Flankers release for CUP

[hcpookie 3770]

You do realize the refueling boom and MFD "TV" action is there, right?  Have you played the mod?  Did you see the pretty pictures in the first thread of this topic showing the MFD states?

 

SEAD requires the proper weapons.  I am developing some SEAD weapons for the SAM Pack that will enable a standard SEAD mission for both OPFOR and BLUFOR.  Currently WIP and should be ready later this summer.

 

 

like real life I  only use afterburners for escaping your goddamn SAMs or AAA, or for getting off the carrier.

admittedly how i implemented them in A2 and unsung was very much without costing fuel properly.

this i think we should remedy in unsung charlie, inc your fuel tank scripts.

Why would anyone think an afterburner would give them enough speed to outrun a SAM?  You Brits... I never can get your humor.

 

None of these birds are carrier-based.  I would like to see Gnat's Su-33 one day, but sadly it appears he has left the modding community.

 

Regarding the fuel consumption, yeah I think we can make an afterburner where the "consequences" of using it (severely reduced fuel capacity) are experienced, and "bingo fuel" will be something to contend with.  The drop tanks will work correctly, based on the work I've done for them for the Unsung stuff (started with the F105).  Not perfect but a darn good start!  :)   I need to discuss with my pilot buddies who like me are heavy into the "realism" stuff so I need to discuss w/ them the afterburner impact and how to correctly model it.

[Matth_ 68]

I know those functionalities are in the mod, I'm just asking if you could do some shortcuts to activate those features

[wsxcgy 1960]

Would it be possible to get a Non-CUP version? Like a few of the russian textures and a hex texture in the CSAT faction with CSAT pilots. I don't use CUP, I prefer to use RHS/Leights OPFOR instead of CUP, but I love the SU-27  and would love to be able to use it. CUP is just such a huge file, my download speeds are poor, and it my faction lists in the editor and such are cluttered enough as is.

[hcpookie 3770]

Mig29?  You may have posted on the wrong thread... this is my Su-27 family discussion. :D  And to repeat myself yet again, not doing "vanilla A3" content for all of the reasons I have typed too many times in the past.  So "no".  This is a port of my A2 content, which is what CUP is, so I am relying on the CUP content for "root" content.

 

Sorry you don't use CUP as you are missing out on a large part of modding goodness that is out there.  You should try it.

 

If your d/l speeds are poor, I'm sorry about that.  You'll just have to made do with what you have.  The good news is d/l managers like "Play With Six" are very bandwidth-friendly and actually do a quite good job at it.  Start the d/l, go to work, and when you get back home presto you'll be all done :)

[officeramr 269]

Could you make a Chinese skin for the SU-30 if you have the time or working on the plane? The VME Chinese mod is really nice, but theres no vehicles for it. Its pretty basic skin

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ba/cc/df/baccdf95074196497416da1c8e5dcd03.jpg

[wsxcgy 1960]

Mig29?  You may have posted on the wrong thread... this is my Su-27 family discussion. :D  And to repeat myself yet again, not doing "vanilla A3" content for all of the reasons I have typed too many times in the past.  So "no".  This is a port of my A2 content, which is what CUP is, so I am relying on the CUP content for "root" content.

 

Sorry you don't use CUP as you are missing out on a large part of modding goodness that is out there.  You should try it.

 

If your d/l speeds are poor, I'm sorry about that.  You'll just have to made do with what you have.  The good news is d/l managers like "Play With Six" are very bandwidth-friendly and actually do a quite good job at it.  Start the d/l, go to work, and when you get back home presto you'll be all done :)

Alright. Thank you and sorry for the mistake.

[YanYatCheng 96]

aushilfe" post="3026865" timestamp="1463712761"]

I can spot some familiar edges and lines here.

Always remember to give credits to those you base your work on. This is only fair if the model lives on in a newer version of the game engine.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll84/Aushilfe/ACE_OA/PSu30GT.jpg~original

where can i get this jet?

[classic 38]

It's @ACE2 RU jet

[hcpookie 3770]

That's a 2-seater Su27 UB model which is really only a trainer model, which is why I chose not to include it.  The Su30 fulfills the combat role for a 2-seater model in the series.  I'm personally not a fan of bringing trainer aircraft into the inventory.

 

From here:

 

http://su-27flanker.com/versions/su-27ub-two-seat/

 

 

Basic training two seater version, one static and two flying prototypes built. Series production at Irkutsk.

 

Edit to add - there IS a 2-seater mesh, however it was configured for the "airshow plane" in the A2 version.  I may very well add it in the future, but as a strict "airshow" frame, with no weapon hard points.

 

Also, I'm probably going a different direction with the weapons, and may therefore have some precision weaponry versions available in realistic loads.  One thing I have learned from watching the recent activity in Syria is that the Russians don't load their planes as "flying ammo dumps" and usually don't even use multi-launch racks.  It is USUALLY one weapon per pylon, except for dumb bombs.  And THAT is in an "owned" airspace, with no "combination" loadout of AA+AG.  So it is therefore my intention to model ACCURATE loadouts for these planes - carrying a "stupid" amount of bombs is not realistic and we deserve better than what we had in the past.

