Jet DLC?

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Yes I have. It all feels very consistent now. CAS jets feel like CAS jets, and you're wise not to fight fighters in a CAS jet unless you have no choice but to do so.

[peegee 118]

4 hours ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

Both the To-199 and A-164 are near useless dog fighters now as they have no radar which pretty much cripples their situational awareness.  In the majority of my experiments both jets would only know an enemy fighter was approaching when missiles were launched at you.  The Buzzard now wipes the floor with both jets.

 

Heck its even at the point now where SHORAD and SPAAGs are a very real and very serious threat to the 2 CAS jets.  I freakin love it!!

I disagree, To-199 was almost most effective in dogfights for me, thanks to that super powerful main cannon, it was the best option to take down any other jet. One burst and the plane explodes before AI can even eject.

I was also able to dodge missiles from 2 DLC jets without countermeasures and successfully destroy both. with Neophron was able to pull off a "cobra manouver" enemy jets go past me, I go behind them and give one burst.

Max difficulty + max AI skill, tested against all DLC jets. Even 3 Shikras didn't win.
Surely there was tests where I got instantly hit by a missile due to bad evasive manouvers, but my tests showed that against AI, you can win with older jets. Even with Wipeout.

Now I'm pretty sure it is a deathwish to challenge the DLC jets in a Neo or Buzzard if there is a human pilot. But against AI it was almost piece of cake.

AI pilots aren't good in dogfights :/

 

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I'm not surprised. The To-199 isn't OP, but it's not as limited as other airframes like the Buzzard, or Wipeout. Its actually capable of multi role IRL too. But I will say you beating 3 Shrika is not bad. Because I was dog fighting 6 of them, and they all refused to fight me. Most dived and ran, then pulled slow 200km circles, not really being effective dog fighters, but rather slow targets for me to shoot at. Now and then I would get an occasional missile, but they really feel like the AI are avoiding a fight.

[AV8R_Six 110]

10 hours ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

 

 

Have either of you two even tried the DLC on devbranch yet?

 

Both the To-199 and A-164 are near useless dog fighters now as they have no radar which pretty much cripples their situational awareness.  In the majority of my experiments both jets would only know an enemy fighter was approaching when missiles were launched at you.  The Buzzard now wipes the floor with both jets.

 

Heck its even at the point now where SHORAD and SPAAGs are a very real and very serious threat to the 2 CAS jets.  I freakin love it!!

Still, the skill and tactics of the pilot make a big difference, even in ARMA!

[AV8R_Six 110]

2 hours ago, darksidesixofficial said:

I'm not surprised. The To-199 isn't OP, but it's not as limited as other airframes like the Buzzard, or Wipeout. Its actually capable of multi role IRL too. But I will say you beating 3 Shrika is not bad. Because I was dog fighting 6 of them, and they all refused to fight me. Most dived and ran, then pulled slow 200km circles, not really being effective dog fighters, but rather slow targets for me to shoot at. Now and then I would get an occasional missile, but they really feel like the AI are avoiding a fight.

Did you have AI settings turned up high enough?
 

[AV8R_Six 110]

10 hours ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

 

 

Have either of you two even tried the DLC on devbranch yet?

 

Both the To-199 and A-164 are near useless dog fighters now as they have no radar which pretty much cripples their situational awareness.  In the majority of my experiments both jets would only know an enemy fighter was approaching when missiles were launched at you.  The Buzzard now wipes the floor with both jets.

 

Heck its even at the point now where SHORAD and SPAAGs are a very real and very serious threat to the 2 CAS jets.  I freakin love it!!

For the Wipeout concerns....The Wipeout (Like the A-10C in real life) has minimal A/A defense capability.  IR lock only, and the 30mm Vulcan Cannon is truly made for A/G engagement.  Again, if a real-world A-10 pilot got into a mess of enemy aircraft in a dogfight, it means that everyone up and down the chain screwed up...the RADAR Guys, AWACS Crews, Fighter CAP, and the A-10's mission planners messed up.  The real threat to ground-strike aircraft is SAM/MANPAD activity!

