Jets DLC Official Feedback

[Strike_NOR 898]

@Blackbomber200 Ok. I can tell that I have offended you, I am sorry for that. 

 

But you (and I) are dragging this off-topic.

 

When I read your post I could not see anything constructive towards the feedback of the Jets DLC. You are basically begging for two more carriers, an upgraded 25mm gatling on the F/A-181 and an A-10 that is compatible with carriers, less than one month from DLC official release. That's what grinded my gears, and that you tried justifying your personal needs by using a friend in service as a credible account.

Now here's my suggestion. We should all stop asking for additional ships, aircraft etc and focus on discovering potential improvements or bugs on the current devbranch material. This is what the thread is actually for - devbranch feedback related to Jets DLC.

 

Modders will cover all of your needs, otherwise there are plenty of tutorials on how to create your own textures on this forum so you can make your own USS freedom skin! :)

 

So let's get back on topic! :)

[GBee2 68]

14 hours ago, bl4dekk said:

 

Yes, but the black wasp II is based on F18 and F22 and these two use a M61A2 Vulcan 20mm cannon at 6000 rpm.

 

Rate of fire isn't the most important of those two numbers ...

 

Did nothing else I said about armour even register?

 

They have got it right in-game and it's unlikely to change.

[pipyn1970 19]

40 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

Now here's my suggestion. We should all stop asking for additional ships, aircraft etc and focus on discovering potential improvements or bugs on the current devbranch material. This is what the thread is actually for - devbranch feedback related to Jets DLC.

OK then, regarding this DLC.

These are my suggestions that SHOULD of been part of this DLC & maybe they can be put in an update under the "potential improvements" section:

1. Give the people whole like to play in MilSim groups fully working MFD's. If need be, the scroll wheel can be used to go to a different screen.
2. On the NON NATO jets, there's a daytime monitor. Why? What is it there for? Can we access night time mode or heat mode? Is it meant to be part of a targeting pod? Are we meant to be able to move the camera around?
3. Proper in cockpit targeting pod: How many people out there really think a JET pilot would stick his/her head into a gun sight? This should be within ALL the Jets cockpits & not full screen! The Jet pilot needs to be aware of EVERYTHYING going on around him/her. When he/she uses the sight then he/she is blind to the outside world!! The pilot needs to see EVERYTHING on the MFD's & NOT FLOATING within the UI.
4. The HMD info is nice but taking it a bit further & in line with RL, then the HMD info should only show up if the pilot is NOT looking down at the MFD's.
5. Helmets: I think & wished that whoever designed the NATO 5th Gen helmet had watched some videos about the F35 Helmet. They would see that not only is the current NATO helmet for the new 5th Gen Black Wasp lacking in 2017, but in 2035 if falls far to short.
6. Cockpit warnings: I saw a video on this thread regarding this & to me it made the flying more immersive. Why haven't we got that installed? Why don't we have lights light up in the cockpits if certain things fail or when there is a fire? The UI info panels for jets could be taken away now & that info incorporated into the cockpits properly themselves.  
7. Radar: All the Radar sensors need to come into the cockpits of ALL the jets & Helicopters. Do away with the STATIC pictures of radars & replace them with what is now floating on the screen.
8. Taxiways: If the new UAV is meant to be deployed from the fancy runway in the ocean then it would of been nice that new coding for the interaction could of been made. Something like this maybe - player connects to new UAV, player selects all the waypoints, A new waypoint could be "taxi to runway or CAT 3". The UAV doesn't move until the player clicks on the new "Launch" button. The UAV then follows its waypoints - taxi's to CAT 3, waits as the shield is placed up (cant remember what's its called) & a pause of 3 is counted down, then the UAV is launched off the CAT.
9. MFD pages: these pages would be nice & practical (for future thought) - A NAV page (the player can plot his/her route on this page. Be nice if it included a marker that says AO or something that was maybe 500 metres round maybe so the pilot knows that's his/her race track? A TAC page where any markers the JTAC puts down or the pilot sees would be seen here, Also any threats the Jet picks up like SAM sites would be automatically placed maybe? A weapons page so the player can select the weapon to be used & see what's left to play with. Always on the MFD screen would be smaller screens telling the pilot about fuel, gear, flaps, thrust, artificial horizon & maybe height?