[dragon01 902]

What isn't (I think) modeled in A3 is how much additional weapon load bogs the plane down in terms of both weight and aerodynamics. The "flying weapons dump" loadout will turn the plane into a bomber in every sense of that word and you certainly won't be dodging SAMs with that. It limits the range, too (not to a degree it'd be a problem in ArmA, though). Also, I don't know about Russians, but for F-16s the recommended bombing procedure is "One pass and haul ass." :) Carrying huge racks of bombs only makes sense if you're either going to hang around providing CAS/engaging TOOs or are bombing something really big, in which case you send either Su-25 or Su-24 (or Su-34, actual bombers, in short) respectively, not Flankers.

Alright. Thank you and sorry for the mistake.

If you want a non-CUP Flanker, check out this one:
http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=24024

It's a newer version, though.

[[cede]aushilfe 2]

That's a 2-seater Su27 UB model which is really only a trainer model [..]

 

 

Actually its the Su-30MK. Biggest differance can bee seen in the form of the vertical stabilizers. It also has the digital glass cockpits. I used the version which is used in the initial Su-30MKI design. There are quite a lot of different cockpits used with digital displays for the indonesian, indian, malaysian and chinese version of the aircraft. From what i know, the cockpit of the Su-30MKI looks very different now.

 

 

[..] Also, I'm probably going a different direction with the weapons, and may therefore have some precision weaponry versions available in realistic loads.  One thing I have learned from watching the recent activity in Syria is that the Russians don't load their planes as "flying ammo dumps" and usually don't even use multi-launch racks.  It is USUALLY one weapon per pylon, except for dumb bombs.  And THAT is in an "owned" airspace, with no "combination" loadout of AA+AG.  So it is therefore my intention to model ACCURATE loadouts for these planes - carrying a "stupid" amount of bombs is not realistic and we deserve better than what we had in the past.

 

The range of weapons for this airframe is very wide and so is the role of the aircraft very different for each task. The Chinese forces use the Su-30 as an anti-ship platform. They are exceeding the maximum starting mass with the high payload and fuel. They are aiming for a total weight of 42 tons. The scenario in Syria shows the usage of smaller ordinances due to multiple reasons. The airspace is under the control of Syrian and Russian forces, but the danger of manpads is present. This might be a good reason for picking an agile setup with fewer weapons. They are also fighting close to their airbases and can rearm quicker while staying airborne for a longer period if necessary.

 

A bigger varaity of loadouts (Intercepter or CAS Syrian style) would benefit the mission designers. but its always hard to provide this without clustering the unit selection.

 

 

What isn't (I think) modeled in A3 is how much additional weapon load bogs the plane down in terms of both weight and aerodynamics. The "flying weapons dump" loadout will turn the plane into a bomber in every sense of that word and you certainly won't be dodging SAMs with that. [..]

 

 

It would be very nice if the weight of the payload is taken into account for the flightmodel. I would like to see that one day in ArmA. It sis time for a new game engine anyway.

 

 

[hcpookie 3770]

 

Actually its the Su-30MK. Biggest differance can bee seen in the form of the vertical stabilizers. It also has the digital glass cockpits. I used the version which is used in the initial Su-30MKI design. There are quite a lot of different cockpits used with digital displays for the indonesian, indian, malaysian and chinese version of the aircraft. From what i know, the cockpit of the Su-30MKI looks very different now.

 

 

The range of weapons for this airframe is very wide and so is the role of the aircraft very different for each task. The Chinese forces use the Su-30 as an anti-ship platform. They are exceeding the maximum starting mass with the high payload and fuel. They are aiming for a total weight of 42 tons. The scenario in Syria shows the usage of smaller ordinances due to multiple reasons. The airspace is under the control of Syrian and Russian forces, but the danger of manpads is present. This might be a good reason for picking an agile setup with fewer weapons. They are also fighting close to their airbases and can rearm quicker while staying airborne for a longer period if necessary.

 

A bigger varaity of loadouts (Intercepter or CAS Syrian style) would benefit the mission designers. but its always hard to provide this without clustering the unit selection.

OK thanks for that clarification.  The only visual cues I have make that hard to identify.  I'm not against adding that other mesh w/ the visually different cockpit (it appears to be lower than the newer style), however I decided it would be easier for everyone if they were "merged" together into the "M" for the thrust-vectoring (and vertical stab!) differences.  That was the purpose really, to avoid editor clutter and confusion.  You can see the stab differences in some of my pics.  The functionality difference was my decision for the new model... e.g. "this one can thrust vector" and "this one cannot".  Also whether the loadout restrictions would make sense.  In other words with a working rearm script, we could avoid that extra model, and confusion.  This isn't DCS after all.

