Strike_NOR

Your entire post and video is just downright hilarious. Got a good laugh. Mod looks very well made too :) Impressive. Barrely legal ;)

I'd say that one of the main issues regarding vehicular warfare in ArmA 3 at the moment is the lack of proper armor and module simulation. Firstly, the damage models are more advanced than average games, but less advanced than war-thunder (semi-simulation) type games. ARMA would benefit so much from revisiting the Armor system because it affects all types of ammunition and armor. In my opinion, for tanks DLC this has to change. I'm making an educated guess here that the current AT-soldier options and loadouts are there because of a few reasons, the main one being balance. If you were to only reduce the amount of rockets/missiles one could carry, you would need two to three AT soldiers to take down a Main Battle Tank. Why? Because the rockets deal indirect damage (splash damage) to tanks in an unrealistic way. Pretty much all modern rockets or missiles have too slow velocity in order to successfully penetrate armor with kinetic energy, therefore they use HEAT warheads. HEAT warheads have the same penetration values at ALL ranges, due to the fact that it is a shaped charge explosive. This is the main advantage of HEAT and is why it can be used in mines, grenades, rockets, missiles and shells. However, HEAT is not simulated in ArmA3 and therefore this "indirect hit" damage is used instead. The result is that using AT rockets on tanks becomes really predictable, no matter where you hit them. They will ALWAYS take some damage, and most likely always blow up no matter where you hit them, after a few shots. My ideal proposal for the HEAT ammunition would be as follows: The projectile impacts a target at sufficient angle for the impact-fuze to detonate. This creates a grenade-like explosion which deals some splash damage in the area (intended to damage nearby troops or turned-out crew, optics, machine guns, CROWS etc). At the exact time of the explosion, an AP-projectile (the molten copper jet/pressure blast) is spawned with the same orientation as the shell before it exploded and works as following: It has high speed, but it falls off immediately, very fast. If it does not hit anything armored, it will be lethal for up to a few meters. However, if it hits armor, it will have very good penetration. After penetrating, effectiveness drops immediately, but it generates a small "spalling effect" behind (either an splash-damage style orb or a few shotgun-like projectiles). This "spalling" effect is meant to damage crew or internal modules in the immediate vicinity of the penetration area. If the main "jet" still carries enough speed after penetration, it too will continue on until it hits something it can't penetrate, or exits the vehicle. If it exits the vehicle, the speed falloff is still there so it will mostly despawn/disappear immediatly. An effective way to counter HEAT is therefore, as in real life, spaced armor or anti-HEAT cages on vehicles. These will force the charge to detonate too far away from the armor, and the heat "JET" will have lost it's effective penetration before hitting the vehicles main armor. As tandem HEAT would be near-impossible to properly model, because it requires a first charge to blow a hole in the armor, and the second charge to pass through the same hole (i hardly think it's possible to do in the arma engine), I would recommend just upping the main jet's effective penetration values to make it pass through thicker armor. I also wish for better High-Explosive ammo, that would work like this: The projectile impacts a target at a sufficient angle for the impact fuze to detonate. Depending on the fuze type, it is either impact-detonation, or delayed impact-detonation. If the HE-round explodes on impact, it will deal superficial damage to thick armor, some damage to medium armor (APC/LAV) and heavy damage to light armor (trucks, jeeps etc). However, if the projectile has a delayed impact fuze the following happens: 1. The penetration is calculated - if it does not penetrate, it explodes on surface. 