Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

panduhh

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    30

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by panduhh

  1. Posted

    19 hours ago, jgaz-uk said:

    OK, but with all the other DLC compatibility mods like vn players who dont have the full version of that can still join the server via steam servers list,(obviously not play those missions) but can get on the server that way, but with the W S compatibility addon installed they can't join via steam Servers list.  it might be a server problem? I put a ticket in for it.

     

     

     

    Western Sahara official Discord

  2. Posted

    5 hours ago, jgaz-uk said:

    W_Sahara_still_missing.jpg?width=1194&heRE; the Western Sahara - Creator DLC Compatibility Data for None owners with that installed on a dedicated server player who dont own the full WS should be able to do the download Addons & join on the Steam Servers list, but even with that installed & running on the server they get A "Full version Required? message & cant proceed? All the other DLC none owners addons work but not the WS

     

    Yes I do have the full versions of all the DLCS. It's just new players these days think ArmA3 days are numbered, & dont want to invest in new DLC, even if its less that a couple of Beers!!

     

    Any idea why the WS compatibility mod wont work, & all the others do. Cant contact the mod maker no access to him.

     

    The Compatibility Mods for all the CDLCs offer the same 'try before you buy' ability as the official BI DLC content, meaning you have to pay to get access to the premium content. If your server/mission requires CDLC content such as an included terrain, players with only the Compat Mod will NOT be able to join the server.

    The Compat Mods only exist because the CDLCs are Optional Content, players do not have to download any of the CDLCs unless they are interested in them. This saves a large amount of storage space.

    See the CDLC FAQ page for more information.

  3. Posted

    2 hours ago, BrewerOfBohemia said:

    @bandz Jesus, just relax, would you?

     

    It's been said over and over at this point that BI is currently working on it's Enfusion engine/technology/whatever. As far as I know I think it's also been publicly stated that Arma 3 won't be the last in it's series. It would be stupid to assume that the series that got BI to where it is now should be just abandoned. I'm sure they didn't open those new studios just to rent out Ylands servers.

     

    Just be patient. In the meantime you could keep your eyes on DayZ. I personally see DayZ as a kind of a tech demo for the next game in the Arma series.


    You grossly underestimate the popularity of Ylands. 😜

    Otherwise, you are correct. It has not been any kind of secret BI has been feverishly working on the foundations of a new game engine intended to power the Arma franchise into the future.

    There is no one in the Arma community who wants to see a new Arma game more than the least interested person at Bohemia Interactive.

    • Like 2

  4. Posted

    On 7/2/2020 at 2:03 PM, sfod-d_snakebite said:

    Curiously, however, the US Navy use the F-16 as Agressor trainer plane.

    https://theaviationgeekclub.com/falconup-modification-gives-us-navy-f-16-adversary-aircraft-an-additional-500-hours-of-service-life/

    😊


    The entire point of the Aggressor fleet DoD-wide is to provide Dissimilar Air Combat Training. Thus, the Navy might need aircraft that are dissimilar to their primary strike aircraft.

    • Like 2

  8. Posted

    On 5/30/2017 at 9:31 AM, Asheara said:

    I'll be happy to hear some feedback, especially if there are other things that the community could use - they can always be added! :)

     

    Also, as you see, there are not pictures for everything (and not all might be 100% correct). Therefore I'd like to encourage you to add or update any missing or incorrect pictures.

     

    @Asheara

    It took a lot longer than I expected to get around to tackling this task but I just finished going through the Arma 3 CfgVehicles WEST page adding in mostly the game file images from the editorpreviews folders. There are some assets that could use the same images as identical assets with different names but the wiki database won't allow sharing and I didn't want to have to change game files. If I counted correctly there are 67 new images in the wiki database now.

     

    There are some errors in the CfgVehicles pages concerning the table code posted. I identified numerous DLC icon errors for Orange DLC and discovered the function output appears to be cutoff on all 4 of the CfgVehicles pages to prevent the last entry on each page from having the correct table code. I made a task in the Feedback Tracker detailing my discovery.

     

    I will continue the work on the remaining pages soon.

