Jet DLC?

[dragon01 902]

Well, the "USS Freedom" writing on the side of the NATO DLC planes clearly implies they do not operate from land. :) IMO, an "official" carrier is highly likely, one way or another. 

[eggbeast 3673]

stand by for six to eight more pages of wild and hopeful speculation...

[GBee2 68]

I've no issue with speculation, but I've already seen people citing the 'fact' that the DLC will have a carrier in other places (steam forum etc) which is only going to result in a whole lot of anger and bitterness if it proves not to be the case.

 

There's a big difference between getting a carrier via DLC and getting it by mod, as the former means the engine changes necessary to make sure it actually works will be included. e.g. Current carriers are complete death traps for infantry, are not really vehicles at all, don't 'float' on the water to name just some of the limitations. A carrier in the DLC would, I expect, work much better than any mod ever has.

Edited to add - Of course engine improvements for large water vehicles would be welcome in the modding community too.

[dragon01 902]

Actually, BIS already implemented some carrier-focused fixes into the engine. So even if we do get it as a mod, they've already done a few improvements that'll go a long way towards making the mod work better.

 

I wouldn't expect the carrier to be an actual vehicle, though, mod or not. You'll be lucky if it ends up having working armament. Even the ArmA2 LHD or the other ships didn't have that, they were purely static objects and I expect the new carrier to be the same. 

[ravendk 25]

Did anyone consider that the carrier animations might be for a cutscene ~ something that from an angle looks like that it takes place on a carrier but really isnt?   ... just wondering

[Zygzak191 52]

Everything is possible and we're only speculating. It would be horrible PR though.

 

On different topic, do you think Shikra is carrier capable? Blue camo looked like navy one to me, but I haven't spotted anything that would confirm it, for example tailhook.

[dragon01 902]

1 hour ago, ravendk said:

Did anyone consider that the carrier animations might be for a cutscene ~ something that from an angle looks like that it takes place on a carrier but really isnt?   ... just wondering

That would be too much work, for an in-engine cutscene you'd effectively have to make a carrier anyway, or at least the external model. Unless the cutscene was very short and limited in camera angles, you'd have to make so much of the ship that it would be pointless not to model all of it. On the other hand, if they were making a shortie, sinking this kind of work into it would be pointless as well.

 

However, I'd expect the ship to have at least the level of functionality of the ArmA2 LHD... which really isn't much at all. We'll be lucky if it ends up having any kind of interior. 

[HBAOplus 12]

Will eject seat and afterburner feature be introduced in the Jet DLC?

Edited April 5, 2017 by HBAOplus
typo

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

7 hours ago, HBAOplus said:

Will eject seat and afterburner feature be introduced in the Jet DLC?

It'd be a shame if advanced fighter jets didn't have afterburner. BI mentioned fuel drop tanks, so my theory thus far is that they will add in the After Burner like Bravo 01 studios have In their F/A-18 Black Wasp mod. You use after burners but it eats up fuel, realistically. Meaning that if you plan on flying around like a maniac, you will need fuel tanks, otherwise your smart to fly normally without burning so much fuel.

[chortles 263]

Mentioned potential support for external fuel and potentially EW equipment in the dynamic loadout system but none of them mentioned outside of that context... so no promise of afterburner.

[AV8R_Six 110]

56 minutes ago, darksidesixofficial said:

It'd be a shame if advanced fighter jets didn't have afterburner. BI mentioned fuel drop tanks, so my theory thus far is that they will add in the After Burner like Bravo 01 studios have In their F/A-18 Black Wasp mod. You use after burners but it eats up fuel, realistically. Meaning that if you plan on flying around like a maniac, you will need fuel tanks, otherwise your smart to fly normally without burning so much fuel.

