Ex3B
-
Content Count
582 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Everything posted by Ex3B
-
Ok, Tanoa is just one island group of the Horizon Islands nation? TAF -> HIAF They don't have an army? seems a bit hard to believe... even small island nations like Jamaica have armed forces: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica_Defence_Force To date, their only military operation was playing tag along and cleanup to the US led invasion of Grenada in 1983. Jamaican sent 152 soldiers/officers, and was thus nearly half the 353 "strong" Caribbean "force" (which I guess was just there for show and propaganda purposes, as the US contributed ~7,300 men, and thus was 95% of the forces). I guess the HI would have a french model, but still... its not hard to image that they do have armed forces beyond the paramilitary Gendarmerie we see. Using the JDF as a model... they don't really have much now that I look at it. Their air wing doesn't seem to be much more militaristic than a police department that operates helicopters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica_Defence_Force#JDF_Air_Wing As for their army... it seems their "best" armored vehicle is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Gage_Commando I'm not sure what sort of armament theirs has/have (not sure how many they have). I guess this is roughly equivalent to the police hunter/Raven Ifrit. *If* it has a mounted machine gun, I guess it would be "better" as IIRC, neither of those MRAPs are armed. So... I guess the only real difference between the gendarmerie on Tanoa in Arma 3, and this real world model, is the equipment of the infantry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica_Defence_Force#Army_equipment Notably, assault rifles (not SMGs), heavy machine guns, 40mm grenade launchers, and 51mm & 81mm mortars.
-
Any chance of adding one more faction? I suggest Tanoan Armed forces? It could basically be the slightly worse pacific variant of the AAF. It could basically be a reskin with a different flag and men with different race" and language attributes. I basically already do this by just giving syndicate AAF uniforms and equipment (and picking certain units that have names more suited to a military, so that I'm not shooting at "watchers" and "thugs") My personal suggestions:
-
Agreed. I was hoping the "Navajo" would be the the best combat helo in the game. It should certainly do better than the (supposedly stealth*) Blackfoot in terms of raw firepower and resilience. The Blackfoot can already mount 4x DAGR pods and 2x scalpels, which is a pretty heavy loadout. The Navajo could mount 16x scalpels, and we'd then be comparing 14 scalpels vs 48 DAGRs, in which case I'd think the DAGRs are preferable. Alternately, the Navajo could mount 4x DAGRs, and its munitions loadout would be 2 scalpels (or ASRAAMs, depending on choice) inferior to the blackfoot. The heavier cannon loadout compensates for some of this, but its still just firng HE shells, and probably isn't much use in the anti-armor role. Even giving the Navajo 2x wingtip AAM pylons, its still going to be a case of 6x pylons vs 6x pylons - and the comparison to the blackfoot would look like: BF: 4x DAGR pods and 2x ASRAAM vs Navajo: 4x DAGR pods/16x Scalpel and 2x ASRAAM/Falchion/BIM-9... which isn't a huge difference anyway. If we compare it to the Kajman, they both get the 16x scalpel loadout. If they go for a heavy rocket loadout, the Kajman can mount more rockets (Skyfire or Trantyr pods vs DAR pods). While the cannon has less total ammunition, it can also fire AP rounds (side note, is the 30mm HE cannon of the Navajo the same as the 30mm HE cannon of the Kajman?). Then we have the Kajman's damage resilience: That video is quite out of date, and I haven't tested, but I suspect that the Kajman is still more likely to survive taking damage relative to the Navajo. So... superior firepower (the only disadvantage being less rounds for its cannon), superior resilience, and to top it off its also a troop transport! Right now I still have the feeling that the Kajman > any other helo in combat There should be some gameplay balance here/advantage to the Navajo because it hasn't made any design compromises to enable it to transport troops, nor to make it stealthy. If we have 2 non-stealth attack helos, and one is also a troop transport, then the one that isn't a troop transport should be better in the combat role. As for its AAM loadout. A 2x "full size" IR guided AAM missiles on the tips would be fictional, but based off of a real idea that was not