    • Like 3

  9. Posted

    The difference between running an Arma 3 Dedicated Server instance and hosting a server instance from the Arma 3 client is the amount of control/customization you have over the server instance. You are going out of your way to make this server operation more complicated than it needs to be.

     

    Consult the Arma 3 Dedicated Server official wiki page for all the details on configuring a server instance. Note that TADST does not follow these conventions.

     

    It sounds like you are running 2 Arma 3 clients on 2 PCs in order to run a server instance and a client instance. This is not necessary and probably impacts performance negatively. You are allowed to run any number of Arma 3 server instances without owning a single copy of Arma 3 (you only need a license to play).

    As for server browser visibility, it is optimized to show long-running high population servers first, not empty, never-been-accessed servers. If you wish to know if your server is visible via the Internet, you'll need someone on the outside of your LAN to test (give them the public IP address on your router, not the LAN IP address you use locally). They will need to Direct Connect the first time, then they can Favorite it and then it will show up in their server browser whenever the server is online. You will need to either enable UPnP (Universal Plug aNd Play) on your router or forward the proper ports to your server instance. See the Dedicated Server link above for details.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  10. Posted

    The low hanging fruit of 3rd party mods will be weapons and equipment mods. At the moment 3rd party content created by the community has no restrictions on modelling real world assets either ubiquitous like the AR-15 or AK-47 families of rifles or specific makes and models of assets from USS Gerald R. Ford to the CheyTac Intervention (the inspiration for the M320 LRR). Due to the sensitivities of some manufacturers about the use of their products in various media (notably films and video games) and/or flat out money grabs, will modders be required to get permission to use real life IP in their mods for submission as DLC?

     

  11. Posted

    On 5/30/2017 at 9:31 AM, Asheara said:

    Also, as you see, there are not pictures for everything (and not all might be 100% correct). Therefore I'd like to encourage you to add or update any missing or incorrect pictures. The picture's filename is the object's classname, and it is case sensitive, therefore it might be better to copy the name from the database page itself. Pictures are in jpg format.

     

    Enjoy, and I hope this update will be beneficial to you all.

     

    I'd like to help the cause but the relevant wiki pages are protected (only Users may edit). The wiki does not appear to have a link to create a new account. I already have a BI account (for the fourums, obviously and for the Store).

    • Like 1

  12. Posted

    2 minutes ago, gameoverdude said:

    So probably a stupid question but I figured I'd ask..

     

    Would I benefit more from using the performance client, performance server, or just normal 64.exe for a headless client?

     

    Currently using the performance server.exe and it's working great!

     

    The performance builds are called that to differentiate them from the profiling builds which include extra debugging hooks that can negatively impact performance. Their purpose is to allow BI to drop hotfixes to specific gamebreaking issues in between the relatively long stable build releases. This gets more players back into the action without having to wait for that next stable build release.

     

    Unless you are seeing a gamebreaking issue, the performance executables will not have any impact on your headless client's performance.

    • Like 1

  14. Posted

    On 6/3/2017 at 0:37 PM, BurningOrphans said:

    Hi I was wondering if you could help me out. I have made my own asset list for a user made scenario. I'm 100% sure the syntax and classnames and such are all correct. The way I did it was to unpack the JEZ_Warlords.pbo file, find the CfgWLRequisitioinPresets.hpp file, edit in the new asset list then repack the whole thing back into a pbo file which replaced the original. I also remembered to change the assetlist from ''Arma3DefaultAll'' to the one I made (IRAvsFIA) in the Warlords init module. When I try to run the mission the WL module simply won't load. It doesn't give any error messages there is just nothing happening. 

    Thanks.

    EDIT: Apparently this change broke the entire mod since I get a message on launch that it can't find an aipathfinding sqf file it won't load any textures of the mod either (like module icons). Is there any way I can get this to work or could somebody explain to me the other way of putting in a new asset list via the description file because I don't get that one.

     

    The proper way to create a custom asset list is to use a custom asset list definition as outlined in jezuro's original post.

