Dynamic Vehicle Loadouts feedback

[andy1 71]

I know there was a request made back in Feb, but as it is now the end of June and we have had 1.70 released and now Malden has been released would it be possible for the Devs to have a look at updating the Samples to include some for the Dynamic Loadouts and other aspects of the Jets DLC please.  I have managed to achieve alot with the information provided on the Biki thank you for that, but I am struggling to line up my pylon with the vanilla ones. An example of a pylon and rack would help massively to see where I am going wrong.

 

Thank you for all the hard work and the releases they are really great.

[DSabre 2332]

I second this, pretty clueless how to update my own aircraft loadouts. I have disabled them and am using others like FIR or vanilla for the time being.

 

Edit: after some more playing around I am getting there. I did not quite get you needed a p3d for your magazine, with proxies referencing the actual ammo

(and put autocenter=0 in geo lod to line up if that answers your question andy)

Edited June 25, 2017 by [Dust]Sabre
getting there

[da12thMonkey 1943]

22 hours ago, [Dust]Sabre said:

Edit: after some more playing around I am getting there. I did not quite get you needed a p3d for your magazine, with proxies referencing the actual ammo

(and put autocenter=0 in geo lod to line up if that answers your question andy)

Resolved his issues here:

Seems it was the cfgNonAIVehicles configuration that he didn't have quite right

 

3rd post, I've included a sample 3-bomb pylon model based on an A2 sample model, and a sort of semi-explanation of how to set up the pylon and missile models.

Between that, and the biki page I think it covers most of the stuff required for integration.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

reports of guns not firing forwards with dynamic loadouts.

 

specifically the PO-30 Orca 6.5mm gun

[arziben 23]

Speaking of the Orca, it comes equipped with DAGRs but none of the other OPFOR aircrafts have access to them.

[chortles 263]

That would be because the DAGR pod has both "B_MISSILE_PYLON" and "DAGR" in its hardpoints array, making it compatible with any pylon that has either of those two in its own hardpoints array and a maxWeight value ≥ 140 (the pod's mass value); presumably the omission of "DAGR" from other CSAT aircraft pylons was a conscious design decision to give the Orca a niche and to preserve missions designed around it having those guided rockets.

[arziben 23]

12 hours ago, chortles said:

That would be because the DAGR pod has both "B_MISSILE_PYLON" and "DAGR" in its hardpoints array, making it compatible with any pylon that has either of those two in its own hardpoints array and a maxWeight value ≥ 140 (the pod's mass value); presumably the omission of "DAGR" from other CSAT aircraft pylons was a conscious design decision to give the Orca a niche and to preserve missions designed around it having those guided rockets.

 

Makes sense (although I still disagree with any "nerf" and restrictions given for gameplay over realism). Thanks.

 

For my next trick I mean, question. Are the Tratnyr AP rockets (and by extension the NATO AP but I haven't tried those on this) supposed to be able to damage tanks ?

 

I've fired a few of them at almost point blank range in the side of a Scorcher without looking so much like it scratched it.

 

Now are they "rated" to go through such an amount of armor or are they meant for MRAPs and similar ? (in which case HE work just fine...)

[Strike_NOR 898]

9 hours ago, arziben said:

Are the Tratnyr AP rockets (and by extension the NATO AP but I haven't tried those on this) supposed to be able to damage tanks ?

 

This is one of my major confusions with the Shrieker rockets (NATO). It is inconsistent with other ammunition types, such as the Titan. You have Titan AA and AT, where they mean Anti Air and Anti Tank.

 

But Shriekers, and I assume Tratnyr, follow different abbreviations, namely HE and AP. So we all know what HE is. High explosive, meaning a warhead packed with high explosives. It will not penetrate more than tops a few cm of armor and upon detonation it will spread some fragments.

But AP? What is that? Armour Piercing? Or anti-personell? The thing is mines use both AP and AT. AP mine = Anti-Personell mine, whilst AT of course, is Anti-Tank.

 

But rockets make for a tough guess. Because in real life, fin stabilized rockets are very often fired in salvos, sometimes depleting the entire rocket pod in one go. This is because they are not particularly accurate. They spread to a large area and almost resemble a cluster-bomb strike. Therefore they are excellent against soft-targets, which is what HE is for. If you are firing at infantry, it would make sense to have AP ammo, because while HE does cause blast damage and some fragmentation, dedicated fragmentation warheads would do more damage to infantry. An AP warhead with less HE filler, and more pre-formed fragments would deal greater damage to infantry in a wider area. 

