hailstorm

Yes, you're quite right Suma. Thanks for taking time to consider this issue. I was exaggerating, but it does appear to cause very significant changes in viewpoint - it's still enough to cause big aiming errors (as you've very nicely described may I add) If you want to get the HUD working as accurate as possible, listen to what RKSL-Rock is talking about. I'll bet my paycheck if there's anyone on this forum you can rely on for accurate information on HUD's he's likely the best source. Now correct me if I'm wrong Rock, but HUDs will always seem to move independently of the glass it's displayed on - it's a natural effect caused by the design of the device, the same has how a mirror never portrays an image that looks like it's attached to the mirror itself, whereas a TV hooked up to a camera pointing in the same direction as the screen will always have a similar image no matter where the viewer stands relative to it. So from that point, the HUD image will move according to a changing POV. Where the difference lies (again, correct me if I'm wrong) is that the HUD device will not be collimated to the exact point a round will land - it's just not physically possible given ever-changing ranges and the static location of the HUD-image creator on an aircraft. For example, in the video Rock linked, the main HUD image appeared to be projected roughly a metre further behind the HUD glass, but no more. The ways around this are having multiple projected images at different (short) ranges like a rifle iron sight, or having specially designed HUD glass etc. But all of these appear to rely on the pilot having to, to a large degree, keep their point of view in roughly the same location relative to the aiming device, exactly the same as how a soldier has to keep his eye down the rifle sights. On the other hand, The reason I think making a pilot's viewpoint completely static was based on several reasons: - From a programming perspective, it's a simple, elegant solution to the whole problem. Whether the HUD is collimated to infinity or simply to the HUD glass, it's irrelevant since the device will be accurate. Adding in head sway or eye movement while looking around might add that slight feeling of realism, but that is quickly destroyed when gun sights instantly become inaccurate as a result - which causes more time and effort to find a working HUD solution etc. It's just the simple, relatively real solution. - While a pilot's eyes will move around when a they turns their head, the pilot will most likely place his eyes and POV in the exact same spot every time they use the HUD for targeting. But since there is no way a computer program can guess when a player wants to do this when the avatar's head is in the wrong position, it's a much better solution to assume that the player will want to look accurately through the HUD at all times - hence, keep the POV in the same position while he/she looks around. - From someone who has an fixed-wing acrobatics rating, one of the most important things I learned to do is to keep the head as still as possible while maneuvering - even though my planes do not have HUDs. Besides the fact that keeping the HUD accurate is a reason to keep the head still, a static head also prevents disorientation for such dizzying effects like losing the ability to balance that the inner ear provides. Just today I fell victim to this when I looked down to check my map the same second my Co-pilot initiated a climbing left turn - the perceived backwards and tilting motion (as opposed to the expected motions of the maneuver) on my head made me instantly sick, and the only way to fix it was to keep my head still and my eyes fixed on the horizon for the next five minutes, hence why I fully agree with this in regards to the new added head sway: Watch this cockpit video of an L-39 experience flight - and notice how much the guy's head moves while doing 2g and 3g turns. He pretty much doesn't move at all. I'd be very pleased if the current head movement was toned down to less than a third of what it is now, if not removed altogether - it's just detrimental to fighting from aircraft in general.