[v8_laudi 1]

Is it possible to report actual 3D model issues? My main observation is the main landing gear is placed far too far (under the vertical stabs) This would cause issues when rotating due to CoG

 

Quick read on tricycle landing gear.

 

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/design/q0200.shtml

 

And a quick real world depiction. 

 

 

 

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

3 minutes ago, AV8R_Six said:

Did you have AI settings turned up high enough?
 

always. Though, it was only the Shrika that didn't put up that good of a fight. Maybe its something with the flight model. They seem fine till they start turn fighting, then they slow down to like 300-250 speed and it becomes awkward. But for the most part, the jet speeds are fine and feel authentic. It's the flight model that bothers me. 

 

[AV8R_Six 110]

5 minutes ago, darksidesixofficial said:

always. Though, it was only the Shrika that didn't put up that good of a fight. Maybe its something with the flight model. They seem fine till they start turn fighting, then they slow down to like 300-250 speed and it becomes awkward. But for the most part, the jet speeds are fine and feel authentic. It's the flight model that bothers me. 

 

That's why I wish ArmA was in KIAS instead of Km/H...because we have cornering speed data on the real-world aircraft available.  Another challenge is the true speeds for a Gen4 or 5 fighter would be a concern as most runways in ARMA are too short and not to scale.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

1 minute ago, AV8R_Six said:

That's why I wish ArmA was in KIAS instead of Km/H...because we have cornering speed data on the real-world aircraft available.  Another challenge is the true speeds for a Gen4 or 5 fighter would be a concern as most runways in ARMA are too short and not to scale.

Not too short for these 5th gen, as they both, or rather, all 3 aircraft should respectively have STOL capability. The Gripen does IRL, takes off like a feather, the other two, have Thrust Vectoring, which would also allow for quick take offs.

[AV8R_Six 110]

4 minutes ago, darksidesixofficial said:

Not too short for these 5th gen, as they both, or rather, all 3 aircraft should respectively have STOL capability. The Gripen does IRL, takes off like a feather, the other two, have Thrust Vectoring, which would also allow for quick take offs.

The forward canard on the Gryphon helps!

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I have to admit, i didn't think they were going to go that much in detail with the jets, but when i as able to take off the Grypon from a side road like they do in training, it blew my mind.

[AV8R_Six 110]

For STOL/VTOL concerns, remember, even the AV-8B is not designed to take off vertically, especially with a full load of fuel and ordinance.  The function is to takeoff assist roll from LHD type carriers or short runways, burn fuel, drop bombs, and be light for the STOL/VTOL option at base.  Most of the pirouette demonstrations you saw with this bird was airshow-manship!

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

True. On a side note, anyone know the script to make the Gryphon paint AAF Low Visibility grey? 

[snoops_213 75]

My first a2a with blackwasp vs Shrika, well shrika turned tail flew to 15500m then both of us lost flight control. We both fell then regained control about 15000m after that i had him because AI is shit lol. My problem atm seem to be the A2A missiles dont like to lock on even with a solid radar lock. I love the planes speeds though this dogfight left me 30km+ away from where this initial contact was made, didnt even notice :) 

[peegee 118]

4 hours ago, darksidesixofficial said:

and they all refused to fight me. Most dived and ran, then pulled slow 200km circles, not really being effective dog fighters, but rather slow targets for me to shoot at. Now and then I would get an occasional missile, but they really feel like the AI are avoiding a fight.

Found this behaviour in all jets, but Shikra seems to be the most easy target. 

I wish the jet AI would be bit more aggressive.

E:
" it was only the Shrika that didn't put up that good of a fight. Maybe its something with the flight model. They seem fine till they start turn fighting, then they slow down to like 300-250 speed and it becomes awkward. "

This is exactly what happened in most cases.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

1 hour ago, darksidesixofficial said:

True. On a side note, anyone know the script to make the Gryphon paint AAF Low Visibility grey? 

