Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

ricbar89

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    283

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by ricbar89

  1. Posted

    The MP5SD is designed specifically to use regular supersonic rounds. In fact, I don't think it will work with subsonic rounds.

    I have also read somewhere that because the design of the SD's suppressor is relatively old, that a regular MP5 with a screw on silencer is more silent.

    Why would a submachine gun be designed specifically to use supersonic rounds? And why would they go to all that trouble to silence the weapon when every supersonic round would make a loud crack?

    Doesnt seem to make much sense to me.

  2. Posted · Edited by ricbar89

    BAE are going to say its cheap and practical, read the article yourself, there’s countless references pointing to the fact its anything but.

    The Typhoon was never designed with naval capabilities, I think the French pushed for it years back but the British weren’t interested, funny how that turned out.

    "It is not currently designed so that it could use a carrier. We could change the design but we would be faced with a huge piece of work. The materials would probably have to be changed in order to avoid corrosion; the weight of the undercarriage would have to be doubled to support carrier landing which would eat into the payload margin; and the wing roots would have to be strengthened in order to take the full inertia forces on landing. That sounds to me like a very substantial redesign. It is always possible, but it would cost a huge amount of money and it would certainly add very considerably to the cost of the aircraft".

    Otherwise the aircraft would be relying on computer controlled precise landing systems to avoid spending huge sums of money to strengthen the aircraft.

    But these BAE's idea's do not seem to have been accepted by the MOD, indeed they would appear to be a rather risky cost reduction measure which have become a source of major problems in the future, e.g. preventing flight operations in heavy seas or leading to costly repairs of prematurely fatigued aircraft.

    So they may have had another look in 2005 when things were looking grim, and again BAE may have called it practical, but it certainly isn’t a “A relativley simple enhancement program.â€

    The MOD appears to be internally considering the implications of converting its planned Tranche 3 batch of 88 Eurofighter Typhoon’s in to a navalised “Sea Typhoon†variant suitable for operation from CVF. However the likely costs and difficulties can not be underestimated, expected modifications include changes of materials to reduce corrosion, the addition of an arrestor hook, a larger and thicker wing with power folding, and more powerful vectored thrust EJ200 engines. Even then, there would remain fundamental issues and risks such as the aircrafts canards restricting the pilots view during high angle of attack carrier landings.

    BAE Systems’ Chief Executive Officer, Mike Turner, told the House of Commons Defence Select Committee on 28th February 2006:

    "it is possible to navalise Typhoon. It is not what we would recommend, because if Joint Strike Fighter proceeds, and we believe it will, I think, in terms of capability for the Armed Forces of the UK, it is the right aircraft, but, indeed, as Lord Drayson has made clear, there needs to be a fall-back in case something goes wrong. Therefore, we would suggest there should be an investigation into navalising Typhoon as very much a fall-back solution. We do not see any other fall-back solution."

  4. Posted

    Hi ch_123

    A Naval variant Typhoon was part of the original requirements. All current versions of the Typhoon have an arrestor hook already built in as part of the Airframe Systems / Landing Assemblies.

    http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=Eurofighter_Typhoon

    So conversion to full Naval capability would not be too complex. The airframe was already designed and built for the naval role, so all that is needed is beefing up the landing gear; which the original design already incorporated the physical capability for, and adding in some avionics.

    A relativley simple enhancement program.

    Kind Regards walker

    The arrestor hook has nothing to do with carrier capabilities the airframe was never built for the naval role and it would not at all be a simple job.

  8. Posted

    @ricbar89 first video (quote) is flir in apache second video is the UAV flir

    Like i said in my post:

    (im not talking about when he's using the drone btw)

    Not all of the footage from the second video is "drone" or "UAV" you can see the player switching between the Apache and the UAV and the Apache optics are different from the first video.

    The first video optics look like Cobra's, whilst the second video looks like Apache, so whats going on?

    @Sith are you saying that there are separate optics on the Apache for standard NV viewing and FLIR?

    Also the vehicle FLIR, i know its there just looking for conformation. :) :p

  11. Posted

    Edit:

    hehe

    Just finished a game where the virus eliminated everyone except Madagascar. Started a new one specifically to target Madagascar.... and that's where my new bacteria originates. :D

    X4jaqo.jpg.gif

  13. Posted

    That isn't what I was responding to, I was responding to your question of how to make dynamic missions if you have to use waypoints.

    EDIT: Just realized this is the OA thread, this is going a bit off-topic :P.

