Fixed Wing Flight Model (dev branch)

[havatan19 10]

well, i dont get any FPS drop while dropping bombs or calling a jet via ZEUS, i dont think this is a FPS problem.

if i select stratis in editor, empty map (only me as player and zeus module) and calling jet, only the jet stutter/lag, the FPS doesnt decrease and everything else runs fine during the jet flying, there is no single FPS drop, the stutter affects only the jet. same when i fly a jet myself and dropping a bomb, only the bomb stutter while flying/dropping to the ground, everything else runs fine without a single FPS decrease during the bomb drop.

oh and when i fly myself a jet, the jet does not stutter, the jet fly smooth.

maybe something animation related ?

[carlostex 38]

Besides the obvious problems with the flight model, ARMA would really benefit from native in-engine CCIP/CCRP. I've been trying the mod and it's awesome to use for aircraft. The same principle could be even used for Air to Ground and Air to Air Cannon.

[five_seven5-7 56]

The oukej config its fine for dev-branch: has better maneuverability than stable version. IMO this is a flying tank, more hitpoints would do no harm since we don't use the real service ceiling.

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/0016_A-10-battle-damage/story0016.htm

http://i1.wp.com/www.defensemedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/A10-Thunderbolt-Battle-Damage.jpg?fit=1280%2C9999

Note the trim tabs

Edited November 25, 2014 by Five_Seven5-7

[EricJ 765]

Besides the obvious problems with the flight model, ARMA would really benefit from native in-engine CCIP/CCRP. I've been trying the mod and it's awesome to use for aircraft. The same principle could be even used for Air to Ground and Air to Air Cannon.

I think mainly its because you don't drop a GBU-12 without a laser designator, so a CCIP/CCRP mode in the context of Arma 3 which is pretty much abstract in most ways it wouldn't make any difference. On the DCS A-10C it does make a difference and required for LGB drops, but Arma wasn't never that complex to begin with. Besides there is no TGP capability and therefore no self-lasing,which after starting on the A-10C, is pretty damn cool to use, but without modifiers it's quite pointless so you'll need somebody on the ground to designate for you.

[roshnak 41]

I think mainly its because you don't drop a GBU-12 without a laser designator, so a CCIP/CCRP mode in the context of Arma 3 which is pretty much abstract in most ways it wouldn't make any difference. On the DCS A-10C it does make a difference and required for LGB drops, but Arma wasn't never that complex to begin with. Besides there is no TGP capability and therefore no self-lasing,which after starting on the A-10C, is pretty damn cool to use, but without modifiers it's quite pointless so you'll need somebody on the ground to designate for you.

CCRP wouldn't make much sense, but CCIP would be incredibly useful for using guns and rockets accurately from longer ranges, which would allow for planes to play more defensively and thus also stronger/heavier air defense in missions.

As it is, planes are mostly either useless or overpowered in missions. I think that CCIP would actually be a pretty good step towards allowing more balanced use of planes in a wider variety of scenarios. I could be totally wrong about this and it might not play out the way I'm imagining at all, but it would still be nice to not have to rely as much on guesswork when using guns on ground targets.

Edited November 27, 2014 by roshnak

[the_demongod 31]

Yes CCIP would be extremely useful.

There's a cycle related to the A-164 (and jets in general) that I really wish could get interrupted.

The cannon is hard to use at long range. Therefore, players must fly very close to the target to be effective.

Because the player must get so close, the devs must make the plane quite sturdy so that the player can fly this close without being shot out of the sky.

As a result, the player can fly even closer to the target, able to get within rifle range and wreak accurate havok with the gun without risk of getting shot down.

And as a result to that, the devs must make the cannon as weak as it is now in order for it to not be too powerful.

These issues wouldn't be hard to remedy. Once we have CCIP we can engage at longer range. Once we can engage at longer range, BI can make the jets weaker to damage (as they are in real life, it only takes a few rounds to an engine, wing or nose to knock out hydraulics, partial engine power, avionics, and the gun). And because players must stay away from the ground to avoid damage, BI can boost the cannon to a realistic level of power. It would be a dream come true for me.

[five_seven5-7 56]

Yes CCIP would be extremely useful.

The cannon is hard to use at long range. Therefore, players must fly very close to the target to be effective.

Because the player must get so close, the devs must make the plane quite sturdy so that the player can fly this close without being shot out of the sky.