[this, ["CamoGrey",1]] call BIS_fnc_initVehicle;

"DigitalCamoGrey" is the name of the other grey one in case someone wants that as well

[Strike_NOR 898]

2 hours ago, v8_laudi said:

Is it possible to report actual 3D model issues? My main observation is the main landing gear is placed far too far (under the vertical stabs) This would cause issues when rotating due to CoG

 

Hello Laudi. I am speaking from an Aircraft Technician/Mechanic perspective (not engineer), but I'd like to make an attempt at fleshing out your point a little more regarding the COG/landing gear on the F/A-181 Black Wasp II

 

2 hours ago, v8_laudi said:

gear is placed far too far (under the vertical stabs)

 

I think you mean the gear is placed too far aft on the fuselage. The relation of main landing gear to rudder/vertical stabilizers really have no practical disadvantage other than during high ground speeds in the yaw axis.

 

2 hours ago, v8_laudi said:

This would cause issues when rotating due to CoG

 

This is absolutely true, but following up on the previous comment, it is the aircraft's Elevator control surfaces or Horizontal stabilizers that are responsible for the rotation. 

Ideally the aircraft's CG should be a little forward of the main landing gear. This is because it reduces load on the nose landing gear, which means that the nose landing gear can be made smaller and save weight/space. It also prevents the aircraft from tipping backwards on the ground, which would be very unsafe and expensive.

 

As for aerodynamic purposes, having the main landing gear so close to the elevators, means that the downward momentum is going to have to be very high in order to lift the nose up. Essentially, what happens during a takeoff rotation, is that the fuselage weight AFT of the main landing gear combined with the downward force of the elevators have to overcome the weight of the fuselage FORWARD of the main landing gear.

 

The images you provided are very good! Although, I do not believe the relation between main gear and vertical stabs matter, they do reveal that on the two inspirational aircraft which the F/A-181 is derived from, it does show a discrepancy.

Using just my eyeball and a makeshift ruler I have tried to estimate the Main Landing Gear's position on all three aircraft as a % from the nose.

 

The F-18 and F-22 seem to have the MLG placed about 60% of the way from the aircraft's nose.

The F/A-181 seems to have the MLG placed about 75% of the way. 

 

This is a noticeable difference, but it really depends on where the Aircraft's CG is, but as airspeed increases, also where the aircrafts center of lift (CoL) is. On both the F-22 and F-18 the MLG are placed close to the wings, and presumably also CoL. On these jets, CoL will have minimal impact on the pitch axis with varying speeds. However, on the F/A-181 most of the wing surface appears to be in front of the MLG. Therefore one may assume that as the lift force increases with airspeed, CoL will be ahead of the MLG and create some pitch-up force. This will relieve the elevators.

For carrier takeoffs it is a different story, because the rotation doesn't really occur until the nosewheel has disconnected from the catapult at the very end of the run. It also brings the jet into high speed, and more control surface authority way sooner than during conventional takeoffs. 

 

Either way it is impossible to make any 100% educated claims because the F/A-181 is 100% fictional. We do not know where CoG is, or CoL for that matter. My take on this is that when they designed the jet, they wanted those internal weapon bays and had to move the gear further aft. I would therefore not be in the position to claim that there is something wrong with the 3D model, since it's fictional and a design choice. It may look off, because we compare it to real jets, but to re-model the fictional jet, in a futuristic mil-sim is a little much to ask IMHO. It would require them to re-do internal weapon bays, textures, animations and the whole lot.

 

Just to throw in some extras. Compare the F-16 with a rather narrow NLG to MLG, and the F-35 with a wider config, more closely resembling the F/A-181:

F-16

Spoiler

 

F-35A

Spoiler

 

Feel free to add/correct anything that seems fit :)

 

 

[AV8R_Six 110]

Strike, I think the gear is that far back so the internal bays can accommodate the really big, big bombs!  SuperSize ME!

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Flaps need to not twitch when starting the engine. Currently all the jets have the issue.

Also, Gryphon's front leading edge Flaps wont animate even when full down.

[dragon01 902]

3 hours ago, AV8R_Six said:

Strike, I think the gear is that far back so the internal bays can accommodate the really big, big bombs!  SuperSize ME!

