Tu-199/Yak 131 and Other Fixed Winged Possibilities

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

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

That would be true for the Animations. The A-164 is sort of smooth, with the exception of the head issue. Also, the Tu-199 has a lack cockpit design in terms of movement, comparted to teh Buzzard and A-164. I believe the Canopy of the Buzzard is open and closes when the player gets in. For the Tu-199, if you look close as you spawn one, you can easily tell the cockpit is literally welded shut. Over all though, its good. Just needs a fix tweaking here and there. As for adding Air to Air aircraft for both factions, i could envision the F-38 For NATO (The REAL F-35 model, not a port from Arma 2's X-35 blocky looking plane), and the Sagqeh-80 for Opfor. :cool:

[clydefrog 3]

So what the hell is up with the view in these planes, why is it that like in the Buzzard the pilot seems to be pretty much lying down especially in the To199 and looks like he wouldn't be able to reach the instrument panels under the HUD even if he stretched for them. I think it looks really bad and is really wrong, is nobody else bothered by that? It looks completely screwed up to me.

Edited March 20, 2014 by clydefrog

[chortles 263]

The lack of AAMs on both aircraft is kind of disappointing though that's for sure (2 Falchions are better than nothing I guess).

The answer here should be obvious (besides it actually being in line with the rest of the series, with the Su-34 and Buzzard (AA) being the only exceptions): any AAMs at all would be on a weapon "station" that could have gone to an air-to-ground weapon. ;)

[roshnak 41]

So what the hell is up with the view in these planes, why is it that like in the Buzzard the pilot seems to be pretty much lying down especially in the To199 and looks like he wouldn't be able to reach the instrument panels under the HUD even if he stretched for them. I think it looks really bad and is really wrong, is nobody else bothered by that? It looks completely screwed up to me.

The FOV is wider than you would typically find in a flight sim, which is probabloy why it looks like you are unusually far back in the cockpit.

[paecmaker 23]

One thing I have thought about is how they reall spell out CAS in the editor. Does this mean they intend to release CAP planes(fighter planes) some time soon(perhaps in a later dlc/expansion)

[negah 26]

Im kind of disappointed how all russian buttons descriptions in the Tu-199 Cockpit are just gibberish.

[RushHour 11]

So they even skipped google translate that time ;)

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

So they even skipped google translate that time ;)

That, and they skipped the cockpit being open instead of welded shut, and the it also doesn't have an artificial Horizon, which will get you killed in the dead of night since pilots don't get NVG's, or if you were in a situation in which you didn't have NVG's. ;)

[Necrodancer 10]

That, and they skipped the cockpit being open instead of welded shut, and the it also doesn't have an artificial Horizon, which will get you killed in the dead of night since pilots don't get NVG's, or if you were in a situation in which you didn't have NVG's. ;)

Use the HUD.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Use the HUD.

I would make you a video on how tedious it is to see the HUD, and by the time you zoom in and get a basic knowledge of which way it is indicating, it may already be too late, and than there is the fact you have no ejection seat, which will then guarantee your death.

Besides, here goes a perfect example of laziness. Instead of using the HUD, why not do both, and add an Artificial Horizon, because lets get this straight. No military plane fighter or CAS, or anything jet in 2035 wouldn't have an artificial Horizon, it's literally un excusable. Why BIS didn't add it in is beyond me, or they just forgot simply because they envisioned their weapon display more important... If they looked at the cockpit of the Yak-130 in real life, it's there.

PRIME EXAMPLE!

Upper left side of instruments you will see the pilots BEST friend for night flying. The Artificial Horizon. No modern plane would not have one, PERIOD.

Edited March 28, 2014 by DarkSideSixOfficial

[roshnak 41]

Upper left side of instruments you will see the pilots BEST friend for night flying. The Artificial Horizon. No modern plane would not have one, PERIOD.

You understand that is a backup artificial horizon, right? Like, in case your HUD fails, which it won't do in this game. The HUD should contain all the information you need to fly the airplane. The only plane that I can see needing an ADI is the A-164 (and it has one), since the HUD doesn't have a pitch ladder -- but, really, I'd rather the HUD just have a pitch ladder.

Other than that, I agree that it is way too difficult to see the HUD, but that's mostly a problem during the day, when you shouldn't need an ADI (although you do need a bunch of other information that it gives you). Basically, the HUDs need a lot of work.

Edited March 28, 2014 by roshnak