As a result, the player can fly even closer to the target, able to get within rifle range and wreak accurate havok with the gun without risk of getting shot down.

true comment, that why i comment the a-10 titanium bathtub and general A-10 Survivability

http://secure1.tagonline.com/~cradle/history/aircraft/a-10.html

[carlostex 38]

I think mainly its because you don't drop a GBU-12 without a laser designator, so a CCIP/CCRP mode in the context of Arma 3 which is pretty much abstract in most ways it wouldn't make any difference. On the DCS A-10C it does make a difference and required for LGB drops, but Arma wasn't never that complex to begin with. Besides there is no TGP capability and therefore no self-lasing,which after starting on the A-10C, is pretty damn cool to use, but without modifiers it's quite pointless so you'll need somebody on the ground to designate for you.

I think i mentioned in another thread how cool it would be to have LITENING pod capability (uber realism not needed) for us to be able to designate tagets ourselves. That would allow to fly higher and designate from distance away from small arms and heavier caliber guns from enemy vehicles.

But apart from that, i've been trying the CCIP mod and for the first time i can put AP rockets on vehicles with dead accuracy. The flight model is still not good enough, as the aircraft have this weird pitching down behaviour when flying at lower speeds which can severely hamper proper weapons employment. But with the CCIP mod i can at least use GBU's as iron bombs with a good level of accuracy and specially i can use rockets and the gun with dead accuracy. I could already use the cannon well, so now i can use it at further distances. And rockets have now become for me extremely useful. I just save the Macers for high level threats and since i can employ the other unguided weapons with good accuracy i use those most of the time instead. AP rockets have become my weapon of choice against Lightly Armored Vehicles.

[Healbeam 10]

My priorities would be CCIP first and a TGP next. CCRP for rockets would be neat, but isn't that needed IMO. I feel like anything more than that, like accurate(ish) BVR combat, a realistic flight model or fighter jets with afterburners would currently be wasted effort because the map is too small for realistic jet flight. But that may be just me.

What would be so hard about a TGP though? With the newly added Huron's cargo camera it would be pretty easy, right? In fact, it would probably also justify the "pave penny pod" on the A-164. Just put the camera there and claim that by 2030, the former TGP container could be shrinked so far that it could be permanently attached to the hull without major downsides.

Btw, what CCIP mod are you talking about? All I found is a script that no longer gets updated :(

[the_demongod 31]

AP rockets have become my weapon of choice against Lightly Armored Vehicles.

I find it odd that we have Armor Piercing rockets. Unguided rockets are by no means accurate, and to pierce armor you would have to fly quite close to get that kind of shot off. I would much rather see FAT (Flechette Anti-Tank - airburst and fire flechettes like a shotgun shell) rounds that would better pierce MRAPs than try to get a direct hit with a rocket.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

I find it odd that we have Armor Piercing rockets. Unguided rockets are by no means accurate, and to pierce armor you would have to fly quite close to get that kind of shot off. I would much rather see FAT (Flechette Anti-Tank - airburst and fire flechettes like a shotgun shell) rounds that would better pierce MRAPs than try to get a direct hit with a rocket.

I would definitely like to see some level of dispersion on the un-guided rockets currently in game.

Although I suppose current technology does allow for extremely accurate un-guided rockets; ala CRV-7.

[ruPal 143]

There is no balance in game nowadays. Especially with jet aircrafts. They are extremly easy to fly and extremly powerfull. I think that first of all we need:

- new realistic radar (not with 360 degree angle but 60-80 degrees)

- more fragile flight model (stress damage, etc)

- more fragile wings

- less hitpoints (1 AA missle should destroy aircrafts in 70-90% situations)

Furthermore, we need better radar for all AA vehicles. 6-8 kilometers will be good. Because nowadays any aircraft can lock and destroy any AA vehicle at distance that AA vehicle has no chance to survive and shoot back. Aircrafts should be terrified of any kind of AA vehicle.

[x3kj 1247]

first we need proper flight basics, then we can think about stress damage. And the only stress damage that i can think of that would actually have an impact in the short timeframe of a game is rough landings, thats it.

[carlostex 38]

There is no balance in game nowadays. Especially with jet aircrafts. They are extremly easy to fly and extremly powerfull. I think that first of all we need:

- new realistic radar (not with 360 degree angle but 60-80 degrees)

- more fragile flight model (stress damage, etc)

- more fragile wings

- less hitpoints (1 AA missle should destroy aircrafts in 70-90% situations)

Furthermore, we need better radar for all AA vehicles. 6-8 kilometers will be good. Because nowadays any aircraft can lock and destroy any AA vehicle at distance that AA vehicle has no chance to survive and shoot back. Aircrafts should be terrified of any kind of AA vehicle.

