Fixed Wing Flight Model (dev branch)

[oukej 2910]

It does :) (Only sometimes the rudder doesn't work at all (restart needed). Haven't observed the bug with the vanilla configuration, so so far it can be ignored)

[x3kj 1247]

Ok finally got some time to test the WIP Configuration like you asked oukej.

Disclosure: I am not an A-10 pilot and i dont own DCS:A10. I play with the Su-25 however and i assume the general handling would be somewhat comparable.

First off all - OMG the shaking, i can't stand it. The cockpit constantly vibrates, even at the slightest bank/elevator angle and also when flying just level. Not a single second where your eyes get some rest from the jerking. I find it ok to shake violently at high AOA/g-levels, especially when stalling. Just like it is in DCS. During start/landing and during high aoa turns/ stalling you get violent shaking. But not when you just fly level or at bank angles from 30-45°.

I know it's not related to the flight model but jeezus, it's so annoying.

Also, the cockpit lacks an AOA indicator, makes it more difficult to evaluate what the plane can do/ how hard your maneuver is.

Rudder does absolutely nothing over 60 Km/h.

How are you supposed to aim your gun? Have you tried making some accurate passes with the gun? It's basically impossible unless you line yourself up 5km before the target or so. You need rudder to correct your aim, particulary if you execute a turn to come up behind a convoy with limited line up time.

In DCS you can swing left and right with the rudder if you time it right until you are almost at 90° to the flight direction (when it gets too much you will start tumbling/losing controll). Not that this would be normal flight practice (i'd assume it wouldnt be good for the aircraft), but it shows the effectiveness of the rudders for kicking the aircraft in a different direction in their flightmodel. Wanted to make a video but my capture software doesnt work with dcs apparently.

Their floaty camera in their 3rd person view is neat too... gives you a sense of the dynamic/smoothness of the aircraft.

No actual banked turns

If you just bank the aircraft it basically just "falls down" and happens to have a force component that makes it go slightly into the turn direction you want. Compare that to DCS - if you bank 30-45° you don't have to do anything basically to make a turn. The aircraft does it all on it's own, in fact it slightly pitches up i feel. In Arma you have to pull up the entire time otherwise there is no turn made.

Weird sidewards sliding after a turn

If you just come out of a turn you float sideways for a bit too long then what i would expect. It's noticeable if you fly close to the ground and can be observed even better if you use a bullet tracer script (with low quality setting) and fire as soon as you come out of the turn. Now aircraft dont fly on rails of course, but it feels too much when i compare it to the DCS Su-25 flightmodel. Because if it would be moving sideways that much, the air resistance would turn the aircraft into that direction (force acts on vertical stabizer, and since that's very far out of the com it creates high torque).

speed loss during hard turns too great

So either the speed loss is too high, or the plane simply turns too quickly. Execute the second half of a looping (turn upside down, pull the nose up [turning towards ground]) by pulling as hard as you can until you are level and watch your speed. You gain maybe 10 Km/h at best, and that at full thrust the entire turn.

Stalling has no effect at all

You can be in permanent "stall" with the wipeout without losing speed or anything happening at ~280Km/h. Pull as hard as you can at full thrust, no problems. If there was an actual stall, the outer wing from the curve would fall downwards, so you fly level again or something along those lines. You can fly at 250 Km/h at 200m altitude, stall until you reach below 200 Km/h and still catch yourself without major difficulties.

You do not lose any control, you just "sink to the ground"

Airbrakes are extremely efficient

Feels to me like they are way too efficient. Combined with the lacking stalling effect, i was able to do some kind of a "power sink" using airbrakes, flying at 200km/h and keeping the plane just about level, doing a rapid controlled descent.

Flying straight up seems unrealistic

You can fly straight up until you reach ~100Km/h and then the plane forces you into a level and you can continue flying level without losing altitude. This is wrong. It should only turn around if you are already on your way downwards, due to the airstream. If fly at 500Km/h at 2500m alt with the SU-25 without weapons, you can get up to ~4200m by flying straight up. However once you turn around you drop like a stone for quite some time. The earliest i could manage to recover and pull level again was at 3000m.

Max wipeout speed appears to be 515Km/h, not particulary high but i don't really mind it, since Arma has smaller maps, it's not so much of an issue.

[oukej 2910]

Ok finally got some time to test the WIP Configuration like you asked oukej.

