Jump to content

Ex3B

Member
  • Content Count

    491
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

227 Excellent

About Ex3B

  • Rank
    Gunnery Sergeant

Contact Methods

  • Biography
    American from California. Did graduate studies in Switzerland, got a PhD in cell biology, married to a Swiss woman, currently live in Geneva. Hobbies include or included archery, firearms (but I'm not a right-wing Republican!!!), and hanggliding.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Ex3B

    Lets talk about the F-35

    I used the search function, didn't find anything, so, lets stir up this can of worms. Personally, I find it to be a very cool aircraft. I believe it to be very capable, and a great piece of engineering. Its unit cost (thanks to mass production) is not even that much higher than 4th gen aircraft (program cost on the other hand....). The F-35B in particular is an amazing piece of machinery... but I could say the same things about the space shuttle, and indeed there are many parallels: too expensive, particularly program cost vs marginal launch cost, the entire program was very political, and a great piece of engineering to accomlish something that... really shouldn't have been tried to have been accomplished.... Joint Navy-Air force fighters have been done before (not just in the US). The RAF operated the spitfire, and RN the seafire. The RAF operated the harrier, and the RN the seaharrier. The USN operated the F4 phantom, and the USAF also operated the F4. The USN operates F-18s, while other nation's air forces operate F-18s. A fighter that performs well from airfields or CATOBAR carriers is not too technically challenging, and has been done before with much success (The F-111 notwithstanding). But a STOVL fighter is a very specialized thing, and the F-35 has made a lot of sacrifices to achieve STOVL capabilities. The fusalage on all variants is wider than it needs to be, because just one version fits a lift fan. The F-35 A and B's wingspan was dictated by the elevator width on assault ships... the navy version simply needed a bigger wing that folded (should the USAF version have used the C's wing instead of the B's?). Overall dimensions and weight was limited by the need for the STOVL version to have the VL capability (granted, that does also ensure a good TWR for A2A capabilities of the F-35). That's a lot of compromise for what is by far the least common variant of the F-35. In retrospect, wouldn't it have made sense to separate the STOCL fighter to another program? There was a proposed F-22N /naval version... wouldn't it have been easier to make something like (but not actually) an updated F-22 with carrier capabilities than what we got with the F-35? The USAF is getting less than what it could have, and not such a big leap over the F-22 (once the F-22 gained ground attack capabilities). The USN is getting a but less than what it could have, bit it is a big leap over the F-18. The USMC is gettingthe best aircreaft it could, and is an absolutley massive leap over the harrier. Yet in terms of numbers built, it goes A>C>B, so the aircraft model that is most compromised is the most manufactured. Am I right/wrong/ missing some point entirely? Will foreign purchases of the B model make it more abundant than the C model? Allied navies (the royal Navy in particular) absolutely need the B model, as harriers retire with no other replacement... (only the French operate a decent naval aircraft, and could use the C model). Is that alone enough to justify it? despite foreign sales of the A model too?
  2. While fleet to fleet combat won't fit, I think landing craft, LCACs, and shore patrol vessels would fit. With all the bays and peninsulas of altis, landing craft to ferry tanks would be useful, allowing one to bypass land chokepoints. Something like that Fast sea frame addon would be nice too
  3. Cool that there are tex samples available. One thing I had wanted to do was make a CSAT reskin of the pt-76 and bmp (since csats only amphibious armored vehicle is very weak compared to other amphibious/airmobile vehicles) I haven't had time to check (new baby at home), but have slingload points been configured for the bmps/pt-76? I nnote that the real bmp-1 has a mass below the mass limit of the taru. Also (again, because I lack time to check), does the epbo prevent making a new vehicle config for one of the gm vehicles- for example if I wanted to make a pt-76 variant that fits better with the vanilla vehicles/2035 setting? Lastly... I would love to see a bmd-1 or bmd-2
  4. Right now you can download all the models and configs of arma 2 assets for modification and porting into A3. Since the A3 development roadmap is complete with no DLC on the horizon, wh not unlock the non DLC assrts and allow modification of them?
  5. https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Tanks_Config_Guidelines#Comparison_to_A2.2FOA_tanks The tankX simulation supposedly has physX support
