Jets DLC Official Feedback

[aardvark892 2]

Teabagginpeople, thank you for such a quick response!

[nodunit 397]

Hey folks just wanted to leave a message so you know we aren't ignoring you, and thank you very much for the feedback thus far.

[Blackbomber200 11]

Hi there just thought I'd give my overall opinion on the Jets DLC so far from what I've played on the Developer Branch. First Impression it's really awesome and I love it. I've personally been among the many asking for Bohemia to add more Advanced Fighter jets that were made for air superiority, of course with the ability to change the Jet load outs they can be CAS or AA. However these jets were desperately needed since NATO and CSAT had no AA Jets with only the AFF having AA Jets and the AFF Jets aren't as advanced as NATO and CSAT. So its nice to see the F/A-18 although I had expected an F-35 or an upgraded F-22 since that is more likely for 2035 with the F-18 being retired in 2022 and only squadrons remaining into the 2030s. However I love the FA-18 all the same, it has a nice sleek design and I like the cockpit and HUD. However the F/A-18 20mm Cannon (Which I have found rather lacking when trying to take down other fighter jets, maybe my aim is just bad) So I hope there is a 30mm version I can add to the F/A-18. While using the F/A-18 I have had times while flying that the reticle on the 20mm cannon will get bugged at the bottom of the screen (I don't know if it is suppose to be down there or is suppose to move around the HUD) The Aircraft Carrier USS Freedom is beautiful and looks awesome, and I cant wait to use it. I hope you will have a repayable mission that allows us to fight CSAT fighter jets and perform CAS Strikes. I would like for us to see a CSAT Aircraft Carrier for the Chinese and the Iranians, seeing as how the Iranians would likely have needed a Carrier to invade and attack Altis and Straits and transport troops and supplies, and the Chinese would send a Carrier in the Pacific to counter the NATO Carrier in the Pacific (Tanoa). Both the Chinese and Iranians have Aircraft Carriers and if they didn't now they would in 2035.

I feel like it would only be fair if you gave CSAT an Aircraft Carrier for CSAT fans in Arma III, not only that it would be awesome! At the very least you should give a CSAT Skin to the USS Freedom and give it a Chinese or Iranian name. That would be fair to the CSAT fans and let people do Carrier operations as CSAT.

 

I also wanted to add that I hope you will add a USS Freedom skin for the A-164 and all NATO Aircraft, because that would be really awesome and I love the A-164 and still is my favorite CAS Jet. It would make sense since most of the Aircraft would come from the USS Freedom and makes it seem like they belong to the Carrier group. Although I'm told A-164/A-10s cant take off from Aircraft carriers it would still be a nice skin none the less for the A-164. I also hope that the A-164 will get improvements as well.

 

Another minor thing I thought I would bring up is that I've stalled more times with the F/A-18 and To-201 then I ever have during my 3 years of flying the A-164, maybe I'm just a bad pilot but that is rather bothersome stalling while trying to chase another fighter jet. Although I've always managed to recover.

 

I also want to mention that I don't like the new Throttle controls where you have a 0-100 gauge and I find it rather troublesome, I preferred the old throttle controls. However that's just me.

 

Next I wanted to bring up the To-201, I haven't used it as much as the F/A-18. However while I have used it I feel like that's it harder to track and shoot other fighter jets with it's current reticle for its cannon. Again I'm not a very good pilot and maybe I just haven't used it enough, but the F/A-18 has better visibility when trying to shoot down fighter jets. The To-201 also defiantly takes turns way slower also, but that's never been a problem for the AI I've fought. The To-201 and the F/A-18 I believe go around the same max speeds, although a squadmate I know told me that the F/A-18 can never catch up to the To-201. However I've always been able to catch up to the To-201 in the F/A-18. Now on the other hand the A-149 can not catch up to either the F/A-18 or the To-201, Ive tried to fight them both using the A-149 and they always go to fast for the A-149 putting it at a major disadvantage. The A-149 can not compete with the F/A-18 or the To-201 in the several dogfights Ive put it through. The F/A-18 and To-201 can always get away from it. If it was a real player I they'd just out run the A-149.