Rock, I agree with most of what you're saying, except this part. There's a big part of the dynamic of the cockpit portrayed in arma which you seem to be taking for granted, and that's assuming that the pilot's viewpoint is completely static in the cockpit under all circumstances, where in fact it's far from the truth. When the pilot looks around the cockpit, the game actually moves the head itself, moving the eyeballs and thus the viewpoint in the cockpit. It's hard to notice, but looking through the HUD is the easiest way to tell (as you've noticed rock) from the difference between the HUD target pipper and the game crosshair. You say that the moving game crosshair means that the guns aim at different parts, but that's not correct. The game crosshair is 100% accurate under all circumstances - what's happening is that the pilot's viewpoint is slewing laterally in the direction of head twist and causing parallax error through the HUD. Here's some visual proof: To get this image, an A-10 is parked on the top of the hill to the south of the airstrip (because the gun is angled down we need to elevate the aircraft to get a far-distance target). The plane doesn't move an inch for the next two images. Note two things: 1. The virtual crosshair is aiming at the furthermost corner of the Hangar. 2. It is also is in the dead centre of the HUD. Now, I look several degrees to the left: Now look at the crosshair. 1. The virtual crosshair is still aiming at the furthermost corner of the Hangar. 2. It is however, now shifted to the left side of the HUD. Why? because the head of the pilot has twisted to the left. The pilots' viewpoint, which originates from the front of the pilot's head, shifts slightly to the left as their head rotates. this causes everything in the cockpit to appear to shift to the right, which includes the HUD and everything displayed on it. Thus, the HUD target pipper will appear to identify that the gun will aim the the right of the game crosshair, which is exactly what we see in the 1.54 version of the game. Now I look to the right: 1. The virtual crosshair is still aiming at the furthermost corner of the Hangar. 2. However, it now shifts to the right side of the HUD. 3. also note how the light-grey bracket on the side of the HUD seems to be slightly more compacted as opposed to the front-on view. Now the same effect happens, but in the opposite direction. the pilot's viewpoints shifts right, HUD moves left, HUD target aims to the left of the game crosshair. The game crosshair still points to the exact same target, which by logic of a fixed weapon on a static aircraft, should hit the exact same target. Yet, somehow, the HUD target will move about when the only moving part on the aircraft is the location of the pilot's eyes. I drew a diagram explaining the above issue and how the game crosshair is the real target and isn't slaving a turret: Essentially, in the above diagram (and in every version of the game until this beta) the HUD is a fulcrum for the line-of-sight from the pilot, a changing eye position equals an opposite deviation in where the fixed weapon is perceived to be aiming. The beta eliminates the fulcrum, but means the HUD image no longer appears to be fixed to the HUD device itself. A simple experiment to replicate this is while staring at your screen, place your finger about a hand lengths' away from your nose. Note what part of the screen you're pointing at. Then twist your head to the left and right while keeping your eye's locked onto that same part of the screen, and observe how your finger moves in the opposite direction your head does. If you guys have flown one of the vanilla fighters with OA installed, you can't tell me it wasn't a damn nightmare. To try and shoot down another plane, especially in a turning dogfight, the HUD would basically shift up and into the direction of the turn, rendering the entire device more than useless; it became an active distraction when trying to aim at a target with the game crosshairs. For someone who only plays vanilla, the fixed HUD is a massive boost in playability, especially if they play on servers without game crosshairs enabled. By NO way am I saying that I'm an expert on HUDs - in all my flying experience I've looked through a HUD once, and that was a C-130J parked on the ramp. All I'm doing is talking about the problem as I see it, and what is and isn't wrong (from a game perspective). As far as I can see the beta patch looks like it corrected the HUD problem and did so in a correct method, but the programming method used has caused problems in it's own right (and is possibly unrealistic). As a pilot I can tell you any pilot will try to keep their head as still as possible while flying for multiple reasons, parallax error being one of these. If anything needs to be argued, it's why there is such excessive head movement while flying.

Actually, in OFPR the LAW had a noticable parabolic arc, and IIRC in ArmA1 the rpg and at4 had similar gravity-effected characteristics, so the physics are there and available in the engine, but it just doesn't seem to be applied to the modern rockets (or with enough of a noticable effect at least)

Anyone else have a pants-on-head autopilot on the ULB? I just time-failed this mission because most of my mission time was spent waiting for the ULB to stop flying around in small circles and actually go to the waypoint I specified for it. It seemed to happen at both high altitude and low. Anyone else having this problem? is there a way to fix it?

Absolutely! there are still a lot of people who can't/won't be transferring over to II just yet. keep up the good work here!