Wow, thanks a lot! Great feedback. Will try some more things and see if I can address the mentioned issues.

Some quick answers for the meantime...

Rudder does absolutely nothing over 60 Km/h.

Yay, that's a bug, for unknown reason the rudder sometimes ceases to have any effect at all. We haven't investigated it yet, because so far it seems that only this test configuration is affected. Try restarting the game.

No actual banked turns

Compared Wipeout's turning @ 15° in 460km/h+ and the turning rate is quite similar to DCS A-10A with 80% load. But generally it's still not there, you're right.

Stalling has no effect at all

It should have some. The pilot should be at least significantly less able to control the airplane. The STALL indicator threshold is however completely wrong, haven't rly configured that one :/

You can fly straight up until you reach ~100Km/h and then the plane forces you into a level and you can continue flying level without losing altitude.

This sounds weird. I'm unable to reasonably control the airplane once I go below 200km/h. Could you please make a vid of what you're experiencing?

Thanks again!

[x3kj 1247]

Compared Wipeout's turning @ 15° in 460km/h+ and the turning rate is quite similar to DCS A-10A with 80% load. But generally it's still not there, you're right.

banking to 30 or 45° will make a bigger difference i think, because then in arma you experience more fall, in DCS it would be the opposite (i guess? unless A-10 is a complete brick compared to Su-25). And i'm talking about banking without using the elevator at all. The turning rate with using elevator is not the issue. It's the wrong or incomplete physics that are the problem here. I highly doubt you can correct that with just the config settings.

It should have some. The pilot should be at least significantly less able to control the airplane.

Yes that's true, the controll "strength" is removed, but you won't suddenly lose actual controll (aircraft starting to spin or something like that)

This sounds weird. I'm unable to reasonably control the airplane once I go below 200km/h

Yes, true again - you lose most of the controll below 200, so it's difficult to stay upright. Just try as best as you can. Your plane is magically forced to either to level or flip over the head at those speeds until level again. You cant make the plane fall from the sky, and this is wrong. Because your plane only really starts to turn if it is already falling down, not as soon as it goes below 200km/h

Edited May 18, 2015 by Fennek

[EricJ 759]

Ok finally got some time to test the WIP Configuration like you asked oukej.

Disclosure: I am not an A-10 pilot and i dont own DCS:A10. I play with the Su-25 however and i assume the general handling would be somewhat comparable.

The Su-25 isn't comparable to the A-10A or C by a long shot, so it's not a good comparison. The Su-25 can handle greater turns without oscillation when pulling hard on the stick as opposed to the A-10A, which "moves around" a lot when you do so, i.e. you'll crash when going inverted when pulling tight turns in the mountains, nor has the same power-to-weight ratio. So it'd be a good idea to probably fly the A-10 for a bit and then start comparing, where the A-10C you can be a bit more aggressive in your turns, which is why I fly the Cacauscus in he C more than the A, but as long as you be gentle you can do fine at low level with the A model.

[x3kj 1247]

The Su-25 isn't comparable to the A-10A or C by a long shot, so it's not a good comparison. The Su-25 can handle greater turns without oscillation when pulling hard on the stick as opposed to the A-10A

I said somewhat comparable. Not down to the mikro detail. The Su-25 is still in the same aircraft category, has similar weight and similar thrust. The aim here is to create a half decent flightmodel that represents actual flight physics. We are not even near that to start nitpicking about characteristics and specifics of special aircraft. Once we get there you can start with that... The A10 in arma can pull far weirder 'stunts' than the Su-25 in DCS ever could.

Do the maneuvers i talked about in DCS with the A10 and post what happens in detail. That would help. I dont own the A-10 modules and i'm not going to spent topdollar on them just to show how bonkers the flightmodel in arma is.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Fennek

[EricJ 759]

Well when you get more experienced than me, you can tell me to do that.

Anyway, the Su-25 is far more aerodynamically stable compared to the A-10 in the subsonic regime so it does make a difference and using that as a "basis" for your comparison goes off bad data from the outset since they perform differently, so whatever comparisons don't mimic the actual enhancements that oukej already stated. Remember the Wipeout is a fictional Futuristic A-10, not an Su-25, so whatever comparisons you try and come up with is completely wrong. So given I don't need to write a dssertation (like you do) shows you need to get off the forums and do more flying.

