jets JETS DLC Wishlist

[teabagginpeople 398]

As sucky as it is. Kills me to say this.but I got to agree with Oukej. Considering the hand they had to play with. this  Was definitely the right move. This path offers more to the overall game. 

 

Would be a wild card move. But Perhaps funding it through a small dlc wouldn't be a bad idea. could do a trial. offer it on the premise of we pass so many pre orders for it we go ahead. if not. We refund.  the benefits of this would be an upfront paid rnd process . As well as improving arma 3. Saving time and money answering some unknowns about the jets afm situation that could benefit future releases . 

[suiside 95]

i expected the DLC's to be more expensive, (used to Xplane dlc's ....) so i am willing to pay more for AFM if need be.

[chortles 263]

4 hours ago, suiside said:

we know they want it too, but had to make choices, those are always financial and practical, so we can pitch in and help remove the financial initial stage ?

Unfortunately his post doesn't mention anything about financial constraints but rather time and framing it as a not-quite-zero-sum equation between a fixed-wing AFM or everything they did end up doing instead.

[suiside 95]

as i read it it was this or that as in features, now if we give money and thus time to work with would it then be possible to realize, it does not have to have a timeframe tied to jets or any other DLC already planned.

i just wonder if this is an option for bi if we pitch in

[sasha013 225]

16 hours ago, suiside said:

as i read it it was this or that as in features, now if we give money and thus time to work with would it then be possible to realize, it does not have to have a timeframe tied to jets or any other DLC already planned.

i just wonder if this is an option for bi if we pitch in

 

It's a great idea but there's a chance that BIS won't succeed in developing an AFM for other reasons, such as resources, staff etc. I don't think BIS would be willing to accept our donations should they not be 100% sure that they can deliver. 

 

I imagine the development of such a model is complex and could take years? With other priorities in mind, when would it eventually be up to scratch? Maybe by that time Arma 4 will already be a finalised project, ready for release. 

 

I had always thought (not sure if a lot of people will agree with this idea) that the next Arma could be released in 3 separate packages: Land, Sea and Air. Since BIS are good at releasing 'free-content' versions of premium products, they could apply the same principle to these packages. Basically, should you only purchase one of the 3, the other content will still be available but limited in usage i.e. you can't enter/use/interact with vehicles/objects/units etc. 

 

In this way BIS could create separate departments in their studio, each dedicating to their own packages (such as the Air department having the time and resources in developing an AFM). Maybe each of them won't only be responsible for just units, but the design of maps/objects/wildlife etc. (Land for Earth, Air for Sky and Sea for.. well, Sea!)

 

As for the economic side, yes you'll probably end up paying more, but for those who only wish to 'soldier' about with infantry units can purchase the Land package alone and probably only spend €30 (or along those lines). Of course we'll end up seeing a 'Complete Combined Arms' package which would amount to €90 (or somewhere there), using the same analogy.

 

It's an idea, probably a unrealistic one, but I believe this formula could work. Or not.. :D

 

[chortles 263]

Puh-lease, at that point someone will complain about how the other packages "should have been in the base game at release"... we see that all the time in practically any first-party video/article about what Bohemia's up to.

[sasha013 225]

21 minutes ago, chortles said:

Puh-lease, at that point someone will complain about how the other packages "should have been in the base game at release"... we see that all the time in practically any first-party video/article about what Bohemia's up to.

 

I guess but if all packages are released the same day, then they wouldn't have much of a foot to stand on. They want it, they can buy it. Otherwise, they enjoy the free version of it. 

[Maio 293]

Can I be a debbie-downer and say that the  JETS DLC is pretty much done and that all wishes enumerated here are ... wishes

 

Yes? No? What? Close the thread?! No... Should I? ... No... I won;t ... but I must... but you don;t want to... the people must make their voice heard... Ok... fine... when the heck did you turn into a populist... No idea... must be all those late night sociology video marathons...

 

 

 

[sasha013 225]

37 minutes ago, Maio said:

Can I be a debbie-downer and say that the  JETS DLC is pretty much done and that all wishes enumerated here are ... wishes

 

Yes? No? What? Close the thread?! No... Should I? ... No... I won;t ... but I must... but you don;t want to... the people must make their voice heard... Ok... fine... when the heck did you turn into a populist... No idea... must be all those late night sociology video marathons...

 

 

 

 

As thread starter, you have my permission to close the thread, if it makes you feel any better Besides, as you rightfully said, every other post is just a wish now anyway...

[KokaKolaA3 394]

On 28.2.2017 at 11:10 AM, xxgetbuck123 said:

 

That's a negative. 

 

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

In defense of this thread, is say with a release date estimated sometime in may, there's still wishlist time for smaller things like specific types of weapons and tweaks that can be done between now and they time frame. A month and a half? That's a lot of time.

