Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

pathetic_berserker

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1269

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by pathetic_berserker

  1. Posted

    as long as the addons dont require QG. im ready to rock.

    Suggestion on the cargo plane.. maybe the c130s little bro for the ROYAL AIRFORCE Of Sahrani i forget it was called but it had  2 engines instead of 4 but looked alot like the c130. we used em in vietnam i know

    I think you are thinking about the C123

    The C-7 caribou would also fit that bill.

    Great stuff guys.

    And a couple of other possibilities.

    F-16 were a great cheap exporter and good for an elite squadron.

    Have you guys seen the Hellinic Warfare Mod RACS UH-1? i think it suit your idea very well.

    I like that you guys have more than one vehicle to fill many of the roles. Take a peak at many of the smaller, less financial forces around the world and you can often find a large variety of older equipment being streched to last as long as possible.

  2. Posted

    As a change of topic, in keeping with the KAC theme, here is an M110. There's something about it I don't like. I think especially the stock but I'm not sure what to do since its plastic.

    Anybody have suggestions?

    2 points

    1.

    A bit of dirt and some scratches should help tie in your diffrent tones and shades of tan.

    2.

    I think its often good to realize that there are quite a lot of things in this world that are astheticaly a little 'off '. And that as a creator its OK to let it go sometimes, especialy if the creation is true to its origin. So if thats how you think it looks then thats how it should be. Besides its a killing tool. Who cares if its a bit butt ugly?

  3. Posted

    ricnunes,

    Your arguments regarding the Hellfire Vs Vikhr performance has done a great deal to inform people and highlight the problems with the way BIS has handled missiles and missile avoidance systems.

    However I'm finding that your argument is sounding more like 'Helfire is as good as if not better than Vikhr' just for the sake of having the Hellfire equal the Vikhr within the gameplay of Arma.

    And although I agree with you that the Hellfire has a very limited capability when it comes to AA. I think you need to consider a few more points.

    1. How important is it that the hellfire should lock on to air targets given (a)It's not particulary good at taking them out, and (b) Given probable engine limitations a realistic performance solution could be unlikely.

    2. Your argument that the Vikhr, like the Hellfire is not an effective AA missile. Seems a bit off the objective centre. Please let me explain.

    Its true that the Vikhr is not a dedicated AA misslie and should not then perform like one. But to imply that the Vikhr is not a good AA missile therefore the hellfire should be a 'not good AA missile' as well is totaly flawed. All the evidence points to the Vihkr being a better AA missile that the Hellfire.

    The claims that the Vihkr can be used as an AA missile seem to be at least substantiated to some degree. Where as your (I believe well informed) deduction that the Hellfire should be used as an AA missile leaves us with little more than conjecture as to how it should be implemented (if at all).

    I know that even 'official' information can less than totaly truthfull. But at the end of day we have more of it supporting the Vihkrs abilities than you have of supporting your ideal that the Hellfires AA capabilities are good enough to include in game (remembering that 'Arma' is never going to be a 'Longbow' )

    Now you've probably read my earlier sugestions, so you'd that on broad terms I more or less support your idea. But there may be one other solution that I would conceed and thats. The Vihks ability is reduced and the Hellfire doesn't get to lock to air targets.

    Simply because the lack of any realistic performance data of the hellfire used as a AA misisle wich could be even vaguely translated into a solution for Arma.

    (though I'd still prefer the Hellfire to lock on to anything moving less than 250kph and Vikhrs less than 650kph)

  4. Posted

    Could you make a Osprey with a plane style config? Only to see if it's better or worse.

    You chose a helicopter style in order to put weapons in it, don't you?

    In no way speaking for Gnat here but I suspect it has more to do with the difficulties making a plane perform like a helicopter, which is what the osprey MUST do to take off and land.

  6. Posted

    I'm trying to find a Counter-part for the SLA,But all I'am coming up with pre-WWII Russian Battleships.The most modern thing I can find is the Kirov-class BattleCruiser.And there is only 5 of them!

    Remember the Iowa and Missouri are WW2 era battle ships that have undergone extensive modernisation.

    The best Russian equivalent that was in service beyond ww2 would probably be the Sverdlov class cruisers but these are still less than 1/2 the displacment of the Iowa class. But would make excelent handme downs to a force such as the SLA navy.

    Also be about right for any Cold War senarios

  8. Posted

    Unfortunally the only way to autonomously designate a target for Hellfires in ArmA is to use the "TAB" key. That's why I defend that once air lock capability was given to the Vikhr, the same must be done for the Hellfire.

