Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Everything posted by Ex3B

  1. Very WIP version here: https://steamcommunity.com/workshop/filedetails/?id=1583193287 Still needs: 1) working HUD 2) improved textures 3) animated weapon bays 4) further tweaked model 5) properly configured hitpoints so that the engine, sensors, controls, etc can be damaged while the plane hasn't been completely destroyed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So I noticed, years after Arma 3 has been out, there are still very few mods for an F-35B, and none are standalone. Early in Arma's history, Chortle's put his out, but its way out of date with the new sensors, stealth, pilot camera, and dynamic loadouts The USAF mod is working on one, but its still not out, and I suspect it will have a lot of other non-vanilla complexities (afterburner for instance), I doubt it will be standalone CUP: incapable of VTOL operation (STOVL only), which makes it not suited for hover taxing, which is great for use with the LHD for instance Now, the Aegis F-38 from @Night515 is pretty good, but its not standalone. I decided to try to make my own port, and in the process to modify the model to be a bit more F-35-like and a bit less X-35-like, and also to make some changes to stats that are simply judgement calls So at the moment, I've got a standalone VTOL F-35 with a working targeting camera, sensors suite+stealth properties, dynamic loadout system, and some animations working (weapon bay hatches still aren't animated). I will try to make the textures look better soon (it is way too bright under mid day direct sunlight). So I've given the model a sawtooth edge to its tailpipe (an earlier iteration before I fixed the sensors) I've improved visibility from the cockpit: Given it a "bump" where the EOTS is on the F-35 (the bump has since been changed, no pics yet) And I'm making other tweaks to the overall geometry to make it it more like an F-35 and less like the X-35 I've also been testing out new weapons for the weapons bay: Currently it has an integrated 25mm gatling gun with 300 rounds (yea, I know, only the A model has this, and with only 180 rounds, I'll probably lower the ammo count for this "F" model later), and 4 weapon pylons. Each of the two outer pylons currently support: 1x ASRAAM/Bim-9x/AMRAAM D/Scalpel/DAR Pod (12x DAR), considering a DAGR pod Ideally, I'm going to want the DAR pods to be attached to the door, and swing out as on the blackfoot The two inner pylons support: 2x AMRAAM D/4x SDB/4x Scapel/1x HARM/1x GBU-12/1x CBU-85 I'm considering making a 3x ASRAAM rack for the inner bays, (to be something like a MSDM/CUDA type missile: the 2x AMRAAM internal mags are still WIP, as its just an AMRAAM internal pylon with count set to 2 (so only one missile shows up fires twice, I'm going to ry to make a very simple rack with no texture/ geometry (just memory points for where the missiles go) for the 2x AMRAAM rack, so when the bays are open/one looks in the bays, one can see there are 2 amraams at that station. So at the moment an A2A loadout could be 6x AMRAAM, or 2x BIM-9, 4x AMRAAM A CAS loadout might be 24x DAR, 4x scalpel, 4x SDB A SEAD loadout might be 1x HARM, 4x scalpel, 2x whatever... if I allow DAGRs, I could see that changing to 24x DAGR and 2x HARM Top speed is about even with the Gryphon for now. Radar stealth is the same as the black wasp, radar range is the same as the black wasp. Its IR stealth is a 20% reduction in detection range (a 0.8 multiplier). Its IR sensor is the same as that found on the A-164 wipeout, except not limited to view distance settings. I'm thinking about making a small mod pack including: 1) An air dominance variant of the Xian, with a very powerful radar (16 km, data linked, wide field of view), expanded magazines for its gun and countermeasures, ability to mount ARM missiles, 2x R-77s racks on each of its 4 pylons, or 3x R-73 racks on each of its pylons 2) A harrier for the independent force (F-35F+1+2= a VTOL strike fighter pack) An upgunned Panther, with its HMG firing the currently unused 12.7x99mm SLAP (saboted light armor penetrator) rounds, which is similar to a GM6 APDS machinegun An upgunned Marid, with its HMG changed to fire 12.7x108mm APDS rounds (I think I can also make it slingloadable by the Taru, since the model has some memory points defined for other purposes that I think I could also assign for slingloading) Similar upgunned variants of the MRAPs with HMGs. Is anyone interested in this, or would I be the only one using it?
