BIS Aircraft Carrier

[BadHabitz 235]

8 hours ago, Mitrail said:

While we're at it, does anyone know what is the purpose of these long sticks on front-left and front-right of carriers?

 

Radio antennae 

[AV8R_Six 110]

Yep, Antennas...lots of them!...they also work as question generators!

 

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

11 hours ago, nodunit said:

What an interesting idea...perhaps an attachto if they can be individually placed.

 

That Mk-49 Spartan on the back of a flatbed Hemmt, tied into a Datalinked sharing/receiving radar based unit would just be.....

 

 

[silentghoust 132]

Hopefully it will be able to be destroyed if the mission calls for it. I mean, why bother with all the static weapons if their is little point of attacking it?

[I'mJimFuckingSterlingSon 10]

So can mission makers incorporate this in to their missions? Or will this be added to a mission when the jets dlc comes out? ( im sure the latter will be implemented) 

[papanowel 120]

12 hours ago, ProfTournesol said:

That's great. I'd like to see some non static smaller ships on a dedicated dlc later.

Indeed.

 

It's really a nice surprise and it's going to be free for all of us.

 

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

23 minutes ago, I'mJimFuckingSterlingSon said:

So can mission makers incorporate this in to their missions? Or will this be added to a mission when the jets dlc comes out? ( im sure the latter will be implemented) 

 

Static object that can be placed in the Editor.

[I'mJimFuckingSterlingSon 10]

 

1 minute ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

 

Static object that can be placed in the Editor.

 

Nice, this pleases me

[mickeymen 324]

8 hours ago, fn_Quiksilver said:

 

 

- Gets free aircraft carrier from BIS

- expresses disappointment. "where is interior wtf" "not drivable wtf" "only 1 ship, carriers dont operate solo wtf" "where is lifts wtf"  "should be sinkable wtf"  "needs damage modeling wtf"

 

arma players ...

 

 

im totally excited for the carrier. thanks B01 and BI :D

 

If BIS makes this carrier free, it does not mean that you should pray to this aircraft carrier! This means that they know their strategy for future Jet DLC sales 

Yes, we are grateful, but we all know that BIS likes not to finish its job perfectly, and it's a fact.
I believe that if this aircraft carrier is not destructible, then it will be the case, again not a polished work.

 

8 hours ago, dragon01 said:

People are way too hung up on movable/destroyable ships, which would actually add little to core ArmA gameplay. It would be nice, but the primary value of the ships is being able to use them as bases, for which those features are superfluous.

 

How you an imagine, this armed enemy carrier, if, for example, the 15 allies aircraft  (including your plane!), send to this carrier the missiles,rockets, bomb simultaneously and this vessel will continue to float as if nothing happened!? This is normal?  Or maybe I want the impossible!? Lol! 

 

As seems to me, the adequate, or if you want realistic( everyone in the Arma community love this word ) gameplay in this case will be, only, if this ship will is destroyed. But if it is destroyed, then it can not swim further. This means second thing - It must have the ability to be dumped also! Or maybe I'm wrong?

 

This aircraft carrier must be destructible and this is not the whim of crazy peoples. As seems to me, this desire for an adequate gameplay ArmA3, not more.
 

[dragon01 902]

Yes, you want the impossible. ArmA can't reliably handle large ship destruction, not to mention we really don't have any munitions capable of sinking a carrier of that size. In practice, it wouldn't be useful for gameplay. I'd advise you to forget about it because this isn't happening. It'll be like LHD in ArmA2, with some weapons added.

 

I agree that some destructibility would be nice. For example, being able to shred the radar domes, knock out the weapons, damage the bridge... that's all doable, though I don't know if BIS are doing that. The weapons should definitely be possible to disable. Sinking the ship is definitely not doable, not necessary and will not be done, because it'd be a waste of time. I'd rather have BIS focus on features which are going to affect core ArmA gameplay.

[mickeymen 324]

Just now, dragon01 said:

Yes, you want the impossible. ArmA can't reliably handle large ship destruction, not to mention we really don't have any munitions capable of sinking a carrier of that size. In practice, it wouldn't be useful for gameplay. I'd advise you to forget about it because this isn't happening. It'll be like LHD in ArmA2, with some weapons added.

 

I disagree with you. We are in 2017 and it already obliges.

