Strike_NOR

' Regarding the first statement, all is true for positive stability aircraft, such as the Caesar and I assume A-164 and Neophron are positively stable too. This means slower speed leads to nose drop, leads to gained airspeed, leads to correct angle of attack and finally regained horizontal flight. Modern fighters often use relaxed stability, but the computer it relies on will often "simulate" flight patterns of positive stability aircraft to make the pilot feel more familiar. Like others have stated, some of the modern fighters can fall into deep stall where it is almost impossible to recover, but this is asking alot from ArmA. Regarding thrust, I am happy to see improvements to this at low airspeed. Will test out further. Final note: I noticed a very more responsive nose wheel steering on the buzzard, has this also been changed? Now nose wheel steering is very sharp at low ground speeds, and diminishes once you pick up speed on runway. Just as should be :) I like it!

While all of this is 100% true, I was indeed addressing the issue of "lacking thrust vectors" on a theoretical level, not real FBW jets. Point was that if "falling brick vector" is joined by horizontal velocity vector due to thrust, then eventually this should bring the sum of vectors on a 45 degree downward slope. Continuing to increase the velocity will eventually bring it to a shallower dive, and then, as the effect of lift comes into play, a horizontal vector. As you state, coming out of a stall is more about getting your nose towards the velocity vector, rather than trying to use power as this may worsen the situation. Stall spins need opposite rudder and yada yada... *Aerodynamics*. In all honesty I owe to the developers to thoroughly test the new aircraft physics in all flight envelopes, takeoffs and landings to get a broader and better opinion on what can be improved upon or what works just right :) Was just trying to convey that Arma Jets have traditionally lacked that sense of inertia and flown more like styrofoam RC planes :) As for suggestions. I would really like to see some headshake for the jets. Like when any form of drag is applied to the jet, such as gear down or flaps full down, speedbrake etc.. it would be nice to see some mild vibration. It's also good gameplay feedback to the player to allow him to know something is slowing him down (forgotten your gear down eh?).

