Aircraft/A-10 and others

[Bosniarat 0]

Any kind of heavy bomber ie the Buff or B-1 would be nice to use and would make sense then to have the Interceptor aircraft but the AC-130 would be even better! Getting pinned down and then having that thing unleash its 20mm and 40mm + 105mm would make for a bad day for anyone on the opposing side! I think as well the C-130 and C-17 would not be bad aircraft to have in there as well as the AN-71 and the AN-2, just to give some heavy lift or paratroop capabilities. Its just a thought, more civilian Aircaft such as Martins Great D-3 or some regional jets would be kind of fun and add some civilian environment to the game. That would allow some Spy missions or similar missions to appear with the mission editors.

[Spetz 0]

Wat about MIG's and SU's which are better then any F-14/15/16/18  (mig-29,Su-27, Su-30, Mig-1.42[not sure about number])

Well, the original OFP engine only support ground-attack planes, the air-fight, especially the dogfight is horrible, even with addons.

A-10C - Close Air Support fighter. Good for ArmA, because main role to destroy ground target.

F-14 - grounded, out of active duty

F-15C - air superiority fighter, air fight not a strong side of the OFP engine

F-15E - fighter/bomber, good for ArmA, because it's main role to deliver plenty of bombs

F-16 family - multi-role fighter, good for ArmA, because use to attack ground targets (LGB's, JDAM's, Maverick's, etc.)

F-18 family - multi-role fighter, good for ArmA, as the F-16

F-22A - air superiority fighter, as the F-15C, not to good for ArmA

F-117A - stealth light bomber, perhaps good for ArmA, can be use special operations, not undetectable, just hard to detect

Su-25T - Close Air Support fighter. Good for ArmA, as A-10C opponent

MiG-29A/B - Air superiority fighter, only good in dogfight, wich is again not a strong side of the OFP/ArmA engine (if the BIS won't change to much)

MiG-29C - Air superiority fighter, only several active tough, won't be a good choice

Su-27S/SK - Air superiority fighter, equal for early F-15C variants, upgraded F-15C's are better with the AIM-120 AAM's. Not too good for ArmA.

Su-30MK/MKI/MKK - Multi-role fighter. Used by India, China and Malaysia, good for ArmA, as F-16/F-18 opponent.

Su-33 - Multi-role carier based fighter. Perhaps good for carrier based F-18A/C opponent.

Su-35/-37 - Not in active duty, just prototypes

S-37/Su-47 - Not in active duty, just prototype

MiG 1.42/1.44 - Not in active duty, just prototype

Eurofighter - Multi-role fighter. Good for ArmA as the F-18 family

Gripen - Multi-role fighter. Good for ArmA, as the F-16 family

Mirage 2000 - Multi-role fighter. Good for ArmA, as the F-16 family

Rafale - Multi-role fighter. Good for ArmA, as the F-18 family

I say we have no 5th generation (F-22, Euro-fighter) air-craft because it will be hard for the east (or north in ArA) which may not have any 5th generation aircraft available to them (Su-30 is more of a 4.5) unless the aircraft that they have which (most likly cold ware Migs n SUs) are older are more manueverable like in real life. The others are just prototype.

Mig-29 fulcrum C is multi-role, The Su-30 mki  is better then F-15 C/D

http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2004/06/30/54664.html

A mig-27 would be a good in ArA, for it is a fighter/bomber

I understand that the Air combat is not that properly portrayed in OFP video game engine but it will be nice to see air battles going on in the air like Call of Duty which I have recently played

[Garcia 0]

Imho even in arma planes will be nearly as unrealistic as in ofp due to ofp`s limitations and terrain.

Would be cool, hovewer, if they implement better air support, I mean, planes should fly and provide support and that`s all. like move in, drop what you got and get out, fast and without crashing on each other. Besides would be nice to watch some high altitude bombers slowly moving high above you.

Indeed. No matter what, ArmA won't be able to support realistic combat between planes. 400 square km island, that gives you a lenght of 28.2 km between the right upper corner to the left lower corner, which will be the longest straight line of earth you can have in ArmA. Honesly, 28.2 km is nothing when you have jets fighting in 1500 km/h or more. Though I do hope they improve the air to ground part, and that they makes the AI fly better. It's a pain in the ass getting a AI to fly a plane properly

[Chunder 0]

I'd be inclined to have armed Forward Air Control Aircraft A - La Bronco,PC7 (and like aircraft) Smaller nations go for more affordable aircraft like the Hawk 200 Single Seater.

Being able to lay a smoke bomb on a target From a relitively slow moving turbo prop would be more suited to army style operations.

