Fabulous flying & firing machines in ArmA?

[wolfbite 8]

Anyone else looking forward to the A-10/ Su-25 ground attack plane's?? those are two beautifull birds

[meyamoti 0]

Yeap! And if not then I'm sure we will see more community content,personally I'd love to see Franze's helcopters brought over.

[franze 196]

bah...nothing beats a huey As long as CSJ converts his hueys to ArmA (and possibly adds some new features that hopefuly gets possible in ArmA), I'll have something to fly

AH-1, MI-24, MI-17, AH-64, UH-60...those are just ugly tincans compared to a smooth UH-1

Yeah, well some of those 'ugly tincans' have a number of fancy features that the ol' Huey lacks:

- Precision targeting sensors

- Advanced weapon systems (not the spray and pray garbage from the Huey Hog! )

- Reduced workload cockpits

- Much greater max T/O weight!

- Higher speed

- Much better agility

- Fully articulated rotors!

Face it, the UH-1 is a 1950s era design that's only good for training new pilots.

[X-Rolando 0]

Anyone else looking forward to the A-10/ Su-25 ground attack plane's?? those are two beautifull birds

Yes, especially the Su-25T. I've seen some in-game videos of "Lock On: Flamming Cliffs" that really show off the air to ground capabilities of it (excellent targeting).

[Cifu 0]

Anyone else looking forward to the A-10/ Su-25 ground attack plane's?? those are two beautifull birds

Just if the plane-handling and physics actually fixed. The OFP style plane handling and flight physics are... well... not too enjoyable, and absolutely not a simulator. I like the Su-25 too, but only with a correctly done flight physics...

[shadow 6]

To be honest I'm not that interested in the planes even though I really like the Hawg. OFP (and ArmA) simply dont have the preferred viewdistance of a flightsim. And those planes were made of paper in OFP.

[ricnunes 0]

Yeap, and an another problem that OFP has when modeling fixed-wing aircraft is how the throttle of those aircraft work (you must keep the throttle key pressed in order to keep the aircraft's speed). So I hope that BIS fix this issue in Armed Assault in case fixed-aircraft are to be modeled that is!

Judging from the every US unit (except for the Striker ICV) that I saw until now I believe that the US forces modeled in Armed Assault will include a Special Forces and a Marine Corp detachments. I say this because so far we have:

-BlackHawk versions armed with Miniguns and Rockets/Drop Tanks (US Special forces unit)

-AH-6 and MH-6 (US Special forces unit)

-M-1 Abrams (US Marines unit, obviously this could also be from the US Army)

-AH-1Z (US Special Marines unit)

-Humvee (all US forces)

So following this "logic" and if fixed-wing aircraft will be added in Armed Assault the main US aircraft (at least for CAS role) could probably be the AV-8B HarrierII (a US Marine unit). Of course that I would also like to see the A-10 modeled in Armed Assault.

An another unit that I hope that BIS will add to Armed Assault is the UH-1Y (the latest and most modern Huey variant) even because it would be the "perfect" helicopter to work together with the AH-1Z.

[VISTREL 0]

Anyone else looking forward to the A-10/ Su-25 ground attack plane's?? those are two beautifull birds

Just if the plane-handling and physics actually fixed. The OFP style plane handling and flight physics are... well... not too enjoyable, and absolutely not a simulator. I like the Su-25 too, but only with a correctly done flight physics...

I agree. If they will improve flying physics it will rock. I will not step out from airplane then.

[Cifu 0]

To be honest I'm not that interested in the planes even though I really like the Hawg. OFP (and ArmA) simply dont have the preferred viewdistance of a flightsim. And those planes were made of paper in OFP.

Thats a hard decision, i know, but as i remember, the ArmA even capable to achieve 10km viewing distance, wich is more than enough for even a fixed wing aircraft. So in a plane cockpit, for example we get lower LOD (or such graphics level cut), for the performance are remain at playable level.

But after all, i think not the viewing distance are the main problem of the fixed-wing planes in OFP/ArmA...

[Daniel 0]

It would be nice (for my clan anyway) if some players could have different viewdistances to other players. Ie, allowing pilots higher view distances with the option to turn ground details down.