 

This is just from what I've played however and other people might not have the problems I'm having.

[Strike_NOR 898]

41 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

So instead of typing out this bug, here goes a new feedback method:

 

 

 

 

So in other words:

 

I ejected, seat crashed into wall, player despawned, then POPPED back next to the wall. Voila!

 

Über-effective seats? lol!

 

 

copied from the unofficial "Jets DLC?" thread ?

 

 

 

[mickeymen 324]

Hello BIS!

 

Thanks, the Jets DLC the Arma has received many updates and improvements. I want to talk about the ejection of the pilot.

 

Now, the Jets DLC added to Arma, the ejection with the help of a catapult, and this is fine!  But the Jet -pilot or the paratrooper, still has no the animation of the opening of parachute!

 

The lack of this animation, it was an unpleasant surprise for me, since the release of 2013.

 

More accurately - If you are catapulted or jumped down with a parachute, then you have the animation of free flight (with catapult or without it), after this if player will choose in the action menu to "open the parachute"  then the player instantly finds himself in a position of hanging on the lines of a parachute! No exist the transition to that position, no any sound of opening parachute!!!

 

In the general, there is no any animation of the transition from free fall to the hang on the straps.

 

Dear BIS team!  As seems to me, now, (before Jets DLC release) is the time to add this animation and make the ejection or parachute jump more exciting! 

 

Thanks in advance

[venthorror 117]

2 hours ago, Blackbomber200 said:

I feel like it would only be fair if you gave CSAT an Aircraft Carrier for CSAT fans in Arma III, not only that it would be awesome! At the very least you should give a CSAT Skin to the USS Freedom and give it a Chinese or Iranian name. That would be fair to the CSAT fans and let people do Carrier operations as CSAT.

Agree. I was hoping to have CSAT carrier. (or just skin)

Maybe it could be easily modified to exclude catapult and add ramps and jump slope. But seeing that Shikra has no tail-hook made me believe that this Opfor carrier is not planned.

[ski2060 167]

With the USS Freedom coming in it will be a matter of time before modders re-skin it and put it on other sides.  I give it like a week, tops, after Jets comes out.

[xxgetbuck123 945]

3 hours ago, ski2060 said:

With the USS Freedom coming in it will be a matter of time before modders re-skin it and put it on other sides.  I give it like a week, tops, after Jets comes out.

 

Someone has already re-skinned the Gryphon, dunno how he did it cause isn't everything in an ebo?

 

@nodunit

[Crasher2003 0]

Can anyone on here tell me how a myself and a few friends can make a server and test the jets together? Every time we spawn a jet it locks us out of it because dlc isn't owned.

[bl4dekk 9]

2 hours ago, Crasher2003 said:

Can anyone on here tell me how a myself and a few friends can make a server and test the jets together? Every time we spawn a jet it locks us out of it because dlc isn't owned.

Make sure that the players are inside the vehicles. And not outside them.

[S3blapin 15]

Hey all, I have a problem since I install the Dev branch but I don't know if it comes from it or not.

 

I use an HOTAS (Thrustmaster Warthog) and when I go full throttle, I can only go to 50% of the power in jet and chopper. So it's impossible to take off in jet or climb/compensate the cyclic loss in chopper.

 

It works perfectly with keyboard but as soon as I touch the throttle, it comes back to 50%...

 

Anyone know how to solve this?

[Strike_NOR 898]

@S3blapin Check that your dual throttle has not been registered twice in the settings, or that one of the throttle axis has been registered in "Brake analogue". They will cancel each other out. I have the Logitech G940 and I experience similar things when messing with my throttle inputs in ArmA. My tip is to delete all control inputs to throttle and brake axis, then use only one of the throttle axis (either left or right) to act as "Throttle (Analogue)". See if this helps.