2. A successful penetration will cause the shell to detonate approx 1 meter behind whatever it penetrated. This not only makes HE extremely effective against light vehicles, but also against lightly fortified buildings or walls. As for using it against enemy tanks, it would damage turned out crew, and external modules, impairing the tanks performance. These HE-effects could be used for other things than tanks. For instance, artillery shells or bombs. An air-dropped bomb or artillery shell could easily pass through a building roof and detonate inside for maximum effect. Lastly I also wish for better AP handling: Armor Piercing projectiles should bounce or break if the angle is either too shallow or if the armor is too thick. In which case they should deal 0 damage to the target. However, another factor should be considered. Overpenetration. If you shoot a lightly armored vehicle, like a car, through the drivers cab. it should effectively just pass through. Very little of the kinetic energy is absorbed by the car, so it basically deals 0 damage to the vehicle. If it hits the engine block, fuel tank or other hard objects inside the car, it could easily tear it apart, because the energy is absorbed and distributed within the vehicle. Therefore, using AP ammo on cars and trucks may be very ineffective, unless you penetrate vital parts. HE would be the preferred option here as any hit would guarantee a detonation. AP ammo comes in different styles too. Sabot ammunition (dart ammo) and shells, some with explosive filler. Making an explosively-filled AP round would essentially be like copy-pasting the HE shell and give it more penetration value, but less explosive force. Using a pure AP shell would give higher penetration values, but less "beyond armor" damage. Using Dart ammunition would be the ultimate penetrating shell, and because of the high velocity, it generates a lot of heat and spalling effects when penetrating armor of a certain thickness. This ammo is best suited for heavily armored tanks, because with thin armor, it essentially overpenetrates before the energy of the dart can be absorbed in the vehicle. How would this work though? Armor plates would have to be fitted to all vehicles (defined areas of armor with defined thickness and type (steel, aluminum, composite etc)). Crew fighting compartments would have to be "free of firegeometry" so that deadly effects could happen inside the tank (splash damage, spalling etc). Tanks (and preferably other vehicles) would require more types of damage modules (ammunition, transmission, turret ring, elevation mechanism, optics, CROWS etc.) Vehicles and soldiers would need wider selection of ammunition types. Why would this work? The pros: Realistic vehicle damage leads to realistic tactics and approaches. Player ammunition choices have greater influence to outcome of vehicular combat. More incapacitated vehicles, rather than burning, exploded wrecks. Players will less frequently experience being "one-shotted" or obliterated. More focus on repair logistics and ammunition resupply. (more ammo types means you need to rearm frequently used types more often). Better infantry vs vehicle combat (HEAT ammo) means you have to think about where you hit enemies, because it will no longer damage the entire vehicle, just the modules/crew behind the point of impact. Better vehicle vs infantry combat (shooting the tarp on a transport truck with AP shells no longer vaporizes the truck - the shell simply penetrates and flies out the other side). Warrants more types/specialization of Anti-Tank infantry. The cons: New ARMOR system means ALL vehicles, vanilla, mods, etc will have to be updated with proper values. Some vehicles may require little tweaking (such as planes, helicopters, cars), but armored vehicles such as tanks, IFVs, APC etc require armor type and thickness alterations. New ammo types mean breaking existing types and "synthetic HEAT simulation". But this compliments a new armor system well. So this bullet and the previous go hand-in-hand, or not at all. Certain anti-armor weapons may prove absolutely ineffective against main battle tanks, leading to player confusion. Mainstream games have us believe that rocket launchers make everything explode into a fireball. New damageable modules require a lot of existing vehicles to be revisited. Questionable reliability of HEAT/delayed fuze in arma 3 environment. If CPU is under heavy load, will the shell detonate at the correct "frame" ? This question is a little bit out of my league. AP shots would drain very little health from the overall target. Meaning that you could probably shoot and penetrate an MBT 50 times without it exploding, if you never hit the critical modules inside. This may lead to some confusion if you don't know how armor penetration works. I guess all in all i'd say. Try to copy WarThunder wherever you can. It makes armored warfare 100x more interesting. The major ACE up the sleeve of arma is that, unlike warthunder, you can bail out of an immobilized tank and continue the fight (or flee :) )