     

    Quote

     

    Custom asset list definition
    Assets available in the Request menu can be customized by creating new class in CfgWLRequisitionPresets. You can have the config entry in an addon or put it directly into your missions's description.ext file. Syntax is following: 

    
class CfgWLRequisitionPresets
{
    class MyWLAssetList // --- class name used in the Init module
    {
        class WEST // --- assets available for BLUFOR
        {
            class Infantry
            {
                class B_Soldier_F // --- must be asset class name
                {
                    cost = 100; // --- Command Points required
                    requirements[]={}; // --- dispositions required ("A" = airstrip, "H" = helipad, "W" = water (harbour))
                };
            };
            class Vehicles
            {
                class B_Quadbike_01_F
                {
                    cost = 50;
                    requirements[]={};
                };
            };
            class Aircraft
            {
                class B_Plane_CAS_01_F
                {
                    cost = 7500;
                    requirements[]={"A"};
                };
            };
            class Naval
            {
                class O_Boat_Armed_01_hmg_F
                {
                    cost = 500;
                    requirements[]={"W"};
                };
            };
            class Gear
            {
                class Box_NATO_Ammo_F
                {
                    cost = 200;
                    requirements[]={};
                };
            };
            class Gear_custom
            {
                class myBox1 // --- can be anything, NOT an existing CfgVehicles classname though!
                {
                    cost = 500;
                    requirements[]={};
                    template = "Box_NATO_WpsSpecial_F"; // --- existing ammobox classname (its model will be spawned)
                    displayName = "Test Box #1"; // --- name appearing in UI
                    clear = 1; // --- set to 0 if you want to keep the gear contained in the template crate
                    weapons[] = {
                        {"arifle_MX_ACO_pointer_F", 1} // --- [classname, amount]
                    };
                    magazines[] = {
                        {"30Rnd_65x39_caseless_mag", 1}
                    };
                    items[] = {
                        {"FirstAidKit", 1}
                    };
                    backpacks[] = {
                        {"B_AssaultPack_rgr_Medic", 1}
                    };
                };
            };
            class Defences
            {
                class B_HMG_01_F
                {
                    cost = 250;
                    requirements[]={};
                };
            };
        };
        class EAST // --- assets available for OPFOR
        {
            ... // --- rest of input
        };
    };
};

     

     

  15. Posted

    2 hours ago, R3vo said:

     

    This is splendid and should be part of the field manual. Don't know how they could forget about that.

     

    I don't believe it's a matter of forgetting. BI is real busy and documentation is the most difficult, most time-consuming and lowest priority task.

  16. Posted

    On 5/3/2017 at 11:54 AM, reyhard said:

    Finally I have some time to write some documentation that I previously promised ;) After completing (more or less - there is still room for improvement) vanilla content, since last week I started to upgrade & improve HUDs & HMDs for Jets DLC plane with plenty of features that @Jakub BXBX Horyna implemented into the game recently.


    One bit of documentation that has been sorely lacking since launch is a guide to what all the symbology means on the various HMDs/HUDs used in aircraft. There are a number of us in the community (/r/arma) willing to take on this task, I just need to know where to put it for maximum visibility. Here is what I have done so far.

  17. Posted

    On 4/25/2017 at 2:13 AM, S3blapin said:

     

    What do you mean? How would you fight IR guidancestors beside with Active CM? There is no way (to my knowledge) to do passive CM against IR system.

     

    For laser guidance... there's today really few system that allow you to disturb a laser guided missile (for example the russian Shtora and I'm not even sure). But anyway there's nothing userd on plane cause you rarely use a laser guides ammo on something that fast

     

    I don't know if they plan something against Radar guidance (radar jammers, radar ghost emitters,  etc).

    Retired USAF Electronic Warfare maintainer here. The USAF has had several different types of IR countermeasures IRCM) for years now and is deploying new ones even now.

     

    Everyone is aware of flare-based IRCM as it's been around the longest. Technology has improved greatly over the decades to more precisely match seeker capability (including tuning flare spectrum to emit far less visible light and far more IR in the specific bands used by seekers). Disadvantage: the entire battlefield sees where you are visually/IR.