 

If not, check calibration software settings in windows, see that you get the full range. Then lastly check Devices in Arma Controls and see what the curves/sensitivity looks like. 

 

Edit: Underlined text^

[S3blapin 15]

Thanks for the answer. I'll try that tonight.

 

I hope it's something that simple. ^^

[Onno 22]

So far, I've encountered a couple of things which I think are very annoying:

 

1. Lacklustre FM behaviour in general I expected something along the lines of the Helicopter DLC in regard to FM's.
   1. Stall behaviour of the new planes in particular is very dissatisfying.
2. Incorrect loadout display in cockpit for most planes
3. No high off bore capability for the SRAAM's (R-73, AIM-9X etc) - The main use of HMD's is exactly this feature. It's quite useless to have HMD's and not have hobm's, even though the jets have the sensors for them in their 3D models. (Maybe add IRST sensor type?)
4. Lock remains in place even when target leaves search volume of the radar. (even in sim/elite difficulty, iirc)

 

Besides these issues, I'd love to see a special render mode for the target camera (perhaps only in it's highest zoom level?). Currently it's very hard to get a lock in time for a single pass attack run in one of the new jets because at the current speeds there's not enough range to acquire the target. I think that the rendering volume of the target camera is small enough that you can ease on render range restrictions.

 

Overall I think that the Jets DLC is not really worthwhile. It feels like you get a couple of jets thrown in, but the improvements to make them work are not there, save for some minor engine tweaks regarding datalinks and sensors, which seems are adaptations of knowsAbout. The FM department is nowhere close to what the Helicopters DLC was for that part of the aviation branch. If the current state is anything close to the release, it is very much a disappointment to me.

[teabagginpeople 398]

1 hour ago, onno said:

So far, I've encountered a couple of things which I think are very annoying:

 

1. Lacklustre FM behaviour in general I expected something along the lines of the Helicopter DLC in regard to FM's.
   1. Stall behaviour of the new planes in particular is very dissatisfying.
2. Incorrect loadout display in cockpit for most planes
3. No high off bore capability for the SRAAM's (R-73, AIM-9X etc) - The main use of HMD's is exactly this feature. It's quite useless to have HMD's and not have hobm's, even though the jets have the sensors for them in their 3D models. (Maybe add IRST sensor type?)
4. Lock remains in place even when target leaves search volume of the radar. (even in sim/elite difficulty, iirc)

 

Besides these issues, I'd love to see a special render mode for the target camera (perhaps only in it's highest zoom level?). Currently it's very hard to get a lock in time for a single pass attack run in one of the new jets because at the current speeds there's not enough range to acquire the target. I think that the rendering volume of the target camera is small enough that you can ease on render range restrictions.

 

Overall I think that the Jets DLC is not really worthwhile. It feels like you get a couple of jets thrown in, but the improvements to make them work are not there, save for some minor engine tweaks regarding datalinks and sensors, which seems are adaptations of knowsAbout. The FM department is nowhere close to what the Helicopters DLC was for that part of the aviation branch. If the current state is anything close to the release, it is very much a disappointment to me.

 

I'll reply to number 1 point. Before I say anything.  I'm not defending the lack of afm only the decision to opt for the other improvements over it. And agree with your post . The stalling is a pain in the ass.  I'm still pushing for proper afterburners.Just giving you some information you may have missed over the course of the dlc development as there has been alot to get through. 

 

The afm of Helicopters was in part only possible due to Take on Helicopters.  With the timeframe for the jets dlc it was a choice between the advance flight model with jets (perhaps more unknowns timewise probably not feasible )or the sensors overhaul and other nice features like the improvements to hit points.  The decision to opt for sensors and other features was taken because it would benefit ALL play types while making not only jet engagement more interesting, heli and ground assets also(hell aa vehicles dish now spins qs a visual cue when it's radar is active). Which personally I think only having a choice between the two was the right one.If you don't believe me retry the showcases for the gunship and wipeout. Having no magic radar and being able to actually stealth in a flight mission makes going back to vanilla arma a serious downer.