  6. So I went ahead and bought the DLC on sale, its like 1-2 beers at a bar, so why not. I guess some things were done in the interest of "realism", but there are some things with the tanks that just end up being awkward. * For the leopard variants with TI (TI isnpt realistic though is it?), its awkward that the normal key to change vision modes doesn't work, and instead using the zoom key will switch between vision modes (which have different zooms). * Switching to the loader's hatch, and having to choose to take the mg3. I couldn't seem to switch directly from the inside of the tank the the loader's seat. It seems to me that a system like Arma 2's M1A2 TUSK would just be easier to deal with. * Having to press reload after firing each shot, a bit annoying. * FCS working for the main gun and not the coaxial MG... I understand that its realistic, but it also seems realistic that one could still use the rangefinder for the mainguns to get the range to a target that you'll engage with the machinegun.Its a bit annoying to switch to the main gun, get the range, switch back the the mg3, then set the range... But nothing major... Regarding the PT-7B: I thought arma's engine can't have amphibious tracked vehicles using physX, does this mean the PT-76B does not use physX?
  7. With scripts? Not that I know of, but you could do a simple config mod to increase its armor value. I did something like that to make the ugvs less vulnerable to small arms fire.
  8. Disclaimer: I do not have this DLC, but I am thinking of getting it during this steam sale. While I understand and accept your reasoning, couldn't you configure some of the highways/roads/fields to be "airports" as far as the AI is concerned... Alternately, add a placeable dynamic airport object, so that at least the AI can land somewhat competently I know its not so hard to make a placeable dynamic airport object with some simple .cfg file editing (there's a hidden one already for the vanilla static aircraft carrier, all that is needed is to change one line so that airplanes without tailhooks recognize it, and then change the scope setting to allow it to be placed). Fitting Jets into Arma has always been less than ideal, so I understand the point. I also feel that island terrains are better suited for jets. At least with Altis + offshore carriers, you can have distances of 60km between carriers. The scale is problematic, Jets weapon ranges are almost 10x lower than they should be for weapons like the AMRAAM, while jet top speeds are around 1/2 what they should be (like around mach 1, instead of mach 2). That said, they are a lot of fun, and act reasonably well when acting as CAS during combat (ignoring that if you call in CAS, it is there almost immediately, and isn't coming from some base 100+km away). Lastly: Just curious about the 5km/3 km claims: any chance that there was a mix-up in units, 5km is about 3 miles, so if it was 5km, and it was reported as 3 miles for Americans, then I can easily see the units getting mixed up and becoming a claim of 3km... One of the things I want to do, is to mix and match GM assets with vanilla assets, such as sending in Kumas/slammers against some rustbucket T-55s (like in Arma 2, but even moreso with the M1A2 TUSKs against T-34-85s). I can forgive some small arms differences (Arma 3 has enough of a variety of small arms for my purposes), but how do the armored vehicles compare? How does the damage and penetration of the 100mm gun of a T-55 and the 105mm gun of a leopard compare to the vanilla 105mm cannon? Will a T-55 be one-shotting Angaras/Varsuk/Kumas/Slammers? Will an AMV-7 marshall's 40mm gun firing APFSDS be able to take on a T-55? what about a Leopard 1 (it should)? If the GM assets are more or less appropriately balanced with Vanilla+BI DLC assets, I think I'll get it during this sale. Back to the small arms: how does the penetration of the GM 7.62x51 compare to larger BI weapons, like the MAR-10/Cyrus/M320/GM6? What is the ballistic coefficient of the ammo?
  9. Just a follow up, adding appropriately named memory points worked fine, and nothing is broken.
  10. Seems to me that I would only need to define memory points for the MG, and all the other existing memory points would be unaffected. Moreover I can have the same vertex part of multiple selections in the memory layer.
  11. Yes, but I would rather not change nor duplicate the vanillaweapon configs, if all I need to do is change the name of the memory points in the model. So would that work?
  12. Ah, so if I look at the weapon configs, I should be able to find the names that I need for the memory points? So if I look up those names, and add appropriately named memory points to the model, it should work?
  13. So I am trying to improve a port I did of a Vodnik from Arma 2, and the main 30mm gun works fine, and has the smoke and light effect at the end of the barel, as it should be: However, the coax machinegun effects appear in the wrong place. The muzzle flash is right, the tracers show the rounds are coming out at the right place, but the smoke and the light effects are wrong: I have a similar problem with a further modified version of the Vodnik in which I have scaled down the 30mm barrel, and duplicated and rotated it to look like a gatling gun (and I have changed the animation so the barrels rotate when firing), I made a new weapon class for it based on an HMG (but now with a much higher ROF and muzzle , and lead prediction so its an effective light AA gun). What do I need to do to define where these effects appear for each weapon?
