Jump to content

Recommended Posts

To reiterate on what Corporal_Lib[bR] said, the "display" aspect of a helmet-mounted visual system is already in the vanilla game and requires only a few (about five?) config lines in the MFD class config, which you can see for example by reading the AH-99 Blackfoot config.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still staggered that's still being developed I wore the classified Eurofighter helmet (looked like something out of the movie Firefox) with all that stuff back in 1993 when I worked at Marconi, They had the whole avionics system laid out on bench :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will the Eurofighters pilot have the HUD in the visor like being developed (not sure if it is in use yet), Where the pilot looks is where the aircraft will target? Don't know the technical fancy name for this technology. Just the looky pointy clicky helmet thing... that's what it sha'll be known as

The basic Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) is, as other have already said, supported in the game. I have already made a custom setup for it but need further polishing. But I am trying to find a way to implement the full Typhoon HMDSS.

hmss1.jpg

This is a systems that goes quite a bit further than the normal HMD with just HUD symbology. This provides a fully integrated view 360ºx360º degree views from the PIRATE and Litening Pod to overlay full tactical and thermal views onto the pilots vision.

I have a plan on how to do it but I need to test a few things first and confirm it with UNN.

;2688895']HMD (Helmet Mounted Display or even HMCS - Helmet Mounted Cueing System) is already possible in ArmA3 but the off-boresight capacity to missiles is being worked on (by John_Spartan & Saul' date=' and I hope Rock is trying something too) ;)

As it´s being already stated, the boresight in A3 is locked to 30º in Vanilla, lets hope the modders can improve it to 100º !!![/quote']

The problem with the off-boresight targeting with ArmA is that alot of this is down to the weapon's config. It needs to be rediculously maneuoverable to widen the default 5º boresight. I've gotten it to about 70-80º in ArmA2 but the missile is either uncontrollable or impossible to miss with. For it to work properly it will need to be scripted.

I am still staggered that's still being developed I wore the classified Eurofighter helmet (looked like something out of the movie Firefox) with all that stuff back in 1993 when I worked at Marconi, They had the whole avionics system laid out on bench :-)

I saw 3 versions alone on test in 1999/2000. I think this latest HMDSS version (BAES Striker) is actually a restart of an earlier cancelled version. But its at least part funded by the F-35 development project because its intended primarily for Typhoon and F-35 use. But they are now trying to sell it as both rotary and fixed wing solutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 2010 video showed a CGI image of the F-35 with six internal AMRAAM which was (originally) planned for Block 5. You could well be right about the four missile loadout being canned (haven't read word on that in some time now) but I think that six missile loadout is still something they plan on eventually doing. By the time that is introduced the US really ought to have a successor to the AMRAAM in service. We can do much better than it now.

Also, model of internal loadout for of 8x Spear and 2x Meteor which is also featured on a lot of MBDA promo stuff.

p1563045.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A 2010 video showed a CGI image of the F-35 with six internal AMRAAM which was (originally) planned for Block 5. You could well be right about the four missile loadout being canned (haven't read word on that in some time now) but I think that six missile loadout is still something they plan on eventually doing. By the time that is introduced the US really ought to have a successor to the AMRAAM in service. We can do much better than it now.

Again I’d suggest that was a weapons manufacturer’s proposal and did not reflect the actual aircraft capability. At this point in time its not possible but weapons manufacturer’s (including Lockheed) like the public (and customers) to think their aircraft can do a lot more than they really can.

The technical reason the requirement for these multipack AAM carriers was removed revolves around the way the seeker head works. If it cannot see the target while sat on the pylon it cannot lock. The original F-35 spec said that it was going to get around this by using the aircraft’s radar and EOTS sensors to feed the AAMs with targeting data until it left the pylon. Lockheed was unable to make this happen with the AMRAAM and other current missile systems. And with the huge weight issues the airframe already faced making other “swing out solutions†were not practical.

In 2006 there was a planning review that highlighted the F-35s weight issues, lack of stable code and weapons integration was in fact nearly 3-5 years behind plan. Proposals to reduce capability were put forward then.

However in 2010 the UK SDSR caused a huge re-think of the planned F-35 capability for the RAF and RN and this had huge politically fall out. The cost over runs nearly caused the UK to withdraw from the F-35 project. Several other nations did actually reduce orders at that time. Or drastically scale back its order and investment. This was largely due to the delays in the program but also because of the "feature creep" that seemed to be driving the costs and reducing priorities and support for the existing weapons. The DoD, Lockheed, USN & USMC reacted by agreeing a “baseline standard†to ensure initial operating capability. The USAF was effectively out voted and their ever growing weapons spec blocked or at least moved to a future capability pack.