[snoops_213 75]

I say we have no 5th generation (F-22, Euro-fighter) air-craft because it will be hard for the east (or north in ArA) which may not have any 5th generation aircraft available to them (Su-30 is more of a 4.5) unless the aircraft that they have which (most likly cold ware Migs n SUs) are older are more manueverable like in real life. The others are just prototype.

Mig-29 fulcrum C is multi-role, The Su-30 mki is better then F-15 C/D

http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2004/06/30/54664.html

A mig-27 would be a good in ArA, for it is a fighter/bomber

I understand that the Air combat is not that properly portrayed in OFP video game engine but it will be nice to see air battles going on in the air like Call of Duty which I have recently played

Always remember if the fight is fair someones not done their job properly. So what if they wouldnt have 5th gen fighters, reality is most Airforces dont and wont for a very long time. And what happens when the 3-4 squadrons(apart from russia most dont have more than that/ if that) are wiped out? Do they do what Iraq did and ground all airframes? Anyway well of topic, AC-130 would be highly welcome

@Spetz thanks for the link i didnt realise they did they same to the 15's aswell, i know the 16s got sent home with their tails between their legs Note, the most current hardware/software was NOT used in either the 15's or the 16's(they thought it wasnt needed.... oooops! and the engagments were visual range only, no BVR! However the Mig's/Su's have an advantage with the AA-11s and AA-12's, as the Aussies found out against their F-18s. However the F-18s won all the guns only engagments. Theres only one way to really

prove/dis prove all these theories, and pray we never have to find out Now DoD can whine to congress for more funding on the 5/6th gen fighters shit really off topic sorry i'll shut up

[killerwhale 1]

Whether it is ground attacking or air fight, it was and still is horrible, its hard to control those planes.

[-kelet0r 0]

well it should be hard to control them - it is a sim after all

frankly we havent been told anything about air comabt and even the pictures of the blackhawk still havent told us if there are multiple gunner positions

its chopper and a10 combat that i would be most interested in and what i look forward to hearing about

[GBee 0]

well it should be hard to control them - it is a sim after all

It shouldn't be harder to control them than it would be in real life. I can't say whether that was the case in OFP, I've never flown any fast jets. They were harder to fly that anything I have flown though.

Much of that difficulty comes from not having the proper controls, instruments etc in front of me. I don't own anything but a joystick/throttle which meant I still had to use the digital keyboard/joystick buttons for some things. The inability to naturally look around myself and the instruments doesn't help either. Those are limitations of all computer games, nothing specific to OFP.

Where Arma could improve is to provide clearer and better working instrumentation. More control for those that want it, e.g. trim. Full support for flight control input devices and head/motion tracking hardware.

[codarl 1]

The inability to naturally look around myself and the instruments doesn't help either. Those are limitations of all computer games, nothing specific to OFP.

Where Arma could improve is to provide clearer and better working instrumentation. More control for those that want it, e.g. trim. Full support for flight control input devices and head/motion tracking hardware.

http://www.edimensional.com/index.php?cPath=24&ref=73

Btw, they (Suma-san) will try to implement this into ArmA, sooo.... party?

[furia 10]

Since Armed Assault will be as well an Infantry oriented sim, we do need aircraft that can support Infantry.

We really do not need super fighters but mud movers.

We also need Ariplanes that can supprot the Infantry Operations with parachute loads and transporting vehicles.

Aircrafts like the BAS MH-47 that can carry stuff or the C-130 or the incredible Mi26.

All those already reporduced on OFP through Mods can really support the Infatry by transportung stuff like vehicles, ammo crates and so.

I would really like to see those implemented this way.

However as it was already mentioned the AC-130 is alsmot a must. This is a plane that is properly modelled can add an incredible support to the ground troops and make very exciting missions.

On my humble oppinion, having the AC-130 gives more options and fun that having 3 super fighters models.

[Scrub 0]

And wouldn't it be nice to have more HUD info, like a rudimentary PIP, and gunsight hardcoded into the engine?

[-kelet0r 0]

a more inteactive HUD on vehicles would be sweet - dunno how possible it is for what are essentially seperate HUDs if you add an independent gunsight

[advocatexxx 0]

I see no topics here or curiousity of which jets we may get. F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, F-117...

yeah. that's because this isn't your mundane joe six-pack "jump-in and frag 'em" flight shooter. it's an infantry simulator, where air vehicles serve a purpose no other than to add an atmospheric impact to the overall scope of the game.

Quote[/b] ]Heck, whoever hops in an F-22 (our un-fair advantage plane) will never die

again, not a flight sim... if you can play as an individual soldier, make decisions that affect your squad, etc. then it's most likely not a game like IL-2, Lock-On or Falcon 4. There is a whole other Universe for fans like you, and let me tell ya, it's not on Flashpoint forums.

[Chunder 0]

I think i'll qualify an early post of what IMO is reasonable for a game like armed assault. Especially on a little island.