I do not call for an encore to do, super detailed destruction. With regards to flooding, you surprise me. It's very simple to do. It is necessary that only the aircraft carrier very slowly went under water, as do corpses and ammunition boxes/ (when the ground falls flat)

[dragon01 902]

It is not simple to do, unless you mean scripting it (which should be possible). Being in 2017 doesn't oblige anyone to anything (graphics are already par the course). For "real" sinking, the carrier would have to use PhysX, which means being movable like a vehicle. This would require a lot of other features ArmA simply doesn't have. Maybe BIS could implement that, but it would be a huge overhaul of the entire game engine, all for a feature which would be almost useless in practice. In other words, not worth it.

 

I'd strongly advise everyone to remember that ArmA3 engine isn't suited for naval combat, movable ships or anything like that. This isn't Carrier Command, be happy that you're getting one ship as a static prop. Save your requests for ArmA4, which will likely be built on Enfusion, which should allow such things.

[mickeymen 324]

Just now, dragon01 said:

It is not simple to do, unless you mean scripting it (which should be possible). Being in 2017 doesn't oblige anyone to anything (graphics are already par the course). For "real" sinking, the carrier would have to use PhysX, which means being movable like a vehicle. This would require a lot of other features ArmA simply doesn't have. Maybe BIS could implement that, but it would be a huge overhaul of the entire game engine, all for a feature which would be almost useless in practice. In other words, not worth it.

 

I can only hope that you are wrong, because the little that I understand in the Arma3 engine/

[dragon01 902]

Save yourself the disappointment. I know the limitations of ArmA engine, it has its roots in OFP and some of it can still show at times. Modders have been trying to get around those limitations for quite a while, but introducing a feature of that size is only possible for BIS devs. It just isn't worth the time, especially given the extremely limited gameplay benefits.

[ProfTournesol 956]

5 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

It is not simple to do, unless you mean scripting it (which should be possible). Being in 2017 doesn't oblige anyone to anything (graphics are already par the course). For "real" sinking, the carrier would have to use PhysX, which means being movable like a vehicle. This would require a lot of other features ArmA simply doesn't have. Maybe BIS could implement that, but it would be a huge overhaul of the entire game engine, all for a feature which would be almost useless in practice. In other words, not worth it.

 

I'd strongly advise everyone to remember that ArmA3 engine isn't suited for naval combat, movable ships or anything like that. This isn't Carrier Command, be happy that you're getting one ship as a static prop. Save your requests for ArmA4, which will likely be built on Enfusion, which should allow such things.

 

As much as i agree with the first part, Arma engine handles moving ships without any problem.

[dragon01 902]

Not if there's something placed on top. Which, for an aircraft carrier, seems like pretty much a given. Generally, any large ship would have people walking on top of it, which is the real issue and the reason we're not getting big ships.

[mickeymen 324]

Just now, dragon01 said:

 For "real" sinking, the carrier would have to use PhysX, which means being movable like a vehicle.

 

And yet it is difficult for me to agree with you here. I think it should be some kind of cunning. All you need is to slowly lower the carrier to the bottom of the ocean (!only animation, without PhysX)

[ProfTournesol 956]

9 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

Not if there's something placed on top. Which, for an aircraft carrier, seems like pretty much a given. Generally, any large ship would have people walking on top of it, which is the real issue and the reason we're not getting big ships.

 

That doesn't mean there is no place for naval combat, as you said.

[dragon01 902]

No, it doesn't. The fact that that it doesn't happen anymore IRL is the reason for that. There's no cover at sea, so any naval warfare would happen at ASM carrier aircraft max range+ASM max range. No point in coming closer. Ships don't duke it out between themselves, and there certainly wouldn't be a situation where two carrier battlegroups sit on the opposite sides of an island the size of Altis, well within range of just about every ship and aircraft-mounted weapon on them. ArmA is an infantry simulator first and foremost, and ships other than carriers don't contribute much to infantry warfare, except acting as powerful artillery (for which static ships suffice).

16 minutes ago, mickeymen said:

 

And yet it is difficult for me to agree with you here. I think it should be some kind of cunning. All you need is to slowly lower the carrier to the bottom of the ocean (!only animation, without PhysX)

And how do you tell that enough damage has been done to start sinking? Seriously, if this kind of primitive "sinking" is what you want, then it's perfectly doable with any static ship. There was a script in TOH Ships mod (it's somewhere in the addon releases) that allowed static ships (without things on top, though) to move around by using a script. As long as the BIS carrier isn't spawned using a script (all mod ships of that size, as well as ArmaA2 LHD, were made of multiple parts), then it should be possible to move it vertically in the same way. You'd just have to find a way to trigger it on getting damage. It'll also look exceedingly silly, with ship slowly moving downwards with deck perfectly level. I have no idea what would happen to things on deck, but if it's anything like Nimitz elevators, then they'd stay in the air and only drop when they move unless specifically accounted for (that said, there's a chance BIS fixes that to get the carrier's elevators to work better).