[sasha013 225]

9 hours ago, darksidesixofficial said:

In defense of this thread, is say with a release date estimated sometime in may, there's still wishlist time for smaller things like specific types of weapons and tweaks that can be done between now and they time frame. A month and a half? That's a lot of time.

 

Fair enough. 

[nigal 25]

On 3/28/2017 at 2:52 AM, sasha013 said:

 

It's a great idea but there's a chance that BIS won't succeed in developing an AFM for other reasons, such as resources, staff etc. I don't think BIS would be willing to accept our donations should they not be 100% sure that they can deliver. 

 

I imagine the development of such a model is complex and could take years? With other priorities in mind, when would it eventually be up to scratch? Maybe by that time Arma 4 will already be a finalised project, ready for release. 

 

I had always thought (not sure if a lot of people will agree with this idea) that the next Arma could be released in 3 separate packages: Land, Sea and Air. Since BIS are good at releasing 'free-content' versions of premium products, they could apply the same principle to these packages. Basically, should you only purchase one of the 3, the other content will still be available but limited in usage i.e. you can't enter/use/interact with vehicles/objects/units etc. 

 

In this way BIS could create separate departments in their studio, each dedicating to their own packages (such as the Air department having the time and resources in developing an AFM). Maybe each of them won't only be responsible for just units, but the design of maps/objects/wildlife etc. (Land for Earth, Air for Sky and Sea for.. well, Sea!)

 

As for the economic side, yes you'll probably end up paying more, but for those who only wish to 'soldier' about with infantry units can purchase the Land package alone and probably only spend €30 (or along those lines). Of course we'll end up seeing a 'Complete Combined Arms' package which would amount to €90 (or somewhere there), using the same analogy.

 

It's an idea, probably a unrealistic one, but I believe this formula could work. Or not.. :D

 

The AFM for choppers (rotorlib) is a third party flight model made by RT Dynamics anyway, and they do make a fixed wing version, which is presumably good. Development doesn't seem to be a problem in that respect. Perhaps the VTOLs could mess things up a little?
Implementation in a snakesnest of an engine like Arma's may be more of an issue.

I'm actually really disappointed in the lack of an AFM for jets. The current flight model is really quite terrible, in fact I would say it's far worse than the old helicopter FM. which is saying something...

Oh well, this radar better be good 

edit: It seems to me that Arma is heading towards a more casual demographic, and the features that the community would have loved 10 years ago just aren't relevant any more. The DayZ/Survival template IS Arma to the majority of the game's population and FixedLib in no way supports their gameplay. They aren't looking for a FM that accurately simulates vehicles, they want something easy to fly so they can go raid that base on Exile or land effortlessly in a courtyard in KOTH. + they are especially disinterested if there is an easier, more arcadier option available. It isn't necessarily a bad thing, as the company needs funding and this is the demographic that they have, the old school arma/cwc crowd is too small to fully support them. </salt>

[nodunit 397]

Sure another company has the library and ability to make the jets have a more complex flight model but its not quite really that simple, a fair bit of tech arma 3 started off with came from take on helicopters such as the clouds and helicopter flight model, and you see how long it took to bring the helicopter flight model from one game to the next.

I'd have to disagree, if anything they are trying to push towards more simulation but not frustratingly complex simulation.

For example, the 360 degree radar that once existed is being phased out for more limited radars and with variations between the vehicles, weaponry is no longer simply a case of 'lock and fire', you have to turn the radar on and by doing so are much easier to detect, not only that but with the radar off you can run the risk of firing a missile at an unidentified friendly unit, and if you thought AA was dangerous before wait until you see how dangerous they can be when the radar is turned off.

Add in new damage points

More HUD information

Furthermore the throttle is now a % like the heli AFM so it feels as though there is a gradient slide instead of being pure 0-1 unless you have a stick/throttle setup.

[chortles 263]

9 hours ago, nigal said:

The AFM for choppers (rotorlib) is a third party flight model made by RT Dynamics anyway, and they do make a fixed wing version, which is presumably good. Development doesn't seem to be a problem in that respect. Perhaps the VTOLs could mess things up a little?
Implementation in a snakesnest of an engine like Arma's may be more of an issue.

Your last sentence here nailed it. As I fully-quoted oukej on the previous page it came down in part to what nodunit said -- Bohemia could not bring 1:1 bring FixedWingLib into Arma 3 just like they couldn't just copy-paste RotorLib from TKOH to A3 -- and as oukej alluded to the cost-benefit ratio of from-scratch worked on a fixed-wing AFM was outweighed internally by everything else they did do instead.

