BIS Aircraft Carrier

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

No no, moving ships around with objects and vehicles on them is possible. You just need a roadway LOD, and both the ship and vehicles on them have to use physics. This makes it smoother and seamless. However what I mean is otherwise something like an Aircraft carrier isn't as practical as smaller patrol boats in terms of the scope of Arma 3, and usability...

 

However, if you want to have fun, go find the guys that use "attachto" to nice big things around like the Static submarine. Attach the Carrier to a slow boat and move it, and you will prove my be able to land on it fine, but walking on it won't work. Only vehicles and objects can stay on deck.

[Mickyleitor 183]

1 hour ago, darksidesixofficial said:

Arma 3's engine handles ships perfectly, this includes ships with vehicles on top. I'm already proved this.

It's partially supported, once you get this to MP, all interaction beetwen vehicle (ship) + vehicle (heli) will lead to a fatal crash (tested by my own 1 month ago).
However, we know in alpha this wasn't supported and all improvements done until now is welcomed regarding to engine limits.
I've tested by my self some random checks in SP, just to show you this is actually working but... (there is always a but) once ship start moving then players will freeze in the same position or at least it won't follow ship track and for sure interaction in MP is worst in this case (vehicle+vehicle).
 

With USS Freedom into the corner there will be improvements, new mechanics and functionality to better support this kind of assets (I hope..) and it would be very ... very welcomed for some of us.

[oukej 2910]

1 hour ago, darksidesixofficial said:

No no, moving ships around with objects and vehicles on them is possible. You just need a roadway LOD, and both the ship and vehicles on them have to use physics.

Actually roadway LOD has never been intended for moving objects and isn't designed as such. Feel free to use it, but we take absolutely no responsibility ;)

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

13 minutes ago, oukej said:

Actually roadway LOD has never been intended for moving objects and isn't designed as such. Feel free to use it, but we take absolutely no responsibility ;)

Fair enough. Though its funny how well it works. Maybe invent a Deck LOD on the future? =P

[[evo] dan 79]

3 minutes ago, darksidesixofficial said:

Fair enough. Though its funny how well it works. Maybe invent a Deck LOD on the future? =P

yes please, roadway LOD can work funnily. If its low enough to the water, vehicles on it can propel the ship along!

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

2 hours ago, Mickyleitor said:

It's partially supported, once you get this to MP, all interaction beetwen vehicle (ship) + vehicle (heli) will lead to a fatal crash (tested by my own 1 month ago).
 

 

Not to burst your bubble, but that landing was rushed to hell. Lol, you broke your rotor on the back end of the structure before plopping down in through the storage bay. I've landed helis on moving ships fine, problems come when you rush (I've done it thousand times), or if you use advanced flight model, which just causes you to fall through the entire model. But anyhow... I'm interested to see what kind of crazy scripts people will come up with for the USS Freedom. Now that we have a massive surface to walk on, maybe the crew who did the whole walking on deck thing might return to try and make it possible with this huge super carrier.

[Mickyleitor 183]

9 minutes ago, darksidesixofficial said:

Not to burst your bubble, but that landing was rushed to hell.

That landing was obviously not to explain that contact between large objets with physics doesn't work well in MP . In fact that's SP and I was too lazy to edit and cut the video to the interesting part...
It works pretty well in SP but again you can't land on a moving ship into MP enviroments. Tried 1 month ago and inmediately the gear contact with surface in the landing, the ship/heli will become unstable and finally explode itself.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

@oukej are AI UAV/planes able to land on the carrier? I will understand if they cannot :)

[r8gato 18]

17 hours ago, r8gato said:

I understand the carrier is static. But, will it have some interior, usable space, including storing aircraft + working lifts?

 

16 hours ago, fn_Quiksilver said:

yea im embarrassed to be a part of the arma community today, after reading the feedback on the carrier reveal. half the feedback is good, the other half is "nice, but does it have ...? cuz if it doesnt that sucks and im now disappointed"

 

16 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

 

I'm not sure if my simple question irritated you? I can dream about using the ship for more than just a runway. I've not bashing BI or B01, have thousands of hrs in A3, and an Arma 3 Supporter. The value returned on my investment has been ridiculously crazy. I'm not expecting BF level dynamic environments, but I don't think I'm out of line for asking the question I did.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

5 hours ago, r8gato said:

 

 

 

I'm not sure if my simple question irritated you? I can dream about using the ship for more than just a runway. I've not bashing BI or B01, have thousands of hrs in A3, and an Arma 3 Supporter. The value returned on my investment has been ridiculously crazy. I'm not expecting BF level dynamic environments, but I don't think I'm out of line for asking the question I did.

 

sorry, i was disappointed by the number of people yesterday, on reveal that they will receive cool free stuff, focus entirely on its limitations and why its not good enough. how many hours of effort was put into the free carrier? 1000+? and the response from community: "not good enough"    "unpolished"    "not sinkable? meh"

[warlord554 2065]

^^^ give this man a cigar and a beer. Well said

[McQuade 10]

What about counterparts to NATO/BLUFOR ?

 

[nodunit 397]

3 hours ago, McQuade said:

What about counterparts to NATO/BLUFOR ?

 

 

Ooooooooo what is this magnificent beast?

Disclaimer: Since this is technically a company account, my interest in this ship is personally mine alone from interest of all things maritime, it does not reflect B01 and does not mean we will be creating it or even entertaining it.