  2. Mod updated, has the sounds, flight model (mostly), and HUD of the black wasp... https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1583193287 I don't know why it starts to pitch up when you reduce vectoring a little, anyone know what parameter I should change? As for the LHD: Well I don't have permission, I downloaded Atlas:LHD Plus... its quite outdate, but it works (you just need to do some text editing of a mission file to place it in, after that copy and paste is fine). The biggest problem is that it adds weapon systems which use vanilla weapons, but with new magazines... it seems to redefine the magazines that vanilla weapons accept, and the result is that pylon magazines for the ASRAAM do not get recognized (I think it may also screw up some other magazines). Other pylon weapons work fine (AMRAAMs, BIM-9, scalpel, etc) I used hexedit to directly edit the binary file, and also change some things that enabled simulation inside the map editor... But I don''t have the files to rebinarize it and sign the output file. I think a simple config to load after the atlas LHD would fix the pylon problem... but I don't know how else to get rid of the annoying simulation in the map editor after its been placed (the direct editing of the binary file is quite a crude method). Its unsigned, so I don't think it can be used in MP. To the community, I shouldn't upload this LHD thing, right?
  3. I think I already found how, just haven't had the time to implement it. The Blackfoot uses something called a holster value or something like that, but from what I've read, it only works for helos
  4. Ok, so its WIP, I still need to: 1) Give it a working HUD (I think I can just copy the right text from the Black wasp config... although maybe its harder than that) 2) get the weapon bays to animate (I think I know what I need to do), ideally with a script to have the bays open if DARs are selected 3) improve textures 4) Tweak the model to resemble an F-35 more and an X-35 less 5) Uhhh... I think I had something else to do as well, but it escapes me now... I'm open to suggestions But I'll share the file for now: https://steamcommunity.com/workshop/filedetails/?id=1583193287
  5. I suppose you could use the attachto command, and just have a trigger so that when you get close to it, it attaches to you https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/attachTo and later use https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/detach
  6. Weapon tests

    @oukej Is it intended that a 7.62x 51mm LMG can kill all the occupants of an AMV-7 marshal? Firing from straight ahead at the driver's hatch will easily kill the driver. Firing perpendicular to the turret sides can kill the gunner (firing from one side of the turret) and the commander (firing from another side of the turret). The commander and gunner are fairly resistant to the .308 shots (they penetrate, but not very far, multiple shots are needed), but a 50 hmg will go right through one side and out the other, killing both the gunner and the commander. From straight on, the driver is vulnerable to SAF. From the turret sides, the gunner and commander are moderately vulnerable to SAF, and very vulnerable to HMGs. Is this vulnerability of the crew intended? it might be lightly armored as a trade-off for packing the 40mm cannon, but then it seems the gorgon is preferable. Of course, the marshal is airmobile with the blackfish, but this vulnerability was around before there was a blackfish afaik. I'm not complaining, it still protects the crew against 6.5mm weapons and below. The gunner and commander are pretty safe from 7.62 rounds as long as they aren't fired from close range. In a hull down position with the turret facing the enemy/direction of incoming, the crew is safe from incoming rounds, and will basically survive as long as the vehicle does... unlike in a potential urban scenario where MMG or sniper fire (marksmen MMGs/rifles, Lynx, M320) can kill the crew and leave the vehicle in nearly pristine condition. Despite the crew's vulnerability, the AI doesn't really seem to kill the crew, whereas I've been killed in a Nyx by AI firing HMGs multiple times