adopted (similar to the case of Blackfoot = Comanche). To go with a more strict adherence to the real Apache, you could add 4x AAM missiles that have man portable variants. In this case I'd suggest that the Titan AA missile of Arma 3 as a stand in for Stinger missiles. Luckily, Titan AA launchers are pretty simple hexagonal tubes - the grips and sighting devices of the man-portable version could be omitted - so the modelling needed should be fairly easy if you already know how to make simple models and textures. I'm assuming, missile for missile, that the shoulder launched Titan AA is inferior to the aircraft mounted ASRAAM/Falchion/BIM-9 - so those options would probably be preferable anyway. It could be an interesting choice between 4 less powerful/reliable AAMs, or 2 more powerful/reliable AAMs if Night515 added both as options for wingtip loadouts. * WIth the inclusion of the definitely not stealth Navajo, the sensors and signature of the blackfoot should be looked at again, it should be harder to detect and get a lock on compared to other helos (ignoring LOS and terrain masking)
-
Suggestion: Allow the Navajo to mount 19x skyfire rocket pods Other suggestions: Since this model can be edited (arma 2 source), would you consider adding two wingtip pylons for AAMs? It would then have a configuration similar to the AH-1Z Viper of Arma 2, but with a 30mm cannon (and I'd hope its also more damage resistant?) IRL, there are provisions for mounting a pair of stingers on each wingtip, but I don't think there's any good readily available model you can use for this. A single asraam/flachion/BIM-9 with its own rail would probably look better Also, I know that you said the Navajo is very much only a beta version: 1) the gun seems to aim very high... I don't know what the zero is on it, but it would be better if the zero could be manually set. 2) (At least with AFM on) This helo is very... explody. just turning on the engine and setting collective to ~50% will cause the helo to spontaneously combust as the rotors get up to speed. Letting the rotors get up to speed with minimal collective and then raising collective to max to quickly lift off the ground avoided this. Landing it softly is also dicey, with it prone to exploding in situations where it shouldn't. I'll see if turning AFM off helps in the mean time. *edit* more pics
-
Downloading update now... but what does "Tweaked: NATO has issued maximum budget cuts for infantry headgear" Does this mean that the standard soldiers have lower level helmets than before (like a light combat helmet instead of a combat helmet?)
-
The best I've got is to put carriers/LHDs on opposite sides of altis "off the map".. ie in the black area of the map. In this case, the "ships" can be over 60km away without problems... which is still rather small, but at least it takes a few minutes to get places. At 1200 km/h, that is 1 km every 3 seconds, so being 30km away from the center of altis means that it takes 1.5 minutes to reach the center, and 3 minutes to reach the other Carrier/LHD.
-
If the carrier already has problems with planes falling through the decks, I think elevators would make this issue very bad. If you want a naval aircraft carrying vessel with a hangar deck and elevators, I think the best solution is an LHD (either the somewhat out of date ATLAS:LHD Plus, or the LHD in CUP), and Night515's F-35 (actually called a F-38, part of his Aegis mod) Like so: The problem with elevators is that they seem to work fine lowering planes: But... raising them causes them to drop through the deck... like on those catapults: With a true VTOL plane, this can be recovered from: The CUP F-35s are STOVL only, and thus they can't recover like this, and are really hard to maneuver around the deck of the LHD (meaning that you can't pack nearly as much stuff on it. Since Arma 3 has no VTOL fighters (unlike Arma 2), it would be harder to achieve satisfactory results with elevators. Although, the LHD elevators seem to work fine with ground vehicles, and you can already fit a ton of them in the LHD.... so a hangar deck just for ground vehicles to be slung loaded/loaded into blackfish could still be nice: So its doable... BI should have included an F-35 port from Arma 2 in their Jets DLC, and added a hangar deck to their carrier. As it is now, I have far more fun with the Arma2 derived F-35 and LHD mods. Sure... I like the black wasp II, I like the catapult and arrested recovery mechanics, but it would be nice if it could really be a floating base like the LHD can be. The Freedom gives players a place to operate jet fighters from, and not much else. The Blackfish is really really cramped on an LHD, but fits comfortably on the freedom - so it would be really nice if the freedom had a hangar deck where vehicles could be stored for loading into blackfish at a later time. Storing everything above deck isn't good, because before long, there is no room for jets to launch, land, and taxi back to the catapults (and it also looks horrible)