What @dragon01 says regarding engine power setting and rpm is true and they must not be mistaken as the same thing. The 0-100 indication in ArmA is generally just a power-setting feedback to the player. 0 = throttle at minimum, and 100 = throttle at maximum. You can read it as both a feedback as to where your throttle lever is positioned, but also as "what am I telling the aircraft to do" in terms of power. Like @dragon01 mentions, 0% throttle would normally be your idle RPM, and 100% would be your maximum RPM or augmentation (afterburner), depending on engine type. Some manufacturers like to list power in PLA (Power Lever Angle) where it relates to a physical angle of the throttle lever on the engine fuel control. More modern engines only receive digital information which is generated by a potentiometer, hall sensor or equivalent in the throttle quadrant. However I'd like to elaborate more on engine thrust, which is what I believe is somewhat missing in ArmA 3, without going too far into detail. I'll use some info from the Pratt & Whitney F-100-PW-220E engine which is commonly used in the F-16 and F-15, and share the same design philosophy as our in-game counterparts. The F-100 idles at about 65-70% RPM. At this RPM, the engine produces enough thrust to actually move an F-16 on flat surface, hence the pilot must ALWAYS apply brakes. (This was actually a even bigger problem in the early F-100 days because it caused un-necessary brake wear during taxiing and the engine was later modified). The engine reaches 90-100% RPM during military power setting (max), and stays at the same RPM during afterburner (remember that afterburner fuel is injected AFTER the core engine turbines, and as such does not interfere with RPM). The F-100 is actually controlled by something called Engine Power Ratio demand. Let's just quickly simplify EPR: It is the engine power potential and translates to how many times the atmospheric pressure is multiplied across the engine. If an engine has an EPR of 25:1, it means that in the engine exhaust, the pressure is 25 times higher than the engine intake. This effectively means you have a lot of potential thrust. As we all know, thrust in jet engines comes from the mass of air pushed backwards at ridiculously high speeds, and newtons laws state that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So force of mass moving rearwards = force of thrust forwards. So when the pilot selects a throttle setting (0-100 in ArmA), he is actually requesting that the engine produces a specific EPR, which will correspond to a specific thrust. It is now the engine controllers job to make the RPM increase, to match the desired thrust regardless of atmospheric temperature and pressure. Older jet engines were regulated based on RPM, but since air mass changes with altitude and temperature, this would mean that a 80% power setting at sea level, is a lot more thrust than 80% power setting at 30.000 ft. By using EPR as regulation, the RPM will adjust itself automatically to maintain the desired thrust. Military jets, like in ArmA, also have variable nozzles. These convert high pressure gases, into velocity gases (or high static pressure, to high dynamic pressure) which increase or decrease thrust. The smaller the jet area cross-section, the higher the velocity. The larger the jet area cross section is, the lower the velocity. To prevent brake wear on the F-16, the F-100 engine was modified to open the Nozzle to 100% open as long as the aircraft was on the ground. This meant reduced thrust and less brake wear. So not only RPM, but also nozzle cross section determines the amount of thrust an engine produces. So what about ArmA? Well.... I have not sufficiently tested the "post-patch low speed characteristics" yet, but I very often used to get the notion that the aircraft really do not operate on a proper thrust vector. Rather that the power setting, combined with angle of attack, determines aircraft speed. If you are stalling in other words, the thrust just isn't there. Even if you are theoretically using engines that, on 100% power, produce more than the aircraft's own weight of thrust, you still slow down. It's very weird, but I get the sensation that if you are in the ArmA 3 stall speed, the only sure way to regain speed is to point the nose against the direction you are moving. The speed will come very fast, as if a brake was released. But if you stay in the high angle of attack area, it can almost "freeze" your acceleration. No matter the angle of the aircraft. As long as your nose is off course in relation to travel direction, the aircraft grinds to a stop, even if you in theory have more than enough thrust to "push through" the stall. If the thrust was an actual force or vector that pushed the object through the air, it would behave much differently, and more realistically. In risk of being too bold, it should work like this: Imagine a plane falling straight down, but with the fuselage aligned to the horizon. It would essentially be falling like a brick, while in a normal flight attitude. There are two ways out of this: 1. Point nose down and build airspeed across wings, regain control and pull out of dive (this seems to be the ONLY option in ArmA 3). 2. Theoretically if you can hold the plane horizontally, you should be able to give max thrust. Eventually the aircraft will start moving forwards, even though it's still falling there's a constant thrust vector being applied horizontally. Eventually, this vector has accelerated the jet sufficiently that air is now flowing over the wing at an acceptable angle of attack to produce lift. This lift, will cancel out the downward movement and finally the jet will be back to level flight. This is only possible if you have flight control systems to keep jet horizontal (and not tip out of balance and stall horribly). Arma 3 jets supposedly have flight control systems that are capable. And secondly you need very high thrust from your engines. Which arma 3 jets also supposedly have. But if the engine does not simulate thrust as a vector that works together with the three remaining vectors, lift, drag and weight, then it is simply not possible to simulate realistic flight. Now if any of the devs read this, don't get me wrong. I am very happy to see work being put into the flight models, and I am amazed at how far ArmA flight has come (both since OFP 2001 and since ArmA 3 release). I am just sharing some thought as to what I "feel" during ArmA 3 flight. It is my subjective view, and please correct the heck out of me if I am wrong. But I feel thrust is a "synthesized" feature in ArmA, and is only really influencing aircraft acceleration in parallell to the angle of attack, instead of fuselage orientation. Thanks for reading :)

Just wanted to chip in my few cents and say that after latest patch I think the jets feel more like jets. I am really liking the improvements and tweaks so far :)

I agree wholeheartedly with @jerminhu in terms of the cockpit voice messages. I think the cockpit noise is too "sterile". There's a very good reason almost all modern aircraft have warning sounds, because pilots are already multi-tasking and focusing on so many other things. We do really need a "nagging" reminder that something needs attention. The radar warning receiver system is exactly one of those things that prolong pilot life expectancy. I made a small and crude video just overlaying audio over some default ARMA 3 gameplay, to make a "proof of concept" video :) I wish the Devs would include more cockpit audio. Especially on the radar warning bit... (Sorry for reposting video)

Hey! Awesome news Oukej! I can't wait to see how jets act with a proper thrust configuration :) Oh maybe I'll throw in a kidney too for good measure ;)

From my point of view it seems that a lot of the arma fixed wing flight models use "shortcuts" to mimic real flight behavior. Sometimes I feel like I am flying an ArmA 3 missile. It feels like the aircraft do not have weight or inertia, and there's absolutely no aerodynamic stall. The stall appears to simply "lock controls and lose altitude" in ArmA. My other major gripe is the way thrust is handled. A jet or propeller aircraft will always produce thrust as long as the engine is running, in fact, it produces more the slower you are going because the speed of the air pushed behind the aircraft is much faster than the aircraft speed (a plane in level flight can't make itself go faster than the air it is pushing backwards). However, I often get a super-weird phenomena in ArmA where I can enter stall speed (red airspeed text) with a slight nose up and even at full throttle, it just hangs there. Like magic. Jet engines on fighters may easily produce 7 tons of thrust without AfterBurner, maybe 12+ tons with AfterBurner. Even if the aircraft was "hanging" in the air or falling straight down like a brick, it should create a forward thrust vector and start accelerating. This actual thrust vector does not appear to exist in ArmA. Instead, it seems that engine power just directly influences airspeed, and is prohibited when the aircraft has entered the "stall" area. So you are absolutely screwed if you enter this "stall area" and can't get your nose down. I would give an arm and a leg to see a flight model similar to the first IL-2 Sturmovik game. It had good stall mechanics and also some decent low-speed flight modeling. Also, I'm not sure if it is modeled yet, but I think wind and gusts should effect aircraft in ArmA. A final comment that I'd like to make is that if we assume most jets in ArmA have flight control computers, then many of the stall effects are reduced to a point where the aircraft will appear to just lose control authority. The computer prevents events such as asymmetric stalls and flatspins, but it may induce a form of "rocking stall" where the aircraft oscillates in pitch axis while falling straight down like a brick. I hope that we can get some proper flight models into the game. Keep them super simple, but slightly more advanced than today's models. It needs to have a few vectors modeled, the minimum being "Lift, Weight, Drag and Thrust".

