United States Air Force( 2015)

[Bamse 223]

There is for the A10 atleast;

A10C_dynamic_loadoutscript = [_A10C,_station_1,_station_2,_station_3,_station_4,_station_5,_station_6,_station_7,_station_8,_station_9,_station_10,_station_11,_station_12,_station_13,_station_14,_station_15,_station_16,_station_17,_station_18,_station_19,_station_20,_station_21,_station_22,_station_23,_station_24,_station_25,_station_26,_station_27,_station_28,_station_29,_station_30,_station_31,_station_32,_station_33,_station_34,_station_35,_station_36,_station_37,_station_38,_station_39] execvm "\USAF_A10\scr\LOADOUTS\A10C_dynamic_loadouts.sqf";

So, for instance if I do it in the editor for quick'n'dirty SP use and want the loadout to be like this if you look at the A10 from the front, starting from the left:

Mk82, Mk82, AN/AAQ-28, Mk84, GBU-12, GBU-31, GBU-12, Mk84, Mk82 x3, Mk82, AN/ALQ-131

A10C_dynamic_loadoutscript = [this,"USAF_1Rnd_ANALQ131","USAF_1Rnd_MK82","USAF_1Rnd_MK82RACK","USAF_1Rnd_MK84","USAF_1Rnd_GBU12","USAF_1Rnd_GBU31","USAF_1Rnd_GBU12","USAF_1Rnd_MK84","USAF_1Rnd_ANAAQ28","USAF_1Rnd_MK82","USAF_1Rnd_MK82","USAF_1Rnd_MK82","USAF_1Rnd_MK82","USAF_1Rnd_MK82","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty"] execvm "\USAF_A10\scr\loadouts\A10C_dynamic_loadouts.sqf";

There's quite a bit of a detective work to be done to find out what station goes where. But it's quite satisfying ending up with a good result so pilots don't have to do anything before take-off (or just restricting munitions that the mission maker deems unsuitable etc).

This is a undocumented feature afaik that I found when trying to do a temporary config patch for the cockpit sound bug in the A10 so use at your own risk. I haven't got a single error as long as I do it properly either on SP, local mp or dedicated MP but do not bug the mod dev team if it doesn't work :)

[gza036 7]

There is for the A10 atleast;

A10C_dynamic_loadoutscript = [_A10C,_station_1,_station_2,_station_3,_station_4,_station_5,_station_6,_station_7,_station_8,_station_9,_station_10,_station_11,_station_12,_station_13,_station_14,_station_15,_station_16,_station_17,_station_18,_station_19,_station_20,_station_21,_station_22,_station_23,_station_24,_station_25,_station_26,_station_27,_station_28,_station_29,_station_30,_station_31,_station_32,_station_33,_station_34,_station_35,_station_36,_station_37,_station_38,_station_39] execvm "\USAF_A10\scr\LOADOUTS\A10C_dynamic_loadouts.sqf";

So, for instance if I do it in the editor for quick'n'dirty SP use and want the loadout to be like this if you look at the A10 from the front, starting from the left:

Mk82, Mk82, AN/AAQ-28, Mk84, GBU-12, GBU-31, GBU-12, Mk84, Mk82 x3, Mk82, AN/ALQ-131

A10C_dynamic_loadoutscript = [this,"USAF_1Rnd_ANALQ131","USAF_1Rnd_MK82","USAF_1Rnd_MK82RACK","USAF_1Rnd_MK84","USAF_1Rnd_GBU12","USAF_1Rnd_GBU31","USAF_1Rnd_GBU12","USAF_1Rnd_MK84","USAF_1Rnd_ANAAQ28","USAF_1Rnd_MK82","USAF_1Rnd_MK82","USAF_1Rnd_MK82","USAF_1Rnd_MK82","USAF_1Rnd_MK82","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty","USAF_empty"] execvm "\USAF_A10\scr\loadouts\A10C_dynamic_loadouts.sqf";

There's quite a bit of a detective work to be done to find out what station goes where. But it's quite satisfying ending up with a good result so pilots don't have to do anything before take-off (or just restricting munitions that the mission maker deems unsuitable etc).

This is a undocumented feature afaik that I found when trying to do a temporary config patch for the cockpit sound bug in the A10 so use at your own risk. I haven't got a single error as long as I do it properly either on SP, local mp or dedicated MP but do not bug the mod dev team if it doesn't work :)

Well, that's one plane... Not releasing a comprehensive list of all the weapon names etc really limits an addon's usefulness for making missions unfortunately.

[Bamse 223]

Weapon names are all there, just start the editor and go into the config editor and check all stuff under CfgAmmo that starts with USAF.

I get what you are saying when it comes to documentation but my assumption is that if the functionality would indeed meet the mod makers aimed quality goal it would 1. announced  2. documented. Since it's not it is probably not done.