  14. Has anyone succeeded in adding a titan missile pylon? I previously was able to change what weapon a pylon used by just changing the pylon weapon and ammo, like this: But substituting the relevant Titan missile class names doesnt work. I even tried modifying titan missile ammo properties with this,: proxyShape="\A3\Weapons_F_Tank\Ammo\Missile_ATGM_01_F"; but nothing seems to work
  15. Well, the Nyx-AT is capable of fighting pretty much any ground vehicle, preferably "armored vehicles", which are sometimes loosly called "tanks" by some audiences. With a 50 HMG, protection against small arms, a low profile, and thermal imaging; its also decent against infantry... but less so than the 20mm cannon variant. The AT- nyx would be a type of tank destroyer. Historically... Tank destroyers have been a rather broad class of vehicles that has changed over time. In WW2 they were mostly tracked vehicles with minimal armor, carrying either an open top turret, or no turret (but were enclosed). But this isn't WW2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyer#Post-World_War_II "With the development of flexible anti-tank missiles, which were capable of installation on almost any vehicle in the 1960s, the concept of the tank destroyer has morphed into light vehicles with missiles." It then goes on to cite some vehicles that are rather Nyx- like (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M50_Ontos ), and some that are rather Rhino like (light armor, large main gun that can also fire ATGMS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2S25_Sprut-SD ) The ability to fire ATGMs has lead to overlap with assault guns, and overlap was already starting in WW2 The article also cites an overlap with the development of APCs... some APCs have a mixed armament with ATGMs (so again, light armor, but has an AT weapon), while others are built on an APC chassis with ATGMs mounted (like TOWs on M113s and such: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NM142) In this case, the Rhino and the Gorgon and the Kaymsh can all overlap with the TD role. Sabot rounds are often preferable though, because of the faster time to target (and if it were modeled in Arma, lower change of being intercepted by an active defense system). The article does mention in the 21st century section: "Missile carrying vehicles however are referred to as anti-tank missile carriers instead of tank destroyers." China made a "rhino-like" TD, that was phased out in favor of ATGM carriers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_89_(tank_destroyer) While the Stryker MGS was never intended as a tank destroyer, and the Italian Centauro ended up serving not as a TD as it was designed, but as fire support like the Stryker MGS does, Well, HE lethality is another topic, and airbursting shells would be awesome. We also have some funny HE mechanics with 30mm (or was it 40mm?) HE rounds that penetrate walls and such, but explode on each surface they hit even when penetrating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_gun "They were not intended to be deployed as tank substitutes or dedicated tank destroyers.[4] Nevertheless, as the conflict progressed, the increasing proliferation of tanks on the battlefield forced many assault gun units to engage armor in defense of the infantry, and led to armies becoming more dependent on multipurpose designs which combined the traditionally separate roles of an assault gun and a tank destroyer." "Currently there appears to be a move toward wheeled vehicles fitting a "tank destroyer" or "assault gun" role, such as the M1128 Mobile Gun System of the US Army, the Centauro Wheeled Tank Destroyer of the Italian and Spanish Armies, the Chinese anti-tank gun PTL-02 and ZBL08 assault gun, and the French AMX-10 RC heavy armoured car." Its very hard to differentiate "asault gun" from TDs... especially now with ATGMs... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M551_Sheridan - large claiber, low velocity gun, light armor... seems like an assault gun, until you fire an ATGM out of it, and then it can serve as a TD. HEAT rounds are also a factor too, since a low velocity HEAT round is about as deadly as a high velocity HEAT round of the same caliber. Not MBT, for sure, but since they also call it a Tank Destroyer, that suggests it would be appropriate to send these against MBTs... or at least use them to defend against MBTs in a direct fire role. WW2 TDs had light armor, but a large enough gun that it didn't matter in a tank vs tank engagement - either one could one shot the other. They were basically as good as a tank for fighting tanks, but weren't as versatile as tanks in other aspects. They could hang back and support infantry, but not spearhead assaults, or participate in high speed flanking attacks like tanks could. Anyway, back ot the topic: Airmobile, long range indirect fire support with the Maruks, and a powerful main gun that will one shot pretty much anything except tanks... and can knock out tanks with 1 hit from the right angles (not the front)... yes, its useful, but I don't think its great as a tank-destroyer.
×