My knowledge of jamming is rather limited, but there are many different techniques when it comes to Electronic Jamming. The simplest form of jamming in ArmA would probably be repeater jamming. In real life, the jammer basically listens to incoming radar pulses, then alters the pulse frequency and also applies a doppler shift, before sending it back towards the source radar. The source radar then reads this as both incorrect speed and range. A radar being jammed by this type will have trouble guiding weapons towards the target. However, at a certain range (maybe between 1/2 to 3/4's of the radars maximum range) there should exist a feature called "Jammer burnthrough", where the radar energy overpowers the jammer energy in a way that renders the jammer ineffective. Essentially how I picture it would work in ArmA, is that a long-range SAM system would create a huge radius of "no-fly zone". A jet equipped with a radar jammer would effectively reduce that Long-range SAMs capacity enough to allow the jammer-equipped jet to get close enough to fire SEAD (Anti-Radiation) missiles. I think that to avoid the Jammer from being "Overpowered", it would only be able to conceal its own aircraft, or alternatively only jam 1 radar at a time. If 1 jammer could sufficiently conceal any friendly jet in the area, it would be too OP imho. Of course, radars may have many features that are designed to combat jamming, for example frequency hopping. Jammers may also be configured to focus all energy on a single frequency, or spread the energy over a wider range of frequencies, but with less effect. It is a cat and mouse game. As a matter of personal opinion, I think that both jammer and targeting pods should be available in two formats: Built-in (such as the TGP for Shikra and F/A-181) or dynamic loadout variant (such as the externally mounted one on the Gryphon). Dedicated chaff would also be a welcome sight to arma. Chaff would have own magazines and only spoof radars. The greater the distance from the radar, the higher the chance to break lock/spoof the radar. This would allow addon-makers to chose between a plane that inherently has a jammer/TGP or one where it must be mounted externally. I think it adds to gameplay and variation because you can sacrifice weapon load for security (in jamming). Or sacrifice weapon load for better accuracy (Targeting pod). Once mounted on the aircraft, it could be toggleable through a keybind, or action menu. "L" for laser on/off and probably Shift+C or Ctrl+C or something for countermeasure (Jammer on/off). On the topic of Datalink, I'd like to see a feature called "Group Datalink". This method would greatly "de-clutter" the sensor display by only showing data-linked targets from your group. I suggest these appearing with a unique color on the sensor display, such as yellow or orange. It would be highly useful if we are getting datalink guided weapons. Just picture the following scenario: A fire control radar (FCR) vehicle is set as group lead. It has a long range guidance radar. Three launch vehicles are in the same group with the FCR vehicle. There are a few friendly aircraft and a bunch of enemy aircraft on the map, flying about. All friendly vehicles are on data-link. As a launch vehicle, you are receiving data-linked targets from both the friendly aircraft and your FCR group lead vehicle. However, you are only interested in the targets that are close enough for you to engage. The friendly jets may detect targets well beyond your range and line-of-sight and share them with you, so it becomes difficult to distinguish which targets can be seen by your group, and which are seen by friendly jets. By having a "group data-link" it would highlight all targets detected by your lead vehicles' radar in a unique color. This signifies that you can effectively track and hit these targets. A different situation would be a flight of three friendly jets. All enemies detected by any of these three jets would be highlighted in the group-datalink color. The rest of datalink targets detected by vehicles outside the group would show the standard datalink colours (green/red/white). This allows the group to better cooperate and share target information between them. Just an idea :)

So I just have to ask: When flying jets showcase mission I noticed that when I shot neophron with guns it caught fire, but kept flying like normal for a few seconds. Then it exploded and started spiraling down. I made a rough carrier landing in the F/A181 later and caught fire. I was able to eject a few secs later and the jet exploded a little after I ejected. Is this part of the engine damage model or was it simply a fire script for the mission? I really enjoyed that feature and wish it was either default or a toggle feature in mission editor. Could not find anything about it in the biki. Actually since most vehicles have a "fuel" Hitpoint it would be nice to have this effect on them as well. Fire is a real problem and is, to my knowledge, a lot more common than instant explosion. Look at tank wrecks, they are often just "burnt out". Jets, depending on design, usually catch fire quite easily from damage in real life. For people with my taste it would greatly increase immersion, and also give you as a player that extra chance to bail out before certain explody death. If fires are not implemented into engine, I can understand that, seeing that it does make damage more random/inconstitent. You have done outstanding work with the hitpoints for jets regarding the current solution! Thanks a lot!