I'm not saying to give us the same detail as DCS, I'm just saying we have the info we need but in an arcadeish fashion. Bring it into the MFD's. Let the player decide what screen they what to see while flying. The NATO 5th Gen cockpit would be identical to the one the 5th Gen F35 has now. By all means dumb it down for playability & game play but give us all the info we need within the cockpits. 

[Grumpy Old Man 3540]

Are there any script commands related to dynamic loadouts?

Couldn't find any on the scripting command pages dev section.

 

Also setFeatureType seems to be missing there as well (in the general page and the 1.68 page).

 

Cheers

[nmdanny 22]

1 hour ago, pipyn1970 said:

OK then, regarding this DLC.

These are my suggestions that SHOULD of been part of this DLC & maybe they can be put in an update under the "potential improvements" section:

1. Give the people whole like to play in MilSim groups fully working MFD's. If need be, the scroll wheel can be used to go to a different screen.
2. On the NON NATO jets, there's a daytime monitor. Why? What is it there for? Can we access night time mode or heat mode? Is it meant to be part of a targeting pod? Are we meant to be able to move the camera around?
3. Proper in cockpit targeting pod: How many people out there really think a JET pilot would stick his/her head into a gun sight? This should be within ALL the Jets cockpits & not full screen! The Jet pilot needs to be aware of EVERYTHYING going on around him/her. When he/she uses the sight then he/she is blind to the outside world!! The pilot needs to see EVERYTHING on the MFD's & NOT FLOATING within the UI.
4. The HMD info is nice but taking it a bit further & in line with RL, then the HMD info should only show up if the pilot is NOT looking down at the MFD's.
5. Helmets: I think & wished that whoever designed the NATO 5th Gen helmet had watched some videos about the F35 Helmet. They would see that not only is the current NATO helmet for the new 5th Gen Black Wasp lacking in 2017, but in 2035 if falls far to short.
6. Cockpit warnings: I saw a video on this thread regarding this & to me it made the flying more immersive. Why haven't we got that installed? Why don't we have lights light up in the cockpits if certain things fail or when there is a fire? The UI info panels for jets could be taken away now & that info incorporated into the cockpits properly themselves.  
7. Radar: All the Radar sensors need to come into the cockpits of ALL the jets & Helicopters. Do away with the STATIC pictures of radars & replace them with what is now floating on the screen.
8. Taxiways: If the new UAV is meant to be deployed from the fancy runway in the ocean then it would of been nice that new coding for the interaction could of been made. Something like this maybe - player connects to new UAV, player selects all the waypoints, A new waypoint could be "taxi to runway or CAT 3". The UAV doesn't move until the player clicks on the new "Launch" button. The UAV then follows its waypoints - taxi's to CAT 3, waits as the shield is placed up (cant remember what's its called) & a pause of 3 is counted down, then the UAV is launched off the CAT.
9. MFD pages: these pages would be nice & practical (for future thought) - A NAV page (the player can plot his/her route on this page. Be nice if it included a marker that says AO or something that was maybe 500 metres round maybe so the pilot knows that's his/her race track? A TAC page where any markers the JTAC puts down or the pilot sees would be seen here, Also any threats the Jet picks up like SAM sites would be automatically placed maybe? A weapons page so the player can select the weapon to be used & see what's left to play with. Always on the MFD screen would be smaller screens telling the pilot about fuel, gear, flaps, thrust, artificial horizon & maybe height?

I'm not saying to give us the same detail as DCS, I'm just saying we have the info we need but in an arcadeish fashion. Bring it into the MFD's. Let the player decide what screen they what to see while flying. The NATO 5th Gen cockpit would be identical to the one the 5th Gen F35 has now. By all means dumb it down for playability & game play but give us all the info we need within the cockpits. 

You're asking for too much, it is simply not worthwhile for BI to spend so many resources on making immersive cockpits while the majority of players will probably keep using the UI elements.

Especially regarding MFDs, making them is very complex whereas there are already well-made UI solutions. Though I agree with no.6 that warnings should appear on the cockpit (and HMD)

 

I'd argue that tank interiors and tank interior interactivity (consoles and displays like MFDs) would take priority over similar aircraft parallels, simply because ground/armor vehicles are much more prominent in ArmA.

 

[AV8R_Six 110]

4 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

@Blackbomber200 Ok. I can tell that I have offended you, I am sorry for that. 

 

But you (and I) are dragging this off-topic.