Mod making is done on ppls spare time so I'm grateful for every byte that gets released, and sometimes one doesn't get everything served on a silver platter so roll up your sleeves and start digging :)

[gza036 7]

Weapon names are all there, just start the editor and go into the config editor and check all stuff under CfgAmmo that starts with USAF.

I get what you are saying when it comes to documentation but my assumption is that if the functionality would indeed meet the mod makers aimed quality goal it would 1. announced  2. documented. Since it's not it is probably not done.

Mod making is done on ppls spare time so I'm grateful for every byte that gets released, and sometimes one doesn't get everything served on a silver platter so roll up your sleeves and start digging :)

Right, don't get me wrong, I'm very grateful. I mean, there's a fully functional AC-130, it's incredible.

On the other hand, the only f-16 you can spawn has a SEAD loadout, and the only thing preventing that is a .txt file explaining how. lol Maybe it's in the works.

[robowilso 40]

I don't understand the importance of having a preset loadout script. The only entity that knows the entire intel of the mission is the actual designer himself. Players have to recon and observe the mission objective areas to know what types of munitions will be required/needed. 

[shomu1 193]

Armed CV-22 (CV-22 IDWS) service menu doesn't work.  Error message is in the picture in spoiler tags.  I looked in the PBO and the required scripts do appear to be in the proper folder.

 

Regular CV-22 works just fine.

 

 

[Taterbug90 0]

Is it possible for you to make it so I can access the supply menu to the aircraft I spawn in Zeus?

 

Other than that, great mod. Can't wait to see what else you add. :)

[gza036 7]

I don't understand the importance of having a preset loadout script. The only entity that knows the entire intel of the mission is the actual designer himself. Players have to recon and observe the mission objective areas to know what types of munitions will be required/needed. 

Right, but players need missions, and missions need mission designers with scripts. How else are you supposed to control what loadout AI planes have....................?

Not to mention you're completely eliminating the ability to start missions in-flight. Sometimes this is needed.

Kind of a big detail.

[SGT Fuller 856]

Ok I think it's safe enough to come back after a much needed break. If you sent me PMs I will get to you just getting my life affairs in order. It's really just myself working on this so I got a bit overwhelmed and lost interest all at the same time, but I'm back and will finish my update. It is about 90% complete just some small cosmetics that need to be done and it will be ready for release. A lot has been done to this mod that I haven't reported so I will try to get you a change log soon. One I know that ppl have been messaging about is the interior sounds for the A10 and F22. It has been fixed I repeat it has been fixed!! Please give me just a lil bit more time as I said it's really just myself and Peral when he's not busy and he is super busy. Lala and arindfle are on scripts that's it... I'll get help from other talented hands if I need it but I'm pretty satisfied with the outcome. If you have made a request it most likely will not be in this update as I have delayed it long enough.

In regards to the F35B and C there are 98%. Literally it's just service menu pictures that need to be Finished and it's ready to go.

Looking at a time line as follows:

USAF mode update: mid- late February

F35B/C: mid February

Future of this mod: unless I can form a team that plans on sticking with me the updates to this mod as far as feature request will be minimal at best. I want to say this first..No I will not be giving out the models or mlods or anything so don't waste your time asking or anything. It is my absolute and final answer regarding that.

Stay tuned

[wansec_6 196]

Good to see you back Fuller. Looking forward to the next update.

[ice_age0815 37]

nice still play a lot with is mod if i have time to play arma cant wait to see what you guy updated 

[shomu1 193]

I'm just looking forward to seeing the CV-22 get its IDWS textured.

[breech99 47]

Keep up the good work. It's not easy putting together such a huge project like the USAF. Let alone just doing a few models. Takes a lot more time than most think. Check out for example GameDev Byrne's videos on model making. Shows how much goes into just one model for physics, shadows, movement, weapons, configs, etc.

[Bamse 223]

Hey again!

 

It's not that uncommon when dropping for instance a GBU-12, AGM65 or even a Mk84 on an armored target (no matter if it's a vanilla T100 or a CUP T72, BMP2 or BTR-70) that the tank gets disabled, the crew run out and that either it takes anything between 10 seconds to a few minutes for the tank to explode. It almost seems like even tho getting by visual means a very direct hit through lasing, it still doesn't count as a direct hit and indirectHit-damage comes into the equation. Please note that this is not unique to USAF-mod in anyway.

 

If it's of any use and you think it's worth while; upping the indirectHit quite a bit and the indirectHitRange slightly will change this behavior and destroy the target on impact.

