Jet DLC?

[ajsarge 10]

+1 to having extra transports. An A-400M, C-130XL, C-27J, or V-22 would be a very nice DLC addition. If we get into a fixed-wing DLC, my #1 hope is for a fixed-wing AFM, similar in scope to the old helicopter flight model versus the new heli AFM and all associated features that were refined/introduced. I want to avoid supersonic fighters at all costs, because the Arma 3 terrain engine simply isn't capable of supporting the engagement distances and speeds that are involved. Altis is barely big enough to house 1-mile "short" range dogfights, much less the 40-mile beyond visible range combat that happens between fighters now and probably in the future.

Though, I'm still pinning for a logistics DLC with semi trailers and meaningful cargo transportation before new jets are introduced. And Bohemia has yet to release their continuing plans past a future expansion pack that has no set release window. Who knows what ideas will come about before or after that point.

[chortles 263]

Funny thing is, the A-400M is the only jet among those four, the rest of which (along with the Douglas DC-3 from ArmA: Queen's Gambit) are all turboprop... but I'll note that besides "turboprop transport" (C-130/DC-3/MV-22) and the Camel, BI has almost exclusively done ground attack-oriented aircraft/loadouts -- heck, the only AA-oriented loadout is on a trainer-derived attack aircraft -- and Arma 3 continues that tradition.

In light of that I hold out no hope for gameplay changes/aircraft that cater primarily to air superiority ever being on the to-do list, as opposed to changes based around ground attack aircraft, but other than a general flight model change I would be with sektor in primarily wanting "a way to drop bombs accurately, like

".

Though, I'm still pinning for a logistics DLC with semi trailers and meaningful cargo transportation before new jets are introduced.

Admittedly not sure what you mean by this; you'll have to define the "meaningful" part, because unless you mean "towable trailers" then I'm not sure what you're looking for beyond the existing HEMTT/Tempest/Zamak truck families and support containers... Edited March 11, 2015 by Chortles

[fn_Quiksilver 1633]

As primarily an infantry simulator, I'd hope that efforts are focused on expanding and fleshing out more infantry possibilities/dynamics, than air superiority concepts.

New buildings, sub-terranean, new terrain, light and medium vehicle, MRAP play, etc.

It is already reasonable, but if there is time/money for a Jet DLC I would hope it is re-invested into infantry and light vehicle simulation.

[[evo] dan 79]

Funny thing is, the A-400M is the only jet among those four, the rest of which (along with the Douglas DC-3 from ArmA: Queen's Gambit) are all turboprop... but I'll note that besides "turboprop transport" (C-130/DC-3/MV-22) and the Camel, BI has almost exclusively done ground attack-oriented aircraft/loadouts -- heck, the only AA-oriented loadout is on a trainer-derived attack aircraft -- and Arma 3 continues that tradition.

In light of that I hold out no hope for gameplay changes/aircraft that cater primarily to air superiority ever being on the to-do list, as opposed to changes based around ground attack aircraft, but other than a general flight model change I would be with sektor in primarily wanting "a way to drop bombs accurately, like

".Admittedly not sure what you mean by this; you'll have to define the "meaningful" part, because unless you mean "towable trailers" then I'm not sure what you're looking for beyond the existing HEMTT/Tempest/Zamak truck families and support containers...

A400M is a turboprop :D

I guess a logistics DLC would allow for loading cargo into vehicles such as ammoboxes in very much the way that the R3F scripts do, which I wouldn't actually mind.

[gibonez 18]

As primarily an infantry simulator, I'd hope that efforts are focused on expanding and fleshing out more infantry possibilities/dynamics,

Agreed especially when you factor in that alot of the in game mechanics are lacking even on the small arms front.

Not to mention the complete lack of squad level indirect fire support, medical systems and or advanced ballistics.

[Wiki 1558]

Can be interesting.

For example, modernized F/A-18 Multirole or French Rafale Multirole for BLUFOR side?

Modernized Gripen for IND side and ... no idea for OPFOR side...

But I would be better a Plane DLC rather than Jet DLC.

That way, we could also have transport planes :)

[twangydave 7]

The islands are not big enough for fast air, the solution seems to have been to make the planes fly really slowly which just looks silly. Having the AI planes fly at authentic speed would be good so they quite literally scream over your head and disappear in scant seconds but currently it's all a bit wrong.