 

When I read your post I could not see anything constructive towards the feedback of the Jets DLC. You are basically begging for two more carriers, an upgraded 25mm gatling on the F/A-181 and an A-10 that is compatible with carriers, less than one month from DLC official release. That's what grinded my gears, and that you tried justifying your personal needs by using a friend in service as a credible account.

Now here's my suggestion. We should all stop asking for additional ships, aircraft etc and focus on discovering potential improvements or bugs on the current devbranch material. This is what the thread is actually for - devbranch feedback related to Jets DLC.

 

Modders will cover all of your needs, otherwise there are plenty of tutorials on how to create your own textures on this forum so you can make your own USS freedom skin! :)

 

So let's get back on topic! :)

I think it's important to remember that ArmA3 is ArmA 3, DCS is DCS, and Real World is Real World...and the three are separate!  ArmA 3 is what it is and we shouldn't compare it to the other two conditions.  DCS lacks the ground-pounding immersion of a Combined Arms Sandbox MilSim that ArmA 3 provides, and real-world, few of us will ever get to touch the real mission so we should stop striving for that in a video game addition that costs $12.

 

The JETS DLC is a breakthrough in many respects.  We should see it as a positive thing for what it is, not fight over what it isn't.  I have seen dozens of critical videos on YouTube since this DLC went live and many of the reviews haven't touched on all the capabilities and a few have speculated about something that is unrelated to subject.  I was just handed this video today and I think it captures the essence of the DLC and it's assets.

 

Peace Please!  I actually mean let's fly and fight!

AV8R

 

 

[the_one_and_only_Venator 162]

6 hours ago, Komachi said:

Last time I've checked, you can lock them on by looking at your target and pressing T (Same way you do with PCML for example)

Scalpel and ASRAAMs work actually for Pawnee and Orca but not for the Hellcat since it has a gunner seat. The Hellcat pilot is not able to lock on targets.

[Blackbomber200 11]

@Strike_NOR I give up. Considering you were the rude one to me, but whatever I guess. I did beg for a carrier but simply for CSAT fans least you forget there is a CSAT faction. I never even asked for a Converted A-164 just a camo and don't feel I should rely on a modder for one, and I never asked for a converted one. I only mentioned my friend for the sake of making a joking point because everyone I've talked too says its impossible to land an A-164/A-10 on an Aircraft Carrier. Why shouldn't I ask for a 25mm cannon??? In all the dog fighting scenarios pitting the F/A-181 against the To-201 the cannon is weak, I will regularly hit the To-201 with the 20mm cannon with several bursts sometimes running out of ammo with how long the fight drags out and It will still keep on flying, Either the Arma III AI are Master pilots or the 20mm cannon is weak! I'd like to believe the later, considering The AI were set on normal difficulty. Its also almost impossible to Hit Aircraft with AA missiles with the amount of flares I or he/she can pop. My game is also bugged because when I hit the T button and lock onto the Aircraft and fire the missiles they will just fire off in a random direction and disappear despite a direct lock. There will also be an error message with a line of code when I fire Short Range missiles. And I think surfaces on the Aircraft Carrier being not recognized as a solid surface is quite an important thing to bring up when trying to place aircraft or turrets or troops!!!! Also stalling constantly while turning is a major concern for air superiority jets! I could also mention again that A-149 Gryphon can not compete with the F/A-181 and To-201 because the To-201 and the F/A-181 can outrun it.

[GBee2 68]

@Blackbomber200 So many of your points seem to miss the fact that Arma is more realism focused that other games, yes the cannon on the F/A-181 is weak because it is in the real aircraft. Yes the Gryphon is not as fast as the other two new aircraft, because it's slower in the real world. If you want 'balance' between the different vehicles and factions then you're playing the wrong game.

 

Simply put, if you're trying to shoot down other aircraft with the cannon on the F/A-181 then you're doing it wrong. It's default loaded with AA missiles for a very good reason. The real world equivalents don't even carry enough ammunition for their cannon to fire more than 2-5 seconds.

[venthorror 117]

After today's update I'm unable to Lock on in Wipeout and Neophron. (testing needed, maybe redundant)

 

Shikra attitude indicator has been fixed

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T124345

(ticket is still open tho)

 

@Blackbomber200 I think you have every right to ask and request features and content.

It is a feedback thread after all.

I up-vote the CSAT carrier idea. And will not let other people lead me to censor my ideas.

