Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 10/1/2017 at 4:14 PM, Gimpy said:

I just came here to ask the same question about the 20th SFG SOV as a refuel/rearm point for other vic's.  

I think its going to be scripted based. 

 

Hello, developer of that vehicle here.

 

I added repair, rearm and, refuel points as per the vanilla system. So.. as we tested it today, it should already work. We literally copy pasted the code we used on the HEMTTs, and just reduced the amount of supply it carries. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case no one noticed, rhssaf_army_m10_digital_spec_exp class name was changed to rhssaf_army_m10_digital_exp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, da12thMonkey said:

5km sounds perfectly reasonable.

Not really. 8km is the correct range to allow for any laser guided variants.  Thats the Lockheed Martin's official specs, why not to rely on it ?. The 5km limited range is obviously a config error. The hellfire seeker should perfectly be able to track at 8km. Ingame the M and N versions fall short on ground at only 3.1km while having the exact same seeker and propellant.

 

I opened a ticket on the rhs feedback about it : ticket 3557.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ghostworrior said:

Also ACE3 Worked on LOAL/Hi/Dir/Lo and LOBL profiles for their own AGM-114 type of missile's.

Yes, they did it amazingly well. The L version even had inertial guidance back in ACE 2 for OA : Ctrl+tab to enable a map click selection. then boom..

 

ACE 3 just need a config fix to correctly support the dynamic weapon loadout, since both rhs and ace missiles config conflicting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cychou said:

Thats the Lockheed Martin's official specs, why not to rely on it ?

 

Because gatordev has flown in Seahawks and used Hellfires for years.

So I trust his opinion on the battlefield limitations of achieving reliable targeting with the missile (atmospheric conditions, ambient light, target surface and location effects on laser transmission), and typical engagement ranges for its use, more than Lockheed's marketing material.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having the maximum range dynamically adapting to the weather conditions would be a good additions indeed, but having the max range cut by 3km in optimal conditions is maybe a bit too much.  A seahawk operating in naval environment may be more concerned by weather limitations too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, da12thMonkey said:

There should be some autoseek parameters for missiles as well, but testing them I don't think we were ever able to get an indication of their behaviour working as autonomously as expected, without a manually confirmed lock.

 

That would be like in ACE 2.  

the laser designator would be placed in the mouse menu instead of in the weapon cycle.  turning it ON  would automatically lock-on the Laser guided missile  without the requirement of a manual tab lock. 

a "lock" symbol would be displayed showing that the laser beam is correctly seen by the missile.
and a diagonal crosshair appear when the laser is enabled instead of the BIS red laser icon:

f213b73d647e_sf_3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no arma3 has an function that allows missiles to search for target by them selfs and if the target is an laser it will automaticly find it, as long as it is in the seekers cone/ look at the gbu12 for that matter it has this function in game(maybe just in dev branch)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, aa3 said:

Arma3x6420_2927816_26561487.jpgWhen do you want to update the download model?

what?

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Ghostworrior said:

no arma3 has an function that allows missiles to search for target by them selfs and if the target is an laser it will automaticly find it, as long as it is in the seekers cone/ look at the gbu12 for that matter it has this function in game(maybe just in dev branch)

You need to lock something first in order to have autoseek working since autoSeekRange is calculated from distance to target. I've tested it on R-27T (it's available in 0.4.3 too) and it has some issues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, reyhard said:

You need to lock something first in order to have autoseek working since autoSeekRange is calculated from distance to target.

Could it be sorted out via a script ? the fact to enable the laser would trigger a script that would simulate tab lock key.

I think it's what the ACE team did for ACE 2  for the hellfire locking system
 

at 8min15

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, cychou said:

Could it be sorted out via a script ? the fact to enable the laser would trigger a script that would simulate tab lock key.

Yes, there are some plans but it heavily dependent on available time

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is update is just awesome i love the new AKM/S and caiman Mraps , i just wish you guys make an AKMS model with rails on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for updates, as helicopters pilot especially thank you for all "helicopters things" and for HGU-56/P pilot helmet :) now we look pretty fk but question: what did you do with UH-60 AFM? Too much power, too much power torque effect and very sensivity on antitorque rotor? In my opinion this is no good change. Similar feelings about sensivity antitorque were with Mi-24 and Mi-8.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cpt.ghost said:

is update is just awesome i love the new AKM/S and caiman Mraps , i just wish you guys make an AKMS model with rails on

i still have a few more plans for AKM/S

 

56 minutes ago, jacd said:

what did you do with UH-60 AFM? Too much power, too much power torque effect and very sensivity on antitorque rotor? In my opinion this is no good change. Similar feelings about sensivity antitorque were with Mi-24 and Mi-8.

the AFM is a bit of a WIP please provide first hand experience if you have it on our feedback tracker

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Between all this bickering and bug reports i just wanted to say thanks. Thanks for all these years.


Thanks for supporting A3 in an extraordinary way, i believe there is no serious community who could or would play without your work. 

I hope you started talking with BI about profit shares. ;) :P


 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, cychou said:

Not really. 8km is the correct range to allow for any laser guided variants.  Thats the Lockheed Martin's official specs, why not to rely on it ?. The 5km limited range is obviously a config error. The hellfire seeker should perfectly be able to track at 8km. Ingame the M and N versions fall short on ground at only 3.1km while having the exact same seeker and propellant.