I think it would work well in single-player missions, eg. guiding a supply helicopter into a small constrictive clearing. in any case, it would definitely add immersion to any mission where it's used. Just because radios can be used doesn't mean they can - often pilots need a set of eyes on the ground concentrating on their aircraft giving directions, and those usually close enough are in too loud an environment to talk over the radio - not to mention the limitations of open channels and radio silence. There aren't that many signals in total - as most are simply used to maneuver an aircraft to the ground, they don't get much more complicated than what Raptor 6 Actual has listed - the list of basic signals are about roughly double that, including both fixed-wing and helicopter, and including such things as winches, chocks, and specific engine directions. I do hope Raptor also later includes the "turn left", "turn right" and "stop" directions - that means his collection can also be used to guide fixed-wing aircraft on the ground. Raptor 6 Actual, if you need any more help with this, I've done a few stints as a marshaller on several occasions and I'm also a trained pilot, so I can help with any of the technical aspects, and I also have some resources you can use. PM me if you want anything.

more helpful posts... love it! [/sarcasm] Well, I guess with the advent of the analogue throttle, and with the the ability for pilots to truly choose to cruise at their own speeds, I guess upping the top speeds of the really fast jets to something realistic could work. However, remember fast moving objects can generate a lot of lag, and having a few top guns attempting to push the envelope on a regular basis may make MP sessions unbearable for everyone (though that's purely speculation on my part). I guess for realism's sake, yes, but gameplay balance should always come first.

I'm not sure quite exactly what you mean - do you mean having to do the whole gear-changing thing, or are you just suggesting better control over the throttle, like allowing such things as more torque at times to manage hills better? I'd be all-up for improving the 'off-road' aspects of the dirtbikes, but i haven't seen the ArmA II version, unfortunately - i'm only basing it off the severely underpowered 650cc's in ArmA 1, which couldn't go faster than 55 kmh over anything that wasn't road.

So, now that the Team are working on a solution to this, I would like to make a suggestion. Actually, it's more of a request - most of the people who have posted in this thread also didn't like it when it first appeared in ArmA - and there were several threads about it. considering that it's still a problem in that game, and also since patches are still being created for it, can this fix also be implemented back into ArmA 1? I'd hate to think that the only people who will benefit from increasing the vehicle realism are only going to be those who buy the 'latest and greatest', and not those who've had to report this problem and put up with it for years.

Hey Suma, the problem was what you described with the second point - there exists an autopilot that seems to apply it's own input to several controls (like the throttle and rudder) even when the player is in full control of the aircraft. I know it was probably included with the idea of making things easier to fly, but in execution, it just seems like it's more 'in the way' than actually making the task of flying easier for anyone. the solution with the analogue throttle looks like it's going to fix exactly that however - i like it.

A question though - will what Suma is proposing stop the Autothrottle taking over when you pitch up/down? i mean, thats what i'm sure most here want - but is that what Suma is going to implement? we might miss the mark here. As it is in ArmA 1, if you set the throttle in the middle, the plane will automatically throttle up if you nose up, and throttle down when you lower the nose. It's not that the throttle only just reads "go faster/stay at speed/go slower" on a stick, but that it actually also takes aircraft attitude into account - which it shouldn't.

i believe this bug (dead soldiers lie prone in vehicles) occurs after a load from a save/reload - so when you begin the mission, the soldier will be sitting properly (like wolle's screenshot) but then if you save, then load it, the officer will appear like wipman's screen. However, i think it's a bug in ArmA rather than the CWR mod.

Hey guys, great work on this - it's amazing how close to replicating CWC you got with this. kudos. i came across another 'missing' mission: mission 27: 'recon' and Mission 30: 'Wake up call' seem to be merged into the one 'kill the kolgujev shilkas' mission - and wow, it's a LOT harder than the CWC version! i'm finding it impossible to sneak up on the first shilka (to place a satchel) without getting spotted by it's crew - because they're standing facing it. i can't kill them either, because now there's a T-72 and BMP covering them that will blow me to pieces as soon as they hear my (much, much louder) silenced HK... I found a bug here, too - one of the soldier patrols to the north of this shilka has an AT-4, and if you try and take it off him, it has a missing gear image of the launcher (w_at4launcher.paa) and when i tried to drop it on the ground, my game crashed. Attempted the same in the editor using a Soviet AT specialist, also crashed. I'll stick it up in the bugtracker. another changed character bit i noticed was that in 'undercover' your resistance officer (in civi clothes) can randomly become a black guy, where in CWC i think it was a set character. that mission also seems to lack a few tanks in saint pierre that would blow you away if you got too close - without them i just drove the truck rapidly through and didn't stop driving till i got to the resistance base. at the moment, the only easter eggs i've found are the new base names on the map, and a few of the forest names.

