USEC F117A Nighthawk

[frederf 0]

I had the pleasure of using this F-117A today in testing and the only part I would suggest changing (beyond what is already discussed or way beyond what is able to be expected) is the weapons and doors arrangement.

Whatever weapon it is that is available when the doors are closed should have a name like "Doors Closed" or something that also lets you target IR or laser targets. This allows you to target laser or IR targets (the maverick version would have IR targeting blank weapon and the GBU would have laser targeting blank weapon) before you open the doors. In fact such a weapon could fire a dummy weapon that activates a script that opens the doors. This would allow door opening to happen on "Fire."

"Weapons Free" is not exactly what you mean to say. Doors open or closed, or master arm or something would be more accurate.

Can you please add the doors opening to the AI actions menu (if you are the leader and your AI is pilot). Having an AI pilot works perfectly for GBU release except you cannot order him to open the doors. Either that or have the script auto open the doors when the AI pilot has an assigned target and then close them again when he has no target.

The idea that the aircraft would only have an IR signature when the doors were open and not when they were closed occurred to me. Silly idea.

[rocket 9]

Thanks everyone for their comments, I've been working away to produce a new version. Should be able to address many of the issues, feel free to keep identifying further ideas. A big thank you to everyone.

[Callsign 128]

are there any plans to make a crashed version? would be good objective for missions, destroy the plane before it gets into enemy hands?

bootneckofficer

[rocket 9]

I think someone else may have mentioned that bootneckofficer, or possibly it was yourself. I think thats a fantastic idea and a fun 3d project for me (I love cutting in 3ds Max!. Will definately look at doing a crashed version, thats for the great idea!

[[aps]gnat 28]

Lovely work! Love the little touches, and it flys great

Just a couple of things for the next version

- Artifical Horizons - Left/Right axis needs to be swapped as its going the wrong way.

- wheel textures are not semetrical, wheels have a light half and a dark half.

[rocket 9]

Gnat @ May 19 2008,15:29)]Lovely work! Love the little touches, and it flys great

Just a couple of things for the next version

- Artifical Horizons - Left/Right axis needs to be swapped as its going the wrong way.

- wheel textures are not semetrical, wheels have a light half and a dark half.

Hey Gnat, thanks for the comments... your work was a large inspiration for my own so you can really take some credit there

I had the most fun doing the cockpit gauges actually... I have made most of the revisions suggested now so can't wait to get a new version out there.

[wolfbite 8]

Great addon. Only thing is i never heard of an F117 with mavericks. Apparantly its able to carry sidewinders with some re-wiring but as far as i know they have only ever dropped GBU's.... But that doesnt matter.... Looks brilliant man.....

Would be nice if Missile's could lock onto it though....... Because its rather hard do dogfight aircraft down i feel.....

Top stuff man keep it up

[rocket 9]

Yeah I thought so too, but in talking with a USAF mate he said he was sure they did carry Mavericks, and I found plenty of support on the web for it:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/f117/

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1235/MR1235.chap10.pdf (page 136)

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f117/specs.html

After I saw those three, I decided I was happy with including the mavericks on board. Makes things much easier in ArmA as well! Did some work on her tonight, aiming for a new version this weekend without the ATI crash and other minor fixes.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Will you make LGB bomber variant (maybe with two 2,000-pound GBU-27)? I remember in OFP there was an custom stealth "feature" wich was flickering on radar/target screens so it was difficult (but not impossible) to lock temporary stealth units.

[DrBobcat 0]

Yes and, if icemotoboy wished, it would be very easy to implement your latter suggestion. Simply create an extremely simplistic model of a box, or even a rectangle, make it invisible to sight by using an alpha channel, and then write up a small script that moves the new model towards and away from the F117. To give it a more natural look, use random number sleep durations in the loop.

Just a thought.

-dRb

[frederf 0]

Yes and, if icemotoboy wished, it would be very easy to implement your latter suggestion. Simply create an extremely simplistic model of a box, or even a rectangle, make it invisible to sight by using an alpha channel, and then write up a small script that moves the new model towards and away from the F117. To give it a more natural look, use random number sleep durations in the loop.

Just a thought.