  7. of course I'll do "what makes [me] happy", but if there's no interest, then I there's little purpose to status updates in a thread and workshop uploads. That said... I think there would be some interest in some of the things I proposed, based on some "likes" i got in a suggestions thread I made a while back. Basically I complained about Opfor being a bit OP in a scenario with both sides on the same landmass (and both controlling an airstrip, or neither controlling an airstrip)... but that the situation completel reverses if Opfor needs to cross water/do an airborne assault/ only has an offshore based for fast-mover airpower (ie the Xian). Blufor has airmobile armor... Opfor has only MRAPs. Blufor (and Indfor) has amphibious autocannon equipped armor, Opfor has only the marid with an HMG/GMG Making the Marid's firepower (and an Ifrit's) more competitive with an autocannon (through the use of APDS rounds) would be a good start, and allowing a taru to lift it would be great. Their fast-mover airpower is limited to the Xian if they don't control an airfield (such as a scenario starting with an offshore base), while Blufor can have the offshore base be in the form of the USS Freedom, and it can thus operate black wasps (although with appropriate scripting and papering over the US flag with CSAT flags, CSAT can also operate fast movers from it... but.... its not great). But the Xian is not great at all for A2A combat, even with scripts setting A2A missiles on the pylons (due to its very limited radar range).... so a pure combat variant with better A2A capabilities would be nice. But in other scenarios (such as no airfields, no USS freedom)... a pure combat VTOL for Opfor would be OP'd against bluefor... so Blufor needs its own combat VTOL... I figured the F-35 would be the greatest challenge, so I'd do that first as a standalone, and if I manage it, put out the little pack afterward (which would be mostly just config changes). Although I still would want to go farther (harrier for the AAF, airmobile static ported ZSU-23s, ural ZSU-23's for syndicat, and a AH-64 port for blufor), I don't think I have time for porting the rest of those.
  8. You aren't allowed to do more than that? can't you edit the 3d model too? I'm using the F-35B (Ie X-35B) p3d model from arma 2 samples, and changing the model a bit (like giving the exhaust pipe a sawtooth edge, making a bump where the EOTS should be, changing the cockpit for better visibility, etc)... that's still allowed, no? *edit, oops, confused binarized arma 3 models, with Arma 2 sample models, since the OP asked about the "FV510 Warrior (Mora?)", since the FV510 Warrior was from Arma 2, but the Mora in arma 3 is basically the same model, just updates (and most importantly now, with interiors).
  9. https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setVehicleTIPars Set the vehicle heat signature to 1 (on a scale of 0-1), and it will show up as an IR target for quite a while whether or not it has the engine on.
  10. TBH, reporting cardinal directions is actually more useful... they just need to fix the wording. If the squad is moving east, and they report "right" I'd think that I should look south, but if they reported "East", I'd look in the right direction
  11. I'll try the discord later after work... but I basically started directly using the Arma 3 samples plane, just changing the faction to Blu_F and the crew to B_Fighter_Pilot_F (also changed the weapons to just CMFlareLauncher, gatling_25mm, and Laserdesignator_pilotCamera ... pylons to be added later) Then I added points to the model and stuff to the config to allow a targeting camera to work, and tweaked the geometry a little (added a physX LOD) I put in the file paths for the textures and rvmats (and pathed to some Arma 3 equivalents that I couldn't find in the Arma 2 samples) I even kept the same folder structure in the addon (CA\Air2\F35B etc). I initially didn't touch the animations, and only some stuff in the cockpit worked. So far every attempt to modify the model file has just not worked, or broken the cokcpit displays that were working... so it seems there's something not quite right about the samples...
  12. I'm pretty sure that the LODs have the same named selections... might it be a problem of inheritances... since I assume the plane and vehicle configs that it inherits from are different between arma 2 and 3?
  13. So I was wondering if someone in thi I was wondering if you could help me with animation issues related to porting the F-35B from Arma 2... as you can see on this thread: I have the basic port working... with a vehicle that has VTOL capabilities, a targetting camera, sensors (although they're a bit screwed up for now), and a targetting camera... none of the animations of note work except the artificial horizon in the cockpit. (also since that post, I've added a physX LOD in the model file, and mostly fixed the landing gear issues) How does one get the already made animations from Arma 2 files to work in Arma 3? It seems just including the old model.cfg from Arma2/Arma 2 samples doesn't work.