    My point about the waypoints came as a result of the vehicle AI not acting properly on the current waypoints.

    Fix the current AI and the problem goes away, no need for any multiple waypoint complexity.

    And yes this it fairly OT now.

    I just hope BIS decide to actually do something with the vehicle AI after all these years, similar to what they did with infantry, it needs it badly.

  14. Posted · Edited by ricbar89

    You know what, try putting a land vehicle on the game world with no waypoints whatsoever. You know what happens? It doesn't move at all. Doesn't even chase after enemies! Without waypoints the game doesn't know what to do, other than engage spotted enemies without following them.

    What you're looking for is a randomized waypoint system, kind of like the UPS script, but if you think the AI is gonna act on it's own without any sort of linearity to the mission, that's pretty delusional.

    Are you trying to make things sound deliberately complicated? Randomized waypoint system, kind of like the UPS script? How about staying on the same waypoint but programming the AI not to move within a certain proximity of known enemies? How about stopping to engage and kill all known enemies then moving on, rather then just driving at them.

    Expecting that is delusional? Don’t talk rubbish.

    BIS have barley touched the vehicle AI since OFP, that’s why they’re so crap, its as simple as that.

  15. Posted

    Did you even read my post? If you want the AI to engage enemies first, put a SEEK AND DESTROY way-point THEN a move way-point. A move way-point tells it you want it to move in regardless of what's going on.

    Yes, ive never noticed much difference, seek and destroy just seems to have them stay around the area searching for a while, doesn’t seem to make a difference to how they actually act in combat. Seek or destroy or move time and time again the AI rides in and gets destroyed so didnt think much of your point.

    Again how am I meant to make a mission any bit dynamic if I have to use different waypoints then move just to get the AI not to ride in head first, so I must always make mission were I always know an engagement is going to happen at that exact location.

    You can argue about it all day but the vehicle AI needs to learn to how to dynamically react to whats happening.

  16. Posted

    So you'd rather the AI be a pain in the ass and act of it's own accord, despite the mission parameters? The mission maker might have just placed a move waypoint into the village. To avoid closer engagements, he could have used a seek and destroy waypoint. That's the beauty of these games, you could do whatever you want.

    AI combat in ArmA2 is unscripted but it has to follow mission parameters including movement, firing orders, skill levels, external scripts etc.

    I would like the AI to act of it own accord within the mission parameters. Like if tell a Bradely to move to a village it will realise its in a firefight and deal with the enemy before moving in, not just blindly drive to the waypoint no matter whats happening around it.

    But this is ARMA, somethings never change.

  17. Posted

    Holy shit whining? Have you made a mission before? This is completely the mission maker's call, and from the looks of that mission it is user-made.

    Oh look the whining response to a negative oppinion.

    And i thought ARMA was about unscripted fun, not having to keep it on the rails, would be nice if it acted with a bit of intelligence otherwise, like not flying off into fire.

  18. Posted · Edited by ricbar89

    Same old ARMA AI, those Bradleys just go flying off into fire and get desroyed when they could have sit back and fired at their leisure beyond the range of any RPG.

    Is it that hard to code the AI not to drive towards, at high speed an enemy? But rather to sit back and kill it from a distance or slowely and steadily advance?

  21. Posted · Edited by ricbar89

    He fired that Javelin during day time , and you wanted FLIR during daytime :ok: .

    I could be wrong but im pretty sure Javelins optics are viewed in FLIR, its part of the visual designation system they use.

    Also what has time of day got to do with FLIR? When you see apache gun cam day or night its in FLIR for a reason, do they even have the ability to view through a naked optic?

    EDIT: Actually they do have a day view but it seems its only used for scanning, when entering seeker mode its FLIR.

  22. Posted · Edited by ricbar89

    Great video but the Javelin is weak, i hope its because its preview version but with BIS its likely it will be released like that.

    Its just as it was before with a new optic overlay (its a joke it wasn’t changed until now) and a delayed lock, why is the optic not viewed in IR? BIS has FLIR code so why not implement it.

    Really hoping BIS would have totally dropped the magic lock on HUD and done everything through weapon optics.

    Its still a lot better then it is now though.

  24. Posted

    Oh and i think self designation is there no doubt, towards the end just for a second or two you can see the player switch back to the AH64 while still targeting and all the same options are there, probably nothing but i thought i would point it out now that ive seen the video properly.

    The HUD display is identical but AH64 has been replaced with AH-6X option to switch to.

×