     

    Next to appear were IR jammers - essentially powerful blinking lights (with an IR filter) facing rearward. The blink rate was designed to mess with seeker scan rates to drive the missile away from the target until it was no longer in the missile's FOV. Disadvantage: everyone behind you sees where you are (IR) from very far away.

     

    In the late 90s, DIRCM became a thing (on larger aircraft like high value modified transporters) where the blinking light is focused in a much tighter beam (think like a floodlight is switched to a spotlight). Disadvantage: everyone in or near the beam can see where you are.

     

    More recently, DIRCM has switched to lasers as the light source as component size has shrunk to meet the weight & space constraints of aircraft. This greatly increases stealth as only the jammed platform can see the bright (IR) light - note this means the actual missile and not the launching platform. Performance is also enhanced as the jammer can potentially defeat several missiles simultaneously.

     

    Most recently, DIRCM has shrunk to the point where small aircraft like helos and certain fighters can carry these systems, not just the big boys (C-130s and larger). These systems are much less expensive so it becomes practical to equip larger fleets.

     

    In future (or possibly in the classified present), these DIRCM systems will have enough power to permanently blind IR sensors and eventually disable all missiles (directed energy weapon - "ray guns").

     

    Unfortunately, I have no idea what sorts of counter-countermeasures work against DIRCM. Home on jam (a radar counter-countermeasure) is possible if the missile seeker has some ability to locate the exact direction of the jammer but it would be difficult if the seeker receives massive amounts of energy apparently from its entire FOV.

    • Like 1

  19. Posted

    Proposal for the modification of V-44 Blackfish to AV-44B Spearfish standard

     

    Let me start off by saying I spent 12 years maintaining AC-130H Spectres and AC-130U Spooky IIs (Electronic Warfare, specifically) and the rest of the AFSOC fleet. I have missed working on the CV-22s but they are flying overhead pretty frequently here on the Florida Gulf Coast.

     

    Wall of text to follow.

     

     

    There are numerous issues with the armed Blackfish, many of which have been enumerated here in this thread since last month's reveal.

     

    To wit:

     

    • Poor training of (AI) aircrew resulting in an inability to perform autonomous fire missions.
    • Complete failure of onboard systems to provide an accurate view of the target area through proper sensors.
    • Preference for nap of the earth (NOE) terrain following flight paths.
    • Poor training of mission planners misusing expensive assets in high threat environments resulting in higher than acceptable loss
    • As special operations aircraft, a distinct lack of proper identification
    • Various cosmetic errors

     

    As the Blackfish is in service in the 2030s, for comparison purposes it seems appropriate to discuss the AC-130 as it is currently fielded in 2016.

     

    AC-130U crew positions:

    on the flight deck (cockpit):

    Pilot, copilot, navigator, flight engineer

     

    in the Battle Management Center (BMC):

    fire control officer (FCO - offensive systems), electronic warfare officer (EWO - defensive systems), TV operator, Infrared Detection Set operator

     

    in the back of the bus:

    loadmaster and 4 gunners.

     

    Sensors:

    • Nose mounted radar incorporating several enhanced air-to-ground modes such as fixed target track, ground moving target indication and track, projectile impact point position, beacon track, and a weather detection mode (enhanced version of the radar from the F-15E Strike Eagle)
    • Chin mounted Infrared Detection Set, functionally similar to LW FLIR but higher resolution/longer range
    • Left wheel well mounted Gunship Multispectral Sensor System EO/IR fire control system consists of mid-wave infrared (MWIR) FLIR, two Image-Intensified Television (I2TV) cameras (CCD-TV), laser target designator/rangefinder with eyesafe mode (1064 and 1570 nm dual mode laser emitter), and near-infrared (NIR) laser pointer/marker (860 nm laser emitter)

    Defensive systems:

     

    Radar warning receiver

    Missile approach warning system

    Radar jammer

    laser-based Directional Infrared Counter Measures (DIRCM) for "heatseeking" missiles

    chaff/flare countermeasures dispensers (located between the pair of engines on each side, either side of the nose gear doors, fuselage sides just forward of the ramp area and the bottom of the tail tip).