  14. So I've been trying to import the F-35B from Arma 2. I haven't fully followed the tutorial here (as its for cars), but I suspect the physx stuff is what I need to do to make the wheels work. Right now its basically restricted to VTOL operation... That's not my main concern now, my main question is how I get the animations on the vehicle to work... Right now the gear don't move, control surfaces don't move, the nozzle doesn't move when its in VTOL mode, etc. Do you have any guidance on what I need to do to make those animations work? pics of the "port" so far (I've tweaked the model a bit, plan to do a more extensive tweak if I can get the rest working):
  15. If its something that is supposed to compete on cost/in numbers, not 1 on 1, then the Nyx AT could be considered a tank destroyer, or even a Prowler AT. IMO a tank destroyer that would be close to the Rhino would be playing the "glass cannon" trope... something that can dish out damage, but can't take it. It would need to dish out more damage than an MBT, so that both could essentially 1-2 shot the other. Something like that old "M1 Thumper" prototype (which mounted a 140mm gun), but with less armor. What does this have to do with the topic of the Rhino or tank destroyers? HE isn't meant for use against armor... so it seems quite off topic But... the BMPT is basically what we get with the BTR-K Kaymsh. 30 mm autocannons? check AT missiles? check 7.62 mm mg? check 30mm GMG? No... but isn't that a bit redundant with the 30mm cannon firing HE rounds? I suppose if you want to lob them instead of using direct fire... But such a thing has no more AT capabilities than anything else mounting an AT launcher... this would not be a tank destroyer... and it wouldn't be very novel (it would be quite similar in armament to the BTR-90 from Arma 2, but with more armor).
  16. I'll agree with the OP on the naming... it should be named a mobile gun system, not a tank destroyer. As to the other complaints... if he's having the same problem with an Angara... there's some other issue.
  17. I am trying to modify some vanilla assets, I figured I'd start with something simple, like making magazines using the 127x99_SLAP rounds, and then allowing an HMG to use the magazines. I looked at this: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Characters_And_Gear_Encoding_Guide#Config.cpp_structure and it seems I need to know an object's base class to modify it: Without knowing the base classes, I started by duplicating/cloning the HMG, and this works: But I can't figure out how to change the base HMG, or any other weapon for that matter. All the configs I'm doing are duplicating weapons instead of modifying them.. such as this config for a scalpel launcher based on the SDB rack: How can I do these things without cloning the weapons? On top of that, I can't seem to clone the Xian... I wanted to make a version of it with a better radar... but I can't even seem to make a duplicated version... This is what I'm using right now, which doesn't work (even if I get rid of all the sensor stuff):
  18. "Yes, I use it often, it's much better than MBT." > I don't think its "much better than MBT"... in head to head ground combat, I think you'd want the MBT. A Rhino can land a hit on an MBT, only ot have the MBT shrug it off and one shot the Rhino. The Rhino is going to be much more vulnerable to infantry AT weapons as well "Not at all, I never use it. The 'Tank Destroyer' nickname is overrated." > but I do use it. I agree that the "Tank destroyer" nickname is over rated. Its better thought of as a mobile gun system. A number of systems like it have been made, many with the anti-tank role in mind... in the end, they have almost never been used against tanks (and performed poorly when used as such), but do well as fire support and against lesser armored vehicles. "Not very much, I use it only when I have to but I prefer the MBT." > The MBT fills a different role. An MBT doesn't give indirect fire support, and an MBT isn't airmobile via the blackfish. With NATO forces and the blackfish, I can make scenarios where NATO flies in some pretty serious firepower and armor (Marshalls and Rhinos) from offshore.... meanwhile, what is CSAT going to fly in? MRAPs slung under Tarus? LSVs carried by Xians? AAF brings in what? Nyx's.... If there's an unoccupied island that you want side to fight over, the Rhino would be king of ground combat on that island. Before the Rhino, it was the Marshal.. without the Blackfish, it would be the marshal or the gorgon... after a long trip through the water. That makes the Rhino useful in my book, in a way very different from MBTs
