BIS Aircraft Carrier

[deltagamer 612]

@nodunit I've had the chance to get familiar with large static carrier based objects within arma 3 and currently the only way of implementing them can cause other issues such as geometry spacing (falling through decks etc) if not done correctly. Current information seems to point towards there being only one viable way in spawning such objects in game through the use of split up parts "glued together" via scripting. Visually it looks like the same method of split up parts was used on the USS Freedom similar to previous titles such as the a2 LHD or some current modded ships like the Nimitz or the CUP LHD.

 

Is there any possibility of moving away from this method of spawning large objects such as Ships greater than 50 - 60 metres? If I understand it there is a lot of underlying engine issues that prevent an easy fix for ships of this size to remain one whole object instead of split parts. I'm interested if there is any more information on this subject as I could use with some reference to get the CUP LHD to a vanilla standard like the USS Freedom. I would also imagine having a singular object compared to a split one would allow for a safer and more easier way in implementing interior designs for both the USS Freedom and external modded assets.

[HazardousJay 83]

soo i got into thinking.. it wont be possible to make scripts for the USS Freedom to launch anything other than planes until the files get unencrypted after release right?

unless i might be wrong. 

[joostsidy 685]

8 minutes ago, HazardousJay said:

soo i got into thinking.. it wont be possible to make scripts for the USS Freedom to launch anything other than planes until the files get unencrypted after release right?

unless i might be wrong. 

Nothing will stop you to add an action to a specific location (the cat position) that will launch a script that launches your _this select 0 as far as you like :-)

[HazardousJay 83]

Just now, joostsidy said:

Nothing will stop you to add an action to a specific location (the cat position) that will launch a script that launches your _this select 0 as far as you like :-)

 

well then.. guess im gonna get into gear and figure out how to make certain catapults of the freedom to launch submarines ;P

[tuskin38 25]

It looks like only the F-181 and Sentinel can Auto-land on the carrier, rest of the planes just go off to nearest runway on the map.

Is there an attribute that modders will need to add to their jets to allow them to land on carriers?

[dragon01 902]

I think this is related to the presence of the tailhook on the plane. Without it, you shouldn't be able to land on the carrier at all. I didn't test if it works that way, but the wires definitely shouldn't catch aircraft that don't have a tailhook. And since the runway is too short to land on without the wires, planes without a tailhook shouldn't bother with the carrier.

[HeroesandvillainsOS 1504]

So there a quite a few reports now that there is no AI pathfinding on the carrier (ordering AI into helo and plane results in them walking off the side of the ship).

 

Is that totally out of the question at this point in time? I hope this question doesn't come across as being ungrateful for the free content. I am grateful. It's just I only play Arma with grouped AI. If they can't board vehicles on command on this thing, I don't see how I (and a lot of people I know) can even begin using it.

[mankyle 420]

Is there anyway to get the carrier parts classnames???

[roy86 367]

27 minutes ago, mankyle said:

Is there anyway to get the carrier parts classnames???

from the function "BIS_fnc_Carrier01Init" also check the config browser for anything with Land_carrier_*

Example in cfgVehicles class for carrier base
multiStructureParts[] = {
	{"Land_Carrier_01_hull_01_F","pos_Hull1"},
	{"Land_Carrier_01_hull_02_F","pos_Hull2"},
	{"Land_Carrier_01_hull_03_F","pos_Hull3"},
	{"Land_Carrier_01_hull_04_F","pos_Hull4"},
	{"Land_Carrier_01_hull_05_F","pos_Hull5"},
	{"Land_Carrier_01_hull_06_F","pos_Hull6"},
	{"Land_Carrier_01_hull_07_F","pos_Hull7"},
	{"Land_Carrier_01_hull_08_F","pos_Hull8"},
	{"Land_Carrier_01_hull_09_F","pos_Hull9"},
	{"Land_Carrier_01_island_01_F","pos_Island1"},
	{"Land_Carrier_01_island_02_F","pos_Island1"},
	{"DynamicAirport_01_F","pos_Airport"}
};

 

[mankyle 420]

Thanks!!!!

 

[TeTeT 1523]

17 hours ago, deltagamer said:

...

Is there any possibility of moving away from this method of spawning large objects such as Ships greater than 50 - 60 metres? If I understand it there is a lot of underlying engine issues that prevent an easy fix for ships of this size to remain one whole object instead of split parts. I'm interested if there is any more information on this subject as I could use with some reference to get the CUP LHD to a vanilla standard like the USS Freedom. I would also imagine having a singular object compared to a split one would allow for a safer and more easier way in implementing interior designs for both the USS Freedom and external modded assets.