I don't know whether to try to answer this, or just state the obvious. If you ask stupid questions you are gonna get _______ answers :) However, there are some splendid™ hypothesis on the matter: The people of Altis, Stratis and Malden have learned mutated to efficiently absorb all matter from food . As such, their bodies no longer discard "waste". They don't eat. (There are no women to cook for them, neither do they have women to impress by cooking for). Chronic constipation disorder. Toilet paper is too expensive (and, coincidentially, is nowhere to be bought), so the only logical option is to hold it in. People don't use toilets in 2035, there's a pill for that! Photosynthesis? I can't believe how this has been overlooked by the devs since 2013? Somebody make a ticket!! Soiler alert:

I don't know if you've thought about this, you probably have, but you could always ask the guy behind the raptors mod (originally mr ruppertle I believe) and ask for the animation skeleton/rig. That way you would "only" replace the 3D model of the raptors with an alien model. The same was done for Operation Flashpoint back in the day I believe. They would act like raptors, jump around and stuff, pin people to the ground, but no wall-climbing, tail-impaling etc. Yes, old Alien fan here :)

Realistically speaking, it's no problem to carry one rifle in your hands, and another one on the back. A typical loaded standard issue rifle weighs about 4-5 kgs. However, there are so many practical reasons to why one wouldn't do it. Here's to name just a few: Higher ammo/magazine capacity for your weapon if you only opt for one firearm. Less micro-management, fewer distractions. If you've ever operated firearms, you know that keeping tabs on mag-count, etc is hard enough with just one weapon. Less cumbersome. You are more agile with one weapon. Anyone who has ever run with a rifle strapped on their back knows it will bash the back of your skull every now and then and get stuck in all kinds of vegetation. However, I agree that in real life, there is nothing that says you can't strap yourself like 1980's Arnold style, packing a personal arsenal. Cool for movies, not so effective though. If we are talking about game balance, I don't see a real problem here. As long as we have the launcher slot, players will still be able to arm themselves as a one man army (carry a machine gun for primary, a guided missile launcher, grenades, C4 and a revolver) if they like. So what's the difference? Well, actually, having two "primary weapons" will enable players to prioritize CQB when needed, and long range combat when not. But remember guys that are already crying "IMBALANCE!!!!"... This means they have probably 1/2 of the ammo for either situation AND they can't use anti tank OR anti air weapons.. To be quite frank, I can't understand why this hasn't been thought of before? Like some others here already have said. Many situations call for a guy to bring a breaching shotgun or grenade launcher. Would be nice to see this :)

I can't help myself, this debate is going to get my two cents :P I'll list them up as bullets to simplify some pros and cons. Tank Interior pros: Immersion - Much better to feel "encapsulated in armor" and adds to overall realism. Damage assessment - See dead crew-members, possible damage textures etc. Realism - because it deserves its own bullet point. Consistency with the rest of armas vehicles. Tank interior cons: Time-consuming to model and animate FPS-hit Poor internal damage effects due to engine limits (pilot LOD overlays the "exterior" world). Would be hard to make smoke, flames, sparks etc appear inside. Could be less user friendly to those who don't own track IR (as looking around the interior is quite cumbersome if you don't have head tracking). What I am most eager to see in tanks DLC summarized: Reworked large-caliber ballistics and terminal ballistics (proper AP, HEAT, HE, HESH etc simulation) Reworked armor and fire geometry, allowing to simulate different armor types, thicknesses etc. Reworked modules (turret ring, elevation drive, ammo storage, optics, sensors). Reworked handling/physics. Better inertia, mass, suspension. Reworked AI behavior. New tanks! (why so low? Bamboozled again BI? New stuff is great, but better stuff is better™) ;) And lastly, if ammo module is to be modeled, please a fantastic ammo-cookoff firework to show everyone on the battlefield that you just REK'D someone ;) Anyways, just my two cents :p who cares?

Wow. I've so far only seen your youtube videos of the mod in action, but it looks incredibly well made! A lot of time and effort went into this I can tell! A very cool and creative way to use ArmA 3's engine for something completely different! Downloading this later :)

Too many, man..... too many.... Hehe. On a serious note though, I actually found myself exploring oreokastro like nuts, afraid that I might miss something. Would be nice with an "discovered memory X out of X" update along the way.

While this is similar to what modern day metal-detectors behave like, I am sure the developers have chosen the current approach for a few viable reasons. It immediately becomes easier to determine if all mines have been spotted, or you missed something. The constant beep spam would be incredibly annoying after a while. It may actually become mentally exhausting. Who knows what kind of mine-detector one can expect in 2035 service. Maybe one with GPS sync that will memorize discovered mines and only warn you of undiscovered ones is possible at that time? I agree that it does not mimic current metal-detectors behavior 100%, but it does work as intended for gameplay. The red triangle visible on HUD and map markers make every player on your faction well aware not to wander carelessly into these areas of the map :) My personal hope and suggestion would be that discovered mines do not show as a red triangle in HUD, but with a mine-flag object, which has already been suggested by many others. It may still show on the map for all I care, but I'd prefer if it were visible to the players by means of a small flag that pops up once it has been spotted. Maybe it should require the player to have a "mine flag pack" item in their inventory, so that regular infantry won't deploy flags by default, but still automatically mark it on the map. As of the large UXO discussion... devs could probably expand the variation with minimal effort™, by using the already available 3D models of munitions (Bombs, rockets, artillery shells) and add them to the game as editor-placeable UXOs. I realize they have a lot on their plate right now before official release of the DLC, but it would give the community some extra variety to play with for EOD operations. Ideally, to increase UXO quality, the 3D models of large munitions would have to be severely damaged to seem realistic (bent, torn, disintegrated, distorted, semi-buried etc). It would have a very unsettling effect on players though. Imagine seeing a mangled bomb, dug halfway into the second floor of a building wall. If it were to detonate, it would have an enormous lethal radius compared to the cluster-size munitions. It would bring even further problems into the equation, such as evacuation of civilians, other personell and ordnance disposal on-site.