Well, i can definitely say ArmAII is coming to EB, as to when, though, i have no idea! RicoADF is right - ArmAII is NOT in our computer database. Most upcoming titles have at least their entry in the system (often without a fixed release date). eg, OFP2 is listed as 1/9/09, which changed less than a week ago - before, it didn't have one. Though my manager just came back from the big meeting all the managers had up in head office on the gold coast, which included a briefing and playthrough of all new titles coming out... including ArmA2 (or at least a video of it). Also brought back some info flyers for it (for staff to read). Nothing much in it though that would be news to anyone here, it's more for the completely uninformed of the staff to know a bit about it so they can talk about it to customers. So yes, it's definitely coming to Aus in box form, but when is a real question. I'll be waiting for a box edition too, btw.

Okay all you modelers out there, this was something i've wanted to do, since i helped EricJ out with his F/A-18 'Super' texture. i didn't think this fitted in as a post in the research thread, just due to it's short-term nature and the need to collect requests. hopefully the mods will keeps it separate to make sorting everything easier. so, this is what's happening: in just under two weeks (from the 6th of march to the 20th), i'll be doing some work at the Australian International Airshow, in my hometown, Melbourne, Australia. the reason i'm mentioning this is that i would like to help out any modelers out there who are looking for specific reference photos of x, y, or z, but for some reason or another, can't find any. the reason i think i might be of use is that i'm going to be working as a ground crew for the duration of the show - and it will give me clearance to get closer to and work around whatever is at the show - closer than what your average ticket-holding member of the public would get. it also means i can use a camera with a little less restriction! so, this is what i would like to happen: for the next two weeks, i'll accept any requests in this thread for abnormal photos of specific parts of aircraft or military equipment (eg. inner wheel bay of the F-16, inside detail of the M1A1 Abrams driver cabin, etc.) - then, on the 6th of march, i'll print out a copy of this thread and go photo hunting during the 'show. hopefully i'll return with lots of odd but clear photos. Now, for those modelers who are looking for ground equipment references, i may still be able to help out - this isn't just an airshow, it also has a land defence expo attached to it - meaning, there will be a lot of very new ground systems on display, too. most of these will be packed away when the public are let in for the airshow, but i'll also be working on the days when only high-ranking officials are let in to see all the new toys! this is a list of the things that are "confirmed" to be there: AIRCRAFT Australian Defence Force: - every aircraft type currently in service (list of equipment: RAAF, Army, Navy), possibly excluding the Tiger Attack/Recce helicopter. USAF: -C-5 galaxy, B-1B lancer, C-17, KC-135, F-15, F-16. Singapore AF: -SA-331 Super Puma, PC-21 Royal New Zealand AF: -757 Boeing special assignment: - F/A-18E/F, Wedgetail AEW&C, Omega Tanker (707?) QANTAS: - A380, 747 V Aust: -777 + numerous Vintage Aircraft, including P-51's, Spitfires, Dakotas, And a Super Constellation. + several UAV aircraft and mock-ups. there was a mock-up of the global hawk and F-35 at the last 'show. + numerous civilian aircraft (light planes, aerobatics, etc.) NOTE: this will probably be the last chance to get reference pictures of the F-111 and DHC-4 Caribou aircraft, as they will be retired next year (the airshow is Bi-annual) GROUND VEHICLES - most, if not all, current Australian Army Vehicles. - foreign Sales teams will also be flogging their latest and greatest ground equipment too - last time there was a very large air defence radar mounted on the back of several MAN trucks, as well as a new mobile self-propelled Artillery system, (neither of which are used by the ADF) -almost every type of aircraft service vehicle (generator units, catering trucks, aircraft tugs, etc.) PERSONAL WEAPONRY - every ADF-utilized weapon; Steyrs, Minimi's, LAW, Carl Gustav, Javelin, Mortar. - whatever the military contractors decide to bring to the expo. last time there was an 'interesting' display of video communications via gun-mounted cameras. there were some very modified M4's on display at the time. note the list is ALWAYS susceptible to change, and those objects may or may not be there, in addition to other aircraft/vehicles/objects randomly appearing. we usually don't find out what's going to be at the show until it arrives and we are in the process of figuring out where to park it! (eg. a Civ Mi-17 and a C-27J were at the last show) i should probably mention a few caveats to this however: -try to be as specific in your request as possible, as i'll only get one chance to get it right. so if you want a certain angle of a point of interest, tell me! diagrams of where would be good. - i'm not going to be doing anything illegal, and if whatever you're requesting is classified, don't expect a picture of it. a good example is the cockpit of the F/A-18E/F - that was considered classified last time, and thus wasn't allowed to take pictures of it. feel free to request something like that, but don't get your hopes up. i'll be asking the military ground crew for permission before i attempt to take photos of anything that may be considered sensitive. -i can't guarantee that i'll get the picture you're looking for. most of the time out there i'll be doing my job, but when i get breaks i'll try and get photos done, so i may or may not be able to get the information you need. -i'm not a 100% well versed on some things. (eg. i could tell you the difference between an F-15 'E' and a 'C'-model, but talk to me about the block 2 versus block 3 F-16, and i'll probably give you a blank stare. likewise i know what an M-4 looks like, but get into stuff like different scopes and you'll lose me.) i'll try and get what you need, but keep in mind i may not know the equipment well. - i might be also able to do video, if you're looking for a specific sound or what something looks like from several angles, this may help. the deadline for requests is Friday, 6th of March, at 0100 Universal Time Coordinate (GMT, ignoring daylight saving), after which i'll be printing this thread out, and leaving for the airshow (i'm staying out there, away from the internet, till it finishes) so if you have anything you need a pic of, stick a request in this thread and i'll add it to the list. and if any of you are coming to Avalon, feel free to give us a wave - we'll be the ones near the commentary box with the fluro vests on with 'Tarmac Marshall' written on the backs.