    Heat shields around the engine exhausts to reduce IR signature

     

    Unsurprisingly, the cockpit crew's main task is to provide limousine service to the area of operations (gunship forward operating bases aren't that forward - the USAF stays well back from the frontlines to do their maintenance). The pilot (left hand seat) has a HUD with an aimpoint reticle so that he can maintain the aircraft's orbit once over the target. The copilot has no means to handle this task.

     

    The FCO is the mission commander and has final word on target selection. IIRC, he and the nav share control of the radar for preliminary target acquisition. As I understand it, the nav has the task of coordinating calls for fire from outside sources (JTACs, HQ, etc.) with the BMC crew.

     

    The TV and IDS operators do the majority of the final target acquisition/pointing the guns. The TV operator has a laser rangefinder and target designator & the ability to detect other designators and lase targets for others to attack. Note the gunship can track and fire on 2 separate targets simulaneously (within the guns' FOV).

     

    The gunners hump the ammo, 4 round stripper clips for the 40mm and single shells for the 105, signalling the rest of the crew when ready. Note USAF uses different munitions than the standard US Army/NATO ammo for the same ground-based versions. The 25mm Gatling gun works in a similar manner to the standard M61 20mm used in most US fighters being autoloaded from a drum but on a trainable mount like the bigger guns.

     

    I feel it is important to say that gunship crews are very highly skilled and singular in their ability to deliver mission success. They are the best snipers in the world and never miss what they are aiming at. They are thus extremely valuable and limited resources, especially as a new one costs $253 million (2016 money as the US is acquiring 'new' -U models as a stop-gap until they have enough -J models).

     

    Defensive operations:

    As noted above, AC-130s have a large suite for self-protection purposes although in practice they avoid threats as much as possible. Due to the weight of the guns and their asymmetric loading, gunships are even less maneuverable than a slick C-130 (except in the downward direction). If they do run into a spot of trouble, the EWO and ground crew will have already configured the systems for the local threat environment so much action is automatic. The Radar and Missile Approach Warning systems will detect a threat and coordinate a response from the various countermeasures - a radar jamming package or chaff for radar-based threats and stealthy/covert jam signal from the DIRCM or very visible flares for IR guided missiles. For the record, a standard deployment of flares from C-130s is a single burst with a single flare from each station at once no more often than 3 seconds apart. Those "Angel of Death" pictures are public relations bullshit. The idea is to give the inbound threat something hotter than the aircraft engines to look at and then have them drop away taking the missile's FOV with it until the aircraft can no longer be acquired by the missile seeker. If you release flares too often, the missile will just climb back up the trail of flares and take out the aircraft.

     

    AC-130J Ghostrider:

    Lockheed delivered the first AC-130J earlier this year (2016). Data for it is obviously somewhat hard to come by but we do know a few things.

     

    Mission

    The AC-130J Ghostrider's primary missions are close air support, air interdiction and armed reconnaissance. Close air support missions include troops in contact, convoy escort and point air defense. Air interdiction missions are conducted against preplanned targets or targets of opportunity and include strike coordination and reconnaissance and overwatch mission sets. The AC-130J will provide ground forces an expeditionary, direct-fire platform that is persistent, ideally suited for urban operations and delivers precision low-yield munitions against ground targets.

     

    Thanks to the fully integrated digital avionics of the advanced 2-crew flight deck, the AC-130J has a reduced complement:

    2 pilots

    2 Combat Systems Officers (CSO)

    1 Sensor Operator (enlisted)

    4 gunners

     

    It also has the Precision Strike Package adding the ability to standoff at longer range (something like 16,000m) using Precision Guided Munitions. The mission management system fuses sensor, communication, environment, order of battle and threat information into a common operating picture.