Here's what is called a review, of the A-10A and C:

http://combatace.com/topic/84503-a-brief-dcs-a-10a-review-by-eric-j/

http://combatace.com/topic/84919-mini-dcs-a-10c-review-by-eric-j/

Maybe when you get skilled enough you can write stuff like this and then talk down to me, player. Until then watch your tongue with your lack of experience.

Edited May 18, 2015 by EricJ

[x3kj 1247]

Ouhh excuse me sir. How dare i suggest to you to step of your high horse to actually help with improving the flightmodel of Arma. How rude of me.

Seriously though. Help testing, or give me the money for the A-10 module so i can do the job you apparently dont want to do, or be silent.

Here's what is called a review, of the A-10A and C:

And where is your examination of how accurate the flightmodel is? Where are the realworld comparisons and your applied knowledge of aerodynamics? I see none of that.

[mjolnir66 48]

This isn't really the right place for it, but it's the best place.

Why can the guns on the strike aircraft hurt MBTs now? I know popular perception is that's what the gun on an A10 is there for, but it's not. It never has been. Even a measly T62 is pretty much impervious on the side turret (which is a grand total of 153mm RHA equivalent) and even the pathetically weak rear armour is impervious once you get past 1500m (which sounds like a lot, but isn't really when you are moving at 3 or 400kmh at your slowest. If it was anything as good as has been stated, they'd make a tank with it as a gun rather than the 120mm guns.

The Gau 8 was never the primary tank killing weapon on an A10, partially because it puts the aircraft in harms way far too much, and partially because it is ineffective for a number of reasons. First being it lacks the penetrating power on anything but the weakest armour of AFVs, another being it lacks both range and accuracy. CRV7 rockets are far better in both aspects. The A10s primary tank killing weapon has always been the Maverick.

[EricJ 759]

Ouhh excuse me sir. How dare i suggest to you to step of your high horse to actually help with improving the flightmodel of Arma. How rude of me.

Seriously though. Help testing, or give me the money for the A-10 module so i can do the job you apparently dont want to do, or be silent.

And where is your examination of how accurate the flightmodel is? Where are the realworld comparisons and your applied knowledge of aerodynamics? I see none of that.

Excuse me?

I already posted my impressions of the flight model that oukej already done a few months ago, based on my experience already. Maybe you were too busy learning how to fly to really notice. Real pilots go by feel not "hard data" and at least not using a totally different aircraft not even related to the one being tweaked.

You are not a developer Fennek, you have no experience with anything related to development work, so I would leave your posturing at that as you're out of your league. And I've been in more communities and done more work than just being a poster than just Arma kid. So you're not running shit here guy. And I don't have to manage your finances because apparently you can't.

---------- Post added at 14:55 ---------- Previous post was at 14:51 ----------

This isn't really the right place for it, but it's the best place.

Why can the guns on the strike aircraft hurt MBTs now? I know popular perception is that's what the gun on an A10 is there for, but it's not. It never has been. Even a measly T62 is pretty much impervious on the side turret (which is a grand total of 153mm RHA equivalent) and even the pathetically weak rear armour is impervious once you get past 1500m (which sounds like a lot, but isn't really when you are moving at 3 or 400kmh at your slowest. If it was anything as good as has been stated, they'd make a tank with it as a gun rather than the 120mm guns.

The Gau 8 was never the primary tank killing weapon on an A10, partially because it puts the aircraft in harms way far too much, and partially because it is ineffective for a number of reasons. First being it lacks the penetrating power on anything but the weakest armour of AFVs, another being it lacks both range and accuracy. CRV7 rockets are far better in both aspects. The A10s primary tank killing weapon has always been the Maverick.

True but in Afghanistan there hasn't been much of an inaccuracy issue that you propose. Rockets aren't as accurate as you think and I'd never do a rocket run in Afghanistan with a fixed-wing jet, helicopters are better suited. And last time I checked the GAU-8 was very effective in killing tanks (milk bottle sized tungsten bullets). Sure okay it wasn't a "one shot, one kill" system but it did and I never questioned it's ability to kill in Afghanistan either.

---------- Post added at 14:59 ---------- Previous post was at 14:55 ----------

And that, Fennek, is what is called real combat experience, rather than playing a computer game, which is your experience.

[Jona33 51]

This isn't really the right place for it, but it's the best place.