 

13 hours ago, da12thMonkey said:

 

Because gatordev has flown in Seahawks and used Hellfires for years.

So I trust his opinion on the battlefield limitations of achieving reliable targeting with the missile (atmospheric conditions, ambient light, target surface and location effects on laser transmission), and typical engagement ranges for its use, more than Lockheed's marketing material.

 

So let me clarify my statement, so as not to get caught in the middle of the fantastic work RHS has done (to include making it "fun" to play their mods) and those that want to quote internet stats...

 

First, if you will notice my previous post, I specifically acknoledged that RHS had to make concessions to gameplay for the "average" player who may not be able to run at 8KM view distance.  It's a fine balance.  8KM is 4.3 NMs, which is pretty far in the Arma world.  What the real-world weapon system can do may have to be different from the A3 system just to make it fun.  RHS has stated numerous times that they're not in the business of balance, but at the end of the day, they still have to live in the A3 game-world.

 

Second, To state "8KM is correct..." indicates that there's a misunderstanding of how the system works.  There is no one-set-range-rules-them-all range.  The missile profile adjusts such things.  Again, I'm not going to get into shot cards, but RHS is limited by what they can do between LOAL and LOBL (because they don't build their mod to plug into ACE).  I will agree, 5KM is a little short, but it still meets the intent of what they're trying to do.

 

Third, you are correct the naval environment is different than overland.  But the far more pressing issue is target size (or more accurately, IR target size).  If reflectivity is awesome off a target, but the target is so small it's hard to see, that's a hindrance.  And vice-versa (and yes, that's a thing...it's even documented).  Again, it's all about compromises, in game.

 

Lastly, thank you for the recognition @da12thMonkey.  I wish I could say I've lobbed 100's of HFs down-range, but I have not.  However, I have shot them and I have done multiple deployments (and still fly with) using FLIR/MTS.  Like you said, atmospheric conditions and (IR) target size provide the biggest hurdles to the FLIR/MTS.  Laser energy is usually the more "robust" part of the system.  That said, again, see above about game balancing and game limitations.

 

Please feel free to discount any of the above.  I'm just a guy who enjoys RHS's work and has a bit of real-world knowledge.  I understand there has to be a happy-medium between the two.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I just tested the Russian helos with SACLOS ATGMs... either you RHS guys were pulling my leg about them not working, or couldn't use your own mod properly. :) In both Mi-28 and Ka-52, the AI gunner will look at a target if instructed, and from tests I've done so far, will guide the missile to wherever he's looking at. They do seem to require being assigned to the gunner. They don't seem to work on Mi-24, but that's because I can't even select them for some reason (presumably the "FFV seat as gunner" BIS bug rearing its head).

 

That said, I also found some actual bugs. For example, the cannon on Mi-24P doesn't shoot anywhere near the sight. AH-6 shoots high as well, and the miniguns have no sound. Mi-24 variants are missing AA missile compatibility, too (I wanted to do the "find the the guerilla convoy with a heatseeker" thing from Afghan).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2017 at 5:47 PM, Richards.D said:

 

Hello, developer of that vehicle here.

 

I added repair, rearm and, refuel points as per the vanilla system. So.. as we tested it today, it should already work. We literally copy pasted the code we used on the HEMTTs, and just reduced the amount of supply it carries. 

 

I am completely enjoying the options this one vehicle provides. Thank you very much!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi RHS people,

 

I wanted to say that I hadn't really played about with RHS that much until the other night, but when I did, it was just great.  One of the highlights was using a BTR (maybe 70?) and when shooting from the 14.5mm gun, I could see out of the gap 'twixt the gun and surrounding cockpit. (Plus modelled cockpit == super)!!   Additionally, I could get up on the vehicle as a passenger and blat off some rounds at people from my nicely modelled AK.

 

Thanks for all your hard work fellas.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, dragon01 said:

AH-6 shoots high as well, and the miniguns have no sound.

Minigun sounds on the AH-6 are working for me so far as I can tell (M134 and GAU-19).

Are you running any other mods that might interfere with it? ACE compat for the last version of the mod, a sound mod that modifies RHS sounds etc. etc.?

We've found before, that DynaSound broke minigun sounds.

 

As for the gunsight, it's possible to line it up by moving the pilot's head down using Controls>>>Keyboard>>>View>>>Move Head Down.

It's something I was aware of, and came about because in using common dynamic loadouts magazines for as many aircraft as possible, we can't angle the muzzle of MGs and rockets off-boresight like they were done before on the MELB. So now the old position of the mark doesn't match where the weapons aim as well as it did before. We'd have to move it upwards a bit (but it's not that easy to do in Object Builder because of the shape of the window and way it's UV mapped).

However users with head-tracking devices (TrackIR etc.) have been complaining for some time that it was hard to align themselves with the aim marker when they have room to move the head upwards and downwards relative to the marker. So I wanted to see whether by some happy accident, the fact that the guns now line up with the fixed limit of downward head movement, would help them find a good frame of reference for aiming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is a request, but would it be possible to add the anvis mount from the new HGU-56/P pilot helmets as a standalone item? Similar to the rhino mount for the NVG slot. Would be a nice way to add some differentiation to helmet setups. 

  • Like 1

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

×