[bakimaster91 16]

I ve noticed that Shikra and Gryphon HUD information is only partially collimated..... It is like that from the beginning of staging on dev branch. Will this be fixed?

[GBee2 68]

16 minutes ago, venthorror said:

It is a feedback thread after all.

 

Right feedback, on the content that exists. It's not a feature request thread, there was an official one in this forum, and it was open for months for people to send in their ideas, they did, the Jets DLC you see now is the result.

 

Two weeks from it's launch it's far too late to be suggesting adding all new content, you missed the boat.

[venthorror 117]

Neophron Attitude indicator has the same problem Shikra had. (Untill 1.71.141457)

 

The Attitude indicator representing the airplane is reverse. It seems to be showing horizon instead of the Airplane.

 

[Blackbomber200 11]

1 hour ago, GBee2 said:

@Blackbomber200 So many of your points seem to miss the fact that Arma is more realism focused that other games, yes the cannon on the F/A-181 is weak because it is in the real aircraft. Yes the Gryphon is not as fast as the other two new aircraft, because it's slower in the real world. If you want 'balance' between the different vehicles and factions then you're playing the wrong game.

 

Simply put, if you're trying to shoot down other aircraft with the cannon on the F/A-181 then you're doing it wrong. It's default loaded with AA missiles for a very good reason. The real world equivalents don't even carry enough ammunition for their cannon to fire more than 2-5 seconds.

I am painfully aware that Arma III is a realistic military game and that each aircraft has their strengths and weaknesses and some are more powerful, stronger, and faster than other Aircraft. However if that's the case what is the Gryphon's Strengths? It is suppose to be the AFF's Air superiority jet. I don't see why I can't try and shoot down enemy aircraft with the cannon, they come with a cannon and quite frankly its more interesting and more fun that way. Realistically speaking at least the Real world equivalent of the F/A-181 comes with 578 rounds and is a two seater Fighter Jet. Weak? I can not speak from experience because I have never shot down an enemy Aircraft with a 20mm cannon, but I have a sneaky suspicion that if I hit any aircraft with a 20mm cannon several times it wouldn't be ineffective. Something tells me that enemy aircraft would go down and the pilot of the Aircraft would eject, The 20mm Vulcan was designed for a higher rate of fire for higher hit ratios and higher hit ratios would defiantly mean taking down enemy aircraft. I also highly doubt The US Airforce would not have ordered a "weak" cannon that couldn't kill. And did you not see the error messages and SR missiles disappearing with direct locks or how hard it is too hit an enemy aircraft with AA Missiles? When you run out of AA Missiles, all you've got left is your cannon! I also don't know how stalling when you have such a powerful and sleek fighter jet is not relative, or how surfaces on the Aircraft carrier not being registered as solid surfaces is realistic.

[Hvymtal 1251]

@venthorror, they shouldn't be able to, TGPs generally aren't sophisticated enough to do full targeting data for air-air, especially if they aren't tuned for Air-Air. One would need Radar or IRST to achieve this kind of gun lead prediction, or a simple gun funnel, but we can't change gun modes as of now (and probably won't) and I'll take CCIP over an air-air funnel on an attack aircraft. Besides, high-velocity rounds shouldn't be too hard to do guns with just guesswork, and you've got plenty of ammo to blow

 

my detatch bug is gone, now I can't detatch from a cat at all LOL XD

Cat 4 attach position is now back at its natural home

Cat 3 is about right now but it is still far back and a teensy bit to the left now

Spoiler

Also my instant launch bug persists, insight from Sgt Dennenboom on feedback.bistudio

Spoiler

This glitch happens in BIS_fnc_AircraftCatapultLaunch.
It happens because plane getVariable "bis_launchState" keeps value 1 (successful) after launch.
On the next attach it doesn't wait for the hold button action to actually set this variable to 1.

This variable needs to be reset ( set to nil or -1) after either detach or launch.