  19. Well, lets not forget the money incentive... while US sales are guaranteed, unlike the F-22, foreign military sales of the F-35 are definitely a thing. Several countries have been considering F-35s, but most that are on the fence choose not to buy them, and go with Gen 4.5 fighters. Also your statement was that there were no new weapons, when the article explicitly said: So regardless of how politics normally goes, to reply to the article that says a suite of new weapons will be included by saying "OK so as I thought. The "Block 4 upgrade" is NOT adding more missiles"... seems to be taking a leap (even if its not adding more missiles, its adding new bomb options). And then of course there's all the development defense companies have put into missiles like the CUDA/SACM/MSDM missiles: Some info: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-developing-next-generation-air-dominance-missil-437728/ Another source about those smaller missiles is available around halfway down this article: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4678/is-the-european-meteor-air-to-air-missile-really-the-best-in-the-world?iid=sr-link1 http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/11092/israel-is-testing-an-air-to-air-variant-of-its-dolphin-nosed-stunner-missile I don't know how tactically viable these shorter range missiles would be... seems they'd put the F35 dangerously close to its detection range... a loadout of 6x meteors (or even 4x if they can make 6x amraams but not 6x meteors work) would be much better. As a "low observability" aircraft with so-so speed an maneuverability (as compared to say... a SU-35 or F-22), it should definitely try to do its air combat from a comfortable standoff range. That said... if they can't quite make 6 AMRAAMs/Meteors fit (seems stupid that the US plans to develop its own meteor-style ramrocket design, rather than just use the meteor like our NATO allies will), they might be able to exchange the 5th and 6th amraams for 2-4 of these "half-raams"... which would also be an interesting loadout... 4 missiles in the 100 km range class, and 2-4 in the ~20-30 km range class (I think, the ranges for the Cuda/SACM/MSDM are very much up in the air at this point AFAIK) 4 AAMs is not adequate for a large war, and it seems all the potential customers know it. They will either pair it with gen 4.5 fighters packing long range missiles like the meteor (fired with the F-35 spotting for the missiles with data link), or modify it themselves to hold more.
  20. regarding P2W, I think it was just fine until Jets DLC. The larger caliber marksman rifles fall in between the dedicated sniper rifles (M320 and GM6), and the Rahim/mk 18 ABR. They sit in a gap between Vanilla weapons. The mk1 EMR is significantly better in some parameters than the other 7.62 rifles, is a bit heavier. Overall I think its the best one, but not OP'd. The machine guns: Intermediate between Zafir and a mk 30 HMG that requires 2 people to move. My bigger problem is that the Navid is so much better than the SPMG (the SPMG's fire rate is terrible, IMO) exacerbating the CSAT vs NATO balance issues. The Zafir is quite potent, and a 2 man HMG team cannot rush a building. The Zafir is quite heavy though and the speed that you can aim with it makes it not great for CQB... so meh, overall, I'm fine with the marksmen DLC Helos: didn't add any new combat craft, not really a balance problem (although a bit unbalanced that the Taru can lift CSAT zamak logistic trucks, but the Huron can't lift NATO logistic trucks). Tanks DLC: The Rhino is a glass cannon, its an intermediate between vanilla stuff (with the laser guided non line of sight missiles being potentially problematic). Nyx: fun, intermediate, more like an MRAP, not OP or P2W Angara: probably the best tank, but its got some downsides and isn't as tough (particularly its turret) as one might think. I don't think its P2W (especially since the Slammer up got a bigger gun with the DLC). Laws of war: surely not P2W Apex: added mostly 5.56 and 5.8 weapons (moving on), the only weapons worth considering are the AKM/AK101, the CMR, and the type 115. The type 115 is basically a katiba with a 50 cal round to single shot infantry targets... an interesting combination, intermediate between a normal rifle and the large caliber sniper rifle (the 50 of the 115 is too low velocity for sniping)... not really P2W. AK-101... yes... its good, but it did get nerfed from what it was, because it was too good. It mostly makes the faction balance worse because of how easily it kills by shooting target extremities that are unarmored for all except CSAT. CSAT "all over armor" was OP'd from the start, and the Special purpose suits with even more armor made it even worse. Jets: these jets are the "apex predators" of the game. In a team vs team scenario with these available, one needs people on the team flying these. Of course P2W depends on the setting, and the gamemode. BIS doesn't make KOTH and such. If there is an official game mode that you feel the DLC makes P2W, mention it. For unofficial ones, that depends on the assets put at our disposal.
