Footmunch Friday - Sukhoi Su33 Flanker D

[[aps]gnat 28]

Thanks Guys.

@MehMan

As Rock said, its Friday where I am ;)

@wld427

I'm sure they'll put up a fight ;)

@wika_woo

Theres no Sonic Boom script running and theres no body vapour script running. I didn't think the FPS loss was worth those 2 effects.

@BigMorgan

Yep, very handy I think too.

@vasmkd & Myke

Thanks, I'll add it to the next revision

personally i do dislike it when addons start to break standard ingame routines

Yeh, agree.

@Mandoble

Thanks mate!

@victim913

Are you running with high post-procession effects?

No, there will be no folding wings.

"chinese markings" ? Got any good pictures/layouts?

@Zemmer

No, just random, but alined with your personal star-sign and horescope ;)

All,

FYI, you'll notice the bomber versions will do bomb runs on armoured targets, and they don't drop all bombs at once.

...... took me a long time to get that to work.

You'll also notice the Afterburners work well in an automatic fashion, but not perfect.

Because the "rpm" animation is broken since in ArmAII (not in ArmA) its more difficult to get Afterburners to detect "throttle position". I've had to use the G-Meter intead.

[eble 3]

great work mate :) loved these in Arma1

[[frl]myke 14]

Because the "rpm" animation is broken since in ArmAII (not in ArmA) its more difficult to get Afterburners to detect "throttle position". I've had to use the G-Meter intead.

Encountered the same problem on the F-16. I tried to make the Afterburner only available if full throttle is applied. And also, reducing throttle would automatically disable it. There i also found out that rpm doesn't work as intended. It goes from 0 to 100% when engine is turned on but doesn't react on throttling up and down.

Bi i found a workaround that maybe also could work for you.

From the config.cpp:

		class Afterburner {
			displayName ="$STR_ACTION_AFTERBURNER_ON";
			shortcut = "turbo";
			condition = "speed this >50 and (((inputAction 'HeliUp') + (inputAction 'HeliThrottlePos'))>1.95)";
			statement = "this spawn GLT_afterburner";
			displayNameDefault = "";
			position = "pilotcontrol";
			radius =15;
			onlyforplayer = 1;
		};

The afterburner script then includes the following while/do condition loop:

while {(alive _plane) and  (((inputAction "HeliUp") + (inputAction "HeliThrottlePos"))>1.95)} do {

So the Afterburner becomes only available if full throttle is given. And also it disables it once you pull throttle back.

Btw, used the same technique to animate the HOTAS throttle stick.

Edited February 19, 2010 by [FRL]Myke

[[aps]gnat 28]

Thanks for the tip Myke.

BTW, forgot to answer your earlier question; "IAWS compatible"?

Yes, as far as the off-center weapon proxies etc. These aircraft models have the proper ArmAII "generic" load-out arrangement (ie you could load almost anything onto it)

But I didn't add the Config bit yet, mainly because I didn't understand fully.

Maybe you can help with the IAWS configs before a revised release.

Thanks Southy, nice F14 mate.

[mandoble 1]

It has a kitchen missile (or missile launcher) derived from Ch.29, but there is no default loadout using this missile atm, right?

And the promised MMA setup for your Su33 :)

[[frl]myke 14]

Gnat;1573530']Thanks for the tip Myke.

BTW' date=' forgot to answer your earlier question; "IAWS compatible"?

Yes, as far as the off-center weapon proxies etc. These aircraft models have the proper ArmAII "generic" load-out arrangement (ie you could load almost anything onto it)

But I didn't add the Config bit yet, mainly because I didn't understand fully.

Maybe you can help with the IAWS configs before a revised release.[/quote']

Sent you a PM. Feel free to contact me on MSN if something needs to be clarified.

[[aps]gnat 28]

It has a kitchen missile (or missile launcher) derived from Ch.29, but there is no default loadout using this missile atm, right?

Right. Thats for another release ;)

Thanks!

[quicksilver67 10]

I want to suggest a collaboration between the forces of Gnat and the forces of Southy. You guys would be awesome together, and perhaps we could finally have some standards with regards to aircraft configurations. It would also insure that the crafts produced could be relatively competitive, instead of someone releasing something so over-powering that it's a game breaker (like that guy who released the AA vehicle with the 10km range.... for an 11kmx13km map... argh).

Also, I wish to rail against the evils of "manual" landing gear buried two levels in the controls, beyond easy AI and joystick understanding simply to satisfy a select few who should probably just put down the cell phone and drive. Seriously, you noobish endangered gear crushers out there: trap three or go home.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Absolutely amazing work.

Gotta agree on the secondary menu for controls being slightly annoying though.

[[aps]gnat 28]

@quicksilver67

Did you even ask why the gear had to be done that way? No ..... I don't remember seeing you ask.

[quicksilver67 10]

I could have sworn I saw you post that it was for collapse reasons, Gnat, back in the under development thread. All I can find now is a reference to "Manual" landing gear for carrier operations." I'll be the first to admit I make mistakes, so if you didn't say it, you didn't say it. I assumed it had something to do with the identification of the LHD as a "Land" unit, with a really messed up height value, and the tendency for things to sink into the surface. So if I'm wrong about the gear issue, then for my education, what the heck was the reason?

[VKing 12]

Great plane. Looks good, flies good, makes pretty explosions.