Why can the guns on the strike aircraft hurt MBTs now? I know popular perception is that's what the gun on an A10 is there for, but it's not. It never has been. Even a measly T62 is pretty much impervious on the side turret (which is a grand total of 153mm RHA equivalent) and even the pathetically weak rear armour is impervious once you get past 1500m (which sounds like a lot, but isn't really when you are moving at 3 or 400kmh at your slowest. If it was anything as good as has been stated, they'd make a tank with it as a gun rather than the 120mm guns.

The Gau 8 was never the primary tank killing weapon on an A10, partially because it puts the aircraft in harms way far too much, and partially because it is ineffective for a number of reasons. First being it lacks the penetrating power on anything but the weakest armour of AFVs, another being it lacks both range and accuracy. CRV7 rockets are far better in both aspects. The A10s primary tank killing weapon has always been the Maverick.

I'm not sure where you're getting the information on the GAU-8 from but it runs counter to what I've read, granted I haven't tested to see how much damage they can do now. Take this quote from Warthog (Book about the A-10A in the first gulf war by William Smallwood, cracking book by the way).

This time we were so slow we couldn't use the bombs; our only option was the gun. [...] On two passes I actually got to see the tanks erupt into flames and the turret pop off. [...] Just on that one attack we got siz T-72s that were confirmed by the HeliFAC

^^Certainly this is being carried out under extreme conditions, however to suggest that the gun is ineffective against any kind of armour seems a long way off. The ranges for the gun that are quoted on the DCS forums indicate that against an MBT start shooting at 0.7 miles, the impression I've got from various reading is about 150-300 rounds should be enough to blow a tank. However you're most certainly correct in stating that the Maverick is the primary weapon.

Also I've no idea what rockets the ingame A-164 is supposed to use, but while the CRV-7s probably can penetrate tanks (if fired from the correct range) the Hydra rockets the A-10 uses are supposed to be pretty weak, mainly the kind of thing you blast an area with to attack infantry. On the other hand this is 2035, it's pretty believable to think that rockets are now deadlier.

[x3kj 1247]

You are not a developer Fennek, you have no experience with anything related to development work

A decade of modding, including modding the actual A3 flight model, including occasional commercial work for other developers and hands on experience with Multi-body, FEM and CFD simulations is not related enough to development work i guess...

I know some of the issues have been identified several times already, but let's just put it on this one example in a way - what it does X what it should do.

That's what he is looking for, that's what i did. If you don't think this is how the A-10 behaves, then make the maneuvers i talked about and correct me. That's what a real tester would do. What's so hard about that?

Edited May 18, 2015 by Fennek

[EricJ 759]

And your point is what?

Just A3?

That's it?

---------- Post added at 15:32 ---------- Previous post was at 15:23 ----------

Look dude, the problem you're having is that you're afraid somebody like me doesn't have to post the pythagorean theorum in order to help a developer.

And you gotta throw this, that at me expecting me to flinch. Fact is, people like me can go in-game, and relate on a basic level on how it works.

You have to sit there and philosophize about it.

Who's got more skill? Anyway dude thanks for the conversation but you've only proved you've had a bad day and feel that "I'm not experienced enough" to describe basic functions without having the ability to make them work in-game because the average player has no conception (not to disrespect their intelligence) of all the hard data that you seem to feel that is needed. Yet you persist in getting personal (nice touch) with your emotions. You obviously have no real experience past A3 (which isn't as we all know a high fedelity flight sim).

And besides if you're half the developer you said you were, you'd make sure the client gets the relevant data for their project, and using another jet with completely different characteristics is bad ju-ju. Hell if I would hire you since you as a professional cannot fly the basic aircraft that the Wipeout is modeled on. That is proper testing in order to provide the best results as oukej has stated that the Wipeout is modeled on the A-10, not the Su-25. So your point is what again?

---------- Post added at 15:37 ---------- Previous post was at 15:32 ----------

Then that means all the data you provided is completely wrong and again using the Su-25 isn't a good starting point. And that's basic common sense dude.

[x3kj 1247]

So your point is what again?

Do the maneuvers in DCS. Describe what you are seeing. Post it. Nothing more, nothing less.

and feel that "I'm not experienced enough"

I haven't said that.

Look dude, the problem you're having is that you're afraid somebody like me doesn't have to post the pythagorean theorum in order to help a developer.

yeah right.

[EricJ 759]

I mean that's saying that the velocity of a soccer (German Football) ball should be comparable to a baseball, which has totally different mass and velocity and different aero-coefficients correct?

