Jump to content

agent556

Member
  • Content Count

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Everything posted by agent556

  1. From the changelog: I understand the removal of the sensor display, but for a military aircraft to not have radar/threat detection seems very far-fetched and odd to say the least.
  2. agent556

    Jets DLC Official Feedback

    I'll post here though some might be more appropriate in the HUD Improvements thread Flight path marker should show actual flight path, not just act as a hud element that moves with the head. Also, the flight path marker doesn't coincide with the pitch ladder on the HUD Anti Collision light indicator for the Shikra flashes with the anti-collision light Flap indicator shows landing for takeoff position and shows takeoff for landing position
  3. agent556

    Jets - HUD improvements

    this depends on the lift characteristics of the aircraft's design. some aircraft, depending on speed and the lift generated at that speed, would need to nose down to maintain level flight.
  4. It might be a good idea to change the names or truncate the visible name shown in the radar screen
  5. agent556

    Jets - HUD improvements

    Flight path marker should be independent of where the pilot is looking. Right now the HMD acts like a standard glass HUD that follows the pilot's view and is only accurate when facing straight forward. Also +1 for the comment earlier about flight path markers not lining up with the artificial horizon Finally, some kind of marker on the HMD that shows a point which indicates where the plane itself is facing would be nice. You can tell where its facing when you have the gun selected, but otherwise you have no other marker showing the exact point the plane is facing Gryphon's HUD is difficult to see through as mentioned earlier. Also, a small thing: flap indicator for landing and takeoff settings appears reversed. (takeoff setting labled as landing, landing setting labled as takeoff) Shikra's anti collision indicator light blinks with the anti-collision lights
  6. This might be asking for something out of the scope of the update, but is it possible to correct the perspective of the plane/vehicle you are in when looking outside from the inside of the vehicle? inside view: outside view:
  7. i will gladly argue that a simple retort like this is very much not conduct befitting a forum moderator. off of that note, this is a video of dev branch at night with car headlights, is this lighting effect still a limitation of current lighting engine capabilities? or is it something that can be applied to the buildings as you guys have done so far with the ambient occlusion?
  8. It would be interesting to remove the white target box, but make some version of it available when wearing the fighter pilot's helmet or heli pilot helmet since they both seem to be the type of helmets with HMDs built in. (if anyone didnt notice with the heli pilot helmet, it has some electronics going on, most visible from the top with the wiring) hell, a togglable HMD system for artificial horizon or attitude display for pilots of both kinds of aircraft would be a welcome feature, given the kind of equipment that the pilots have. another possibility would be expanding the sensor capabilities to the use of an HMD pilot helmet in some fashion (detected aircraft, colored boxes with IFF) kind of like the intended capabilities of the current F-35
  9. agent556

    Apex Weapon Feedback

    Is there any particular reason that the ERCO cannot be mounted on the MX rifles? Also the NATO (pacific) marksman has a khaki MXM without a scope on it. Ditto to NATO Pacific Squad Leader and Team Leader and the Sniper(!)
  10. agent556

    Tanoa discussion (Dev-Branch)

    Well, I mean the HEAT rounds really dont fare well against the corrugated steel shed, lol
  11. agent556

    Apex Vehicles Feedback

    I haven't seen it in this thread yet so sorry this is buried in there somewhere, but as I reported in https://feedback.bistudio.com/T118441, the Y-32's artificial horizon functions completely backwards which makes flight in heavy fog disorienting.
  12. agent556

    Something wrong with the Y-32 Xi'an's HUD

    Just to tack onto this: the artificial horizon appears to rotate backwards, completely not acting like a horizon in the first place. Also as mentioned earlier a gauge indicating thrust vectoring angle would be very helpful so we dont need to verify in 3rd person
  13. agent556

    Low CPU utilization & Low FPS

    These are my settings and I have never noticed this issue that everyone else is having. Specifically, I have a blank malloc parameter. Don't know if this will actually help for anyone else
  14. agent556

    Why do most people prefer coop, not cti?

    And with your post, we answer the question of "why do most people prefer coop, not cti?" haha
  15. agent556

    Why do most people prefer coop, not cti?