 

The armor-piercing (which I believe what it's for in ArmA 3) AP rocket, would typically be a HEAT rocket (I think rocket speed may be too slow for kinetic penetration from a massive AP warhead). A HEAT rocket would deal significant damage to armored targets, but the least splash/area damage of them all. Unfortunately for us, ArmA still uses this weird Indirecthit damage that works really strange with armor and kind of damages everything with splash-damage. Hopefully for Tanks DLC they will revisit the entire armored warfare part and introduce proper HEAT ammunition. HEAT essentially explodes upon impact and, because of the conical liner, sends a very narrow, focused pressure wave towards a small focal point of the armor surface. It basically focuses all the explosive energy on a needle-size spot. Additionally the liner (usually copper) melts and creates this molten jet that may penetrate armor that is many times thicker than the diameter of the explosive charge. The RPG-7 is probably one of the most famous HEAT weapons today. You have a heck of a punch in a soda-bottle sized warhead that can knock out a MBT if used correctly.

 

Firing a volley/salvo of AP (armor-piercing) rockets into a tank column is probably the best way of doing most damage with these. Single-shot firing them is really hard, even with CCIP because fin-stabilized rockets are not really that accurate. At least not in real life. Either that or expect to waste a full pod of rockets trying to kill one tank! (Although it's ARMA 3, and 2035... I know they are equipping laser guided rockets today in the 2.75'' format, the ones ingame seem to be unguided).

 

 

So in my honest opinion, what SHOULD the arma 3 ammunition do? Well.. I think the devs should properly rename the ammo to Shrieker AT if it is meant to be anti-tank, or keep it as AP or HE-FRAG if they are meant for Anti-Personell. This is for consistency reasons.

 

I would personally like to see full native engine support for sub-munitions in all kinds of ammo. Be it bombs, missiles, rockets, grenades, mines or even bullets. They need to introduce native HEAT simulation. Have the original projectile "despawn" on impact, and at the point of impact, spawn an armor piercing "jet" or projectile.

 

RHS mod have done wonders here, and you can try with their RPG's or LAW (M72) and fire on any vehicle. Then switch to spectator or splendid cam and setacctime 0.05. Watch closely when the round impacts and you can clip the camera inside the vehicle and see the mayhem the HEAT round creates.

 

 

 

Finally just some Rocket porn. Note that the whole pod is emptied, and if you pause the video mid firing you can see the rockets coming out in all different angles. The target area seems to be a slanted hill which will significantly decrease the spread, but even so the area seems to be at least 100-200 meters long and about 50 meters wide.

 

[chortles 263]

10 hours ago, arziben said:

Makes sense (although I still disagree with any "nerf" and restrictions given for gameplay over realism). Thanks.

Keep in mind that this 'niche' was already held by the pre-Jets Orca when there were fixed loadouts -- there was the Scalpel for the Kajman and Ababil-3 (aka MQ-4A Greyhawk in BLUFOR), the Sharur for the Neophron/'Kh-25' for the Shikra, and the Jian for the Fenghuang -- so unless you've a particular desire that these other CSAT airframes should also have DAGR support... (Trivia: at last check the 'Kh-25' magazines call the Sharur's ammo class and thus the two missiles are statistically identical.)

[john111 76]

Is it possible to add a feature to the Dynamic Loadout  that makes it impossible to jetisson fueltanks to make sure there are without a special key-press?  To make sure we don`t end up depleted of gas when we need it.

[pabstmirror 34]

It would be useful to have a command to get the turret the the pylon is currently connected to, e.g.:

(vehicle getPylonTurret 1) = [-1]

Needed if someone wants to switch the loadout for something, but not switch which turret it's connected to.

Also needed to handle locality.

 

E.G. switching the `UAV_02` drone to use bombs

uav setPylonLoadOut [1, "PylonMissile_1Rnd_BombCluster_03_F"]

Will switch the ownership to the pilot instead of the gunner.

It is possible to get the default turret from the configs, but since 1.76 this is changeable via 3den.

[DruidicRifleman 13]

>.> still no In game dynamic load out that would allow players to Select aircraft ordence yet

[Vasily.B 529]

On 18.02.2017 at 8:45 AM, granQ said:

 

 

Sorry if this was already answered, but i dont have access to tab "pylon settings" on any vehicle atributtes. Do i need to buy DLC or write something in init of vehicle?

[chortles 263]

7 hours ago, Vasily.B said:

Sorry if this was already answered, but i dont have access to tab "pylon settings" on any vehicle atributtes. Do i need to buy DLC or write something in init of vehicle?

Sorry, but if you're looking in a mod's aircraft then you'll have to wait for them to update. That 'tab' is on all vanilla armed aircraft, manned and UAV, except for the CSAT (Pacific) Fenghuang drone, whereas Swedish Forces Pack's last public update ("public" here meaning Armaholic and Steam Workshop) was before the Jets DLC release so its aircraft don't have "Pylon settings" yet; I am not privy to whatever their private progress is.