probably best if i explain this one. when a vehicle such as a tank gets damaged, it's crew get injured. for some vehicles, this is understandable. the problem occurs when it comes to large vehicles, for example, aircraft - when an aircraft get damaged, the pilot/crew get the same percentage of injury. this was really prominent in OFP, where if you landed your A-10 that was critically damaged, you actually found that, upon disembarking, your legs were broken! ArmA thankfully doesn't get this far, but if we think about it, such large vehicles (whether air, ground, or sea-based) are not exactly likely to transfer their damage state to the crew - in the case of the A-10, for example, the cockpit is specifically armored to prevent pilot injury, and, say, if a very large ship were on the brink of sinking, i doubt that the crew would be on the verge of death also. it dosen't seem right that when a very large vehicle gets hit, it's crew (who could possibly be metres away from the impact zone) absorb an equal amount of damage. it creates a scenario where the crew can be outright killed (leaving the vehicle intact) if they beforehand managed to repair their vehicle at some stage - but however didn't heal at the same time; and the vehicle absorbed a total exceeding 100% of the damage need to kill it. please, BIS, can you change the config of vehicles (or add a variable) so that damage to a vehicle does not automatically mean damage to it's crew? i know in some places it makes sense to injure crew, but there are also a lot of places where it's inappropriate, too.

it's pretty easy to replicate in ArmA - get in a plane, get shot at, you'll find once you disembark you'll need to heal at an ambulance. like i said, if you, for example, manage to land after getting, say 70% damaged, repair, then fly out again, the pilot will die as soon as the jet takes another 30% damage - even if the jet itself is still flyable at this point.