  21. I'd like to start doing some (I hope) relatively simple mods. 1) As a first goal, I would like to make 2x R73 and 2x R-77 missile racks. I assume there should be a simple way of pairing the existing racks for 2x BIM-9 and 2x ARMRAAM, with the R-73 and R-77 missiles instead. I would think something as simple as this could be done in a simple config.cpp file, no? probably something so simple that it could be posted in a short response to this thread? https://pmc.editing.wiki/doku.php?id=arma:config I assume if I know how to do this, then I could do the same thing with SDB racks and scalpels, or external AMRAAM racks and HARMS, etc. 2) My second goal, which I imagine would be more complicated, would be to make an "internal" rack for AMRAAMs, with no actual pylon model (or an invisible one), just a pair of AMRAAMs side by sidewith a bit of a gap and offset so that their fins clear each other. This could then be used (for example) with the F-38 from the Aegis mod, so that one pair of pylons could either mount 2 AMRAAMs or 1 LGB/1 SDB rack. 3) My third goal supposing that I manage goals 1 and 2, would be to port the F-35 model from the Arma 2 samples, and give the outer pylons and animation that opens the weapon bay doors and swings the pylon out when the weapon on that pylon is selected (like on the Blackfoot)... the real F-35 has a door weapon station image: and I'd love to have 2 pylons swing out to hold the weapons outside prior to firing... then one could mount DAR or shrieker pods there without it looking ridiculous. Can anyone post an example config for 1, and/or give me hints as to how to proceed from there to #2, and/or give an opinion of how much work it would be to jump to #3?
  22. I would like to know if there is a way to spawn a laser target that only the independent side will see/attack. If I spawn a LaserTargetE, then Opfor will attack it. The independent side will also attack it if they aren't friendly to Blufor If I spawn a LaserTargetW, then Blufor will attack it. The independent side will also attack it if they aren't friendly to Opfor If I spawn a LaserTargetC or LaserTargetC, it doesn't seem like any side will see/attack it. There must be some way to spawn a laser target that only the Ind side attacks.... otherwise... what is spawned in normal gameplay when AAF designates something? In a 3 way fight (example: KoTH), anytime AAF lased something, there'd be a chance of another side engaging in friendly fire by dropping ordinance on something designated by the AAF instead of their own side.
  23. Arma 3 Aegis (Beta)

    That seems to be based on the F-35C... While the model is generally nice (and more like an F-35 than an X-35), its not VTOL, and thus cannot work with LHD mods, offshore bases made in the map editor, forward airbases in simple open fields, the USS liberty (although operating an F-35B from such a ship would be a strange decision in real life to say the least), etc. It would basically do what the black wasp II does, which would be good for people that don't have the Jets DLC, but it would still be a marginal gain for a big loss.
  24. Is there going to be a Mig-29K variant that could be compatible with the USS freedom (one can "paper over" the US flags on it with other flags)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29K
  25. Disappointed at the 'money pit' tactics

    Play on any of the KOTH servers... I haven't seen any on Tanoa. There are DLC weapons and vehicles that you can't use, but you can still play alongside those that do. ie: Someone can shoot you with a MAR-10 rifle, but you can't use it, you can however use the M320LRR, which is a superior long range rifle (the MAR-10 falls somewhere between a battle rifle and a designated marksman rifle). You can use a a T-100 Varsuk main battle tank, but you can't use the Nyx tankette... your varsuk sure can kill other players using the Nxy. On an "infantry only" KOTH server, you won't be very restricted. I think those servers still allow light vehicles like the light strike vehicles from Apex... you can ride in them, but you can't drive them (nor be the gunner on the armed variants). Most of the DLC content falls somewhere in-between vanilla content (like the MAR-10 in between the mk18 ABR and the M320 LRR). Its really only the vehicles where you may feel restricted in multiplayer. The Air superiority jets are the "top predators" so to speak... and they are all limited to the Jet's DLC... But if your side has control of the air, the vanilla close air support planes are just below them "on the food chain", and are what players on the ground really fear when they're in the skies.