[franze 196]

Thats a hard decision, i know, but as i remember, the ArmA even capable to achieve 10km viewing distance, wich is more than enough for even a fixed wing aircraft.

No, that's barely enough for a modern day aircraft. Many guided weapon systems employed by said aircraft have a greater range than 10 klicks. It might be passable for WW1 - Korean era aircraft, but not modern BVR jets.

[Metal Heart 0]

Quote[/b] ]ArmA even capable to achieve 10km viewing distance

Yeah and OFP is cabable of 5km view distance but it's not playable unless you have a 10ghz cpu and 4gb of ram or so. It has been said that the setting goes up to 10km, not that it could be actually used for anything else but for taking screen shots. I would love to be wrong though.

[chipper 0]

Daniel @ June 20 2006,18:25)]It would be nice (for my clan anyway) if some players could have different viewdistances to other players. Ie, allowing pilots higher view distances with the option to turn ground details down.

This can be done using a script in mp. We'll at least the view distance part.

[Pierrot 0]

Falcon4.0 + TrackIR (YouTube)

ArmA supports TrackIR.  

I hope TrackIR will support handling of fixed wings in ArmA.

[Cifu 0]

No, that's barely enough for a modern day aircraft. Many guided weapon systems employed by said aircraft have a greater range than 10 klicks. It might be passable for WW1 - Korean era aircraft, but not modern BVR jets.

In BVR (Beyond Visual Range) fight, how you see your target?

You only see a point (or square) in your Radar/MFD, wich is an another part of discussion, and not viewing distance.

[sniper pilot 36]

Falcon4.0 + TrackIR (YouTube)

ArmA supports TrackIR.

I hope TrackIR will support handling of fixed wings in ArmA.

man does that look nice or what?

[bravo 6 0]

really nice indeed! i want that in arma

[echo1 0]

No, that's barely enough for a modern day aircraft. Many guided weapon systems employed by said aircraft have a greater range than 10 klicks. It might be passable for WW1 - Korean era aircraft, but not modern BVR jets.

In BVR (Beyond Visual Range) fight, how you see your target?

You only see a point (or square) in your Radar/MFD, wich is an another part of discussion, and not viewing distance.

Cifu is right, but how far can you see in sims like Falcon 4 or MS Flight SImulator?

I agree with [CAS]Daniel, there should be something that turns down ground detail when youre flying. I know about LODs, but maybe something more is needed if you want a view distance of 10KM+

[franze 196]

In BVR (Beyond Visual Range) fight, how you see your target?

You only see a point (or square) in your Radar/MFD, wich is an another part of discussion, and not viewing distance.

Simple: Radar.

You do understand that 10 klicks is barely 1/7th the maximum range of some medium range missiles? Modern air combat is all about the BVR fight.

Like it or not, 10km doesn't cut the mustard with aircraft that can break the sound barrier. It barely cuts it for CAS aircraft. You'd need a view distance of at least 25 klicks for proper fixed wing aerial operations. Then you'd need a map at least 100x100km - which, if I recall, is already possible. But the view distance throws a monkey wrench into that.

[Cifu 0]

You do understand that 10 klicks is barely 1/7th the maximum range of some medium range missiles?

Yepp, but who actually speak about BVR aerial fight? You.

I need to point two things:

1.: I say "fixed wing aircraft", and not BVR aerial fight. Got the difference at last?

2.: BVR fight is not about the viewing distance. You can spot the target in OFP target "radar" without that reach the view distance limit. The game know the target is there, the graphical engine not show it, but the game can handle it. Even in Lock-On i can do a target lock and can fire a missile without to seeing the target (for example i fly in a thunderstorm, or in clouds, or in haze, etc.). You got it?

Quote[/b] ]Modern air combat is all about the BVR fight.

Perhaps you need to tell then to the USAF, the Luftwaffe, and other air forces around the world, to forgot the AIM-9X, the Iris-T (and any new short range missiles), the Helmet mounted sights, etc. because it's wont needed anymore.

Just one example, in the Yugoslav conflict, an MiG-29 are made an attack run against 4 F-16, but one of the F-16 shooted down the MiG-29 from around 6-7 km with az AIM-120. You got the picture? Not from BVR distance, the MiG-29 are caught too lately, because they fly low level, using his radar only for brief time, etc.