So if I used that soccer ball as a determination for the performance of a baseball and you not using a baseball kinda doesn't make any sense right?

---------- Post added at 15:46 ---------- Previous post was at 15:45 ----------

I've already posted my findings already the test flight model that oukej has available again awhile ago, and quite honestly thought it was nice, so I left it alone. There's my findings guy. I mean shit it's fucking nice and that's that. No need to do any tweaks other than some rudder issues, I enjoyed it.

Have a nice day.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

DCS isn't real life, however, they don't release aircraft for DCS unless it's as close to 1:1 to the real life thing, which is good enough, i suppose. Therefore the best example of such an aircraft, would be the closest thing you an find to real life... without being a real pilot. So at best, DCS is indeed to right place to compare to another game's flight model of virtually the same aircraft.

[EricJ 759]

Exactly

To be fair Fennek I"m sure your data is impeccable and a good thing for a futuristic Su-25 and had you posted data gleaned from a DCS A-10 I would have left the issua alone. Hell I would have read it and moved along. I just get offended when people try and pass off bad data and think they're right when it's obvious it's not even using the appropriate plane.

As for gifting you anything? No, as soon as the community finds out (which they will) I did that, then everybody and they're fucking brother and sister will be pestering me to gift them shit. You want the toys? You gotta earn it like I did, as I'm not the Community Sugar Daddy.

[x3kj 1247]

I think you are misundestanding the intention of the numeric data (speed, altitudes) i put in there. I'm talking about qualitative behaviour, not quantitative behaviour. The numbers are just means to get a perspective of what "high", "low" or whatever relative term i used to describe the behaviour actually means. The key observation is the elemental behaviour. "What it does, vs what it should do". Not "what value it has vs what value it should have". I couldnt care less if the plane lost 1000m or just 500m from a fall before you regain controll. I do care however that you will fall in the first place, like you would expect in reality.

If you fly straight up with full thrust, you will eventually fall down, if the flightmodel is proper. Your plane will tip over due to the airstream that is generated by the downwards movement. And, with a heavy plane, you will have some difficulties pulling level again from this dive. This is not correctly done in Arma 3, no matter to what plane you will compare it. You could even compare it to WW2 fighters in warthunder in that case. Arma 3 is still wrong.

Same with the strange drifting, though i think that could be solvable via config.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Fennek

[EricJ 759]

Agreed, the FM is well what it is... The drifting may be a PhysX issue as before when the Advanced FM for the helos came out, it was hell, WIth 1.38 I think it was the FM was much better on Advanced. But in the end while this view is not related to fixed-wing, shows that better PhysX implementation may solve some of the issues, such as the drifting that you've noticed (I personally haven't noticed this as I fly full throttle, which is maybe why I"m not experiencing that phenomenon). So.... that may be the right step in the right direction so gotcha.

[mjolnir66 48]

True but in Afghanistan there hasn't been much of an inaccuracy issue that you propose. Rockets aren't as accurate as you think and I'd never do a rocket run in Afghanistan with a fixed-wing jet, helicopters are better suited. And last time I checked the GAU-8 was very effective in killing tanks (milk bottle sized tungsten bullets). Sure okay it wasn't a "one shot, one kill" system but it did and I never questioned it's ability to kill in Afghanistan either.

Accuracy and power are both covered in here.

Here's report, as itself:

Stolfi, Dr. R., Dr. J. Clemens, and R. McEachin, Combat Damage Assessment Team A-10/GAU-8 Low Angle Firings Versus Individual Soviet Tanks, February-March 1978, Volume 1, Air Force/56780/February 2, 1979.

In this test an A-10 aircraft attacked two combat-loaded individual Soviet T-62 tanks in five missions totaling seven passes; technicians rehabilitated the two vehicles after each pass. The aircraft were seldom higher than 200 feet in altitude; firings were initiated between 2768 and 4402 feet and terminated at ranges of 1587 to 3055 feet at dive angles of 1.8 to 4.4°. The bursts ranged from 120 to 165 rounds.

Altogether 93 DU rounds struck the tanks during the seven passes, including no impacts on one pass. The ratio of impacts to rounds fired was 0.10. Of the 93 impacts, 17 penetrated the armored envelopes for a ratio of perforations to impacts of 0.18. The report noted many of the side or rear impacts that did not penetrate the armor nonetheless extensively damaged the tanks' exterior suspension components, whereas all the rounds that hit the tanks' front caused minimal damage. These results reinforced the strategy of attacking tanks from the side or rear to optimize damage potential.