-
So.... more comments on how to fix this mod by stopping it from breaking weapons... Deleting the weapons.pbo isn't such a great solution, aside from the error messages on start up, it seems fine at first... but if you save in a scenario with an LHD and try to load your save, it won't let you load it because of these error messages. I fixed this by editing the ATLAS_Weapons.pbo. I opened it with HxD HexEditor... searched for ASRAAM, found an "missiles_ASRAAM" entry... and I figured since it only seemed to interfere with ASRAAMs that are placed by dynamic loadout (but not with the "addWeapon" or "addMagazine" commands), that I would change it to missiles_titan. This then broke the titan missiles on the cheetah/tigris (weapon was selectable, but the magazine was empty). Also I noticed the 30mm gun of the Wipeout wasn't present. Sure enough "Gatling_30mm_Plane_CAS_01_F" was also an entry in the ATLAS_Weapons.pbo. Instead of just breaking some other weapon by specifying another real weapon, I just changed the weapon names to nonsense names (missiles_ASSRAM and Grating_30mm_Plane_CAS_01_F). This does of course break the static defenses... but I always use "ATLAS_Official = false;" so that they don't spawn anyway. I see in the ATLAS_Water.pbo that there is a spawnweapons.sqf file I think this would be easy to change to remove spawning of CIWS defenses - they are out of date anyway (after the sensor overhaul) and largely redundant with the jets DLC static defenses. I think it wouldn't be too hard to have it spawn the jets DLC static weapons instead. If I was given permission, I could upload this kludge of a fix to this mod, so that there is a standalone LHD out there separate from CUP
-
I have some templates with the LHD placed far out (too far out of bounds, and it will be there "physically" but not visually). They all use the Aegis mod though (for the F-35s, which are better than the ones from CUP). The solution to have planes start on the LHD without flying is to have them start on the ground and use setPosASL in the init to move them to the LHD. https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setPosASL Here is one for Tanoa: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1195264717 Again, it needs the Aegis mod. I also deleted ATLAS_Weapons.pbo but kept the other parts of this mod, because this mod breaks the dynamic loadout ASRAAMs unless you delete that .pbo.
-
Its really a shame that BI doesn't allow the arma 3 assets to be modified. The AMV-7 is supposed to be a Armored Modular Vehicle, with a variety of different variations/turret modules. As I mentioned in a previous post, the real world vehicle that the AMV is modeled after does have a variant with a 105mm gun. The 30mm/40mm/AT missiles of other IFVs are nice to be sure... but it would be nice to have a direct-fire support vehicle that just carries a big gun, without having to go all the way to a MBT. Its a gameplay niche that is lacking. Just a little nitpick... if the AMV is replacing all the wheeled IFV designs, why did you do NATO skins for the gorgon ? There's still room in the lore to say that lesser powers are using old ones... like I don't think there'd be a lore/story conflict with the AAF acquiring old Strikers, maybe FIA knew where some were left as scrap, and restored them, even syndicate could somehow end up with some if the strikers were sold around the world to various organizations that may be more prone to corruption or having things simply "go missing".. etc etc
-
Hmmm... if you're still doing more ports of arma 2 content, and not just for the Ruskies but also NATO, any chance of the Striker MGS? As far as my earlier comments about the warfare 50 vs the lynx, the difference isn't such a big deal between the standard ammo. Its really just the APDS ammo for the lynx that makes these two guns so unequal. The ADPS ammo does seem a bit too potent though. Taking out the engine of a MRAP in a single hit? Taking down the armored turret of the Marshal (need to test the Mora)... that APDS can even give you mobility kills against MBTs. Maybe tone it down an then add APDS ammo for the warfar 50 as well.