[granQ 293]

12 hours ago, chortles said:

Sorry, but if you're looking in a mod's aircraft then you'll have to wait for them to update. That 'tab' is on all vanilla armed aircraft, manned and UAV, except for the CSAT (Pacific) Fenghuang drone, whereas Swedish Forces Pack's last public update ("public" here meaning Armaholic and Steam Workshop) was before the Jets DLC release so its aircraft don't have "Pylon settings" yet; I am not privy to whatever their private progress is.

 

Yeah, "sorry" all, we were among the first to implement the new functions (as seen on screen above) but then we wanted to add some extra stuff, then came summer big break for the team.. and after summer attention been on several new vehicles..

So ups.. but we will try push something... before new year :p

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

Suggestion, adding the Blackfoot's stubby wings back as a second variant or animation source like this.

 

 

Perhaps the current model could be named "AH-99 Blackfoot (Stealth)" while this new variant takes its original name. The textures are already done and most likely the model too, just requires some quick config and proxies.

 

 

(Latter pic was taken by debinning the AH-99 using the ODOL Web Converter tool, former pic shows where the wings were mounted though it is only visible on the 2011 textures)

 

Please add these back in, would definitely bring some much needed variety back. That way we can also mount more ordnance and gunpods.

[DruidicRifleman 13]

Actually all you would need is a new pilon slot... And a Clean option and wings...

one model 2 variants.

[xxgetbuck123 945]

6 hours ago, Night515 said:

Suggestion, adding the Blackfoot's stubby wings back as a second variant or animation source like this.

 

 

 

Perhaps the current model could be named "AH-99 Blackfoot (Stealth)" while this new variant takes its original name. The textures are already done and most likely the model too, just requires some quick config and proxies.

 

 

 

 

(Latter pic was taken by debinning the AH-99 using the ODOL Web Converter tool, former pic shows where the wings were mounted though it is only visible on the 2011 textures)

 

Please add these back in, would definitely bring some much needed variety back. That way we can also mount more ordnance and gunpods.

 

Adding the possibility for aircraft to dominate even further. Count me in 

 

[Chairborne 2594]

Im having an issue on a few helos that have dynamic loadouts and more than one turret.

If i pop one down without making any loadout changes the weapons are assigned correctly to the copilot, however if i go in the unit's pylon options and make any change, the pylon mounted weapons control switches automatically to the last turret defined in config, despite me choosing another specific turret.

Let's say that i have a UH60 with a copilot, a left gunner and a right gunner (defined in this specific order in config). The copilot by default controls whatever i put on the pylons, but after i make a change the control ends up to the right gunner even though i set it to be controlled by the copilot in the menu.

Is this a known issue or am i doing something wrong? If so, how would i go about fixing it?

[Chairborne 2594]

I just remembered something similar was fixed in dev branch a few days ago:

 

https://forums.bistudio.com/forums/topic/140837-development-branch-changelog/?do=findComment&comment=3242207

[da12thMonkey 1943]

19 hours ago, Chairborne said:

Im having an issue on a few helos that have dynamic loadouts and more than one turret.

If i pop one down without making any loadout changes the weapons are assigned correctly to the copilot, however if i go in the unit's pylon options and make any change, the pylon mounted weapons control switches automatically to the last turret defined in config, despite me choosing another specific turret.

Let's say that i have a UH60 with a copilot, a left gunner and a right gunner (defined in this specific order in config). The copilot by default controls whatever i put on the pylons, but after i make a change the control ends up to the right gunner even though i set it to be controlled by the copilot in the menu.

Is this a known issue or am i doing something wrong? If so, how would i go about fixing it?

 

Yeah, I can confirm this can still be an issue with vehicles that have multiple non-FFV turrets. e.g. if you have a helicopter with a main copilot/gunner seat and additional door-gunner positions.

 

The dev Branch fix has only really applied to vehicles like the Xi'an (or e.g. the RHS Mi-24), where all the additional turrets were all FFV seats/personTurrets. Not "proper" crew-served turrets that I believe one would generally still require to use with showAsCargo = 0; //false

 

Or would setting showAsCargo = 1; //true for the door gunners etc. not have any undesirable effects?

[Chairborne 2594]

I tried with the showAsCargo value as well but it doesnt fix it on regular turrets, i suspect it has to be combined with class cargoturret and ispersonturret = 1 to work.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Does this explain why when I equip Scalpel missiles on the Hellcat for the gunner it doesn't work?

[chortles 263]

@granQ Looking forward to that, and please feel free to PM me if you need any help with the implementation of this or of the sensors and info panels!

[chortles 263]

@oukej Any chance that we'll ever get to see the KH-3A Fenghuang get dynamic loadouts as the MQ-4A Greyhawk/K40 Ababil-3 and MQ-12 Falcon did, and/or of the Jian ATGM becoming available to other CSAT aircraft?