I'm not sure where you're getting the information on the GAU-8 from but it runs counter to what I've read, granted I haven't tested to see how much damage they can do now. Take this quote from Warthog (Book about the A-10A in the first gulf war by William Smallwood, cracking book by the way).

^^Certainly this is being carried out under extreme conditions, however to suggest that the gun is ineffective against any kind of armour seems a long way off. The ranges for the gun that are quoted on the DCS forums indicate that against an MBT start shooting at 0.7 miles, the impression I've got from various reading is about 150-300 rounds should be enough to blow a tank. However you're most certainly correct in stating that the Maverick is the primary weapon.

Also I've no idea what rockets the ingame A-164 is supposed to use, but while the CRV-7s probably can penetrate tanks (if fired from the correct range) the Hydra rockets the A-10 uses are supposed to be pretty weak, mainly the kind of thing you blast an area with to attack infantry. On the other hand this is 2035, it's pretty believable to think that rockets are now deadlier.

There is a reason why no plane since has used such a big gun. They are basically overkill for strafting and underkill for armoured targets. In your example, 4 of the kills are from Hellfires and only 2 from 2 aircraft are from gun runs, and as the quote above shows, they probably used the whole ammo load (on what was almost certainly not T72, either T55 or the locally produced Lion of Babylon tanks) to achieve those kills.

[oukej 2910]

Whoa whoa, keep it cool, pls, guys ;)

Yes, true again - you lose most of the controll below 200, so it's difficult to stay upright. Just try as best as you can. Your plane is magically forced to either to level or flip over the head at those speeds until level again. You cant make the plane fall from the sky, and this is wrong. Because your plane only really starts to turn if it is already falling down, not as soon as it goes below 200km/h

Ok, I see what you meant. Right.

[Jona33 51]

Accuracy and power are both covered in here.

There is a reason why no plane since has used such a big gun. They are basically overkill for strafting and underkill for armoured targets. In your example, 4 of the kills are from Hellfires and only 2 from 2 aircraft are from gun runs, and as the quote above shows, they probably used the whole ammo load (on what was almost certainly not T72, either T55 or the locally produced Lion of Babylon tanks) to achieve those kills.

The book certainly gives the impression the six T-72s I mentioned were all killed by cannon fire from the A-10s, in addition this is the pilots speaking in an interview so I trust them, could well be the Lion tanks, absolutely no idea how the Lion compares to a regular T-72 (going by wiki not too badly but the information is hardly detailed). In any case the information makes it clear that killing MBTs with the cannon is doable-though its effectiveness on 2035 MBTs could well be questionable, on the basis there is a limit to how much fancier you can make a cannon.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Speaking of which, having a ton of experience and flying hours in WT Arcade and Realistic, I must say it's the best Flight Midel I bet touched in a game, compared to even FSX and other sims. The FPS is always over 170, meaning flight model feedback is top notch 110% of the time. Not only that, but something I noticed is that WT has an Arcade mode, which uses a flight model that's simplified, yet still realistic. The only thing they did was remove the torque that is created from the prop, and sped up, or lessened the time it takes to line up with the direction you want to go, if that makes sense. Anyway, if Arma had even half a flight model like that it'd be great.

I like the points brought up, it explains a lot that's missing. When I pull up in Arma, there is only certain aircraft I can go vertical in, and still that's only up to a certain altitude. In the Buzzard I can pull up, but I'll stall. However, stalling doesn't feel like stalling should. In WT I'll use a fat plane as a reference, I'll pull up, and fly straight up. It takes a little bit but when I fully stall out, the plane goes nose down, and shakes, indicating it's center of gravity is trying to center itself with the fall. In Arma, the plane keeps looking up. It then slowly glides down to the ground, and very slowly as if it's made of plastic bags.

[EricJ 759]

Accuracy and power are both covered in here.

Gotcha but I'm getting the impression that you feel that the GAU-8 isn't an accurate gun that's all.

[metralla 19]

ok ok .... new DLC "ARMA3 DCS emulation", :icon_mrgreen: this is not serious gentlemen. :popup:

____________________Mission Impossible III for ARMA3. ________________