Actually, the gear placement is less of an issue than weapon placement. Generally, when designing fighter planes you want to avoid COM movement due to aircraft's loadout. Forwards is bad because it makes the aircraft more aerodynamically stable and less maneuverable. Backwards is worse, because it can make the aircraft so unstable that upon getting up to speed, it'll do a backflip and crash, or at the very best will require huge amounts of elevator trim to even fly straight. This means that any heavy stuff that gets used up (fuel, ammunition and especially external stores weapons) needs to be in the middle of the plane. As wings are generally placed at or near the COM, that means all this can only be on, in and between the wings, because it's the only place where they won't cause control issues (raked pylons are used for the same reason, as well. On an aircraft with highly swept wings they allow the weapons to be closer to the COM).

 

Compared to this, landing gear is almost a secondary concern. It's better if it's placed only slightly behind the COM, but it stays with the plane all the time, so placing it back does not affect the overall flight characteristics of the plane. It causes greater stress on both nose and main gear, increases rotation speed and takeoff distance... none of which matter very much for an aircraft designed to operate from a carrier. Takeoffs are not an issue thanks to catapults and the gear is going to be reinforced to handle the stress from the carrier landing anyway, any stress experienced on a normal takeoff from land is peanuts compared to that.

[Strike_NOR 898]

So I have been playing around with the Jets DLC, and I noticed one major feature is missing. It is both extremely helpful to players and also very immersive. It screams "jets DLC" more than the Topgun soundtrack.

 

It's a cockpit voice annunciator a.k.a "Bitchin' Betty". It plays a key role in alerting the pilot to danger or abnormal circumstances.

 

I noticed when playing that even with the damage indicators in the cockpit and game GUI HUD, you have to constantly check these to be aware of any changes (damage). All advanced aircraft, such as airliners or military aircraft have a built-in warning system. It simply tells the pilots to shift their focus for a second to see what's going on.

 

Now I know I've already begged you BI for Ejection seats, and my prayers were actually heard :D Thank you for that, but I think this would be the icing on the cake with minimal effort to implement!

 

So here is my proposal:

 

Add some sounds or female voice for the following events:

 

• Any "yellow damage state" followed by a "Caution! Caution!" or chime
• Any "red damage state" followed by a "Warning! Warning!" or chime
• A warning for low fuel
• A warning for low chaff/flare
• A stall warning/beep (when the speed indicator numbers usually shift to red text, this is hard to pick up in ArmA).

 

I think terrain collision/altitude warnings are going to be too frequent in ArmA seeing that most flying happens way lower than in real life.

 

 

Here are some warnings/cautions from F-16 for example:

 

 

[five_seven5-7 56]

In the Black wasp can't see any reflections from the canopy, looks like a convertible car

[R3vo 2654]

22 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

So I have been playing around with the Jets DLC, and I noticed one major feature is missing. It is both extremely helpful to players and also very immersive. It screams "jets DLC" more than the Topgun soundtrack.

 

It's a cockpit voice annunciator a.k.a "Bitchin' Betty". It plays a key role in alerting the pilot to danger or abnormal circumstances.

 

I noticed when playing that even with the damage indicators in the cockpit and game GUI HUD, you have to constantly check these to be aware of any changes (damage). All advanced aircraft, such as airliners or military aircraft have a built-in warning system. It simply tells the pilots to shift their focus for a second to see what's going on.

 

Now I know I've already begged you BI for Ejection seats, and my prayers were actually heard :D Thank you for that, but I think this would be the icing on the cake with minimal effort to implement!

 

So here is my proposal:

 

Add some sounds or female voice for the following events:

 

• Any "yellow damage state" followed by a "Caution! Caution!" or chime
• Any "red damage state" followed by a "Warning! Warning!" or chime
• A warning for low fuel
• A warning for low chaff/flare
• A stall warning/beep (when the speed indicator numbers usually shift to red text, this is hard to pick up in ArmA).

 

I think terrain collision/altitude warnings are going to be too frequent in ArmA seeing that most flying happens way lower than in real life.

 

 

Here are some warnings/cautions from F-16 for example:

 

 

 

Would love that. Need to search for that voice informer mod again.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

2 hours ago, five_seven5-7 said:

In the Black wasp can't see any reflections from the canopy, looks like a convertible car

Idk about that. During certain times of day I noticed highly detailed scratches, and some glare. I think it's fitting for a stealth plane designed to give pilot max visibility.