     

    The future:

    "AFSOC is interested in adding a directed energy weapon to the AC-130J by 2020, similar to the previous Advanced Tactical Laser program. It is to produce a beam of up to 120 kW, or potentially even 180-200 kW, weigh about 5,000 lb (2,300 kg), defensively destroy anti-aircraft missiles, and offensively engage communications towers, boats, cars, and aircraft. However, laser armament may only be installed on a few aircraft rather than the entire AC-130J fleet; the laser will be mounted on the side in place of the 30 mm cannon. Other potential additions include an active denial system to perform airborne crowd control, and small unmanned aerial vehicles from the common launch tubes to provide remote video feed and coordinates to weapons operators through cloud cover. Called the Tactical Off-board Sensor, the drones would be expendable and fly along a preprogrammed orbit to verify targets the aircraft can't see itself because of bad weather or standing off from air defenses. The Air Force is also interested in acquiring a glide bomb that can be launched from the common launch tubes capable of hitting ground vehicles traveling as fast as 120 km/h (70 mph) while above 10,000 ft (3,000 m); it could be ready for combat deployment by mid-2017."

     

    While AC-130 gunships have served with distinction in the nearly 50 years since first deployment, future operations are in question as they are unable to survive in any kind of contested airspace due to their large size and relatively slow speed. This is a major reason why most missions are at night (preferably poorly lit ones - crescent moon or less). A total of 7 gunships have been lost to combat since 1969, the first 6 in Vietnam with the original variants before the USAF learned countermeasures. The most recent one, in 1991, was out past daybreak and took a shoulder launched heatseeker from below to the heavyside (port) engines.To be honest I have a hard time reconciling this fact with the choice to go with a VTOL gunship and its added complexity/expense/slowness.

     

    Accepting BI's reasoning for a Blackfish gunship, to be a viable vehicle several changes are needed:

    • The addition of a gunsight HUD & reticle for the pilot (facing out the lefthand window) with info for orbit center, weapon aimpoints and status (READY/NOT READY), target markers and basic flight data (airspeed, altitude and VSI)
    • Switch gunners' views from just below the relevant big gun to one of 2 sensors, FLIR ball (nose mounted) or an ALLTV with laser (IR) illuminator. Both gunners should be able to see ground based laser designations and radio based beacons from JTACs and other spotters. Nice to have would be enabling the 2 blank displays provided to the gunners for situational awareness (map/BLUFOR tracker). The other display would show the secondary sensor (that is, the one the other guy is using).
    • The ability to properly enter and hold a pylon turn at the ideal bank angle and slant range, most likely with an autopilot function. (The asymmetric weight and balance of the AC-130 may assist IRL aircrews in maintaining their orbits.)
    • Improved flight display information for pilot & copilot
    • Various cosmetic changes:

    Relocation of nose FLIR ball more to the left as it would be blocked by the fuselage when observing the target area.

     

    Redo this thing on the left side of the Blackfish that is completely unusable. It should be a full ball like the FLIR and located on the left side of the belly to avoid gun gas soot. This image shows the FLIR of the AC-130U. The ALLTV ball is the black one just aft and below the 30mm gun on the left sponson.

     

    Remove the "6237" number on the outside. It is suppposed to be the aircraft tail number which should be the same as the radio call sign. In place of "6237" I'd like to see a gunship logo of some kind as a counterpoint to the Xi'an's griffin. IRL ones have featured a crescent moon and a ghost/spectre firing a Gatling gun. The AC-130Us are currently sporting this one. A logo would also work better on the right side of the aircraft as a mirror image than numbers.

     

    The small square display directly above the radio call sign is a threat warning display on the CV-22. The dashed inner circle marks the lethal zone of the displayed threat. This means if the threat symbol is outside the dashes, the bad guys have their eye on you but can't hit you. Inside the circle they can hit you. Note this is a relative distance for each threat not actual range from your aircraft.

     

    Current Blackfish cockpit displays

     

    This is the cockpit of an MC-130J which should be similar to the AC-130J. The slightly tinted clear panel up high is a HUD. Gunships wouldn't need this forward facing one. The big screen directly in front of the pilot has nav info (compass headings around the circle and landmarks inside). To the right are digital engine instruments, an aviation map and an unknown view, possibly an aerial view of the destination.