-
Awwww yiiisshhhh, an Apache.... FWIW, I made a relatively simple sector control map that requires Aegis and the Atlas LHD (with the ATLAS_Weapons.pbo deleted so it doesn't screw up ASRAAMs): http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1195264717 Some lines in the init fields do undo some of the Aegis changes (marshal's gun goes back to a 40mm, the blackfoot ammo count goes back up). I thought somebody might like to take a look at the combination some Aegis assets + LHDs, without using CUP
-
Update: If you go into the mod folder and delete: ATLAS_Weapons.pbo then the LHD is usable without breaking ASRAAMs. It does give me an error message upon loading, but it still loads and the LHD still works. It is of course defenseless, but you can use the (very very similar) turrets from the Jets DLC to arm the LHD. So I've done this, and I'm quite happy with the mod as it is, without all the other stuff that CUP piled on to it (and without having to load all the other CUP stuff)
-
So I just downloading Arma3 tools and BI tools and I'd like to give modding a try -> nothing too ambitious just relatively small changes to existing assets. No new models or re-texturing. Basically I'd like to expand CSAT "Naval" air power, for use with the LHD from the Atlas LHD plus standalone mod, and the USS freedom (one can just "paper over" the flag in the map editor like so: ) My motivation comes from trying to make missions with NATO and CSAT forces based on ships on opposite sides of an island, and the use of the Aegis mod which ports Arma 2 F-35s (among other things) into the game. The problem is that if I use LHDs, airpower is limited to VTOL aircraft and the F-35 >> Y-32 Xian If I use the Freedom, CSAT has no aircraft that can land on the carrier. In either scenario, the NATO side's jets should easily win air superiority, and the whole thing would be too one sided in NATO's favor So, I'd like to make a new Y-32 strike-fighter variant (much better sensors and A2A missiles), and a new naval Shikra variant, and fix an issue cause by the out of date Atlas LHD (I know CUP adds one, but I like the standalone Atlas LHD) Before I get started, I'd like to know if what I want to do is even possible, specifically: #1) Add an arrestor hook function to the Shikra, without changing the 3d model. I don't mind if there is no visible arrestor hook as long as I can make a variant of the Shikra that can safely land on a carrier. #2) Add new pylon positions to the Xian without changing the 3d model. Just something that would allow, for example, a "PylonRack_1Rnd_Missile_AA_04_F" to appear at the end of a Xian stub wing. I would also be interested in making a pylon rack of 2x R77 or R73, using the pylons for the Bim9/Amraams. In other words I want to make a counterpart of "PylonRack_Missile_AMRAAM_D_x2" called "PylonRack_Missile_AA_R77_x2" Is this possible, or are we unable to edit those aspects of Arma 3 assets for now? More details on what I'd like to do:
-
So I was testing out the Warfare 50 .50 BMG rifle for its anti-material capabilities relative to the stock .308 LRR and the GM6 Lynx. Targets were Hunter & Ifrit engine blocks; stomper RCWS, Hunter HMG, Marid, and Gorgon turrets. Distance was 500 meters Overall, I didn't find the 50 BMG rifle to be noticeably different from the .408 in terms of # of shots to disable turrets, and # of shots to take out an engine block and make the crew bail. It was harder to keep the gun on target after firing. It seems the stock guns have the sights automatically come down a good amount after the recoil, but the Warfare 50 doesn't do this. Firing at the grill of the Hunter or the bumper of the Ifrit did not disable the engine even after multiple magazines, upon entering it, no damage to the engine was indicated - I had to fire at the hood of the hunter to disable it with the 50 warfare or .408 LRR. In contrast, the GM6 lynx firing standard ammo could disable the hunter engine firing straight on at the grill with ~5 shots. The APDS ammo took it out in a single shot to the grill. Both these NATO rifles disabled the turret of the gorgon in 5 shots most of the time. IIRC, the lynx firing standard ammo did it in 3, and with APDS ammo did it in 2. Most turrets it could disable in a single shot. The Lynx firing APDS ammo is the king of antimaterial rifles, and the .408 and 50 BMG rifles aren't very good in that role. So I wondered how the power of the 12.7x108mm stacks up to the 12.7x99m (50 BMG). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12.7×108mm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG While the russian cartridge has more power capacity, its maximum rated pressure is lower and it uses a different powder. The 50 BMG actually has better performance Cartridge: bullet mass and type/ muzzle velocity / muzzle energy Comparison ~1, lighter bullets: 50 BMG: 750 gr (49 g) Hornady / 2,820 ft/s (860 m/s) / 13,241 ft·lbf (17,952 J) 12.7x108mm: 745 gr (48.3 g) API B32 / 2,700 ft/s (820 m/s) / 11,980 ft·lbf (16,240 J) Comparison #2, heavier bullets: 50 BMG: 800 gr (52 g) Barnes / 2,895 ft/s (882 m/s) / 14,895 ft·lbf (20,195 J) 12.7x108mm: 855 gr (55.4 g) API BS / 2,700 ft/s (820 m/s) / 13,737 ft·lbf (18,625 J) The .408 falls so far behind these two, its not worth comparing.... But basically, I think the .50 BMG rifle in Aegis should be buffed to have the same power (or perhaps even better) as the 12.7x108mm, and it should get a APDS round as well. Being able to 1 shot the engine blocks of MRAPs from head on like the lynx can do would be great... as would being able to take out IFV/APC turrets from nearly 1km away with 1-2 shots.