 

Like I said only giving extra information to point 1. 

 

 

[pipyn1970 19]

1. Like other people have said, I think the HMD's should be helmet orientated. If IRL the helmet would have said info then It would be nice to have the HMD show that & also when looking at the HUD the info on the HMD should go away.
2. I wish (but understand why) you made the MFD's functional so we can have within the cockpit working NAV, CCIP, Radar, Tactical map so the pilot can see markers that ground troops place & vice versa. All screens to have day & night time also.
3. Would be nice for the jets to pick up when they are bring locked on & the general area before the missile if fired. 
4. Would of been nice to have STOVL versions of the NATO jets also (just incase a NAVAL DLC came out with a shorter STOVL carrier was made) or a Modder within the community made one.
5. Apart from the AA platforms that's in game now, it would of been nice to have proper SAM sites included to fight against the jets. Maybe something within the editor that the mission maker could strip down & place either at different parts of an airfield or on different hills on the approach to the enemy airfield.
6. I wish that when controlling the new UAV that you could only control it from either an airfield tower or a control tower on the carrier. If you actually think about it for a minute, infantry wouldn't do it. It would come from either of the 2 places mentioned above. so, I wished there was a UAV terminal in a control tower where the UAV is launched from. When the player uses the terminal, he wouldn't hear the noise of the UAV. Just think about, the player will be within a building & the UAV will be flying a long way away, so how does he hear the engine? 
7. I wished the Wasp was a true multi role aircraft (like the F35 is meant to be). What I mean is is that the player could use his gun to engage soft targets easier. I'm told at the moment its very difficult to do.
8. I would of liked to of seen different skins for the NATO planes to give the impression that other NATO nations had bought the planes from the U.S, like they have with the F35

[Strike_NOR 898]

1 hour ago, pipyn1970 said:

3. Would be nice for the jets to pick up when they are bring locked on & the general area before the missile if fired. 

 

Which is totally realistic for Radar Homing missiles, but not IR missiles. The only IR missile systems that give off a warning are those where range is calculated before launch by means of a radar. I believe the SA-13 has this. It does not rely on radar to guide to target, only to find the target. In this way, it can operate completely "stealthy" but with reduced alertness to incoming jets, or unstealthy, with radar switched on, but a better situational awareness. This kind of behavior adds more to gameplay and tactics!

 

1 hour ago, pipyn1970 said:

4. Would of been nice to have STOVL versions of the NATO jets also

 

It's not really worth debating because, like you say yourself, we have modders to give us that :) . There will be no more jets added to this DLC.

 

1 hour ago, pipyn1970 said:

5. Apart from the AA platforms that's in game now, it would of been nice to have proper SAM sites included to fight against the jets.

 

Some dev has already vaguely mentioned that as a possibility.  The AI controlled SAM systems for the USS Freedom could turn out to be editor-placeable. Which means, you can assign these to each side and place them around airfields etc. Let's hope for that :)

 

1 hour ago, pipyn1970 said:

6. I wish that when controlling the new UAV that you could only control it from either an airfield tower or a control tower on the carrier. If you actually think about it for a minute, infantry wouldn't do it. It would come from either of the 2 places mentioned above. so, I wished there was a UAV terminal in a control tower where the UAV is launched from. When the player uses the terminal, he wouldn't hear the noise of the UAV. Just think about, the player will be within a building & the UAV will be flying a long way away, so how does he hear the engine?

 

Actually, UAVs of this size are normally controlled from mobile containers/sites that can be deployed around the globe. However to sort all your needs, a "drone control terminal" would be nice (Computer/Chair) that could be placed wherever you want. As for sound, I agree. Unless the drone has a microphone recording the sounds you should only hear what's at the control terminal.