What I could see working as a paid DLC is one really well done carrier which is superbly detailed with correct lifts, internal briefing areas, command and control and authentic comms, maps and navigation and realistic personnel numbers with the area of operations being huge open seas (needing low resources?) which would allow a flight time of 20-30 minutes before reaching Altis or other island. This could recreate a 'Falklands' style scenario where your time over the island would be very (realistically) short and your combat air patrols or bombing run missions would be subject to the constraints of fuel and weather. With enemy forces seeing your carrier as the main target, scenarios would be open where the main engagements with the enemy aircraft would be over the ocean as you sought to protect and they sought to attack, negating the need for being over resource hungry land terrain. A massive job I'd guess which would need a flight model for jets, a huge map, mid air re-fuelling mechanisms etc so probably beyond the scope of Arma.

I'd love it if they just did a period correct Falklands for the next island to be honest. I wouldn't need the naval stuff, just a great terrain, all the right units and weapons and a few choppers for the Brits!

[slim_pikins 12]

Id settle for a AN2 with 50 cals on the wings ;-) in all seriousness I would like to see a change to the flight model like the heli dlc and a few transport/civilian planes, Im not so keen on attack aircraft unless as someone mentioned they overhaul of the weapons systems and make it a lot more involved.

p.s. Please Mr BIS make a AN2 with 50cals :cool:

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Altis is barely large enough to reasonably handle the aircraft we have now.

Give me an armoured vehicle focused DLC before you focus on jets.

[Wiki 1558]

Also, something like an AC-130 would be really cool!

[slatts 1978]

Also, something like an AC-130 would be really cool!

Don't you even dare mention that fuc.... wait wait.. I see what you're up to!

[Wiki 1558]

Are you? :p

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Altis is barely large enough to reasonably handle the aircraft we have now.

Give me an armoured vehicle focused DLC before you focus on jets.

Lel.

Your wrong, give the fact Altis is almost twice the size of Chernarus from Arma 2, yet, Arma 2 had faster jets, one being the X-35 JSF, and the SU-34 Fullback Fighter Bomber. Hell, they had an airstrip on an island smaller than Stratis. What does that say? Size probably doesn't have squat to do with it. They simply decided to go for a focus rather than versatility as a whole, or diversity in terms of assets. For now anyway, it appears they are pouring their efforts into Infantry. I don't mind though, the Audio features of Arma have been crap for years (in terms of tech), but we may finally get to experience new milestones in that area. Besides infantry though, I wouldn't mind some aircraft in the future that fit the 2035 setting, like the Civilian version of the V-240 Valor, and some other cool modern technology, but mainly turbo prop transports and civilian Aircraft. I don't care how fast they are, as long as they fit the setting.

[I give up 152]

Lel.

Your wrong, give the fact Altis is almost twice the size of Chernarus from Arma 2, yet, Arma 2 had faster jets, one being the X-35 JSF, and the SU-34 Fullback Fighter Bomber.

I dont remember those jets in A2. User made Addons?

[the_demongod 31]

Lel.

Your wrong, give the fact Altis is almost twice the size of Chernarus from Arma 2, yet, Arma 2 had faster jets, one being the X-35 JSF, and the SU-34 Fullback Fighter Bomber. Hell, they had an airstrip on an island smaller than Stratis. What does that say? Size probably doesn't have squat to do with it. They simply decided to go for a focus rather than versatility as a whole, or diversity in terms of assets. For now anyway, it appears they are pouring their efforts into Infantry. I don't mind though, the Audio features of Arma have been crap for years (in terms of tech), but we may finally get to experience new milestones in that area. Besides infantry though, I wouldn't mind some aircraft in the future that fit the 2035 setting, like the Civilian version of the V-240 Valor, and some other cool modern technology, but mainly turbo prop transports and civilian Aircraft. I don't care how fast they are, as long as they fit the setting.

He's not that wrong. Fly up high, and then enter to the console: "setViewDistance 20000;"

You'll see how small the island really is. It looks huge when you run across it, or when your view distance is limited to 6000m, but you'll see that if we had anything that flew as fast as a fighter jet, it would be across the map in no time at all. For now, maybe it's an okay size. But for realistic air (which would be required for an entire Jets DLC), it's too small.