What do you mean?  Wind vaning in helicopters is realistic.  It may not happen exactly as BIS has it set up, but deleting it completely would lead to a less realistic simulation. What i mean is if i fly backwards and even at low speeds, suddenly my helicopter turns 360° and i fly with nose into the direction i was flying with tail before. In Internet are a lot of data how fast a helicopter can fly backwards, sidewards, etc.... Arma is miles away from that They should stick to those data available. i would agree with both your points, but it has to be said that the main problem is that ArmA has handled it really badly; unlike in game, there is no 'set speed' at which helicopters stop behaving like helicopters and more like planes - IRL it's a slow, gradual process that is directly related to airspeed. the faster you go, the more of the 'weathervaning' force is present - starts small, and gradually gets more prominent to the point where you cannot fight against it. in ArmA it seems to be a set figure: for the Blackhawk, for example, the switch happens at 95 km/h - you can tell because the elevator suddenly changes from pointing down to straight back. up until that point, helicopter behavior - you can strafe, etc. once you're going faster than it, airplane behavior; banking just becomes turning. not that RL helicopters don't function similar to airplanes at high speed, but the only thing i think is wrong right now is how there is a set 'switch' speed, instead of a gradual change.

that's not a bug... the Real Mi-24's front gear does in fact protrude from the bottom of the fuselage when retracted: Airliners.net - Czech Hind Airliners.net - Ukraine Hind

I've noticed that since the original BTS went down (with all the bug logs included), that the official BIS wiki page now lists the armedassault.eu page as the 'official' bugtracker page. However, the thing is, I haven't seen a single thing happen with any of the reported issues there. No official word, or anything resembling 'progress' on anything - I mean, there hasn't even been correspondence in this forum since june. So, I was wondering, does anyone at BIS monitor the .eu bugtracker, or even this forum at all? How do we go about reporting errors that we find, and would like to see fixed in the coming patch(es)?

I'd like to say a few things about parachute implementation: 1, if BIS are going to make un-steerable parachutes, then at least use a model not depicting a parachute of the steerable variety - complete with steering cables. i'd prefer steerable chutes to be implemented, but obviously not all soldiers would use them. 2. please, BIS, don't make parachutes SOLID. anyone here ever landed with their back to the side of a hill, only to have the parachute lift you into the air because it hits the ground when doing the 'folding' animation, then detect you are no longer on the ground, so it redeploys, etc. trapping you in an endless loop?

I have seen shots where the AIM-54 was carried in groups of six, and fired from six hardpoints; but the only reason that it wasn't seen regularly, is that carrying six would put the F-14's total weight above it's maximum landing weight - even with zero fuel. a minimum of two missiles would have to be jettisoned (or fired) to bring it back into limits - hence why the most usually seen on a cat was four. that's not saying, however, if there were a mission where a tomcat was expected to fire at least two aim-54's that it couldn't be loaded in a 'six shooter' configuration.

nice bit of editing on these birds - the new maneuverability caught me by surprise. your special chinook is definitely 'interesting'; the whole time, i was expecting a nice, Civilian paint job or something... all i can say is... "argh, my eyes!"

PyroFlash, this is just my personal thoughts, but I find it hard to believe a pilot would even consider using the AB while the aircraft is hovering - I'm just thinking about the systems and physics involved AFAIK, the F-35B uses two systems to hover, the main engine, with the nozzle at the back pointed down, and a vertical lift fan just behind the cockpit that provides an equal amount of thrust to support the front half of the jet, which is powered by the main engine drive shaft. If you muse that the jet uses afterburner in this configuration, wouldn't that only increase the thrust out of the rear engine only? AB by itself increases thrust, but not engine power/engine RPM - thus I can't see how the vertical lift fan can somehow get more power to compensate, resulting in the whole jet unbalancing and going arse-over-tit? I haven't seen any documentation that says AB is used, although I haven't seen any testing of an aircraft with a full warload either, so any documentation to prove either way would be interesting.

in regards to the whole F-35 hover discussion, this i found interesting... maybe southy you can get permission to incorporate this VTOL system into the F-35. haven't tried it myself, but it looks promising.