 

Another question for me is whether it is worth it to make another version with that external cosmetic difference since we can't really do a "good" glass cockpit w/o heavy scripting solutions.

 

Not adding that additional model and version, and keeping with a more "generic" style that I have now (Su-30 and Su-30M versions) avoids the "which one do I put into my mission" problems since people would have to have a reference handy so as to better understand which version does what.  That may be mitigated with the new 3D editor categories, but in-game, say in a MP mission, it would be hard to gauge which one is the one you need for that particular mission unless you have a good working knowledge of OPFOR weapons.  Which frankly most people don't.  I've been assisting the with USAF mod's weapons and hope to direct my efforts toward good working (and realistic!) OPFOR weapons sometime toward the end of the year.  And a few other things :)

 

It is a challenge to be certain.  I had feedback from several people saying my SAM pack was too confusing with the "real" names, so I added NATO names to the displayname values as a concession to help this out. 

 

 

 

 

Regarding the loadout penalty - I have yet to investigate that.  Been a bit busy as of late and not sure when I'll have a chance to sit down and really sort that out.  Believe me I'm all for penalizing "overload" loadouts that people might select.  Hell, the EF2000 game back in 1997 did this, why can't we.

[hcpookie 3770]

Could you make a Chinese skin for the SU-30 if you have the time or working on the plane? The VME Chinese mod is really nice, but theres no vehicles for it. Its pretty basic skin

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ba/cc/df/baccdf95074196497416da1c8e5dcd03.jpg

Stay tuned! This is under consideration but it is too early to discuss.  Suffice to say the holidays/Spring time may be a joyful time for OPFOR planes :)

[Alexander Konecny 0]

Whats the SU-30M? I only know of the SU-30M2 variant and as far as i have read it does not have thrust vectoring.

Will you also include the godly beautiful Su-30SM? Canards are so sexy.

Sadly had no time to download for now but i sure think of it now

[Sem1401 0]

Hello, I wanted to ask you whether you are interested in a model helicopter MI-8 AMTSH ... I have a 80% complete model ... would like to offer you its further development ..

[PredatorXXIX 2]

Been a while since anyone posted, but do you plan on updating this to be compatible with the Jets DLC?

[Polyus 139]

I hope, but he's probably busy with his other projects.

[islesfan186 83]

Got an error when trying to launch this. 

bin\config.bin/CfgWeapons/pook_Flanker_CMFlareLauncher/Burst2x/:
Cannot find base class 'Burst'.

 

I don't remember getting this until the latest version of CBA came out.  Anyone else getting this error?

[MADARA-MASTER 3]

On 8/9/2016 at 11:36 PM, [cede]aushilfe said:

I used the version which is used in the initial Su-30MKI design

 

On 8/9/2016 at 11:36 PM, [cede]aushilfe said:

I used the version which is used in the initial Su-30MKI design

did you make a su-30mki/m for a2

[Nemanjic 71]

I am using your legendary arty and camo nets mods as well as pook boats for years and somehow didn't know for this one and similar ones - sovAF for example. But I look at archives and there is nothing else except the .jpg library of birds and nowhere .pbo ? The same thing is for "bombers" but at the same time "EF2000" from 2015 has all addon files correctly. 

Eager to get this mod 🙂  Thanks in advance for the info 😉

[Harzach 2517]

24 minutes ago, Nemanjic said:

Eager to get this mod

 

 

You want Pook's Soviet Air Force Pack -

Quote

This is an amalgamation of my previous Soviet AF mods - my Bomber Pack and Flankers pack, and some Rangemaster aircraft together with some A2 stuff, all up to Jets DLC standards.

Official topic here: 

 

Soviet AF Pack Steam Workshop link:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1595678775

[Nemanjic 71]

Yes, downloaded both FAP and CUP versions but an error popped up on loading the game, and now will tell you what exactly. It's something about missing pbos...  Just a min.

 

edit: https://i.imgur.com/hNwn7UC.jpg

[Harzach 2517]

5 minutes ago, Nemanjic said:

downloaded both FAP and CUP versions

 

These are really just compat mods. You need the actual Soviet AF Pack loaded as well.
 

Quote

Pook Soviet Air Force Pack - CUP Edition. Requires the baseline Pook Soviet Air Force Pack, and of course CUP.

Quote

Pook Soviet Air Force Pack - FAP Units Edition. Requires the baseline Pook Soviet Air Force Pack, and of course FAP Units.

 

[Nemanjic 71]

Ah, understand. Pook Soviet Air Force Pack is a "platform" and saf packs are compact files for cup and/or fap... 

Also can't see a non-steam version for the baseline files like the other ones?

[Harzach 2517]

20 minutes ago, Nemanjic said:

compact

 

"compat" = short for "compatibility."  

 

Yeah, like you said, the SovAFP OneDrive link just seems to have a bunch of jpegs. I assume he pulled them for a reason, but perhaps @hcpookie can elaborate?