I'm going to second the "what's up with the landing gear" question.

No matter the answer, though, I suggest adding a condition to the action to disallow retracting the gear while on the ground, it looks weird when the gear retracts and the plane hovers stationary in the air.

Also, are you going to make this XEH/ACE compatible?

[[aps]gnat 28]

@quicksilver67

Yes, Carrier operations, but I may have beem a little harsh on you, because it seems one of the patches has fixed the issue for ArmAII.

Taxing around a carrier (like Kuznetsov) doesnt seem to cause gear to retract by itself anymore.

VKings ideal makes sense, but I may not need manual gear at all now.

@VKing

"XEH/ACE compatible" No, just fix the ejector seats with the code provided by Myke.

And make it IAWS compatible.

[VKing 12]

Is there a funny reason why you won't use XEH, even as an option?

[[aps]gnat 28]

Is there a funny reason why you won't use XEH, even as an option?

Yeh, funny as hell. Can't be fuxked cuz its too complicated and I can't see a reason why.

Now if someone actually has a SIMPLE how-to on adding XEH to an addon, or better still, someone supplies me the correct code for the Su33, then I mighted be fuxked adding it for the next beta.

....... as you might gather, I have no patience for stuff that globally overrides vanilla arma.

[[frl]myke 14]

Gnat;1575040']Yeh' date=' funny as hell. Can't be fuxked cuz its too complicated and I can't see a reason why.

Now if someone actually has a SIMPLE how-to on adding XEH to an addon, or better still, someone supplies me the correct code for the Su33, then I mighted be fuxked adding it for the next beta.

....... as you might gather, I have no patience for stuff that globally overrides vanilla arma.[/quote']

There you go. First, remove all assigned Eventhandler classes from entire config. At the very end (or beginning, wherever you see fit) add this:

class cfgVehicles {
    ....stuff...
};

class Extended_Init_EventHandlers {
class RKTSU33AA {
	RKTSU33AA_init = "[_this select 0] exec ""\rktsu33\scr\common_init.sqs"";_scr = _this execVM ""\ca\Data\ParticleEffects\SCRIPTS\init.sqf"";";
};
};
class Extended_Fired_Eventhandlers {
class RKTSU33AA {
	RKTSU33AA_fired = "_this call BIS_Effects_EH_Fired;";
};
};

class Extended_Killed_Eventhandlers {
class RKTSU33AA {
	RKTSU33AA_killed = "_this call BIS_Effects_EH_Killed;";
};
};

Unlike BIS Eventhandler this is not part of the vehicles config part, it stands alone for itself. It adds the EH to RKTSU33AA and all inherited planes.

[manzilla 1]

Thanks Myke, I was just working on this to post but you saved my the time. ;)

[[frl]myke 14]

Lol Manzilla, always glad if i can help. ;)

Can you please countercheck that the posted code is correct? Errors always sneak in easily on my PC.

[manzilla 1]

It looks like it's right to me. I may try it later today, I'll let you know if I do.

[VKing 12]

Edit: damn I'm slow, but you don't need the vanilla BIS EHs as they're added from inheritance.

Remove all the class EventHandlers from the vehicle configs and add

class Extended_Init_EventHandlers {
class RKTSU33AA {
	init = "[_this select 0] exec ""\rktsu33\scr\common_init.sqs"";";
};
};

to the config as a separate entry, i.e. on the same level al CfgVehicles, CfgPathces etc.

Also add

Extended_EventHandlers

to the requiredAddons array, and you should be golden. :)

Edited February 21, 2010 by VKing
myke!

[manzilla 1]

Edit: damn I'm slow, but you don't need the vanilla BIS EHs as they're added from inheritance.

Remove all the class EventHandlers from the vehicle configs and add

class Extended_Init_EventHandlers {
class RKTSU33AA {
	init = "[_this select 0] exec ""\rktsu33\scr\common_init.sqs"";";
};
};

to the config as a separate entry, i.e. on the same level al CfgVehicles, CfgPathces etc.

Also add

Extended_EventHandlers

to the requiredAddons array, and you should be golden. :)

Oooh the top piece I never knew, thanks for that. The 2nd piece, yes my apologies for forgetting that part. Thanks VKing!

[[aps]gnat 28]

Thanks guys ;)

But just one thing;

You all only said "RKTSU33AA"

Will I have to do this for all my classes ?

EDIT:

I didn't see a "why should I do it" explained?

[[frl]myke 14]

@VKing

IMHO the fired and killed EH should remain for XEH compatibility. It might be that other addons replace those BIS Eventhandlers and then the functionality could be broken. But with keeping the XEH fired and killed it should remain always compatible.

:EDITH says:

Read my top post again, Gnat, especially the last sentence. ;)

And why should you do it: for compatibility with other addons that might add things with EH's. So your init wont get overwritten and also others wont.

Edited February 21, 2010 by [FRL]Myke

[VKing 12]

@Gnat:

What myke said.

@Myke:

I don't know what happens if you XEH an eventhandler that already exists, so you're probably right.

[[aps]gnat 28]

Read my top post again, Gnat, especially the last sentence. ;)

And why should you do it: for compatibility with other addons that might add things with EH's. So your init wont get overwritten and also others wont.

lol ... oops. Thanks mate.

"other addons that might add things" ..... hmmmmm yeh well .... ok.