At that point a lot of the weapons support was removed from the software to simplify the spec to ensure that the aircraft’s unit cost did not continue to grow to over $120 million each. It is now over that but at least it’s now actually capable of releasing weapons

Also, model of internal loadout for of 8x Spear and 2x Meteor which is also featured on a lot of MBDA promo stuff.

http://www.janes.com/images/assets/213/34213/p1563045.jpg

The SPEAR is a different seeker system and doesn’t need to see the target before launch. Its GPS or laser guided just like a conventional GBU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That video was more recent than that whole program restructure IIRC however.

Doing some more digging a 2012 Powerpoint claims the 4x AIM-120 internal carriage option is still planned for Block 3 (presumably now 3F). Beyond that there are some Block 4 candidate weapons but no mention of plans for future Blocks. Considering this is all notional stuff I suppose it makes sense to concentrate firstly on what capabilities are set in stone.

I don't see why the AIM-120 would require the seeker head to have a lock on the target before launch. At typical BVR ranges the AIM-120's internal active RF seeker is too far away to pick up the target. Until the active seeker picks up the target the AIM-120 is using inertial guidance with target updates provided by a data-link to the launch aircraft. The AIM-120s carried in the F-22 have no better view of the target before launch than AIM-120s using hardpoints 4 and 8 on the F-35. Considering everything Lockheed and customers want the F-35 to do I'd bet that someday we'll see a dual missile launcher for hardpoints 4/8, but who knows when that will be. I doubt it will be compatible with conventional short ranged missiles (AIM-9X, AIM-132).

I know that SPEAR isn't an air-to-air missile (it's sort of a powered SDB II from my understanding) but I just thought that would be a versatile internal loadout to someday see in this addon.

Edited by ReconTeam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahead of next week's Monthly WIP Wednesday we'd like to announce that DK has joined the RKSL Team.

new-team-dk.jpg

We are incredibly happy to announce that DK has joined the RKSL Team

"After years of trying to get him to finish his M113 we've asked him to join the team and help finish some of our models."

READ MORE

Edited by RKSL-Rock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, what have you done?!!!!

Not sure if I'm talking to Rock or DK here actually:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DK! DK! DK! Look forward to seeing you getting some released! Though a Eurofighter will still own any of your puny tanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RENNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! Excellent news! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see you guys join forces - look forward to seeing the fruits of your labour :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May's WIP Wednesday - Chucking Paint on the Gripen.

A3Gripen-pt2.jpg

Last month I showed you all the new cockpit and the old A2 external textures this month I'm showing you the upgraded externals and some of the baked details. We're are taking the view that the Gripen will probably be used by several other mods, given the number of requests we've had for it. So we're going to make it as paint kit friendly as we can. This isnt exactly as simple as it sound given that Rock is baking most of the textures and detail onto the low poly.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great work guys. Great details as usual and really thoughtful to allow it to be easily re-painted to suit different nations etc.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Rock this question has probably been asked allot but will the Tornado and the Hawks be transferred to A3 or will they be released on A2?

Regards

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Rock this question has probably been asked allot but will the Tornado and the Hawks be transferred to A3 or will they be released on A2?

Regards

Tom

Only A3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering, are you guys making an MM1 or JP233 for the tornado? What weapons do you have planned overall?

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just wondering, are you guys making an MM1 or JP233 for the tornado?

Nope.

  1. The JP233 and MW1 are either out of service or being phased out of service.
  2. Its a pain in the arse to script properly for MP and have it sync across the network without severe impact.
  3. Having so many sub munitions go off tends to kill servers or most of the client machines which ruins the fun.
  4. Its a gameplay killer in my opinion. They are such devastating weapons if used properly that its almost like dropping a nuke. Its game over.

What weapons do you have planned overall?

Thanks!

If you can hang it off a plane we'll probably make it. :p

I'm not being facetious saying that its just that we have a wide range of aircraft planned spanning from 70/80's era kit all the way upto modern types that we will probably endup having to make a tonne of kit. The RKSL(A2) Air Weapons pack contained over 100 models. By the time we get through half of our planned list the A3 pack will probably see that double.

Have fun

Rock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×