[BadHabitz 235]

Has the question been answered as to whether or not the aircraft elevators are functional?

[Komachi 10]

1 hour ago, nodunit said:

Ooooooooo what is this magnificent beast?

Disclaimer: Since this is technically a company account, my interest in this ship is personally mine alone from interest of all things maritime, it does not reflect B01 and does not mean we will be creating it or even entertaining it.

It's a Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier, last aircraft carrier of Soviet Union.

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

None of CSAT's aircraft are carrier capable (in game, at least). But, perhaps someone could port over the USS Khe Sanh from Arma 2, modifiy it (specifically to work with the new AA defenses), and reskin it in hex? It could be used as a main operating base for OPFOR.

[BadHabitz 235]

5 hours ago, McQuade said:

What about counterparts to NATO/BLUFOR ?

 

Unfortunately these big ships are only static objects. I'd only be interested in adding Russian ships if I could send them to the bottom of the sea.

[drebin052 323]

The Kuznetsov would be a true floating relic, being almost 53 years old by the time of A3's setting. And in all honesty...why?

 

As much as I like the fact that Arma's getting a full scale carrier officially, it's already incredibly silly for there to be a supercarrier floating by itself so close to the shore without the rest of its battlegroup escort ships. Having two unescorted carriers for both BLUFOR and REDFOR within knife fighting range (<11 km) would be even more silly to see...

[Janez 530]

Silly or not I would love to see CSAT carrier. Surely China would come up with some glorious monstrosity by 2035. It would allow for great 3-sided scenarios, like NATO carrier as base on one side of i.e. Altis, CSAT's on the other and AAF holding the island.

[dragon01 902]

1 hour ago, drebin052 said:

As much as I like the fact that Arma's getting a full scale carrier officially, it's already incredibly silly for there to be a supercarrier floating by itself so close to the shore without the rest of its battlegroup escort ships. Having two unescorted carriers for both BLUFOR and REDFOR within knife fighting range (<11 km) would be even more silly to see...

Agreed about the escorts (there really should be some Zumwalts screening it), but I actually wouldn't mind a CSAT carrier. They don't have to be present at the same time, after all, as it would be exceedingly silly (as I said many times in walking on moving decks thread), but nobody says NATO has to be the one with the carrier. Of course, there'd be nothing to stop mission makers from putting them both in, but realistic missions would restrict themselves to one.

 

Also, using the Kuznetsov wouldn't be as silly as it might seem. The Chinese are building a new carrier, the Shandong, based on Kuznetsov design sans the missiles. Well, either that, or one could use the Shtorm (if it's so important to keep NATO and CSAT "balanced"):

Dunno if the Russians are still working on it, though.

[mickeymen 324]

2 hours ago, BadHabitz said:

I'd only be interested in adding Russian ships if I could send them to the bottom of the sea.

 

you and NATO carrier will not be able to send to the bottom of the sea because it will most likely indestructible. (everyone is happy with it)

[BadHabitz 235]

1 hour ago, dragon01 said:

Agreed about the escorts (there really should be some Zumwalts screening it...

 

Zumwalts are much more expensive than Arleigh Burkes (twice as much), and less capable. The ones built are gimmicks, and future unfunded hulls were cancelled. Supposed to be 32 ships, but they stopped at 3. Meanwhile, the Navy is buying more Burkes, up to even 42 more.

[dragon01 902]

Which is exactly why they'd be a perfect fit for ArmA3's setting. :) They certainly look futuristic and stealthy, just like the most of the NATO lineup. 

 

Also, it'd be fitting from a gameplay standpoint - it's optimized for land attack and littoral warfare. This is far more relevant both in game and in the modern warfare than ship to ship combat.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

2 hours ago, dragon01 said:

Agreed about the escorts (there really should be some Zumwalts screening it), but I actually wouldn't mind a CSAT carrier. They don't have to be present at the same time, after all, as it would be exceedingly silly (as I said many times in walking on moving decks thread), but nobody says NATO has to be the one with the carrier. Of course, there'd be nothing to stop mission makers from putting them both in, but realistic missions would restrict themselves to one.

 

Also, using the Kuznetsov wouldn't be as silly as it might seem. The Chinese are building a new carrier, the Shandong, based on Kuznetsov design sans the missiles. Well, either that, or one could use the Shtorm (if it's so important to keep NATO and CSAT "balanced"):

Dunno if the Russians are still working on it, though.

Unlikely, but there's no reason Chinese CSAT wouldn't be interested. They have plans for carriers in their future. Some of the concept Russian/Chinese ships look down right bad arse, but still, you have to remember this is Arma. The most we saw of a fleet of ships ever, was the EW showcase in Arma 2, where it shows static destroyers firing tomohawks... That's literally it. Not much substance there for anyone but sheer eye candy. Big ships are not something Arma can do people, it's static, and that's as far as it goes. These ships fight in over 300km distances. I suggest you wait for Titan IM, but I'm gonna enjoy this jet DLC with the updates that hopefully make flying with respectable view distance enjoyable, finally.

[dragon01 902]

Static ships are fine, IMO. EW showcase was pretty awesome, and one thing ships can do really well is artillery support (I loved that mission where you designated targets for missiles in ArmA2). The "littoral combat" part would boil down to keeping enemy speedboats from sailing up to the carrier and blowing its turrets up with an RPG, but artillery would be a really nice feature to have.