b00ce

Wow, looking amazing Rock. Can't wait to see that cockpit finished!

You have to turn the engines off manually. The Debug engine off in the scroll menu stops the blades completely, as you may have noticed. ;) I have to agree, the dissymmetry of lift is a bit over pronounced; I've only flown in DCS (Not that it really matters here.:rolleyes:) and X-plane 9 (I don't count FSX), so I couldn't really know for sure how it would be in real life. Also, there are difficulty settings that add some features, like stress damage and wind effecting flight dynamics.

Rock. Don't ever stop. :')

Well, if it was limited to say -5deg to +45 deg vertically, 250 - 500 would work. And it shouldn't be about effectiveness as much as the chance that you COULD get hit, so you should be careful. Anything more than 360 would mean at least one piece of shrapnel per degree.

Well then don't use so many... Jeeze. That is a TON. Try quartering that... Edit: I imagine that creates a wall of death. Good grief, how could you NOT get hit?

Couldn't there just be actual bullet entities shot out of the secondary explosion at a random trajectory/velocity? I'm sure that would be infinitely easier to implement and be more reliable, efficient and effective. I think you guys are over complicating this...

Well, considering the XM-312 is already confirmed, the 307 would be a shoe in, considering the only real difference between the two is the barrel and the bolt, which can be changed on the fly. That said, the XM-25 would still serve a purpose as a man-portable version of the XM-307 (Like Razor said.). Also, we have the M203 and the Mk.19 right now. They're both 40mm. Just saying.

Looking good Rock! It's looking pretty slick. Needs more cockpit, though. :p

So basically like my idea? :p http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=121684

Sounds great Rock, I'm stoked. Can't wait. @IceBreakr, the terrain following auto-pilot feature won't be implemented. But it will have some HUD stuff.

More specifically, this suggestion is how the game handles damage. Basically, my idea mitigates the annoying issue of things exploding that shouldn't, without adding too much work for the dev team. Fire: Requirements: Fuel is present There is an ignition source (IE. explosion or other fire near by) A fuel leak would increase the likelihood and aggressiveness of the fire. However, it does not guarantee one. Effects: Potentially causes damage to people, items and ammunition inside, depending on location and severity. Causes ammunition to cook off. Depletes fuel. (Fires will eventually burn themselves out.) Explosion: Requirements: Ammunition present. There is an ignition source (IE. other explosion or fire near by) Fires take a few minutes to detonate ammunition. Effects: Rounds cook off, causing stray bullets to fly at best, or bombs to detonate on the racks. Items in inventory cook off too. (IE. magazines, grenades and satchel charges are also effected and cook off.) The location of an impact or explosion would determine the effects, just as it does now. Where ever the ammunition or fuel is stored will be the ignition point. For example, if a T-72 gets hit in the turret by a HEAT round, the ammunition would likely explode, as the T-72 is notorious for doing. In this video a tank fully armed is hit by an ATGM and the ammo almost instantly cooks off. Granted, it isn't really an explosion; however, it is catastrophic and anything within what would be the explosion radius of the high explosives would be dead or severely injured anyways. z3AJfTBig0E Conversely, if a helicopter runs out of fuel and hits the ground too hard, it would simply become inoperable and could hurt the crew. Take this crash for example, if this happened in ArmA 2 it would have probably hit with more than three times the force that is required to make a helicopter explode. Granted, there will be some exceptions, such as a fuel truck which would likely explode after being on fire for a while, as seen in this video. Ypb6noVaXf8 Adding this to ArmA would greatly improve realism at a minimal cost to the amount of time the Dev team would need to dedicate to it, compared to other options being suggested.

10,000 meters (~32800 feet) (~7,800 short of the stratosphere.) is a VERY high ceiling for what ArmA is. Of course you can go higher, but your control surfaces lock up.

I never said the jet was flying. Anyways, good luck with that. There's being ambitious, and there's being unrealistic.

It... It... It's beautiful.

It was just an example. Jet fuel burns more than hot enough anyways. It would be better than it is now, would it not?

Those UH-60s are looking pretty slick. Cant wait to fly them. :D

The system I'm proposing does not add points that can be damaged or any real penetration like with component driven damage. It uses the same basic damage system and only changes how the game handles information. For example, if a jet with a few 1000lb bombs on it gets lit up by a machine gun and the the fuel tank springs a leak (Already in the game right now.) this increases the vehicle's propensity for the ignition of fuel. (From say a 5% chance to a 10% chance) As the plane burns, the weapons systems "heat up" causing them to detonate. Not that I like rehashing the same basic concept over and over. lol This could also create a need/ use for fire extinguishers or fire trucks.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "detailed component-driven" damage system. It would still be hit point based.

Pretty much my thoughts. Things blowing up instantly is VERY arcady. Hell, in most games things burn for a little while before they blow up catastrophically. :rolleyes: It always bothered me that if I went down in an A-10 fully laden, the GBU-12s didn't blow up. The plane did, bombs didn't. Secondaries may be tied to the ammunition, even in the vehicle's inventory (Hand grenades cause secondaries.), however it's not the ammunition itself going off. You can test this by placing the unarmed HMMVW, USMC and Army (Army has grenades, MC doesn't. Alternatively, you can just take the grenades out of the Army humvee.) and blowing them up. It's the same little puff no matter what is going off, whether it's a hand grenade or a 1000lb bomb. The functionality is there for inventory items blowing up. (Something I was iffy about how easy implementing it would be.) This wouldn't be hard to implement for the Devs and it would add a lot of gameplay, realism and a bit of suspense. :p

Not possible, at least right now. DCS simulates the air flowing over the lifting surfaces, and the whole aircraft for that matter. ;) However, I believe that they should create a whole bunch of environmental effects that effect all vehicle simulations, like wind for example. If the wind is strong enough, it can blow a car off the road if it's going too fast. Perhaps a config value for the propensity for a vehicle's wind drift. Perhaps weight could play a major roll too.

Finally vehicle radios! :D

That's pretty much how it would end up working.

This too. I ALWAYS run with a vanilla M-16a2 and I always out perform my ground pounding counterparts with crazy weapons with 20x scopes and lasers and what not. :cool:

T-72s really do blow up like that though. :p

Oh, lol. I'm computer savvy enough to know you don't just go around deleting random things in the AppData folder and I wanted to be sure. :p What values do I have to edit? Fuck it. Delete. Edit: Brilliant! Thanks, that worked. Also, deleting the user.config didn't help.