I am guessing right now, that UXO's are really only feasible because the cluster bombs guarantee that something is going to take damage. If you drop a single 500lbs bomb and it does nothing, then the average player may get disheartened or even accuse it of being a bug. I honestly know very few multiplayer games that simulate duds, most likely due to the fact that it is a random case of "imbalance". "Hey!! I shot him, and nothing happened, he shot me and I blew up!?!?!" *ragequit*. See my point? However, using it in cluster munitions, there will always be some damage and some duds, which lets the player deal his intended damage, but leaves a new level of challenge. The area is now dangerous to lightly armored vehicles and infantry. An interesting thought though, is what modders may be able to do about this! The new types of submunitions may actually prove useful in a completely different manner. Think about your example. You drop a 500lbs Mk82 bomb. It plummets to the ground and impacts hard, but does not detonate. Now the pilot has to report that it was a dud, and a huge area is now "blocked" due to a large UXO. Another use of this function would be intentional delay! Many real life bombs can be set to have a delayed detonation after impact. This is especially handy for area denial. MK82's could be set with up to 24hr fuse. Drop one in the middle of a runway, and that runway is now unsafe for who knows how long? Low flying CAS may use delay fuses to avoid being hit by their own shrapnel. There are many uses for such features, that may not only be restricted to UXO's. I'd love to see an effect where "regular explosive ammo" may hit objects at an extremely shallow angle and "bounce/spin" off, leaving the shell/bomb unexploded somewhere nearby. But that requires a lot of work...

Fantastic!! Thank you for the answer :) And I just have to say, I can't say I have ever experienced something like this in ArmA. You guys did an excellent job trying to nail down difficult and unpopular sides of armed combat. Most enjoyable ArmA 3 campaign experience so far for me :) I felt more "connected" to the story. Keep up the good work on polishing the details :)

I second that about the submunitions! Really cool if there would be remnants of cluster bomb casing, spine and tail. Like mangled/warped metal from impacting the ground. Also, like others have mentioned. Clusterbombs tend to throw off a lot of sparks and dust, but not so much black/dark grey smoke. Just an observation. @DnA Finally, a quick question. How are the "dud"s spawned? Does every bomb generate a fixed number of duds, and a fixed number of dangerous duds in addition to the functional bomblets? Or is there randomization? What I'm asking is there a possibility that ALL bomblets detonate? Or is this a set amount in the code? Realistically speaking this should be random so that players don't get used to a set amount. If someone figures out "Hey. this bomb spawns 4 UXO's every time", then they will scan for 4 UXO's and consider the job done.

Nah man, in africa they used to scare wild animals into the minefields to set them off. That's the cheapest EOD I can think of... it even gives you well-done meat in return. On a serious note though, I do find it odd that there aren't any IED aspects here, which would warrant a ground EOD robot. The only thing I found buggy/inconstistent with the DLC content was the anti-mine bombs on the drone. Sometimes a bomb would set off mines in a large area, other times it would not set off the mine 1 meter next to it. I suspect this because of the way arma 3 terrain works, there are small height differences in the "terrain grid". If a mine is sitting on a different grid, then the edge of this grid may "mask" the line of sight between bomb and mine, causing the mine to be shielded by terrain. Just my assumption.

First off, I sat down yesterday and played through both the LOW Showcase, and the "Remnants of war" campaign, and my overall experience was very good and enjoyable. It even left me with a bad feeling, not because of the DLC, but the overall message of the DLC. I actually found this more powerful than I was expecting. This campaign also had me more paranoid than any previous arma experience, thinking about when I would hear a "click" followed by certain death. Kudos to you for pulling that off! Now, onto the bugs: Other than that there were a lot of very cool technical additions in this DLC. I really enjoyed the "rewind"-style story telling. The narrating was really good, reminded me of the "Firewatch" game, with similarities where the main character communicates his thoughts through "Splendid skype" ;) with a journalist. It was interesting to listen to. To be quite frank about it, the campaign was very interesting, it kept me interested through the entire experience and I really enjoyed it. It made me happy that my nation has banned all use of cluster-munitions and passive mines, and I think that was the purpose of this DLC. Some final critique in the spoiler:

Haha! Made me laugh! Add to that "Place breaching charge"... "Set off Breaching charge" *Kills all hostages in a completely different room* But seriously. Would be nice with some lockable doors. Would make for some interesting breach & clear scenarios. If you can lock them in editor, maybe add functionality to allow certain sides lock certain doors, so that : Faction A can lock out Faction B and C. Faction B and C can pick lock or breach door of faction A, and still gain access. etc. Don't have to buy Rainbow six siege if I lobby BI Devs into re-inventing it for ArmA 3 *points finger to head*