It's extremely uncommon to base capital aircraft within 100 k's or there of to front lines even a-10's. Taking off on one of those aircraft would mean basically 1-2 minutes flight time to the end of the island. It's just not sensible practice. Indeed, perhaps with an island far out to sea where people have flight time to the island is much more reasonable. Not necessarily the case for amphibious forces like WASP class ships with harriers embarked upon them. Armed Forward Air Control Aircraft, are however likely to be based closer to the front lines. These are typically slower turboprop powered aircraft, both twin and single engined. Small african nations if they feel a bit more extravigant go for aircraft such as the Hawk 200 single seater, which can carry a suprising war load. The reason is quite simple, a SINGLE aircraft can cost upwards of 45 million dollars, which, when you buy 5 or 6 of them + support equipment just isn't a likely scenario for an island economy. Which would suprisingly be inline that island nations with only a relitively small population often don't have an airforce that consists of any armed planes whatsoever, usually has a few helicopters serving dual roles of SAR etc. If, however two opposing superpowers were backing it, then it would be a different story.

Apart from expecting USN support for the Marines which means perhaps some harriers and stuff, hold off the over kill and let the mod makers do that naturally. Turbo Props are still bloody fast, and still make an awefull mess. Most have modern cockpits too nowadays.

[KDog35 0]

I think two of you here are taking me much too seriously. Can't I dream? Relax and get yourself a girlfriend.

This post was made out of curiosity, just a thought...chill dude.

[Chunder 0]

Not sure if your referrin to me or not, but i'm trying to avoid having one at present, I'm trying to afford to upgrade to play armed assault and other things, girfriends tend to be expensive and time consuming at this present point in time, where i'm after stress free lifestyle; the alternative always seems to be the opposite

Ahh batching, it's an awesome lifestyle choosing and doing what I like at will, the definition of freedom... perhaps bi should relase a simulator called the bachelor for guys that arn't so lucky, whereby they can simulate having the life of a bachelor.

=-p

[Journeyman 0]

Not sure if your referrin to me or not, but i'm trying to avoid having one at present, I'm trying to afford to upgrade to play armed assault and other things, girfriends tend to be expensive and time consuming at this present point in time, where i'm after stress free lifestyle; the alternative always seems to be the opposite

Ahh batching, it's an awesome lifestyle    choosing and doing what I like at will, the definition of freedom... perhaps bi should relase a simulator called the bachelor for guys that arn't so lucky, whereby they can simulate having the life of a bachelor.

=-p

Married life has got its plus points too!  

I've been married for nearly 7 yrs now and I play more PC games now than I did as a bachelor (probably 'cos I was too busy looking for a wife!    ).

Moral: don't despair the fun will continue!  

KDog35 -sometimes your comments seem a little harsh! There is a world outside of the US and it is much bigger and better than you think, so keep your patriotic comments to yourself   !

[KDog35 0]

Sir Yes Sir!!!

[Placebo 29]

Please get back on topic people

[EiZei 0]

Unless BIS has managed to work miracles with their engine I doubt any planes beyond A-10/Su-25/small turboprop transports are really that useful.

Having planes rendered far beyond regular viewdistance would also be nice and probably would'nt be much of a strain under normal circumstances, right?

[grayace 2]

There are aircrafts which can be usefull as much as an A-10, Su-25 or STOL capable cargo aircrafts, here are some examples,

GR-4 Tornado and Su-24 Fencer for low-level flying/bombing at even slow speeds, variable-geometry aircraft. With a Gunner able to lase targets, these aircrafts could be very usefull

RAF Harrier and Yak-38 Forger VTOL Aircrafts, can be hidden even in forests, faster than helicopters, and less susceptible to AA fire

[KDog35 0]

how about a C-17...? For the last 4 years, I've only seen one addon for this. Their cool stubby transpo/cargo planes that could help out in AA...?

Guess I won't get my F-22

[furia 10]

I think the C-17 is a good idea. We need Assault transport planes.

The trouble for the fast movers is that on MP theyr are usually a trouble creating lag and desyinc. I mean planes flying 1000 kn/h or more.

They are nice on SP but on MP many times this end up messed.

Dunno if AA will fix this, however I would still preffer, "slow airplanes" such the A-10 and Su-25 /39 and some transposrt aircraft to move troops and supplies or vehicles.

For an infantry oriended Sim this makes more sense

[Journeyman 0]

C-130s are what we need!    Slow and heavy!

Best plane yet for airdrops!  

[furia 10]

I cannot agree more.

C-130 is a MUST

This is the kind of plane we should have from the beggining.

The list of missions this Airplane can do is so long I will not post it here so it does not censor me for ultra extensive post

[im]http://screenshots.filesnetwork.com/37/news2/24691_3.jpg[/img]>100kb

Something like this