[mickeymen 324]

Just now, dragon01 said:

And how do you tell that enough damage has been done to start sinking? 

Whats problems!? It cannot have hitpoints?  Every houses on the map have hitpoints! Why static carrier cannot have this?

 

Just now, dragon01 said:

Seriously, if this kind of primitive "sinking" is what you want, then it's perfectly doable with any static ship. 

 

Just now, dragon01 said:

It'll also look exceedingly silly, with ship slowly moving downwards with deck perfectly level. 

 

No! It may not look primitive. Add a random not big roll of 5-10 degrees on the Y axis (vertical axis), add a random not big roll of 5-10 degrees on the X-Z axis (gorizontal axis), add a lot of smoke on the surface of the ocean!  Add fire in 3-5 areas of an aircraft carrier! And what would that be still primitive!? I think this is elementary to do, especially without PhysX! 

 

The problem is not that it's impossible on the engine of ARMA, but the fact that nobody even wants to think about it!  

For this reason, since the release of ARMA in 2013 the destruction in the game was not improved even once, while the BlastCore mod, proved to all of us that the destructible in ARMA can be much more attractive!

 

 

[dragon01 902]

Do it, then. What you're proposing is a fairly straightforward scripting job, unless the carrier is made out of parts. You can practice on the HMS Proteus, it's in Structures (Altis)/Seaport. Start with making it dive to the bottom and work your way up.

 

I'd really like to see the fun that happens when you start rotating a deck with objects on it. And no, it can't have hitpoints, at least not in the way vehicle can. You'll have to script everything. I think it's useless, I don't think BIS will be doing that and I certainly won't. You're free to try, though.

[ProfTournesol 956]

It's a game, mate, the fact you disagree with naval warfare doesnt mean it should't be there. It doesn't happen in RL is because there isn't any war involving countries with decent fleets, but as soon as it will happen, there will be naval warfares. You can  also have numerous landing scenarios in a game based on Islands.

[mickeymen 324]

Just now, dragon01 said:

I'd really like to see the fun that happens when you start rotating a deck with objects on it.

 

This is easy to solve! Before rotation should be a powerful explosion which will destroy all objects. The main thing to have desire. You are asking me to do this? But still it is not my job.

 

Just now, dragon01 said:

And no, it can't have hitpoints, at least not in the way vehicle can.

 

I said, let that be hitpoint like the buildings on the map. In fact we see the same thing with tottering houses. The house falls down! And the Carrier also can do it, if it's a static object. Only in the case of the aircraft carrier, should be given a small roll and a lot of smoke on the water surface, which will hide imperfections of the submersible wreckage

 

The crash is possible on the ArmA engine, as static houses on all maps prove this

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Arma 3's engine handles ships perfectly, this includes ships with vehicles on top. I'm already proved this. However, it's not going to handle a bloody air craft carrier moving full speed, in a multiplayer scenario with full crew and people running about. If you were here since Alpha, you know the ONLY way to get man class walking on deck was stupidly heavily scripted to the  point of logical impracticality. Also, this isnt the time for naval assets. This is a Jets DLC. Oh, and fun fact, keep in mind just because a carrier is added, doesnt mean we get more boats. The US Air Force owns and operates more ships than the US Navy.

[dragon01 902]

Exactly. Moving ships around, even with objects on them, is only possible with scripting. It works in SP, but getting it not to fall apart in MP is another matter.

14 minutes ago, ProfTournesol said:

It's a game, mate, the fact you disagree with naval warfare doesnt mean it should't be there. It doesn't happen in RL is because there isn't any war involving countries with decent fleets, but as soon as it will happen, there will be naval warfares. You can  also have numerous landing scenarios in a game based on Islands.

No, it won't be. If there's a war between countries with decent fleets, they'd try to sink each other with aircraft. Ship to ship combat is a thing of the past. Landings could be a thing, but landing craft aren't nearly as large (barring a few Russian designs) as "big ships" we're talking about here, not to mention those are adequately served by current features.