-
Well, there is a practical limit to how far apart I can place LHDs. I got them about 50km apart before I encountered problems. In this picture, I placed the LHDs 72.2 km apart, both equally far from the 0,0 coordinate of the map, It should look like this: see if you can spot the problem: Interestingly, if I zoomed the view in, the deck of the LHD reappeared. I encountered similar problems when I tried to move other objects far away from the map, they stopped displaying, but were still "there" and collidable. When I moved this too far away, it stopped being visible as well: So, rather than have each one start 50nm away from the center of the map, the best I can get for tanoa is to have them start 50km away from each other (25km from the center, I guess)... so just over 1/4th the distance you want... (50 km = 27 nm)
-
Any plans for vehicles for the Ruskies, or just the infantry? Regarding CSAT carriers, never mind, its easy enough to "paper over" the US flag on the USS Freedom: Which is good enough for mission making purposes. This still leaves the Opfor without any good options for Naval air superiority... unless both sides are simply limited to Helos and no fixed wing aircraft are given to either side. If using the carrier: Opfor could use a fixed with aircraft with a tailhook for landing. I guess you can only modify models from Arma2 and earlier... why not the SU-34, as operations on a carrier were at least tested with the SU-34 and the Tbilisi/Admiral Kuznetsov? I've also tried using the Xian, but its not really good for the role. A longer range radar would go a long way towards allowing it to be effective in an A2A role (with custom pylon loadouts). Also at the moment I set the inner pylons to "PylonMissile_Missile_AA_R73_x1".... but to give it more AAMs, for the outer pylons I use "PylonRack_Missile_AMRAAM_C_x2"... It would be nice if there was a pylon setting that allowed one to load 2x R77s... so in addition to "PylonMissile_Missile_AA_R77_x1" it would be nice if there was a "PylonRack_Missile_AA_R77_x2" for Russian/Opfor jets to use. Another factor limiting Opfor naval airpower is the lack of drones that can be landed on the LHD/Carrier objects. NATO has the Sentinel which is carrier compatible, and the MQ-12 falcon (LHD or carrier compatible) Past that, there is still the issue of Opfors air deliverable vehicles lacking power. While Ifrits are reasonably armored against infantry weapons, they are nearly useless against enemy APCs/IFVs (I don't mind being useless against MBTs, the Kajman and Xians can deal with those threats). Maybe you could give the Ruskies a Vodnik with a 30mm BPPU? And/or BRDM-2 / BRDM-2 ATGM variants that are light enough to be lifted by a heavy-lift helo? An opfor ground vehicle that can be airlifted and has enough firepower to knock out (relatively quickly)/counter to AMV-Marshals would be quite nice Maybe a 3rd BRDM variant: while the KPVT should be more effective vs MRAPs than the 50 cal HMGs, maybe there could be some 2035 up-gunned variant with a 23mm autocannon? I would find airliftable ports of these to be very welcome additions to a russian faction
-
Well, isn't there a way to turn off that stuff in the difficulty settings? As to the suggestion "maybe you can expand your maps with making small islands (only for airfields) or aircraft carriers far away from center of the map, where main islands like Malden or Tahoa will be in the center." They already gave us to tools to do this with the USS Freedom. I used the Aegis mod and the Atlas LHD plus mod to place LHDs way on the edge of the map (in space that shows as black in map view), one to the northwest, 1 to the southeast. The 2 LHDs start 45 km away from each other. At ~900 km/hour, they can travel 1 km in 4 seconds. F-35s launched from the NATO LHD can reach the CSAT LHD in 45*4/60 = 3 minutes at that speed. If each side closes at that rate, its actually 1.5 minutes to meet, not 4 as you want, and the F-35s from Aegis can actually go 1200 km/h, so that reduces the time to reach the other LHD to 2.25 minutes I haven't seen just how far away I can put the LHDs though. The problem is a lack of CSAT aircraft suited to naval operations. The USS Freedom static object can launch Shikras, but has no hope of landing on it. The Freedom can launch any fixed wing plane actually, but unless they can fly really slow or have a tailhook, they can't land back on it, which means if one wanted to land a CSAT plane after launching, you'd have to have captured an airfield (there are many