No problem, I'm glad you found it valuable! Best of luck during further development! I will be paying close attention to your progress as this is one of my top must-have mods for ArmA 3 :)

This is an excellent idea, man and I'm liking where you are going with it. Standard ARMA 3 effects are, well, predictable and dull. It's really hard to see if you scored a hit. Your mod has brought a lot of detail into a very overlooked part of the game. I think it brings more immersion because of its "shock and awe" effect. Seeing a teammate go ragdoll and collapse is one thing, but seeing the blood spray from him next to that supersonic crack as the bullet impacts is something else! If you want my sincere feedback on the new animated spray effects, please read on! The effects themselves are really nice and generally look good, but if you want to strive for perfection I would recommend trying the following: Slightly increase transparency, right now it almost looks as dark-red paint. The showcased hits look like hits from .50cal size weaponry. No way you will get these kind of sprays from regular rifle ammo unless you actually hit the heart and tear it open. I suggest keeping the current animated effects for large-caliber hits, and reducing them to about 50% size for rifle/pistol. Experiment with adding some white/grey dust/mist to the impacts. As the bullet passes through tissue, it creates an expanding cavity. As this collapses, it tends to blow/spray out some dust and blood. Also, the shockwave travelling with the bullet tends to kick off a lot of dust from clothes upon entry/exit. (Albeit I must say it's hard to see from these GIF's if the dust is coming from ground impacts or your body impact effects... But I'm pretty sure the "dust" is coming from bullets striking the pavement). Keep in mind that I mean it in a constructive way and it only reflects my personal taste, which normally leans towards realism. Your mod completely transforms my experience of infantry combat in ArmA3 into something more immersive and I am truly grateful for that :) Finally I'd like to point out that everyone has their own taste, and I know bloodlust is already quite tweakable. Maybe you can set a player-selectable spray size for each type of blood effect (the caliber dependent ones). You know.. in case some of us sick guys want bloodbath 80's action movie style effects :)

Hi. I just watched the GIF and it seems to me that the only thing that is "odd" here is that the AI fires a missile at a pretty large angle off boresight. With today's technology missiles may indeed have thrust-vectoring. They also have proximity fuses, and as far as I can see, the AI had you locked, fired at last possible moment, then missile did a sharp turn and missed you, but proximity fuse got you. Was this online? There may be some desync/lag that makes the effect even worse. (In reality, the AI jet may have fired a second earlier, which is pretty far away from you when both are closing like that. Before the packets could be sent to your client, the jet seems to be much closer to you than it really was when it fired). I realize it's a stretch, but maybe that's it? I have never noticed this when flying SP dogfights. Maybe the Shikra has that russian sensor infront of the cockpit that has a very large sensor range upwards. This would allow it to maintain lock even if you are nearly 90 degrees above it.

So to summarize, it would not make sense to modify the blackfish for carrier operations due to the arguments raised by the other posters in this thread: Too big to stow/park on the deck - essentially blocks normal carrier operations. Already capable of temporarily landing on the carrier for supply/refuel/transport roles. Realistically speaking: Would cost a lot to design, and give virtually nothing in return, seeing that it does not really become more compact and probably reduce maximum takeoff weight and aircraft design role effectiveness. I'm really going on a stretch with this bullet, but I assume Bohemia would not prioritize the overhaul of the Blackfish, given it was released with Apex a year ago and, well, combined with the previous bullet points just does not make sense. Either way, I agree that the Blackfish is indeed an "Osprey-ified C-130", hence the gunship version, and as such acts as a medium size cargo aircraft. While it is perfectly capable of landing and taking off from a carrier, it has no business operating from one on a permanent basis.

If you are fighting an actual war..... who are you to speak of actual war? We are all more or less armchair generals here. I could take your assumption that pilots would rather pull more G's, and flip it over to say: "pilots would rather respect aircraft G limitations and stay in the fight, rather than lose their wings with certainty". See my point? Fights are mostly won or lost beyond visual range. The few that make it to visual range engage in energy combat, and whoever has the best coordinated team usually wins. A one on one dogfight is extremely unlikely. However to get back on topic, that's why jets have G limiters. They cannot be exceeded unless the pilot really jolts the controls around in turbulent weather or unpredictable conditions. Otherwise the plane will just say "nope" to pilot input, given that it has such technology. A G-limiter in ArmA 3 would be nice, because it makes your maneuverability a result of speed. The limitation of G happens by predictive calculations that restrict flight control movement as a result of speed and weight (arma 3 does not simulate weight). Ergo a G-limitation will force players to think strategically when it comes to speed during engagements. I don't know what else to say than let's knock off the metal fatigue debate by saying it's irrelevant in ArmA 3 and as such the G limit should not depend on your personal opinion or real life limits, but rather what makes the game more interesting, balanced and enjoyable while not straying too far from its real life counterparts. I apologize for my contribution in dragging this off topic, but I must admit it just strikes a nerve when someone claims X or Y as a general truth for "all fighters" without having the faintest idea how things work in real life or a viable source to confirm it. If you speak with enough confidence, anyone who doesn't know better will take it for granted as being true. There, I'm done.