 

For what it's worth, as nodunit mentioned "if you thought AA was dangerous before wait until you see how dangerous they can be when the radar is turned off"; there's some discussion of this on page 17 of the sensors overhaul thread.

[Callsign 127]

I wonder if there would ever be scope for a Take On Planes spin off? I'd certainly be interested if there was a decent campaign to go with it. 

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

6 minutes ago, Callsign said:

I wonder if there would ever be scope for a Take On Planes spin off? I'd certainly be interested if there was a decent campaign to go with it. 

Brought it up already. I thought it was an amazing idea, but others preferred "Take On Tanks" instead. I don't think it'll get better than War Thunder, Steel Beasts, or WOT, but i think a "Take On Aeroplanes" game would benefit Arma in the future but introducing technologies to kill the view distance limit, improve FPS, and overall performance with large distance terrains, etc., which would also heavily improve infantry gameplay as well. Thing is though, that would mean BI would have to set up a separate team to make that title, and they're already hands full and exhausted with DayZ and Arma 3, YLands, Take on Mars, so... Idk. I don't know if DayZ has something for aircraft yet, i know Heli's got a different kind of flight model than Arma series, so maybe DayZ could make the push to invent JBSim or Fixed Wing Lib for future games. Highly unlikely though.

[sasha013 225]

A Take On Jets would be awesome! Bring back the old style 90s Combat Flight Sims like Jane's F18E or DID's EF2000!!

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Wasn't speaking jest specifically, but more along the lines of a "Take On" series centered around planes, with limited scenarios and mission involving jets, which could also include things like the new sensors, etc. Perhaps even an a mission with an AWACS Blackfish that can act as an extended range Datalink for interesting scenarios. But this is a conversation for another thread.

[chortles 263]

10 hours ago, darksidesixofficial said:

Thing is though, that would mean BI would have to set up a separate team to make that title, and they're already hands full and exhausted with DayZ and Arma 3, YLands, Take on Mars, so... Idk. I don't know if DayZ has something for aircraft yet, i know Heli's got a different kind of flight model than Arma series, so maybe DayZ could make the push to invent JBSim or Fixed Wing Lib for future games. Highly unlikely though.

Only Bohemia's people can say (internally) how exhausted they are or would be with regards to a Take On Planes, whether done concurrently with or after any of the titles you've described (although Take On Mars has formally left Steam Early Access while Ylands is a Bohemia Incubator game)... but the primary issue I can imagine with a Take On Planes is the uncertain value (in terms of internal education that could be carried forward) of a "RV4+" title due to Bohemia's public eyeing of Enfusion as the future proprietary engine, while DayZ still has no publicly known fixed-wing aircraft implementation at all for us to compare.

[sasha013 225]

Changing topic (slightly), who here would prefer a static carrier to a dynamic, the latter being able to place anywhere on the map (that has water, at least)?

[joostsidy 682]

16 minutes ago, sasha013 said:

Changing topic (slightly), who here would prefer a static carrier to a dynamic, the latter being able to place anywhere on the map (that has water, at least)?

 

In dont understand the question? Isn't the difference between a static and dynamic carrier, that a dynamic carrier can sail, whereas the static cannot, even though it can be placed anywhere on the map?

 

Do you mean with static, a ship that is baked into the map? Does that offer advantages?

 

I would prefer a static one, if it means there is more functionality to the ship.

[Wiki 1558]

9 minutes ago, joostsidy said:

 

In dont understand the question? Isn't the difference between a static and dynamic carrier, that a dynamic carrier can sail, whereas the static cannot, even though it can be placed anywhere on the map?

 

Do you mean with static, a ship that is baked into the map? Does that offer advantages?

 

I would prefer a static one, if it means there is more functionality to the ship.

 

He meant:

in ArmA 2, the Khe Sahn on Utes coudn't be moved at all.

He asks whether people prefer a placeholder on the map or an object that can be placed wherever the mission maker wants it.

[joostsidy 682]

It seems very static to have a totally unmovable ship baked into the map. I havent played Arma2, but OFP had a non-sailable destroyer, I consider that a static ship as well. I prefer that type, but then as a carrier.

 

Come to think of it, a totally static ship would have to be embedded in the map? In all the maps? BI would probably prefer not changing their maps again.

[sasha013 225]

5 hours ago, joostsidy said:

 

In dont understand the question? Isn't the difference between a static and dynamic carrier, that a dynamic carrier can sail, whereas the static cannot, even though it can be placed anywhere on the map?

 

Do you mean with static, a ship that is baked into the map? Does that offer advantages?

 

I would prefer a static one, if it means there is more functionality to the ship.

 

Sorry, I did word it wrong. Wiki pretty much cleared what I meant to ask. 

 

Wouldn't a static, fixed 'unmovable' carrier be better in regards to clipping issues?