on Tanoa), or you'd have to use the Xian. For my 2x LHD map, I gave CSAT Xians with custom pylon loadouts through their init field so that they could mount radar guided missiles, and held a total of 4x radar guided and 2x IR guided AAMs. The problem is that their radar sucks with just a 5km range... they aren't really a match for the F-35s. To attempt balance, I gave CSAT more Xians than Nato had F-35s..... but... :/ This could be fixed with a naval version of the Shikra, and have each side use the Freedom from BI rather than a 3rd party LHD mod. The other problem with this sort of map is the limited ground combat possibilities unless ground forces start on the islands at the center of the map already. In my 2x LHD map, the NATO LHD has a blackfish and some marshals (and some Zamak trucks), in addition to hurons/ghosthawks and hunters/prowlers/various cargo crates/smaller repair/refuel vehicles. The LHD forces can thus land IFVs packing 40mm autocannons, MRAPs, and crates of heavy weapons for the infantry. but.... CSAT can't deploy ground vehicles heavier than an Infrit... which would put them at a severe disadvantage when facing Marshals. Sure the Marid is amphibious, but it travels what, 11km/h in the water? If each LHD starts 15km from the nearest island on Tanoa, it would take them over an hour to reach land, while the NATO ground forces would have been engaging the CSAT ground forces with Marshal support long before CSAT could get its Marids to the fight... where they would lose against marshals anyway... so I "fixed" this by init edited of some of the Ifrits to remove their passenger space, and "up-gun" them to have a 30mm autocannon, so that they can at least have a chance against Marshals. Also to "fix the imbalance" I plan on having independent forces hostile to both sides on the islands, with a number of empty AAF vehicles and equipment available for both sides to capture. NATO starting with Marshals and a blackfish wouldn't matter so much when CSAT can capture Gorgons, Moras, and Kumas from AAF positions (although NATO would also be able to do that). The Xian limitations wouldn't be so bad when there are empty Buzzards and griphons sitting empty at each airstrip on Tanoa, waiting to be captured.
-
Well, Arma mod assets generally aren't allowed to be monetized... so they aren't exactly like money. As far as redundancy, redundancy isn't bad per se. However duplication of effort isn't very efficient. Night515 apparently has a working F-35 config using aircraftX & physX. Apparently CUP would like to have something like this, or at least an understanding of how to do it (Alwarren cited poor documentation for aircraft and PhysX - but VTOL is working on the Osprey... so... that seems strange to me). It seems reasonable to conclude that Night515 has something CUP would want to use... CUP has a lot more assets though... maybe they have something Night515 would want, and a deal could be made. So maybe it would be less like asking someone to give you a billion for nothing, and more like selling 30,000 kilos of gold for a billion dollars... Besides... sometimes modders, who are pressed for time and generally not paid for their work, give stuff away just to be nice... like how j0nes gave the AtlasLHD plus to CUP because he didn't have time to work on it anymore. Or... just forget trading assets... maybe a simple conversation is all that is needed... I'm just saying, someone from CUP should talk to him if there is a desire to make the F-35 VTOL, but there is a problem
-
Hmmm... Well, I don't know how the Aegis guy (Night515) did it, but he's got his F-35s (although renamed to F-38 Thunderbolt...) working quite well without spontaneous combustion problems. (for some evidence of that... see the pics I posted above... although the pics just show that it can taxi around the LHD, cram together in a hangar, and take lifts. I've found it to be less prone to spontaneous combustion than helicopters, at least helis using the AFM) There seems to be a lot of duplication between his mod and CUP (F-35 port, Osprey port, C-130 port, ports of various infantry weapons), seems to me it makes sense to share some assets if both would agree. He's currently working on European and Russian units... maybe he'd be interested in some CUP assets relating to that... and maybe CUP could get a VTOL F-35 (and thus I presume he could also make VTOL harriers)... his tropic reskin of arma 3 nato units are also nice (Shame that BI didn't do it in the first place)
-