I've tested these values for good repeatable results, but it could probably be tweaked down a bit:

	class USAF_AGM65E_AG: USAF_MissileBase_AGM
	{
		indirectHit = 1500;
		indirectHitRange = 13;
	};

I'm not looking for any replies or anything. Just a shot in the dark-kinda suggestion/hint/tip :)

[hcpookie 3770]

Its been that way since OFP in 2001.  Indirect hit (some call it "splash damage") always causes the tanks to cook-off in that way.  It is germane to the weapons.  The AGM65 for example is a precision weapon and doesn't have enough explosive to cause that amount of indirect damage (1500) in a 13m range.  It would kill/disable the tank, but the damage effects in the sim is pretty binary - either "destroyed" or "not destroyed".  Thus you get some of the disabled/crew runaway scenarios, which is completely realistic.  Unless you destroy the magazine, the tank wouldn't explode in a catastrophic failure.  If for example you hit anything else in the big metal machine, it would start to burn and cook off the rounds as they got hot enough, and maybe not even explode, rather just burn.  It would be cool if the "killed" scripts had more effects when an ammo-laden tank was destroyed this way.  You can see vids of this everywhere to know what I mean... the small popcorn "pops" of the MG ammo cooking off, sizzles, etc.  The secondary explosion effects are pretty basic, just a grenade-like "pop" at random.

 

If you want bigger 'splosions use GBU's or similar.  IMO making changes to indirect hit values like this would make the sim into HAWX!  LOL

[Bamse 223]

Thanks for the explanation! Great to shed some light on this since my stuff was only assumption based.

 

This behavior does however happen with GBU12, Mk82 and Mk84 (with guidance activated just to get it as precisely on targets as GBU's for testing purposes), GBU31 (hit =""; ranging from 2000 up to 8000) etc. and even when hitting dead bang on top of the turret. So the type and size of munition in my tests doesn't seem to have an impact :)

But I do however agree on the hit-values, but as hinted this was more an example than an actual value to be used. I'm sure they are tweakable, and I'm happy to test it out further if there's an interest from Sgt. Fuller and lala14.

 

Anywho, I'm open for PMs for further discussion so I don't dilute this thread anymore :)

[Bamse 223]

Thanks for the explanation! Great to shed some light on this since my stuff was only assumption based.

 

This behavior does however happen with GBU12, a few other GBU's (cant remember which, sry) and so on, and even when hitting dead bang on top of the turret. So the type and size of munition in my tests doesn't seem to have much of an impact :)

But I do however agree on the hit-values, but as hinted this was more an example than an actual value to be used. I'm sure they are tweakable, and I'm happy to test it out further if there's an interest from Sgt. Fuller and lala14.

 

Anywho, I'm open for PMs for further discussion so I don't dilute this thread anymore :)

[kecharles28 197]

New mod v1.0 available at withSIX. Download now by clicking:

Hey lala14 , you can upload updates or new mods to withSIX yourself now!

Make your own promo page, get the power to release your work at your own point of choosing.

To learn more, follow this guide.

[kecharles28 197]

New mod v1.0 available at withSIX. Download now by clicking:

Hey lala14 , you can upload updates or new mods to withSIX yourself now!

Make your own promo page, get the power to release your work at your own point of choosing.

To learn more, follow this guide.

[Guest]

Armaholic mirror available:

Aerial refuelling - F/A 18 X v1.0

United States Air Force

F/A-18 X Black Wasp

Community Base Addons

[eggbeast 3673]

sounds like the armor on the new A3 tanks is over-protecting them as a direct hit with a mk84 would kill a fleet of T-72s in arma 2.

 

I think the damage of an agm65 is about 600-800 with a small - 5m splash in arma 2. we added a bit more indirect damage to simulate frag from the impact, maybe up to10m, and it worked great for example if you missed a moving target like a landrover, it would still shred its tyres and make the crew abandon it.  if you ever watch live-leaks films of hellfires or mavericks hitting the target, the do cause an almighty boom.

 

bear in mind that all of the weapons stand in line on a sliding scale of relative damage and indirect damage, so increasing one weapon alone is not the answer.  I will look at this some more when we port the FRL_missilebox over (which USAF mod may well use)

[FALLCWB 0]

Any intentions on making the OH-58 Kiowa? I'm waiting for that one since ArmA 2

[nikiforos 450]

Any intentions on making the OH-58 Kiowa? I'm waiting for that one since ArmA 2

There we go again!!!! :angry:

Stop requesting for God's sake, we hardly had any update for months and now you ask for more? Of course I can see you only have 2 posts so I call it extenuating circumstances

[sargken 286]

You guys need to relax and ignore things instead of blowing up on this guy.

[hcpookie 3770]

It gets old taking time to stop and answer the are we there yet" questions.  Like a Griswald family vacation.  Over. and over.  and over again.

 

And besides, it is not appropriate for anyone, regardless of post count, to ask "are we there yet" questions.  Used to be there was a time the mods would jump all over people, but now we have to be the bad cop.

 

People can be thankful that people take countless hours to bring new stuff into the game... instead of "oh can I have something else not even talked about yet". 

 

It just gets old.