I agree with most of your post, but AI is extremely accurate and planes would be too easily destroyed by gunners on APC's. So the problem is a little more complicated. What i would like to see would be a more advanced destruction model, where a missile or heavy cannon rounds could tear off a wing, and the plane would not be flyable any more so it would crash.

As of now the plane keeps flying unless damage state is 1. The system shows its age.

[the_demongod 31]

I agree with most of your post, but AI is extremely accurate and planes would be too easily destroyed by gunners on APC's. So the problem is a little more complicated. What i would like to see would be a more advanced destruction model, where a missile or heavy cannon rounds could tear off a wing, and the plane would not be flyable any more so it would crash.

As of now the plane keeps flying unless damage state is 1. The system shows its age.

What we really need is for the avionics systems to be more fragile. From my experience in DCS (which it realistic enough to make some real life assumptions), the aircraft itself is pretty strong, usually only losing whole wings under multiple 20/30mm impacts, or large SAM hits (think SA-6). There are two common things that happen when taking fire:

- Loss of avionics: This is the most common. It only takes a few hits to the fuselage with simple 50cal rounds to knock out sensors. The Countermeasures system, Missile warning system, CICU (the control system for the in-cockpit displays), and EGI (Navigation system) all can be destroyed if you take only a few hits (2-3) from a machine gun. In Arma this could be simulated by losing the HUD, either (or both) displays (MFCDs), the ability to detect incoming missiles, or the magic radar (which should be removed in general...).

- Loss of engine power: Taking a few hits to the engine may not knock them out completely (usually it takes a missile of MANPADS size or greater), but bullet hits can damage the engines and cause partial loss of power (my guess is because of issues with pressure leakage). This makes the plane yaw oddly to one side, and fly much slower. Because hydraulics are also powered by the engine pressure, control surfaces often become sluggish. These could both be simulated in arma by forcing the airplane at a slight angle to simulate power differential, and by making control surfaces respond less effectively and more slowly.

[carlostex 38]

What we really need is for the avionics systems to be more fragile. From my experience in DCS (which it realistic enough to make some real life assumptions), the aircraft itself is pretty strong, usually only losing whole wings under multiple 20/30mm impacts, or large SAM hits (think SA-6). There are two common things that happen when taking fire:

- Loss of avionics: This is the most common. It only takes a few hits to the fuselage with simple 50cal rounds to knock out sensors. The Countermeasures system, Missile warning system, CICU (the control system for the in-cockpit displays), and EGI (Navigation system) all can be destroyed if you take only a few hits (2-3) from a machine gun. In Arma this could be simulated by losing the HUD, either (or both) displays (MFCDs), the ability to detect incoming missiles, or the magic radar (which should be removed in general...).

- Loss of engine power: Taking a few hits to the engine may not knock them out completely (usually it takes a missile of MANPADS size or greater), but bullet hits can damage the engines and cause partial loss of power (my guess is because of issues with pressure leakage). This makes the plane yaw oddly to one side, and fly much slower. Because hydraulics are also powered by the engine pressure, control surfaces often become sluggish. These could both be simulated in arma by forcing the airplane at a slight angle to simulate power differential, and by making control surfaces respond less effectively and more slowly.

Agreed, but not all planes are as sturdy as the Warthog. But since in ARMA all planes are essentially CAS, all that you stated makes sense.

But i would like to see a more advanced damage model as well. It would be cool to see shit breaking up instead of a plane that crashes intact, although in a wreck state. This is one of the things that BIS should have done for a long time.

[b00ce 160]

I would say that you can't specify the most common bad things that could happen. There are so many different systems spread around the airframe its impossible to tell what would break when under combat conditions depending on where the aircraft was hit and with what. In all likelihood, again depending on the aircraft, a projectile will hit nothing and poke a hole in some thin sheet metal.

[EricJ 765]

I think i mentioned in another thread how cool it would be to have LITENING pod capability (uber realism not needed) for us to be able to designate tagets ourselves. That would allow to fly higher and designate from distance away from small arms and heavier caliber guns from enemy vehicles.

Agreed as the loss of seven rockets wouldn't have me shed a tear either (I won't miss them) but yeah it would make more sense as the real A-10C has that capability and after the past five days messing with the DCS version, it's so easy to use.

---------- Post added at 21:19 ---------- Previous post was at 21:15 ----------

My priorities would be CCIP first and a TGP next. CCRP for rockets would be neat, but isn't that needed IMO. I feel like anything more than that, like accurate(ish) BVR combat, a realistic flight model or fighter jets with afterburners would currently be wasted effort because the map is too small for realistic jet flight. But that may be just me.

