phunkmaz

Alright, the BTT feels much better now! It's not perfect but it handels like a plane should do. But i may found a bug and hope someone can replicate and/or confirm it. It looks like the analog axes, mapped twice or more to the same output, multiply their strenght. For example: I mapped the rudder-axis to my pedal + to the pitch-trim wheel on my throttle-unit for ground-handling. Now if i push them both together in the desired direction the input is twice that strong as usual. Basicly thats not bad because the rudder input for the M-900 in the air and the BTT on the ground is way to weak. But wouldn't it be better if we could get more global input without multiplying the input? Cheers Matze PS: Please excuse my english, it's not my main language but i try to describe the things i see and that are floating around in my brain as good as i can :) Edit: Found the answer to my question or a simple workaround. It was the two different axes for the rudder. They don't multiply the strenght but cut them down to 50%.

Haven't flown the VTOL yet but regarding the Caesar BTT and all the other fixed wings: The FM hasn't changed. It still feels unrealistic, unnatural and not right in many aspects. A simple example: What i would expect: Banking a straight flying plane to the left or right -> The plane starts slipping to the roll-direction and also starts to pull its nose slightly down (if it is trimmed neutral). What i actualy get: The plane just keeps flying its old straight direction. That's it. No Side-slip. A fundamental part of flight-physics not existing. What i would expect: In a final approach i lower the flaps to full, plane decelerates, i raise the throttle to maintain a clean approach-speed. What i actualy get: Doesn't matter if i lower flaps to half or full, they have no effect. It's also almost impossible to maintain a speed. Throttle (i have the Warthog HOTAS Throttle Unit) is to imprecisely. What i would expect: I push my throttle to 25% (Throttle (Analog)) -> Plane starts accellerating slightly. What i actualy get: Throttle-Axis starts at 50%, have to push it to 100% that it even starts rolling. Most of the time i'm instantly at 100km/h and more. Speaking for myself, i don't want a complex FM like in X-Plane, DCS or even WT Sim-Mode. It just should feel more intuitive and natural. Even a Fly-By-Wire controlled plane wouldn't do what we actually have in A3. And it doesn't matter if i use mouse/keyboard or my full simulator-setup, the result is the same. And please, don't think that Auto-Rudder whould do the magic. It doesn't change the FM but the way you control the plane with mouse/keyboard. The result with stick, throttle and rudder whould be the same. Cheers

You got my vote too. It's a shame that they have removed the models.

I think yes since it is part of the config: class RotorLibHelicopterProperties: RotorLibHelicopterProperties { RTDconfig = "A3\Air_F\Heli_Light_01\Light-GenHeli600-DesktopSim.xml"; starterTime = 5; throttleOffToIdle = 8; throttleIdleToOff = 12; throttleIdleToFull = 4; throttleFullToIdle = 13; autoHoverCorrection = {0, 2.880000, 0}; maxTorque = 700; maxMainRotorStress = 50000; maxTailRotorStress = 4000; retreatBladeStallWarningSpeed = 76.536003; };

Tried to replicate the flight dynamics of the M/AH-6 from Arma 2. These are the values i got: cyclicAsideForceCoef = 1.2; cyclicForwardForceCoef = 1.2; backRotorForceCoef = 2.0;

Don't know if you already know that but take a look at this: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Helicopter_Flight_Model_Config_(XML)

First, many thanks for the modification. Now it feels much better and even closer to the nice flight characteristics in A2. But i made another observation for myself. If i go into a straight forward movement and then bank to the left or right i would expect the helicopter to do a "not too" slight turn in that direction since the banking initiates a change of the CoG. You can observe the same thing with the planes in A3. While flying straight bank full left or right and watch how they still fly straight in that direction. In A2 it felt much more realistic than in A3 now. Test it by yourself and post your opinion.

Excellent work USSRsniper :)

Very useful script. Thanks! :cheers:

+1 It's important for me too. BTW weapon interfaces were suggested even befor ArmA1. What a long time and still no life like javelin :/

+1 They should also fix that slow-downs if you drive through small trees, bushes or fences.

Thats exactly what i've tried to do with the C130. BIS should fix that :rolleyes:

Thats actually not voice synthesis. Voice synthesis is a way to reproduce a human voice using synthesizers and FM but at the moment it isn't possible to recreate a 100% real sounding voice. I guess for the voice in your video they used the same system that's been used for MS Sam but with the difference that they have a larger voice-sound database (500-700MB sounds per voice). I think with a professional created voice database you can produce natural sounding and dynamic speech. In my opinion that could be the future.

You could try to overclock your cpu. I'm sure the C2D 2,4Ghz can easily handle 3GHz and more.

I love all vehicles with a nice interior but mainly the BMP-3. His inside looks beautiful :D

Or http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Modfolders

Scandal! :D

I'm sure it's modified ... however the wing vapour effect looks great :D

I'm not a script pro but the first think i learned was to keep a clean code style. I think that looks better: // Aufgaben tskZiel4 = player createSimpleTask ["Point Delta erreichen"]; tskZiel4 setSimpleTaskDescription ["Erreichen Sie Point Delta!","Point Delta erreichen","Point Delta"]; if (Ziel4) then { tskZiel4 setTaskState "Succeeded"; } else { tskZiel4 setTaskState "Created"; tskZiel4 setSimpleTaskDestination (getMarkerPos "6"); player setCurrentTask tskZiel4; }; tskZiel3 = player createSimpleTask ["Störsender zerstören"]; tskZiel3 setSimpleTaskDescription ["Zerstören Sie den Störsender!","Störsender zerstören","Störsender"]; if (Ziel3) then { tskZiel3 setTaskState "Succeeded"; } else { tskZiel3 setTaskState "Created"; tskZiel3 setSimpleTaskDestination (getMarkerPos "5"); player setCurrentTask tskZiel3; }; tskZiel2 = player createSimpleTask ["Strassensperre zerstören"]; tskZiel2 setSimpleTaskDescription ["Zerstören Sie die Strassenperre!","Strassensperre zerstören","Strassensperre"]; if (Ziel2) then { tskZiel2 setTaskState "Succeeded"; } else { tskZiel2 setTaskState "Created"; tskZiel2 setSimpleTaskDestination (getMarkerPos "4"); player setCurrentTask tskZiel2; }; tskZiel1 = player createSimpleTask ["Sammelpunkt erreichen"]; tskZiel1 setSimpleTaskDescription ["Erreichen Sie den Sammelpunkt an der Absprungzone!","Sammelpunkt erreichen","Sammelpunkt"]; if (Ziel1) then { tskZiel1 setTaskState "Succeeded"; } else { tskZiel1 setTaskState "Created"; tskZiel1 setSimpleTaskDestination (getMarkerPos "3"); player setCurrentTask tskZiel1; };

100% Signed! BTW there are lots of peps telling other to play BF2, Steel Beats, Flight Simulator or whatever. The point is, we don't wan't to play other games/sims. We just would like to see some aspects/features of other games in A2.

Looks like you've never heard of WWIIOnline ;)

Ohhh yes! That was a wish since OFP. Isn't it possible in VBS2? Doh!

Sad but true. :(

I'd like to see interiors for the existing tanks and proper system modeling for their weaponry. Oh, and more interaction with vehicles (seat belts, turn signals, usable doors and tailgates, winches and trailers (VBS2?), ...). ATM all vehicles are kind of DTU's (Disposable Transportation Units). I think it's better to fine-tune the current vehicles instead of adding more and more useless units to dump them in the next roadside ditch.

OFP was a revolution but ArmA and ArmA2 are just evolution. I agree to the most parts of Alienfreaks post.