    To be honest it depends on the map. On the community made MP map called insurgency, I love harassing the US team and stealing their rifles and applying insurgent tactics with superior equipment after acquiring it against their almost completely traditional "STORM IN WITH A HUMVEE, JUMP OFF, AND GET TO THE BUILDINGS GAIZ" tactics. Also fun is the RPG to the humvee full of the other team event.
  16. agent556

    Why do most people prefer coop, not cti?

    Practical issues like lack of players, and one side is generally highly stacked against the other. The playstyle is too different between two sides due to their equipment and most people prefer to play on the side with the shiny toys ala blufor. Also, ArmA3 isnt out yet if I recall correctly so this is the wrong section.
  17. uhh, a simulator is what we in general wish for it to strive for. I don't see why they shouldn't simulate at least military doctrine. Soviet doctrine involved high speed attacks. The main thing that comes to mind right now is how the Hind has relatively heavy armoring, yet has a high top speed. It isn't that agile by any means, and that lack of agility can be seen as a weakness. However, because it has top speed, it can move into a support position faster than an apache, can chase an apache if it needed to, hell it has troop carrying capability and can bring ground support giving it a potential strategic advantage by being able to deploy troops, possibly speeding up troop deployment. Another example is the low profile T-72, T-80, T-90 etc. They can hide themselves behind terrain better than an M1A1. Sure the M1A2 has superior target acquisition compared to the T-72 and T-80, but the M1A1 definitely will stick out more and will need to work a bit harder to find terrain to hide its gigantic hull and turret behind. The M1A2 would have also have to maintain situational awareness, using its thermal optics to make sure it doesnt get caught in a trap by T-80s using their low profile. They can use Iran's military doctrine and equip Iran's military in a fashion that supports that doctrine. Like the Hind and high speed transports of the Soviet Union supporting their high speed deployment doctrine http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf I'd like to know more about what you meant by 'uniformly' here, but it's almost like you're looking for just what NoRailgunner and quite a few of us absolutely don't want which is merely having near-copy paste configs, having tanks that perform almost exactly the same, having to utilize pretty much exactly the same tactics as the opposition to use. I'd prefer something like one side's tank has a clear advantage in speed and profile while another has the advantage in target acquisition. If this leads to one side having a weaker tank force compared to the other, beef up its air capability. There's no need for each side using the same tactics as the other. The tactics SHOULD be different based on their different equipment's strengths and weaknesses. Looking at http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/irans-military-doctrine It appears that at least Iran's defensive land doctrine would be to have something similar to insurgency, except they have more modern equipment. It would make sense for them to have lower profile equipment that would be easier to carry around that perhaps wouldn't be too high-tech because they'd be looking for robustness, or otherwise something that will definitely work in not-so-ideal conditions. Their land doctrine looks to concentrate on ambushes, and they'd need to be low-profile to achieve this. Personally I'd definitely hope that "comparable assets" is closer to one side being more specialized to a certain way of combat, whether in be insurgency or conventional. Just because a futuristic Iran has more technology doesn't necessarily mean that their form of warfare needs to be conventional. They can have futuristic equipment that's made FOR their insurgency style doctrine. In order to address air and air defense, current Iran has problems with air defense capabilities, but it would seem more likely that Iran would develop more in air defense than it would acquire better aircraft. This can be reflected with an effective SAM site or mobile SAM weapon that has realistic values and weapon capability. Hints back to the Tunguska apply here. If I remember earlier, Myke modified the tunguska's missile's config to give it a more realistic flight profile, which caused it to be less lethal than it used to be in vanilla ArmA2. If we can keep realism on the weapon systems, it should balance itself out relatively speaking. For example, let's not have 20mm autocannons destroying MBTs in ArmA3. If anything Iran's military can be more mobile and more low-profile, be it some form of cooling jacket being worn to lower the effectiveness of thermal sights, similar technology on tanks while the blufor equipment is more of what we call "conventional". If you used the opfor equipment and used in a way as if gonig for conventional warfare vs conventional warfare, the opfor should have a disadvantage. By the same token, if you have blufor equipment and tried to use it in insurgency vs insurgency, blufor should have a disadvantage. This may be a stretch, and forgive the reference to an unrealistic RTS, but its balance was pretty solid: Think of starcraft. Zerg, Terran, Protoss. Three races that all played very differently and had their own strengths and weaknesses. They all were balanced against each other but required a different playing style depending on your race vs the other race. Reading through the thread, it seemed like this is the kind of balance that NoRailgunner is likely looking for but words it terribly. ---Added http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Specifications_.28F-35A.29 Empty weight thrust-to-weight ratio is 0.66 for L-159, and 0.95 for the F-35; loaded: ~0.44 vs ~0.55 The L-39 in Op Arrowhead is competitive, the only downside were: the engine, lack of ATGM/AA missiles and no missile launch warning system. This is one "solution" I don't want to see in ArmA3 because it would be almost completely asinine. The F-35 definitely has higher capabilities than the L-159 due to avionics, V/STOL capability, target acquisition (linking back to avionics). Thrust-to-weight ratio becomes near worthless once you start reaching higher speeds as air resistance is a larger limiting factor to maintaining speed of the aircraft than weight. A dogfight would/should be close only if the F-35 pilot didn't realize that he should use his superior engine to drag the L-159 into a higher speed where it can't compete due to its much weaker engine. The F-35 would likely also be able to engage at a much further range than the L-159 would be able to. Powerplant: 1 × Honeywell F124-GA-100 turbofan, 28.2 kN (6,330 lbf) Max. takeoff weight: 8,000 kg (17,637 lb) vs Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf (125 kN) Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf (191 kN) Loaded weight: 49,540 lb (22,470 kg) Max. takeoff weight: 70,000 lb (31,800 kg) The L-159 will definitely be more agile. But if that alone makes it superior or "comparable" to the F-35 due to unrealistic limitations like being limited to mach 0.8, then this is definitely not a proper balancing solution. something more like F-35 vs MiG-29 would be a slightly better matchup, each having their own tactical advantages. The MiG-29 would have higher top speed and acceleration ability while the F-35 can take advantage of its stealthy design and coating and aim for the first strike after taking off from a clearing in the forest. tl;dr: balance through differences in the specific equipment's usage, tactics and doctrine, not in 1 = 1 "comparable" equipment.
  18. agent556