    I have two problems with this solution, Firstly it implies that the performance of both both missiles is similar enough to warant the same imgame performance. Wich, even going by your own evidence is not true.

    And secondly it only contributes to 'blowing out' any semblance of simulation, as having hellfires perfom as Vikhrs currently do is just laughable. Having 2 unrealistic missiles in the game doesn't solve the actual problem of the one we are struggling with.

    I think the solution requires a bit more than just saying 'make the hellfire able to lock on to air targets'.

  9. Posted

    I'm thinking along the same lines as you there subs.

    AA only uses proximity fuses because the chances of a direct hit on such fast moving targets is extremely difficult.

    Though the hellfire isn't effective in the role of AA doesn't mean it isn't effective in the role of directly hitting any target traveling less than 'x' kph.

  10. Posted

    ricnunes, i am curious to know whether the powerpiont presentation you pionted out earlier as 'writen proof' is an actual USMC USN training document. If it is, it could mean that the lack of proof that the Hellfire can be used on air targets is due to the fact that they don't want service people to rely on that capability as they have other means for dealing with air threats. And that said service people would of course only use the hellfire if it had a lock and probably as a last resort.

    Way i see it, is that everyone here is acualy in basic agreement about the capabilities of both missiles. Its a matter of wether or not the current implemtation is acceptable for gameplay.

    I think it would be acceptable if the hellfire was capable of locking on to anything traveling up to say 350km and the Vikhr capable of locking on to anthing traveling up to about 650km but with a weaker warhead (I know its rated to 800km but the scale of our islands and combat kind of limits the speeds most people use in game). I think this would a good start. If anyone's capable of producing a more realistic solution I'd say go for that instead.

    So lets here what people think are the most important factors when comparing the two missiles, in our gameplay environment. And if known, what CAN actualy be done within engine limitations.

  11. Posted

    THe problem is that the Vikhr is 'normally' used to engage air targets because it was meant to.  You consistently fail to provide any source of information regarding the comparative ability of the hellfire to do so.  Logic is not enough, you also need facts.  

    I thought the fact that helfires could be used to take out choppers and slow moving aircraft was old news. Like decades old.

    But that aside much of the info I've seen people point to about the Vikhr looks and reads like the kind of marketing and advertising propaganda you see at international airshows. The kind of stuff Russia needs to keep foriegn currency rolling in. And the trail footage seems to using old flying barges for target practice.

    And before someone points the finger and screams 'naysayer' at me. I couldn't give a crap about game balance, in fact in MP I couldn't tell you which side I play most or even prefer. And I'm quite satisfied that the Vikhr can and should be able to hit air targets. But i think the way its been handled sucks.

    Until BIS are prepared to improve a crap load of issues relating to air combat they should simply stay away from this sort of thing. If they're going to tout the game as a military simulator then they have to remain sensitive to not only how lethal modern combat is but also its complexities. turning the KA into some monster that can fire and forget on multiple land and fast moving air targets in a matter of seconds is simply unrealistic and only drags Arma towards the arcade style games that so many Arma players seem to avoid.

  12. Posted

    To be honest I only expect Arma performance to go down on vista64 compared to xp32. I'm just wondering HOW MUCH it will go down. .......

    I moved from E6700, 2G Ram, 8800gts, running XP32 to the same box but 4G RAM and Vista64 and noticed a big improvement in performance with Arma. Though I cant say if there was a timley patch release at the same time, I certainly didn't go backwards.

  13. Posted

    Quote[/b] ]I also should have also mentioned that I'm still able to sit down and watch a battle from the sidelines and spot several AI magically running through buildings and obstacles.

    That´s most probably a result of your hardware that is at the lowest line of minimum specs. As a result pathfinding calculations are very limited.

    I've also noticed this but so far only with the new Warfare buildings.

    And running vista64, 4g, 8800gts, it aint a min spec issue

  14. Posted

    I must say that until recently I hadn't realy noticed just how bad the AI was. At most I only had small numbers that i was always with and on top of.

    But since WARFARE came along I've been trying to use more AI but the idea that i could actualy 'use' them has become pure fantasy. Even a simple column of vehicles is nearly impossible as the AI drops behind, zigzags off the road for no apparent reason, or drives itsself into an object, gets confused and then heads in the opposite direction.