Altis is about 27km wide IIRC. That is 27,000m. The speed of sound at sea level is 340.29m/s. At supersonic speed, it takes just a little under 80 seconds to cross the island. Hell, AIM-120Ds have a range of 180km, and we have those now. Just imagine what missiles of the future will do. It really is too small for fighter jets.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I dont remember those jets in A2. User made Addons?

Sorry, it took me a minute to get my jaw after it rolled away when it fell down. SERIOUSLY?

First question, do you own Arma 2?

[chortles 263]

@ Bratwurste: The X-35B (called "F-35B" in-game) debuted in Arma 2, and I released a port of it over a year ago, while the Su-34 debuted in ArmA but also appeared in Arma 2.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

He's not that wrong. Fly up high, and then enter to the console: "setViewDistance 20000;"

You'll see how small the island really is. It looks huge when you run across it, or when your view distance is limited to 6000m, but you'll see that if we had anything that flew as fast as a fighter jet, it would be across the map in no time at all. For now, maybe it's an okay size. But for realistic air (which would be required for an entire Jets DLC), it's too small.

Altis is about 27km wide IIRC. That is 27,000m. The speed of sound at sea level is 340.29m/s. At supersonic speed, it takes just a little under 80 seconds to cross the island. Hell, AIM-120Ds have a range of 180km, and we have those now. Just imagine what missiles of the future will do. It really is too small for fighter jets.

My view distance is actually, always at full. It will remain this way until BIS figure out how to implement infinite view distance without FPS hits, or pull off a VBS style Sub Picel Rendering of their own. I understand, the islands are small compared to alont of things, but that doesn't matter. This is the one and only case in which size doesn't matter. Why? Well, because BIS will NEVER put Afterburners into Vanilla content. That being said, that means they can throw in any jet they want. They did it in Arma 2 because it was a realistic representation of aircraft in which factions used. Now, it's kinda the same thing, except, the game is more infantry focused, and everything else in terms of vehicles, will forever come last in terms of Arma 3. Even with the Heli DLC, they found a way to focus it on Infantry, transport roles, logistics role. That's it. Hell the Arma 3 jets are slower than the Arma 2 jets. The x-35B can out run any A3 jet. The Fullback can outrun everything including the x-35B. Chernarus is still far smaller than Altis, and it's proven. So it's not truley a matter is size in this case, rather, at least I believe they focused on infantry more than anything else in an other Arma game when it comes to 3, leaving all other things in the dark for now.

That's another interesting thing, for now... Well let's not forget there are crash vehicles in game, with fictional names. As they are probably crash site ports from A2, maybe we could see them come back. One of them that gives an appearance of the C130, is the C-192 or something like that. I can't remember what it's called in game. If they really wanted to impress us, they could take the VTOL crash site, and make a back story out of it. Siting that the MV-22 had issues with the rough Greek environment, and since they lost so many, NATO than called for a new, more reliable VTOL, which became tr V-240 Valor or something. Idk. But I can say we may see some more aircraft with the Expansion, obviously though, as a purchase. Jets though? Who knows. There isn't much more they can do with jets, especially since the Flight Model got worse than Arma 2 to some extent.

[I give up 152]

Yep, now I remember those jets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iScvVn4KniM

[the_demongod 31]

My view distance is actually, always at full. It will remain this way until BIS figure out how to implement infinite view distance without FPS hits, or pull off a VBS style Sub Picel Rendering of their own. I understand, the islands are small compared to alont of things, but that doesn't matter. This is the one and only case in which size doesn't matter. Why? Well, because BIS will NEVER put Afterburners into Vanilla content. That being said, that means they can throw in any jet they want. They did it in Arma 2 because it was a realistic representation of aircraft in which factions used. Now, it's kinda the same thing, except, the game is more infantry focused, and everything else in terms of vehicles, will forever come last in terms of Arma 3. Even with the Heli DLC, they found a way to focus it on Infantry, transport roles, logistics role. That's it. Hell the Arma 3 jets are slower than the Arma 2 jets. The x-35B can out run any A3 jet. The Fullback can outrun everything including the x-35B. Chernarus is still far smaller than Altis, and it's proven. So it's not truley a matter is size in this case, rather, at least I believe they focused on infantry more than anything else in an other Arma game when it comes to 3, leaving all other things in the dark for now.