    Loosing Aircraft Wings?

    Autorotation was definately in OFP way back when. I remember doing that when i ran out of fuel from damage. Would be nice to have asymetrical lift vectors from the wings when you take certain kinds of damage though, sort of like how tank tracks can be damaged and youre stuck going in circles
  19. After I installed BAF and PMC from sprocket, it seems that all the servers that show up are now running an "unknown configuration" when it comes to mods or something. It used to work normally before where there were servers that had the green circle, the yellow question marked circle, and the red servers Everything I get now are all yellow. Is there a way to fix this? It helped for finding servers that were running a normal configuration
  20. I guess I'll help out with the words a bit as a starter, 「Lifleã€ã¯ã€Œï¼²ï½‰ï½†ï½Œï½…〠ill look at the words later and see which others i can help correct wish i was better with japanese, but lol
  21. agent556

    TGW Vehicle Fixes

    check the UH-1Y, im getting 3 crew chief positions that shoot from the same minigun :X
  22. agent556

    I want to buy this game but..

    i was able to merge OA and ArmA2 just fine. it was very easy and i had no problems. Of course, I have the physical copies. i've heard horror stories about merging OA and A2 on steam.
  23. Nah, feel free to make movies out of them, it was really interesting :P It gives a better feeling with the sounds while theres some other things going on.
  24. I wonder if it will be possible to make the PNVS as well. It's possible to give the pilot an optic as well as proven by Franze's F18 pack... Would be golden if it can be moved by using the hat switch or 'free head movement' to make it possibly compatible with TrackIR as well.
  25. I like how those changes look and sound. However I don't think they view through the MFD to see what they're aiming at. In the gunner's seat, theres an optic of some sort that I would think they use. AH-64A http://uscockpits.com/Helicopters/AH-64A%20Apache%20front.JPG AH-64D (although it isn't the one modeled in mapfacts i believe) http://uscockpits.com/Helicopters/AH-64D%20Long%20Bow%20front.JPG
×