    So I tried it with a group of tanks thinking that atleast they wont need the roads to maintain speed but it was basicaly the same problem and one crew even managed to flip thier T72 in the open!

    So after spending way more time than was acualy fun trying to get them to behave I just sent them to other side of map, hoping it was thier certain death.

    But they didn't shut up as they called in all thier kills.

    Bastards.

  15. Posted

    I'll second your observations there gl33k, but i think there are still 2 other issues that may be connected with LOD latency and graphc performance.

    1st of course theres the graphics card wich we know is a seperate problem to vist64.

    And sceondly I've noticed an issue that still isn't relevant to most peoples setups.

    But it's the way Vista tries to manage graphics. (I THINK this is the dwm.exe). I run 2 8800gts each responsible for their own monitor so I would expect they would run more or less independant. But this isn't realy the case. I have noticed that having a few graphic intensive windows open on my second monitor will still cause a noticable fps hit on my primary.

    That aside I've been pretty happy with vista64. Took me a little while to smooth out some things (i.e. I'd recomend turning off the pretty 'Aero' visuals) but efficiency and flexibility with RAM usage does make things noticably easier.

  16. Posted

    http://img139.imageshack.us/img139....MG]

    I've been steadily putting together all the info i need to start making the Hind A (and also the C-119 as seen in the background of this pic) I have managed to put together a complete set of orthos and have a good modeling refrence book with pics of various details .But most of the interior shots of the pilot and gunner positions, are for a testbed version for the Hind-D. Although they are still of some use, I'm missing good acurate pics for a standard Hind-A that also shows the navigators position.

    Any help with this, the final peice of the jigsaw would be greatly appreciated

  17. Posted

    I appereciate that this missile can fire at both AT and AA but all the spec info I can find seems to confirm that for optimum use there are different warheads designed for each type of target.

    I don't suppose there is any good realistic way to represent this other than a load out selection.

    I wonder if a lot people are quoting 'sale brochers' given the hype. And i also find it curious that the Yanks havn't developed somthing in reply if it realy is that good.

  18. Posted

    I've just updated the BI tool suite and I seem to have lost file recognition. i.e. i cant just double click the file any more to open it, I've got to open the O2, or Textview first then browse the files.

    If I direct it to the correct program I'm ignored

    I'm using vista 64 but had absolutely no problems with the previous RC3 version of the suite.

    Edit; grr.... if in doubt reinstall. Works now , but its still a complete mystery to me.

  19. Posted

    I exported it to obj format. Wich format is better for exporting anyways?

    I found out that when I import the chopper into O2 it reverses not only the normals, but the direction of the chopper in 3D space also. The X and Y axes are correct but not the Z axis,.......

    You sure? Ive found when importing .obj, that it flips the x or y axis, sry I dont remember wich right now. But i recall almost missing it on some symetrical models that I had imported.

    I've also found so far with my models .obj to the most convenient format to import into O2 but that may also have something to do with me going from blender.

    great work BTW

  22. Posted

    I recenntly had a request to renew the link to this , my old MP_ResCamp dac Pack. Couldn't find the old thread, so onward anew!

    It basicaly generates random missions, I think it was about 10-12 different types at random locations that becomes a sort of campaign with a possible 120 different missions. It has been MP tested and played, but its been a long time since I've looked at it, let alone played OFP, So I don't recall any bugs if any.

    All thats needed to get started is cti_marker.pbo in the 'needed addons' folder and the mission in the folder labeled missions  wink_o.gif, but I didn't realise it wasn't pbo'd till I'd uploaded it (sorry).

    There should also be plenty of documentation about the scripting involved so if you feel it should be improved or changed to suit your purposes then go for it.

    download here

    http://rapidshare.com/files....ar.html

  23. Posted

    Sorry for reviving the old thread but I was wondering if any one has info on this this mod or if Rico's contact details have changed. He hasn't been to any of his regular Arma haunts in over a month and I'm not getting a reply to emails.

    I only ask because I've got a new version of the tiger with fixed res lods, as well as working,view, shadow, and geo lods, some texture work, and working damage textures. Not to mention the reworked model.

    some pics here (some very minor improvments since)

    http://forums.ogn.com.au/showthread.php?t=52694

  24. Posted

    I have to put in vote for the beaten up version as well.

    It just looks great, more character.

    Not to mention will look good in any drawn out war or Apocalyptic background. Or even a current day situation where many senarios are going to be about small ex-soviet satellites using old or poorly maintained hardware. wink_o.gif

×