The military doesn't call them drop tanks, they are "External Fuel Tanks" and they can be "Dropped" but only in an emergency.  It's not standard procedure any longer to drop tanks just because they are empty as you saw in P-51s in WWII.  All military fighters today have calculated G-loading in their 1 or 2 bag configurations.  Take an F-15C for example, the Eagle would never carry 3 external fuel tanks if it expected to be in a Guns 1v1 dogfight as it would be piss-poor planning on the mission planners and pilot.  In fact, go to war and drop your external tanks all the time and you will soon run out of them and limit your range from base for all your future missions.  Besides, most engagements will be BVR with Missiles and Guns will be a last resort when things go bad.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

1 hour ago, AV8R_Six said:

The military doesn't call them drop tanks, they are "External Fuel Tanks" and they can be "Dropped" but only in an emergency.  It's not standard procedure any longer to drop tanks just because they are empty as you saw in P-51s in WWII.  All military fighters today have calculated G-loading in their 1 or 2 bag configurations.  Take an F-15C for example, the Eagle would never carry 3 external fuel tanks if it expected to be in a Guns 1v1 dogfight as it would be piss-poor planning on the mission planners and pilot.  In fact, go to war and drop your external tanks all the time and you will soon run out of them and limit your range from base for all your future missions.  Besides, most engagements will be BVR with Missiles and Guns will be a last resort when things go bad.

Sure. But this just means that given the plan to have external fuel tanks (excuse my noob name for them, it' been far too long since i left the flight sim community, just starting to fanboy a little, HAH), it'll still play a major role in Arma in terms of fighting. Lets not forget the legand of the Legacy F-18 Hornets that won a dogfight without dropping BOTH of their external fuel tanks. They thought about it, but seeing as the plane was new, decided to test out how reliable their aircraft was. Ended up winning, with all munitions still on board, and continued with their strike package. But in terms of Arma, it would mean that if you want to win in Air superiority situations, having at least one fuel tank will ensure a more lengthy amount of After Burning, which can translate to a mission success. 

[AV8R_Six 110]

My experience is with the F-15C and the F-16C and in both cases, external fuel is consumed first and the empty tanks cause a nominal amount of drag and almost no G-Loading concerns when empty.  The hardpoints are engineered in the right way to take the load in the 9-G environment of the Viper and in the 6-7 G range of the Eagle...and for DCS is makes a little difference in game, but in ArmA there's no physics affect at all with weight and G-Load.  With DCS 2.0 Nevada and with the upcoming F/A-18C module and Straights of Hormuz map, I find it hard to get jazzed about Jets in any other game.

[the_demongod 31]

I used to love DCS but after playing BMS I find it really hard to be excited about new DCS modules. It's a shame because they're all gorgeous but there's just nothing to do with them like you can in BMS.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

1 hour ago, the_demongod said:

I used to love DCS but after playing BMS I find it really hard to be excited about new DCS modules. It's a shame because they're all gorgeous but there's just nothing to do with them like you can in BMS.

 

idk about that. All of the modules in DCS are designed with realism in mind. If it doesn't exist IRL, it wont exist in the module. Thus each and every aircraft is authentic to their real life counterparts, manual and all. I havn't gotten an DCS modules, but i'm patiently waiting for the Legacy F-18 Hornet, as it's the only aircraft id drop 60$ on to learn everything about flying that particular legend. But anyhow, that's a conversation for another sim.

[the_demongod 31]

idk about that. All of the modules in DCS are designed with realism in mind. If it doesn't exist IRL, it wont exist in the module. Thus each and every aircraft is authentic to their real life counterparts, manual and all. But anyhow, that's a conversation for another sim.

Oh I'm aware of that, I have played way more DCS than I have BMS but BMS's dynamic campaign just makes the whole sim feel alive and is something that DCS sorely lacks.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[AV8R_Six 110]

You have to try  DCS again, as of lately (within the past year) it has improved greatly.  There's a new engine for 2.0 (EDGE)...and I would check out 2.0 Nevada...I think the Hornet, new map that comes with it and the Carrier action will be worth it...and I'll surely prebuy to get the discount or use my bonus bucks on ED site.  But still play ARMA too!  Don't forget ARMA.  The DLC bundle for $25 is a steal!

 

[AV8R_Six 110]

You think ArmA will ever have a jet that flies like a real airplane?

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

3 minutes ago, AV8R_Six said:

You think ArmA will ever have a jet that flies like a real airplane?