-dRb

Wouldn't you want to make it randomly visible and invisible to IR and not visible? (Or maybe both since I think ArmA Shilka's are only visual and don't use their tracking or targeting radars although they certainly seem to) I would think that would mean you get locked on to less of the time.

Heck you could make the stealth feature have more "peeks through the cloak" when the doors are down so it encourages you to roam around in smooth spook more often ^.^

[rocket 9]

Yes and, if icemotoboy wished, it would be very easy to implement your latter suggestion. Simply create an extremely simplistic model of a box, or even a rectangle, make it invisible to sight by using an alpha channel, and then write up a small script that moves the new model towards and away from the F117. To give it a more natural look, use random number sleep durations in the loop.

You're a genius! Thank you, I could create a vehicle and randomly move it around just behind the aircrafts position... re-add it and remove it. Would need to be extensively tested in multiplayer to check for lag issues... but I doubt any map will have hundreds of F117's flying around anyway.

[DrBobcat 0]

Yes and, if icemotoboy wished, it would be very easy to implement your latter suggestion. Simply create an extremely simplistic model of a box, or even a rectangle, make it invisible to sight by using an alpha channel, and then write up a small script that moves the new model towards and away from the F117. To give it a more natural look, use random number sleep durations in the loop.

Just a thought.

-dRb

Wouldn't you want to make it randomly visible and invisible to IR and not visible? (Or maybe both since I think ArmA Shilka's are only visual and don't use their tracking or targeting radars although they certainly seem to) I would think that would mean you get locked on to less of the time.

Heck you could make the stealth feature have more "peeks through the cloak" when the doors are down so it encourages you to roam around in smooth spook more often ^.^

The idea I proposed would only make it randomly visible on the radar. I do not believe it'd have any effect at all on line-of-sight vehicles like the shilka. Additionally, it would cause IR locks from Strelas and Stingers to break everytime the "box" was moved elsewhere. ArmA, unfortunately, does not accurately simulate thermal behaviour. I think this sort of compromise would work well enough.

Icemotoboy, be sure that when the "box" is centered on the Nighthawk, its pos is constantly locked to the plane. Otherwise, even if someone managed to get a radar lock, it would be off by a few hundred meters if the aircraft was moving at a high speed.

An (untested) example of the script you could use...

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">_plane = _this select 0;

_tBox = "USEC_F117_Targ" createVehicle [0,0,0];

while {!(isNull _plane)} do

{

if ((random 1) >= 0.5) then  

{

for [{_i = 0},{_i != (round (random 800))},{_i = _i + 1}] do

{

_tBox setPos (getPos _plane);

sleep 0.01;

};

_tBox setPos [0,0,0];

};

sleep 1;

};

NOTES

* Raise/lower the 0.5 to a higher/lower number to make it less/more likely for the targeting box to show up at all

* Raise/lower the 800 to a higher/lower number to increase/decrease the duration the box would be "attached" to the plane. At the defined settings, the max time is eight seconds.

Good luck.

-dRb

[xav 0]

So everybody who post about how great the addon is ingame are using a GEFORCE in their computer?

why oh why did I get an ATI I only got problems with my card... (and not just with ARMA)

[rocket 9]

So everybody who post about how great the addon is ingame are using a GEFORCE in their computer?

why oh why did I get an ATI I only got problems with my card... (and not just with ARMA)

I'm really sorry mate, its my screw up not ATI or BIS... I made one of textures 1026x1026 not 1024x1024. I will have a minor update released by this weekend, with that and some other minor issues fixed

[xav 0]

Thanks for the update dude, but no need to apologize

The fact that the ATI crashes while the Geforce does not tells me the Geforce is better... anyhow, I've had my loads of textures (and what not) bugs with many games...

looking forward to the update as well as other release from USEC

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Thanks for the update dude, but no need to apologize  

The fact that the ATI crashes while the Geforce does not tells me the Geforce is better... anyhow, I've had my loads of textures (and what not) bugs with many games...

looking forward to the update as well as other release from USEC

Its only a texture size issue. I'm sure icemotoboy will fix it now he knows about it.

Going back to which is best - Nvidia vs ATI; I've just switched to an 8800GT KO and apart from a ~5 fps increase there isnt any difference in ArmA between the 8800GT and the 3870XT i have in another machine.

Well the only difference is that its £50 cheaper.