 

1 hour ago, pipyn1970 said:

7. I wished the Wasp was a true multi role aircraft

 

Having a dedicated ground attack gun does not make it a multi-role aircraft. The ability to carry and employ both AA and AG weapons, carry out reconnaissance etc is what makes it multi-role. Clue is, if you go up to 30mm you need drastically more space to carry enough ammo. You need loads of ammo to hit aerial vehicles (think of it as a shotgun shooting fast moving skeets), compared to ground vehicles (shooting turtles with a 9mm). A shotgun pellet hitting a skeet is enough to break it, while it wastes a ton of lead to guarantee a hit. A 9mm round deals more damage than a pellet, but takes more aim. Anyways I digress... a 20mm Aircraft Gatling gun should realistically have about 500-700 rnds of ammo and a firerate of about 100 rounds/sec. Which means about 5-7 seconds of trigger squeeze. Ammo types are usually High Explosive and Multi Purpose. The F-35 has a 25mm gun which allows ammunition manufacturers to put more snacks into it such as armor-piercing mayhem.

 

For fun facts: The ammo drum of the A-10 is nearly the size of a VW Beetle, while the F-16 has an ammo drum the size of 1/3 of an Oil Drum.

 

 

[pipyn1970 19]

7 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

Actually, UAVs of this size are normally controlled from mobile containers/sites that can be deployed around the globe. However to sort all your needs, a "drone control terminal" would be nice (Computer/Chair) that could be placed wherever you want. As for sound, I agree. Unless the drone has a microphone recording the sounds you should only hear what's at the control terminal

Yeah this is more or less what I was thinking. As its part of the Jets DLC & the UAV operates from USS Freedom I was thinking more in line with how the player would control it. I know that IRL they are operated from containers but on the carrier a container might look out of place. Hence the use of a dedicated "ops room" under the deck or a UAV terminal room within the control tower. Would be nice if the player sat on a chair to connect to the UAV & the one thing I wish for the most is not to have a full screen for the camera mode. Imagine your part of a team within the ops room & your in charge of that UAV. Imagine that the monitor your facing is large enough (40inch IRL?) for you to move the camera around to see well enough & that the team around you could also see what the drone is looking at? As a player in control of the UAV all mission, you no longer feel isolated. You can turn your head to look at you mates or look around independent of the UAV. This way I think its ok to have the UAV airborne all mission flying at say 1500ft. Maybe in a future update maybe? Also maybe within the future update there might be mobile UAV containers to place at FOBS also, or maybe if the monitor is peaceable  within the editor then it could be placed within the HQ buildings?

[bl4dekk 9]

Dlc jets are anti-aircraft jets, so they should be better at CAS jets.

 

But this does not occur if we compare their cannons, their cadence and their damage are relatively low, especially shikra.

 

The wipeout uses a 30mm cannon with a rate of 24 shots per second, the F/A-181 Black Wasp II uses a 20mm vulcan cannon with a rate of 29 shots per second.

 

The Gau 8 avenger (A10 Thunderbolt) has a cadence of approximately 3900rpm or 65 rounds per second.

 

Already a Vulcan M61A1 has a cadence of 6000rpm or 100 rounds per second. 35 rounds per second is not an absurd difference ok.

But in the game, the cadences are very similar approximately only 4 bullets per second for the two jets mentioned above, but the damage caused by the 30mm is much higher (logically) but causes an imbalance.

And there is another factor the new dlc jets are more fragile than the CAS jets.

 

Comparing cannons rpm :

A-164 Wipeout = 1440rpm
To-199 Neophron = 1140rpm
A-143 Buzzard = 1,140rpm (yes the same at Neo Lol)

 

F/A-181 Black Wasp II = 1740rpm
To-201 Shikra = 540rpm (What?) It is 30mm APF or APDS but even if it hits, it causes less damage per bullet than the wipeout 30mm HE.
A-149 Gryphon = 1.560rpm

 

*The above values may vary, but I tried to be very careful. :P

 

One more thing the new jets use APF or APDS ammunition and the CAS uses HE, but in the practice of the game they do not differentiate much.