Honestly, I don't care soo much about the LHD not showing up in the editor, its not hard to work around that. I don't care so much about planes/helos being placed on it starting flying, there's a work around for that too The only problem I have is that it breaks the ASRAAMs. I prefer this version to the CUP version in most aspects (I particularly dislike the CUP version's well deck and ramp, and I'd rather not have the extra doodads like the virtual vehicle hangar and winch) Observe what can be done with it when combined with Aegis. This mod is perfectly usable now, it just needs, in order of importance: 1) To not break the ASRAAM dynamic loadouts 2) To show up in the editor 3) To have aircraft placed on it not start flying, as we see for the USS Freedom and the CUP LHD
-
Any chance that the F-35, at least the stealth version (ie no external weapons so lower payload), can be made a VTOL rather than STOVL? The STOVL characteristic is kind of pointless because you can start rolling forward at ~10 km/h and then vector thrust adn take off vertically. The only thing it kills is the ability to hover taxi the F-35. Without using a towing mod, the ability to hover taxi is very important. This is what I did with the old Atlas LHD plus mod and the F-35 from the Aegis mod... I can't do it with CUP, and I'd rather not have to use both mods at once. The way it is now, the STOVL doesn't really prevent the F-35 from using tiny fields, or really affect where it can be used at a FOB, it just kills its ability to move itself around the deck of an LHD. Please restore its VTOL trait found in Arma 2. I quite liked the setups I could make with just the Aegis mod's F-35 and the old LHD. Helos above deck (since their rotor blades don't play well with the ship structure when trying to move them into the hangar), and F-35s (except 1 on the elevator) and ground vehicles below deck: and in case you're wondering why I don't just continue using what I show above... the Atlas LHD Plus mod, for some strange reason, breaks the dynamic loadout of ASRAAMs, leaving blackfeet rather impotent against enemy air threats (and custom pylon loadouts of other AAMs are too big for its bays and look very bad). And, while your at it, maybe bump up the max speed of the F-35... it doesn't even break 1000 km/h in level flight (also I hope its IRST/Visual sensors aren't gimped like the black wasps are with just a 2km detection radius against ground targets)
-
This is bumping an old thread, but.. yes, the mod does work, it just takes a bit of text editing to place it in the editor. I have preferred using it over CUP, because CUP is generally too big for my tastes. Actually... the CUP version has added too much stuff IMHO... the only part of the CUP version that I think was an improvement over this one, is the little hangar on the deck in front of the super structure (and the lack of other issues due to this being out of date) I recently became aware of an annoying issue with it however... for some reason, installing this mod makes dynamic loadouts of ASRAAMs not work. I can only guess as to why... maybe the defensive turrets use ASRAAMs and overwrite something? An update to this/a standalone of the CUP version would be great
-
FYI, on the dynamic loadouts for the infantry transport of the Xian, weapons can be assigned to passenger seats, which results in them basically being unusable. Its not a huge deal, but it should probably be fixed. As for the ASRAAMs that I mentioned previously... I was mistaken, its not your mod causing the problem. Somehow Atlas LHD:Plus breaks dynamic loadout of ASRAAMs. My guess is it has something to do with the PDWs for the LHD (maybe one uses ASRAAMs and modifies the ASRAAM configs?). This unfortunately means that to use your F-38s with an LHD requires the use of CUP vehicles... which results in loading many many more assets and quite a bit of redundancy. As soon as the community.bistudio website goes back up and I can have a look at weapon/pylon/magazine classnames, I'm going to try a workaround with modified init fields of the blackfeet so that I don't need to load all of CUP vehicles just to have a LHD that works with F-35s and Blackfeet
-
Yes, suppose you have a 2nd and 3rd waypoint that you want to put a waypoint inbetween Each waypoint has a number assigned to it... IIRC it starts at 0, so the 2nd and 3rd are going to be named 1 and 2. Place your new waypoint, double click on it, and change its waypoint order... select 2, and its the new 3rd waypoint, and the old 3rd becomes the 4th... and so on