     

    This is the copilot's display inflight during a paratrooper static line jump from a Marine MV-22 (ref at the 0:53 mark). Note the left monitor has nav info (compass/bearing/heading overlayed on an aviation map. The right hand map appears to be a FLIR image with helo style HUD info overlaid.

     

    This is the front end of a USAF CV-22. There are some important differences over the more basic Marine MV-22.

     

    The round bump with light gray ring high on the nose is the Terrain Following/Terrain Avoidance radar, vital for NOE flight in all weather conditions.

     

    The blister on the left side just aft of the nose is the defensive system sensors. Note these are different from the ones on the MV-22 and the Blackfish. The black and orange circle is the Missile Approach sensor and the flat spot above covers the radar warning antenna.

     

    The 2 bare metal "L" shaped arms are pitot tubes for airspeed measurement. The Blackfish's are incorrectly facing aft and on the belly where they would be destroyed quite quickly.

     

    Just aft of the black triangle window and also straight below look to be the VSI and angle of attack sensors. I believe the lower one works like a wind vane and pivots depending on the direction of airflow.

     

    In this view we get another look at a Missile Approach sensor. Down and to the right, that turreted ball is the DIRCM laser. There are a few SATCOM and UHF antennas along the top of the fuselage.

     

    In this view we can see the radar jammer trasmit antenna just aft of the large cockpit window (The forward RESCUE arrow points right at it). I believe the companion receive antenna is on the chin (the black circle just outside the nose gear). The orange rounded squares around the white squares are a really horrible sealing job and flare dispensers. More countermeasures dispensers can be found in the 2 white rectangles between the aft Missile Approach sensor and the DIRCM turret. The various other protusions on the belly of the aircraft should be UHF/VHF antennas for comms with ground troops.

     

    On the vertical stabilizer we see a dark gray vertical rectangle, that's a formation light. the stalk mounted items lower down on the trailing edge are transmit and receive antennas for the radar jammer.

     

     

    Well, this certainly took me several hours longer than I planned on. I hope my brain dump here helps the BIminions improve the working of the armed Blackfish. You don't need to use "Spearfish" but the gunship ought to have a different name and desgnation from the other models. If you are feeling froggy, I wouldn't mind seeing a special ops (MV-44) Blackfish version to be more in keeping with its NOE/precision all-weather flying capability. Thanks for making it to the end.

    • Like 17

  23. Posted

    What? How would that even work?

     

    If one could specify a primary weapon sling style (front Y rig like Spec Ops/SWAT people vs. the 1 strap over the shoulder standard rig), the "unprepared" animation could take X amount of time to put the rifle away on the shoulder and draw the pistol while the "prepared" version would be faster as you're just letting go of the rifle & quickdrawing the pistol.

     

    I consider this a neat to have feature. The primary to missile launcher speed bothers me far more.

  24. Posted

    While many folks are concerned with how the weapon switching looks, I'm more concerned with how long each process takes, especially while on the move. For instance, the time it takes to switch from a rifle to the Titan Compact AT Launcher feels like it's what switching between 2 rifles is like (timewise) as opposed to switching from an 4+ kg rifle to a 12+ kg launcher. I couldn't see much of a difference between standing still & sprinting either.

     

    If it's at all possible, I'd also like to see a time difference between primary/sidearm switching for someone doing it unprepared (most combat situations) vs. someone expecting to need to do it (CQB/room clearing). This may require a change in primary rigging like some other folks in this thread have mentioned.

  25. Posted

    I suggest taking a look at the names the SW Asian militaries use for their weapon systems.

    "Toophan (meaning "Typhoon" in Persian) is a series of Iranian anti-tank missiles."

    "The Tosan (Also written Towan, meaning Wild Horse or Fury) is an Iranian light tank"

    "Mobarez meaning "Duellist" is a domestically produced upgraded version of the British Chieftain tank by Iran"

    "Safir (meaning "ambassador") is an Iranian 4x4 multipurpose military vehicle built by Fath Vehicle Industries."

    They seem to use more 'flowery' terms like the PLA does after being translated into English.

×