New HUD for the black wasp is very, very nice, and fixes my pitch issue. Gryphon pitch ladder bug still persists, Shikra has been corrected but numerical pitch still reads 2 degrees low, though this might be chosen to be left in to help level flight; Shikra will dive at horizon pitch

Head position bug for Shikra still persists

Runway bug for the carrier still persists, and is getting stranger

 

New bug with F/A-181 Flap position indicator. It veers off to the right, rotating around some other axis than the one its supposed to

Spoiler

Setting 0

 

Setting 1

 

Setting 2

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T124602

 

I do have to thank the guys at B01 and BIS, even if you aren't actively replying and participating, your work shows that you are very much paying attention to what we have to say and are engaged with us, and that you care as much about the quality as we do. Keep it up :) <3

 

@Blackbomber200 The Hornet is, like most modern military aircraft, offered in two and one seat versions. As far as the Gryphon's strengths, take a look at my performance thread, it's INSANE

 

As far as realistic goes, the carrier holes bug has been solved for me, there are limits to Arma 3's engine with regards to certain flight characteristics, and yes the 20mm should do more damage (against fairly frail modern fighter jets a Vulcan firing PGU-28/B SAPHEI will instantly tear a wing off and ignite the fuel lines) but Arma 3 is not VBSS and at least with the 1st/2nd party assets there does have to be a certain degree of balance. It does need to have more punch against enemy aircraft and light armor but it can't be the instant incinerator the Wipeout and Neophron have

[bl4dekk 9]

Today's update was very important for aerial combat, thanks developers. :D

• Tweaked: Target lead pipper has been removed from CAS jets 
• Tweaked: Pilots are now warned about being targeted by cannons with target lead prediction 

[venthorror 117]

Right, so here is the ticket for Neophron HUD.

Interesting how Both Neophron and Shikra shared the same bug but on different instruments.

Bug  now only exists in Neophron.  https://feedback.bistudio.com/T124603

Rolling the aircraft to the one side is incorrectly represented on the hud.

[Hvymtal 1251]

As far as the carrier thing goes, I don't think anybody's trying to censor anyone here, it's a matter of what is useful feedback and what isn't. Useful feedback and appreciation helps the team get this thing ready to go, talking about how it doesn't have absolutely everything you want is very demoralizing. Perhaps we'll get a CSAT carrier at some point (I'd argue for better SAMs first) but right now the physical content we have is what we'll get. We will get some new objects we don't have yet, the showcase mission, and some new music, and perhaps we'll see colored carrier crew shirts, but that's about it considering we're three weeks from release. Instead of going all pie in the sky with what we want, let's instead work to make this DLC perfect. Dev branch is for turning everyone into a bug tester, so let's focus on that.

 

@venthorror Here's an Su-27, MiG-29, and Su-25T HUD in DCS to back up your thingy. Also occurs with wipeout

 

Spoiler

(Not my images, images belong to original owners)

To squash any ideas of hypocrisy, referencing a more complete sim for simple things like attitude indicators is hardly the same as asking arma to become DCS

 

Wipeout, roll indicator to top left

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/800922305510157645/67F4AB69567133812A37FEA498634B47F49D2CFF/

 

[venthorror 117]

40 minutes ago, Hvymtal said:

Also occurs with wipeout.

Just checked, Works as it should.

Half circle shows the horizon, Line shows the aircraft.

[Hvymtal 1251]

Negative, the roll indicator is reversed in the same way the neophron is. The U should represent the aircraft and the line is the horizon

[venthorror 117]

8 minutes ago, Hvymtal said:

The U should represent the aircraft and the line is the horizon

Nope. Half circle is the horizon.

Look at MDF bottom left side https://youtu.be/n0LFTRENPw4?t=1527

 

[Hvymtal 1251]

Shh :)

[nodunit 397]

4 hours ago, bakimaster91 said:

I ve noticed that Shikra and Gryphon HUD information is only partially collimated..... It is like that from the beginning of staging on dev branch. Will this be fixed?

Curious, what information on the HUD would you say does feel right?  We'd like to investigate further but a few leads would speed up the process and be greatly appreciated. :)

[Hvymtal 1251]

If you look at my shikra pilot head bug images (reposted for convenience), everything but the CCIP, Gun Bore (Or what's supposed to be gun bore ATM lol), and FPI are "stationary" which allowed me to be able to properly show how off the head is in the first place. A-143 wipeout HUD for comparison, notice the entire HUD shfts tot he left

 

Spoiler

Wipeout, how it should work

 

Shikra, notice how only the mentioned items move. Same goes for Gryphon

Head moves up and to the right

Ideally everything would move a la real HUDs and the existing CAS aircraft

 

Couple more bugs, UAVS still don't have throttle numbers, and I can't seem to get the UCAV sentinel to attach to a cat

[lex__1 422]

UCAV Sentinel laser designator doesn't follow TGP \ And no more range data...

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T124470

Mk21 not firing missiles

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T124492