having those assets available to get rid of things that are naturally a problem for Infantry. Perhaps calling in Air to Air assets to take out enemy CAS assets. Or calling in CAS assets to take out enemy AA, and so on.

Here is an example using the Tu-199 in a very Intense CAS scenario. Got nailed with an AA half way through so. You could tell that would be pretty bad for the Infantry especially since they were vastly out numbered.

Edited March 17, 2014 by DarkSideSixOfficial

[Bee8190 10]

:rolleyes:

[drebin052 324]

The To-199 seems to lack a cockpit entering animation while the A-164 has the same glitchy elastic head mounting-disembarking issues that the Hellcat has.

Other than that, I'd say that they're pretty decent at the moment; that 30mm cannon vs. A2's pathetic sounds for its GAU-8 for starters.

The lack of AAMs on both aircraft is kind of disappointing though that's for sure (2 Falchions are better than nothing I guess). Maybe this Pacific flashpoint that the armoury descriptions keep hinting at will mean that we might get real multirole fighter equivalents at the very least in a future expansion pack; F-38's (F-35 mixed with F/A-XX elements) and J-33's (modified J-31) perhaps? One can still hope right? :p