Arma 4 probably, but lets not get too ahead of ourselves. Legend have it BI planned to have JBSim flight physics, which isn't a bad idea, they would just need to tweak the flight model based on the size of the map, however, they eventually, as we all know, ended up not having enough time to even add other components, or campaigns until later than official release date. Sigh, but also they planned on updating the flight model with Jet DLC but ultimately chose Dynamic Loadouts were more favorable. Im still torn by this decision, but i can't complain here either. I've super excited for Dynamic loadouts, which will bring so much more to the game than a flight model overhaul. I'm quite content on waiting till a 4th title for a new flight model just knowing we can now have versatile loadouts for various situations.

[chortles 263]

14 minutes ago, darksidesixofficial said:

Sigh, but also they planned on updating the flight model with Jet DLC but ultimately chose Dynamic Loadouts were more favorable. Im still torn by this decision, but i can't complain here either. I've super excited for Dynamic loadouts, which will bring so much more to the game than a flight model overhaul.

*ahem* a bunch of stuff besides dynamic loadouts was chosen over a different FM...

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

1 minute ago, chortles said:

*ahem* a bunch of stuff besides dynamic loadouts was chosen over a different FM...

This is true. I think Dynamic Loadouts was one of the big ones though. In terms of most popular among things people wanted for the DLC.

[veles-zv 176]

25 minutes ago, darksidesixofficial said:

Arma 4 probably, but lets not get too ahead of ourselves. Legend have it BI planned to have JBSim flight physics, which isn't a bad idea, they would just need to tweak the flight model based on the size of the map, however, they eventually, as we all know, ended up not having enough time to even add other components, or campaigns until later than official release date. Sigh, but also they planned on updating the flight model with Jet DLC but ultimately chose Dynamic Loadouts were more favorable. Im still torn by this decision, but i can't complain here either. I've super excited for Dynamic loadouts, which will bring so much more to the game than a flight model overhaul. I'm quite content on waiting till a 4th title for a new flight model just knowing we can now have versatile loadouts for various situations.

haven't they already made improvements with the plane flight model? it feels alot less stiff and you can bank with your plane now. 

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

1 minute ago, veles-zv said:

haven't they already made improvements with the plane flight model? it feels alot less stiff and you can bank with your plane now. 

I  believe so. Not entirely sure they made the proper tweaks based on progress from the Apex Fixed Wing standard. I'm waiting on that before i comment further on the flight model, but the thing i hate about it is how drifty it is. The Apex flight models feel better (at least the Blackfish and BTT Ceaser), the rudder and pulling G's feels more like there's air resistance and opposite reaction. But im not sure if they fixed things like turning and the nose pointing up because auto rudder is disabled, though i noticed Apex planes dont suffer this issue as much as Vanilla.

[Strike_NOR 898]

First of all. To me, ArmA 3 was always a realistic Infantry simulator, with bonus elements of tanks and aircraft. Since release, bohemia have added Marksmen with in-engine weapon resting. They have added FFV, to allow us in-engine support for firing from vehicles. Helicopters provided us with a realistic flight model (though I assume they already did most of the work for that with Take On Helicopters).

 

Most of the improvements have greatly polished the infantry combat experience, but for all I can see Bohemia is really ramping up the game on the previously mentioned "bonus elements"; namely aircraft and tanks.

 

In my opinion, they are doing the right thing by implementing new mechanics with the sensors upgrade and dynamic vehicle loadouts. These features will drastically improve vehicle warfare, which will also bring the entire platform to a new level.

 

However, one has to make some sacrifices along the way.

 

An advanced flight model, would do amazing things for fixed wing enthusiasts, like myself, but bring very little to other areas of the game. Unlike sensors and dynamic loadouts, the advanced FM would only matter to the fixed wing pilots. While I would give an arm for an advanced FM, I recognize that BI would have to create one from scratch. I believe the current flight model may be created in such a way that it is hard to simply "add code" in order to bring it to a new level. It may very well require a complete rewrite of the aircraft physics, which affect all current vanilla and mod planes.

 

If they decide to revise the current FM in the future, that would be very welcome as far as I'm concerned, but at the same time I can easily live with the current FM after the other features from Jets are finished.