This is one of my major confusions with the Shrieker rockets (NATO). It is inconsistent with other ammunition types, such as the Titan. You have Titan AA and AT, where they mean Anti Air and Anti Tank. But Shriekers, and I assume Tratnyr, follow different abbreviations, namely HE and AP. So we all know what HE is. High explosive, meaning a warhead packed with high explosives. It will not penetrate more than tops a few cm of armor and upon detonation it will spread some fragments. But AP? What is that? Armour Piercing? Or anti-personell? The thing is mines use both AP and AT. AP mine = Anti-Personell mine, whilst AT of course, is Anti-Tank. But rockets make for a tough guess. Because in real life, fin stabilized rockets are very often fired in salvos, sometimes depleting the entire rocket pod in one go. This is because they are not particularly accurate. They spread to a large area and almost resemble a cluster-bomb strike. Therefore they are excellent against soft-targets, which is what HE is for. If you are firing at infantry, it would make sense to have AP ammo, because while HE does cause blast damage and some fragmentation, dedicated fragmentation warheads would do more damage to infantry. An AP warhead with less HE filler, and more pre-formed fragments would deal greater damage to infantry in a wider area. The armor-piercing (which I believe what it's for in ArmA 3) AP rocket, would typically be a HEAT rocket (I think rocket speed may be too slow for kinetic penetration from a massive AP warhead). A HEAT rocket would deal significant damage to armored targets, but the least splash/area damage of them all. Unfortunately for us, ArmA still uses this weird Indirecthit damage that works really strange with armor and kind of damages everything with splash-damage. Hopefully for Tanks DLC they will revisit the entire armored warfare part and introduce proper HEAT ammunition. HEAT essentially explodes upon impact and, because of the conical liner, sends a very narrow, focused pressure wave towards a small focal point of the armor surface. It basically focuses all the explosive energy on a needle-size spot. Additionally the liner (usually copper) melts and creates this molten jet that may penetrate armor that is many times thicker than the diameter of the explosive charge. The RPG-7 is probably one of the most famous HEAT weapons today. You have a heck of a punch in a soda-bottle sized warhead that can knock out a MBT if used correctly. Firing a volley/salvo of AP (armor-piercing) rockets into a tank column is probably the best way of doing most damage with these. Single-shot firing them is really hard, even with CCIP because fin-stabilized rockets are not really that accurate. At least not in real life. Either that or expect to waste a full pod of rockets trying to kill one tank! (Although it's ARMA 3, and 2035... I know they are equipping laser guided rockets today in the 2.75'' format, the ones ingame seem to be unguided). So in my honest opinion, what SHOULD the arma 3 ammunition do? Well.. I think the devs should properly rename the ammo to Shrieker AT if it is meant to be anti-tank, or keep it as AP or HE-FRAG if they are meant for Anti-Personell. This is for consistency reasons. I would personally like to see full native engine support for sub-munitions in all kinds of ammo. Be it bombs, missiles, rockets, grenades, mines or even bullets. They need to introduce native HEAT simulation. Have the original projectile "despawn" on impact, and at the point of impact, spawn an armor piercing "jet" or projectile. RHS mod have done wonders here, and you can try with their RPG's or LAW (M72) and fire on any vehicle. Then switch to spectator or splendid cam and setacctime 0.05. Watch closely when the round impacts and you can clip the camera inside the vehicle and see the mayhem the HEAT round creates. Finally just some Rocket porn. Note that the whole pod is emptied, and if you pause the video mid firing you can see the rockets coming out in all different angles. The target area seems to be a slanted hill which will significantly decrease the spread, but even so the area seems to be at least 100-200 meters long and about 50 meters wide.