 

The video below shows this :

 

https://youtu.be/3Fs2uO0oxg4

 

*Different helicopters and different angles can vary the amount of ammunition used.

20mm vs. 30mm

Spoiler

 

A 20mm cannon is faster than a 30mm cannon. But it does less bullet damage, but it pays off with its high cadence and the possibility of hitting its target more likely. Already a 30mm cannon does the opposite obviously. More damage less cadence.

 

Feedback report page :
https://feedback.bistudio.com/T124390 (To-201 Shikra 30mm GSh cannon Very low cadence.)
https://feedback.bistudio.com/T124426 (Ejector seat killing player)

 

[ski2060 167]

3 hours ago, pipyn1970 said:

Apart from the AA platforms that's in game now, it would of been nice to have proper SAM sites included to fight against the jets. Maybe something within the editor that the mission maker could strip down & place either at different parts of an airfield or on different hills on the approach to the enemy airfield.

 

That has been confirmed as in.  The 3 AA platforms on the USS Freedom will be placeable items in Eden.  So you will be able to make SAM sites to guard installations.
Now if only they will make some Radar Sites that can link to said SAM sites with Datalinking to allow targeting at longer ranges and give people objectives in missions.

[TheTrueRussianPancake 13]

Been closely examining all the planes in the Dev branch, everything is good except the To-201.
I'm guessing the main gun on the Shikra is a Gsh-30mm auto cannon as it states Gsh on the top. I've record the time it takes to empty the 180 rounds, 21 seconds give or take human error, lets lower that to 20 seconds. Thats 540 rounds per minute. However the real live counterpart of the gun has a fire rate over 3 times faster? Why was this not picked up on earlier? the Gsh should have 1500-1800rpm.

 

Further more, the thrust of the engines and its acceleration on the To-201. If the engines are so powerful, being able to accelerate faster then all other planes, how come it requires the longest take off runway out of the three fighters and the slowest recovery of energy in a turn?
Another bug seen is the inability of the To-201 to take of from a run way.Please fix this.

 

Another issue is: Why does the To-201 lose so much energy on turn? Having the most aerodynamic body and the most powerful engines demonstrated by the acceleration why does this happen?

 

 

Can we get together as a community and tell Bohemia that we don't want a perfectly balanced game, we need the strengths and weaknesses to be realistic.

RIP realism

[oukej 2911]

Moved posts purely about guided munitions, radars, lazors, IR, countermeasures to Sensor overhaul thread

[oukej 2911]

7 hours ago, TheTrueRussianPancake said:

Another issue is: Why does the To-201 lose so much energy on turn? Having the most aerodynamic body and the most powerful engines demonstrated by the acceleration why does this happen?

 

Can we get together as a community and tell Bohemia that we don't want a perfectly balanced game, we need the strengths and weaknesses to be realistic.

RIP realism

Please keep in mind that this is dev-branch staging ;)

As for balancing - ppl are getting it wrong nowadays :P Game balance is not about symmetricity but exactly about what you said - weaknesses and strengths. Done in a way that respects the level of simulation, that fits the sandbox, to achieve an overall decently authentic experience ;) #whatAconstruction

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

The Gryphon has green tracers (used by OPFOR) instead of yellow (used by Indep, but white works too going off the other jets' tracer color). Also the Gryphon should have a 27 mm cannon, not a 20 mm.

[xon2 102]

The Gryphon and Shikra float a bit above ground during taxi. Additionally, the new jets need greater turning angles at taxi speeds on the ground to properly navigate to the runway and make turns if necessary. Arma's runways and 'taxi routes' are on the low side for obvious reasons, so i guess all aircraft should be able to make super tight turns during taxi.