 

If I would have to pick three things that I would like to see for the future of fixed wing aircraft it would be the following:

 

1. Aircraft weight changes with fuel and payload affect handling
2. Better low-speed aerodynamic simulation
3. Weather effects

 

Regarding my first wish, I feel that aircraft in ArmA do not have intertia. When turning, aircraft feels like it's "on rails". In real life, there is a substantial amount of inertia that causes the plane to appear to "drift" or "sink" into steep maneuvers. It is at this point that so-called "angle of attack" occurs, where the aircraft nose is offset in relation to the incoming airflow. Everyone has probably seen a jet taking off and know that when the aircraft pitches up on the runway, it keeps following the ground for a while before lifting into the air - that's the inertia I am talking about. I'd like to see that in ArmA, and I'd like to see aircraft configuration affect that. A jet with only A-A missiles and internal fuel should be significantly more agile than a jet with bombs and external fuel tanks. There is always a trade-off, though. The light jet has no A-G capabilities and can fly for a shorter duration, while the heavy jet can stay in the AO much longer. This would absolutely force players or mission makers to plan according to their objective, and defeats the "Jack of all trades" style that ArmA has now. As an example of personal experience, Viper pilots have told me that flying with internal fuel and A-A Missiles is like driving a sportscar, in contrast to bombs and external fuel which makes it comparable to driving a fully loaded dump-truck. 

 

In terms of the second point, it collaborates with the first. At slower speeds, aircraft often become more sensitive to inputs, and increasingly dangerous to fly. In ARMA, planes seem to just become unresponsive and fall straight down with the same attitude when entering "stall speed". In real life, this resembles aircraft with a computer-assisted flight control system. However, aircraft experience various phenomena when flying marginally close to the limits of the envelope. Sometimes aircraft experience "buffeting" where turbulent flow makes the aircraft shake. Often an aircraft will stall on one wing before the other, causing inadvertent roll. In a turn, usually this happens to the lower wing first, causing the plane to roll upside down. These effects would be nice to see in ArmA. 

 

Finally, It would be amazing to see wind effect aircraft. This would force players to take off in headwind, compensate for crosswind and also give extra challenges during attack maneuvers and landing. We already have a good HUD with flight path markers to aid us, so it should be very easy to get a hang of it. I'd love to see turbulence effects during bad weather and having to land a damaged jet in poor conditions. It would really bring some extra level of immersion to the game!

 

 

Anyways, whatever the future may hold, the current implementations on dev-branch are nothing short of mind-blowing in terms of what I was expecting to see in ArmA 3's lifespan.

[AV8R_Six 110]

@Strike...awesome breakdown and explanation; I totally agree!  I think you helped me realize that my view of ArmA has always been from MILSIM and Teamwork position.

 

I joined the ArmA community with Combined Operations and immediately fell in love with the complexity of spawning in, going to the ammo crate and loading your gear.  I told my old Battlefield and Call of Duty friends that in ArmA, you have to pack everything but your lunch.  Then came Wasteland, and they added lunch! ;^)  And within months, say probably 1.5 to 2 months, I never went back to regular FPS arcade style video games.

 

Fairly soon after that, I joined a MILSIM unit that was up there on par with units like ShackTac at the time, and I started off as a grunt but I immediately placed my application for the Flying Element.  I was recruited in this unit by the Flight Company leader for my flying skills and passion for aviation in MILSIM environments.  Within a few months, I was  WO1 ferrying grunts to the fight.  Soon I moved up to CAS Rotary and provided standoff support with full JTAC communication and the discipline called for to be a CAS pilot.  And before too long, I was a CW4 with primary leadership of the Fixed-Wing CAS/CAP mission flying off the boat (Nimitz) in F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, punching holes in the sky some nights for 2 hours at a time.

 

My point for all is, JETS in ArmA can be whatever you want it to be for you!  For me, it's about full-spectrum combined arms mil-sim in a teamwork environment where everyone exercises discipline and comrade`re toward a common objective or goal.  When I play CO-OP against AI, PvP with group members, or Showcase or Singleplayer Missions, it's all the same for me...excellence!

 

I don't know if ArmA will ever be a real flight simulator...but if you take SIMs like Falcon BMS and DCS World, you'll see what some are accomplishing in the realm of realistic flight models...but all those Simulations are lacking in the major attraction of ArmA...total warfare combined arms sandbox sim with endless possibilities for the future of MILSIM gaming.

 

Cheers,

AV8R SIX