Well that's where you're a little too quick to conclude things :) Fighters are in many ways comparable to F-1 racecars. They are often built to the ultimate compromise between weight and structural integrity in order to perform optimally within their design area. However, if you exceed the narrow tolerances, you WILL damage the vehicle catastrophically. A fighter rated for 9 G's, is often only capable of performing that maneuver with a very limited loadout. This often means no external fuel, no bombs, AG missiles, only about 4-6 AA missiles, depending on aircraft type. As soon as you put more stuff on it, the maximum G tolerance is lowered. Sometimes aircraft with "smart systems" can automatically determine aircraft weight and adjust the G-limiter on the fly. Other aircraft have a set of modes, where one limit applies for "heavy config" and one limit applies for "light config". At worst, I know a certain model fully loaded fighter may only perform 3.5 G's, while its maximum is 9G's. So I also know that if you exceed this G-value, things go horribly wrong with the aircraft structure. The main victim is the wing root joints. You have crazy amounts of lift acting upwards on the wings, and aircraft body mass x G value acting the opposite direction. This puts tremendous amounts of force on the wing attachment bolts/joints. And so, such an event normally triggers mission abort and a fair amount of maintenance. We actually used to "punish" fighter pilots on their second "Over-G" mishap and make them dismantle the wing attachment joint covers to experience the amount of unneccesary work they create for maintenance. And sure enough, there are often cracks and excessive wear that shorten the life expectancy of aircraft etc. If you are actually talking about the point where wings will snap off, it is a combination of amount of over G x time spent in the over-G area. 0.3 Over-G may go a long way, but 10-13 G's on a max 9G aircraft is asking a lot and will cause damage. And the next time you pull a 9G turn, it may now actually continue to worsen the damage, because the structural integrity is lost. It's like the classic paper experiment: Pull a sheet of paper evenly apart from each other and you'll find it is very strong. Make a tiny tear on one of the side, and it rips immediately. Anyways, long debate about G forces affecting aircraft in general... I believe the major limiting factor today is not the aircraft. It's the pilot. Even with pressure regulating oxygen systems that can forcefully fill a pilots lungs with air, and G-suits that constrict blood flow to the lower body, the pilots are still human. Humans need blood in their brains to function and any prolonged high G maneuver will severely fatigue a pilot and cause him to faint. Of course, red bull air racers are known to hit very high G's (10-12), but only for a very short duration. The blood loss to the brain is so temporary that blood flow is returned again before the oxygen in the brain has been depleted, and even so they have to perform the same muscle contractions, use G-suits and endure training to avoid fainting. The maximum G's allowed in red bull air races was actually decreased from 12 to 10 a few years back, because of safety. So all in all. You can always build a sturdier aircraft that can sustain 20+ G's, no problem, but nobody can fly it. You can't engineer a better human that can sustain those forces, so what's the point of spending x $$$ on a 20G airframe? The human G tolerance is well known and so aircraft developers don't bother making aircraft that can do more G's because that's when you "lose the race". The F-1 car breaks apart easily, but it's the fastest thing on the track. If you reinforced it, it would finish in last place. Maybe it would survive a minor collision or two that would wreck the standard F1, but it would be slower and hence not meet its competition. Therefore, I firmly believe that the future of air combat will be drones. As much as I hate to admit it, the days of sending pilots into combat may be over within our generation. Once air to air fighter drones enter the arena, they will outmaneuver any currently existing human-piloted fighter. And if it's destroyed, the pilot has learned from his mistakes, and is more experienced the next time around. No search and rescue, no need to train a new pilot etc, just give him a new drone to control. AFAIK, ArmA 3 does not calculate dynamic aircraft weight so developers just have to set a "max G" setting that insures game balance. Cornerspeed is the aircraft speed at which your aircraft will have the highest degrees/second turn rate, and most aircraft will be designed to be able to sustain their turn without exceeding the G limits or aerodynamic stress limits, given that they don't have too much payload loaded. Control surface deflection is very often primarily limited by maneuvering airspeed (VA), because you have to make sure you don't deflect the surface to much that it will snap off the aircraft. When you are operating in the area around cornerspeed (VC), it is therefore CRITICAL that you do NOT deflect aircraft controls to maximum positions, or they can snap off due to aerodynamic load. Traditionally (VA) is given for maximum aircraft takeoff weight, then manufacturers made plackards and tables that told the pilot what higher (VA) was allowed for lower aircraft weight configurations. Modern aircraft have this built-in to the flight control systems, and as such, limit control surface deflection as a function of speed and weight. The pilot no longer has to think about aircraft stress, only be aware that the aircraft performance is greatly reduced/restricted by computers at higher weight/speed combinations. The V/g diagram of an aircraft will show you its maximum load and various critical airspeeds. You will see that under certain airspeeds, aerodynamic stall will prohibit maneuvers that exceed the maximum structural load. But once you have enough airspeed, you have maximum lift available and as such, can exceed G limits. At these speeds, an abrupt control movement, or heavy windgust may permanently deform the aircraft structure and tear off control surfaces. Most fighter jets I believe have the speed set at about 400kts +- 100 or so. This translates to about ~700 +-200 km/h in ArmA. If you fly at the aircraft's maximum G limit (instantaneous turn) while in cornerspeed, you will bleed energy very fast. If the engine can't compensate, you will fall below cornerspeed and lose the turn-fight advantage. So the trick is to not fly at maximum G, but at best sustained turn G, which may be a few G's lower. This will allow you to control speed and always have a high degrees/second turn rate. It will also allow you to trade some speed for quick "snapshots" at the enemy during critical phases of a turnfight. Flying an aircraft to it's max G is normally only done in emergency defensive maneuvers, such as missile evasion. Actually, during a turnfight, if both planes are equally matched the term "slow and steady wins the race" really applies well. The impatient pilot that pulls max G will initially have the highest turn rate, but lose energy and therefore, in the long run, lose the fight! TL;DR This brings me back to my initial point of improvement: It would be nice to see a feature in ArmA that limited control surface animation (movement) to be "softer" and restricted from maximum deflection when flying around the aircraft's cornerspeed. It makes the jets look less twitchy and is also a realistic aspect. It could apply to all aircraft at once, because all aircraft have a maneuvering speed (VA) at which control surfaces would take damage if they were fully deflected. Like I mentioned before, it could probably be done with a very simple parameter that requires an aircraft speed parameter X, where X is the speed where the dampening will have full effect. Say controls normally move from 0% deflection to 100% (which is maximum angular movement). At speed X, the controls now only move only 20% of their maximum angular movement. At speed 0 they have 100% movement. As the aircraft increases airspeed, it linearly scales from 100% deflection to 20% at speed X. Alternatively, you could have an additional "Y" speed, which is something above 0. This way if you set X to 1000 Km/h, and Y to 500 km/h, you will see full control surface movement until you reach 500km/h, then it will start limiting surface movement from 100% to 20% up towards 1000km/h. At speeds > 1000 km/h you will only see 20% deflection. How this would visually look during a high speed turn: At 1000 km/h you start your turn hard. Flight controls move a little bit, as speed decreases through the turn, the controls deflect more and more, as speed decreases even further towards 500 km/h, you now get full deflection. This is a much better and accurate visual representation of flight controls. Another thing is landing gear. It is now possible to damage it, and I suggest that a speed of about 300 knots or 550/600 km/h with gear deployed should make them inoperable. Therefore I also think there should be camera shake when the gear is extended during flight, to alert the player if he has forgotten to retract landing gear.