That's another interesting thing, for now... Well let's not forget there are crash vehicles in game, with fictional names. As they are probably crash site ports from A2, maybe we could see them come back. One of them that gives an appearance of the C130, is the C-192 or something like that. I can't remember what it's called in game. If they really wanted to impress us, they could take the VTOL crash site, and make a back story out of it. Siting that the MV-22 had issues with the rough Greek environment, and since they lost so many, NATO than called for a new, more reliable VTOL, which became tr V-240 Valor or something. Idk. But I can say we may see some more aircraft with the Expansion, obviously though, as a purchase. Jets though? Who knows. There isn't much more they can do with jets, especially since the Flight Model got worse than Arma 2 to some extent.

I see your point, I too almost always play with 12km view distance (which is very easy to do with AiA or A3MP maps, I assume this is what you do since Altis is very hard to run like this), but every time I think about wanting better jets in arma, I always remember that I always have DCS and BMS, and how I'll always want more and more and more from Arma and it's just not going to happen.

What I really want is a better way to link DCS and Arma. It sounds crazy, but hear me out: first, you need to bring Altis into DCS. You'd have to do a bit of work since you'd need to bump it down to flightsim quality terrain and such. Then you would need some sort of software that would be able to pull location data out of the games. Tacview is an example of this. Then you'd need another piece of software that would broadcast this data into the other game and use it to show the locations of things.

This would mean that both games could run as usual, and the only thing that would have to happen is for coordinate data to be pulled out of the game. Your position as a tank in Arma would be broadcast to DCS, where it would have a tank in your same position, and I, the A-10 pilot, could see you. So DCS just has to focus on flight modeling and positioning and doesn't have to worry about AI, or high graphics of Altis. Arma only has to worry about making Altis look pretty, AI, ballistics, and everything else it does now. By using a tool to cross the platforms, you don't require one game to do everything at once, which would be very performance intensive.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I see your point, I too almost always play with 12km view distance (which is very easy to do with AiA or A3MP maps, I assume this is what you do since Altis is very hard to run like this), but every time I think about wanting better jets in arma, I always remember that I always have DCS and BMS, and how I'll always want more and more and more from Arma and it's just not going to happen.

What I really want is a better way to link DCS and Arma. It sounds crazy, but hear me out: first, you need to bring Altis into DCS. You'd have to do a bit of work since you'd need to bump it down to flightsim quality terrain and such. Then you would need some sort of software that would be able to pull location data out of the games. Tacview is an example of this. Then you'd need another piece of software that would broadcast this data into the other game and use it to show the locations of things.

This would mean that both games could run as usual, and the only thing that would have to happen is for coordinate data to be pulled out of the game. Your position as a tank in Arma would be broadcast to DCS, where it would have a tank in your same position, and I, the A-10 pilot, could see you. So DCS just has to focus on flight modeling and positioning and doesn't have to worry about AI, or high graphics of Altis. Arma only has to worry about making Altis look pretty, AI, ballistics, and everything else it does now. By using a tool to cross the platforms, you don't require one game to do everything at once, which would be very performance intensive.

Someone actually did this, only they used BMS. Pretty neat, but unfortunately, Arma players won't be able to see that Aircraft do it's thing. It's basically invisible CAS to the infantry.

[the_demongod 31]

Someone actually did this, only they used BMS. Pretty neat, but unfortunately, Arma players won't be able to see that Aircraft do it's thing. It's basically invisible CAS to the infantry.

I do remember that, but IIRC not only could the Arma players not see the jet, the jet just saw the usual Korea map. It would only be interesting if the pilot would actually be seeing Altis and the vehicles from Arma.

[benitoll 16]

It's happening!

 

Arma 3 Roadmap 2016/2017

 

[silentghoust 132]

So hyped, my only tiny gripe is no Navy DLC. But it's a small sacrifice for getting a awesome stuff on the way.

[razor6014 35]

I must be the only one thinking air superiority jets without a system of energy states and how each aircraft approaches them is pointless.

 

Standard ACM maneuvers cannot be executed and mean anything as you cant even control airbrakes , throttle and afterburner separately. 

 

Energy fighting, Boom and Zooming, Turn fighting are mostly the same for every aircraft 

 

Acceleration is mostly the same for every aircraft.

 

I mean war thunder has theese thing more fleshed out that arma , thats kinda sad.