Quote[/b] ]Like it or not, 10km doesn't cut the mustard with aircraft that can break the sound barrier.

Again: where i say anything about supersonic speed?

But, again: we can play even less than 10km viewing distance, we play it years ago, in the age of Amiga, and PC AT. We are enjoy that. Yes, i know the ArmA are not Flight Simulator X, not Lock-On, and not Falcon. But actually not the "low" viewing distance the main problem of flying fixed wing aircrafts in OFP/ArmA...

The whole viewing distance plot are coming from a short braindance, when i say, in the cockpit we perhaps can get larger viewing distance, and to achieve this without too large performance hit for example the LOD need to be lowered.

[ricnunes 0]

Personally I think that high-performance aircraft or "fighter-type" aircraft (such for example as F-15/16/18/22 or Su-27/30 or Mig-25/29, just to name a few) shoudn't be modeled in Armed Assault. Armed Assault like it's predecessor OFP are tactical ground combat oriented games/sims and therefore I have the oppinion that only the units that have direct impact on ground combat situations should be modeled. To me the flying units that fit in this category are helicopters and slow moving close air support aircraft (such as the A-10, Su-25 or even the Harrier).

And also the time that would be needed to model such high performance would be much better applied to the development of better flight models and avionics to the helicopters (for example).

Well, my 2 cents...

[franze 196]

1.: I say "fixed wing aircraft", and not BVR aerial fight. Got the difference at last?

There's no difference - 10 klicks is barely enough. You have to sight the target, select your weapon, select your approach, and then finally attack. Add to this various air defenses and it isn't as simple as you'd like it to be.

Quote[/b] ]

2.: BVR fight is not about the viewing distance. You can spot the target in OFP target "radar" without that reach the view distance limit. The game know the target is there, the graphical engine not show it, but the game can handle it. Even in Lock-On i can do a target lock and can fire a missile without to seeing the target (for example i fly in a thunderstorm, or in clouds, or in haze, etc.). You got it?

View distance and radar detection are linked in FP. Whether or not they're linked in ArmA could be another matter. I clearly 'got it' but you apprently don't.

Quote[/b] ]Perhaps you need to tell then to the USAF, the Luftwaffe, and other air forces around the world, to forgot the AIM-9X, the Iris-T (and any new short range missiles), the Helmet mounted sights, etc. because it's wont needed anymore.

The USAF considers BVR engagements before any other form of ACM. All the close range weaponry - it's there for the potential that they might be needed, not for 100% all time use. The MiG-29 is a good example of this because it has shortcomings in BVR capability. It can dogfight well and good within WVR, but that's only a small part of the pie.

Quote[/b] ]Just one example, in the Yugoslav conflict, an MiG-29 are made an attack run against 4 F-16, but one of the F-16 shooted down the MiG-29 from around 6-7 km with az AIM-120. You got the picture? Not from BVR distance, the MiG-29 are caught too lately, because they fly low level, using his radar only for brief time, etc.

Number one: What range were the MiG-29s first detected at?

Number two: How long were the F-16s aware of the MiG-29s?

Number three: What do you think the kill probability for AMRAAM at maximum range is?

Number four: Why do you think the MiG-29s tried to avoid detection?

Quote[/b] ]But, again: we can play even less than 10km viewing distance, we play it years ago, in the age of Amiga, and PC AT. We are enjoy that. Yes, i know the ArmA are not Flight Simulator X, not Lock-On, and not Falcon. But actually not the "low" viewing distance the main problem of flying fixed wing aircrafts in OFP/ArmA...

And where's your source that years ago, games only had a 10km representative distance? Low viewing distance is a problem, no matter how you try to put it.

Quote[/b] ]The whole viewing distance plot are coming from a short braindance, when i say, in the cockpit we perhaps can get larger viewing distance, and to achieve this without too large performance hit for example the LOD need to be lowered.

We can already choose the level of detail we want in FP via the detail slider. Additionally, keep in mind that it's not just the models and what you see, but the passive calculations and scripts behind the screen.

Lastly, Cifu, can also drop the smart-ass attitude right here. Just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't mean you get to be snotty.