What would be so hard about a TGP though? With the newly added Huron's cargo camera it would be pretty easy, right? In fact, it would probably also justify the "pave penny pod" on the A-164. Just put the camera there and claim that by 2030, the former TGP container could be shrinked so far that it could be permanently attached to the hull without major downsides.

Btw, what CCIP mod are you talking about? All I found is a script that no longer gets updated :(

A lot of the current A-10Cs have it simply removed due to the TGP as it does the same function as well as providing self-designation, so there is no sense in keeping it mounted there.

[the_demongod 31]

Agreed as the loss of seven rockets wouldn't have me shed a tear either (I won't miss them) but yeah it would make more sense as the real A-10C has that capability and after the past five days messing with the DCS version, it's so easy to use.

---------- Post added at 21:19 ---------- Previous post was at 21:15 ----------

A lot of the current A-10Cs have it simply removed due to the TGP as it does the same function as well as providing self-designation, so there is no sense in keeping it mounted there.

Just to clarify: You guys know that the Pave Penny pod is only for laser spot search tracking, and not actual designation, right? I don't know whether or not the TGP on its own can do this, but I have seen many pictures of A-10Cs with the pave penny still attached.

[lolipoyi 10]

I know this has not much to do with the current discussion, but I do think it is related to the fixed wing aspect of the game. Could we have an implementation of the flyInHeight command similar to the one found in vbs2? Returning an array of modes such as above sea level (ASL) or above ground level (AGL) would help us make the ai controlled aircrafts fly much smoother, as they would not constantly adjust altitude to maintain distance to the ground.

I found a ticket here: 0014955: Set flight height above sea level

Take a look at it and vote if you like it.

[xendance 3]

My priorities would be CCIP first and a TGP next. CCRP for rockets would be neat, but isn't that needed IMO. I feel like anything more than that, like accurate(ish) BVR combat, a realistic flight model or fighter jets with afterburners would currently be wasted effort because the map is too small for realistic jet flight. But that may be just me.

What would be so hard about a TGP though? With the newly added Huron's cargo camera it would be pretty easy, right? In fact, it would probably also justify the "pave penny pod" on the A-164. Just put the camera there and claim that by 2030, the former TGP container could be shrinked so far that it could be permanently attached to the hull without major downsides.

Btw, what CCIP mod are you talking about? All I found is a script that no longer gets updated :(

This one? http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?179025-CCIP-script-for-aircrafts

It was forked, I edited the text to reflect it. Check out eRazeri's github repo.

[Jona33 51]

Just to clarify: You guys know that the Pave Penny pod is only for laser spot search tracking, and not actual designation, right? I don't know whether or not the TGP on its own can do this, but I have seen many pictures of A-10Cs with the pave penny still attached.

However they are in the process of being removed (often asked question on the DCS forums, one of the A-10 crew chiefs there mentioned they've not been used since the TGP which has exactly the same capabilities but better). It's basically just needless drag.

[EricJ 765]

Just to clarify: You guys know that the Pave Penny pod is only for laser spot search tracking, and not actual designation, right? I don't know whether or not the TGP on its own can do this, but I have seen many pictures of A-10Cs with the pave penny still attached.

Where does it say that in my quoted sentences?

Besides if you're a DCS A-10C pilot how do you not know how to use the TGP in the first place? If you look on the AHCP just below the Master arm switch the Laser switch is just right below it. Therefore if you don't mask your own view (airplane simply gets in the way) through the TGP your LGB doesn't track right and goes ballistic. And back to Arma 3 that's a noteworthy realism thing if you do implement it as again, players will be stupid and moan and groan when they're defeating their own purpose by masking the laser with their own jet.

Edited November 29, 2014 by EricJ

[the_demongod 31]

Where does it say that in my quoted sentences?

Besides if you're a DCS A-10C pilot how do you not know how to use the TGP in the first place? If you look on the AHCP just below the Master arm switch the Laser switch is just right below it. Therefore if you don't mask your own view (airplane simply gets in the way) through the TGP your LGB doesn't track right and goes ballistic. And back to Arma 3 that's a noteworthy realism thing if you do implement it as again, players will be stupid and moan and groan when they're defeating their own purpose by masking the laser with their own jet.

No no you just said "same function" so I was just being sure. I know how the TGP works in DCS, but I know that certain features of the A-10C are not completely modeled in DCS (such as the TISL panel and full JDAM/IAM weapon simulation, amongst others) so I wasn't sure if the TGP can actually do LSS or if it's just done that way for DCS.

[EricJ 765]

Okay, gotcha.