I fully agree, it would be awesome to spawn a single large object with all of the sub lods contained. From limited testing with the USNS Patuxent (thanks to NightIntruder for sharing) it seems that a 200 meter plus resolution lod works now, as does a geo lod with multiple smaller objects - a 200 meter geo lod will still not work. Unfortunately this approach came to a full stop when the road lod was tested, which still seems to be at the old 40 - 50 meter limit.

 

On the USS Freedom itself, I think it's a great piece of work. The flightdeck looks so great, especially from a distance, as do the interiour rooms that are full of ambient objects. Well done! Of course there are still some scripting problems to be observed, but I'm sure those will be overcome. From the Nimitz point of view it would be great if the scripts would allow some mechanism to 'plugin' other third party code. For example the catapult script for the Nimitz would need to emit steam. I'm not sure if this is feasible though, as the base script would get rather complicated. Anyway, keep up the great work!

[Bitesrad 481]

Awesome work on the carrier lads! She's a beauty and a welcome addition to the game. Hopefully in Arma 4 we'll get moving carriers like in VBS 3.

[xxgetbuck123 945]

45 minutes ago, Bitesrad said:

Awesome work on the carrier lads! She's a beauty and a welcome addition to the game. Hopefully in Arma 4 we'll get moving carriers like in VBS 3.

 

Dont give em too many ideas ;) haha

 

If we don't at least CUP might port it over to Arma 4 :) 

[Polyus 139]

13 hours ago, TeTeT said:

I fully agree, it would be awesome to spawn a single large object with all of the sub lods contained. From limited testing with the USNS Patuxent (thanks to NightIntruder for sharing) it seems that a 200 meter plus resolution lod works now, as does a geo lod with multiple smaller objects - a 200 meter geo lod will still not work. Unfortunately this approach came to a full stop when the road lod was tested, which still seems to be at the old 40 - 50 meter limit.

 

On the USS Freedom itself, I think it's a great piece of work. The flightdeck looks so great, especially from a distance, as do the interiour rooms that are full of ambient objects. Well done! Of course there are still some scripting problems to be observed, but I'm sure those will be overcome. From the Nimitz point of view it would be great if the scripts would allow some mechanism to 'plugin' other third party code. For example the catapult script for the Nimitz would need to emit steam. I'm not sure if this is feasible though, as the base script would get rather complicated. Anyway, keep up the great work!

Wait wait wait, what? You guys are making a replenishment ship now? Awesome!

[R0adki11 3949]

11 hours ago, Polyus said:

Wait wait wait, what? You guys are making a replenishment ship now? Awesome!

Can we stay on topic please 

[Jnr4817 215]

Has anyone tried Duda's rappelling and advanced rappelling on the carrier?

 

Thanks

[tuskin38 25]

Is the carrier longer in game then it says on the DLC page? The page says 337 Meters, but it is almost 40 longer then that.

[dragon01 902]

Maybe the length on the page refers to waterline length (LWL):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/LOA-LWL.svg

For carriers in particular, LOA and LWL can differ significantly.

[tuskin38 25]

2 hours ago, dragon01 said:

Maybe the length on the page refers to waterline length (LWL):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/LOA-LWL.svg

For carriers in particular, LOA and LWL can differ significantly.

 

I guess that could be possible. 

[lumnuon 295]

I noticed an issue with the aircraft carrier model (The back of the left side):

 

 

 

[TrueCruel_Nobody 35]

If someone is interested, I made a workaround for the deflectors to lower after a jets starts.

 

[Arufayama 3]

On 4/21/2017 at 3:00 AM, lexx said:

Should have named it USS Trump instead? :>

 

 

The obvious solution to avoid an political claims would be named for a revolutionary war figure, like a new USS Hopkins or USS Von Steuben.

[dragon01 902]

Freedom works fine. While what the word stood for is somewhat forgotten this days, the word itself is very popular. :)

[suddenlymoose 15]

Great work on the carrier. Should be excellent for air deployments. The back of the carrier also seems fine for deployments by small boats.

 

A suggestion: adding some extra climbable ladders between the different platforms at the rear of the carrier would make it even better for deployments by sea. The lowest platform can be used to board small boats, but it is very small and unfortunately not connected to any of the platforms above.

 

[tuskin38 25]

18 hours ago, emke said:

If someone is interested, I made a workaround for the deflectors to lower after a jets starts.

 

Today's patch fixed the issue lol.

 

 

On 22/04/2017 at 9:21 PM, dragon01 said:

I think this is related to the presence of the tailhook on the plane. Without it, you shouldn't be able to land on the carrier at all. I didn't test if it works that way, but the wires definitely shouldn't catch aircraft that don't have a tailhook. And since the runway is too short to land on without the wires, planes without a tailhook shouldn't bother with the carrier.

 

Well the AI/Autopilot can land the F-181 fine without the tailhook deployed, it stops short of going over the edge. I haven't actually tried it myself manually.