Caesar is based of Cessna TTx, which has mechanical links, in the fashion of a side-stick :) Kindof neat, and ergonomic! Either way, the point is that high-speed aircraft require "protection mechanisms" to avoid overstressing the airframe. Would look nice to have a visual representation tied to G's or IAS :)

I have finally gotten around to properly spending a few hours messing with the new jets flight model and boy is there a huge improvement! I could actually fly high AoA maneuvers and feel like I have thrust again! I did a test and was able to do slow flybys such as this: Landing now happens with greater AoA and sense of control. Also they have become less risky because of the newfound thrust available during low speeds, which means you can get yourself out of a stall situation. Other notable things are: -Better feel during AA engagements with IR missiles, they seem more balanced now. -Much better ground handling (Nosewheel steering). Some jets such as the F-16 can turn so sharply that the wingtip inside the turn almost remains in the same spot during the entire rotation. This is much better now. -Overall more satisfactory flight behavior, more consistent stall characteristics with a better chance of recovery. -Could not reverse-fly any jet during stall, which is good :) Excellent job :) One final thing I thought about that would make the jets visually appear more realistic is flight control surface behavior. Currently, the flight controls directly translate to game input it seems, regardless of speed. What I'm trying to say is that if you are stationary on ground or going 1000 km/h, the canards of the gryphon (as an example) move through their entire range of travel. The faster a jet goes, the less control surface movement is needed for maneuvering. Is it possible to implement a function where the animations are reduced to say... 20-30% of max travel during top speed? And just have it scale from 100% movement at stationary/low speed flight and then gradually decrease the surface max angles towards Mach 1? It just looks very funny when flying supersonic that the canards rotate to maximum positions, because in real life this would break the aircraft :P This feature is generally true for all aircraft. Smaller aircraft with mechanical flight controls are physically limited by airspeed so the pilot does not have enough strength to overcome pressure on the surfaces. Larger aircraft either have servo tabs or flight control systems that allow and restrict movement for all parts of the flight envelope to prevent over-stressing the airframe but also gain optimum performance. I think it's the icing on the cake, because arma flight control surfaces can seem a little "floppy" and "spastic" at times.