I personally found it too short and wished they had a dynamic loadout in-game rearm mechanism ready for it. That way, one could increase the amount of targets/target areas and duration of the mission by allowing the player to return to base to rearm/repurpose the jet for the next task. I didn't really feel that the mission conveyed the new features implemented with Jets in a clear way. I think that if you were coming from release candidate and going straight to Jets DLC 16th of May, the learning curve in that mission is very steep! Besides that though it was allright. The first section of the mission before takeoff felt good and it seemed like a lot of effort went into that compared to the rest of the mission. I liked the audio during flight and the fact that waypoints now show up on the aircraft HUD. That was a nice touch. So right now, it's a meh+ with the potential of becoming a good showcase by making a few minor adjustments (not considering a dynamic loadout selector in the mission). My few cents anyways :)

The debate on the previous page isn't really about what the devs decide to fit the AH-9 with, but more to keep some form of gameplay/balance in the game. But to round off the AH-9, yes. I think it should get a tape-cross or grease dot or whatever as a crude sight. Mostly because DAR's are a valuable resource :) The miniguns don't require much guessing :P Now, to the actual topic on reward/penalties for player loadouts: Just imagine sitting in an F/A-181 with a booniehat and no helmet. I can tell you a few immersion breakers right now: No helmet should = No HMD. In the F/A-181 that means no HUD at all. Just an excellent panoramic view of the world! No helmet = No oxygen mask = Only fly at lower altitudes and, realistically speaking, less G-tolerance (but we're not simulating G's in Vanilla arma). No Oxygen mask/headset = no communications (microphone is integrated in mask). Also, something else to consider is getting into the cockpit without a flightsuit + harness: No flightsuit = actually doesn't really matter for flying purposes. No harness = no connection to ejection seat straps No connection to ejection seat straps = any negative G maneuver or rapid deceleration will throw you around inside the cockpit like a pinball. Lastly, during ejection you would not be attached to the seat nor parachute, which means getting flung out of the aircraft like a ragdoll. My major gripe without having such restrictions is that you can grab a ghilliesuit, plate carrier vest, backpack with ammo, Titan AT, sniper rifle and everything and basically "throw your jet away" and continue like a rambo-soldier. This stuff dates back to Battlefield 1942 where an assault class soldier could bail out over the flag and parachute down with guns blazing and take the spawn. It's almost rude to compare arma to battlefield, but you get the idea. I'd like to see such restrictions enforced onto players because a jet is a multimillion dollar piece of equipment. A jet pilot does not gear up for infantry combat when entering the cockpit. He has a flight suit, G-pants, a harness to strap him into the jet, a helmet and some sturdy boots in case he is forced to bail out. If ArmA players knew that getting into a jet means sacrificing their infantry role, maybe they would take better care of their jet! Also, you have to try to picture what happens if a player has to bail out with such a "limited" loadout. It becomes a whole different game style. Suddenly you find yourself behind enemy lines, with only a pistol and some flares, no armor at all and poor camouflage. You have to adapt to survive. Play an evasive game and try to get home. If you are super-lucky you can ambush some tiny infantry teams and steal their gear. But you would be facing several riflemen with only a 9mm and a few mags. To me it adds a whole different layer of gameplay to ArmA. Search and rescue now becomes a dynamic thing. Friendly forces and enemy forces race against each other to rescue/capture the pilot (who normally is considered a high value target due to information etc). I hope you all understand that I'm not asking for oxygen systems to be simulated, losing radio comms or being thrown around inside the cockpit if you don't equip a pilots vest/harness. Not at all. But what CAN be done, is the following: Disable HMD display from showing for any player NOT equipped with a HMD-type helmet. Disable parachute for any player NOT wearing a pilots harness/vest/kit Move player backpack into aircraft inventory upon entry (some jets actually allow some stowage of personal items behind the seat during flight). These three points would prevent players from wearing a straw hat and 'magically' seeing HMD info, force "sniper, rambo, AT, kit pilots" to actually LAND and get out if they want to safely get out and fight and lastly, strip pilots from bringing loads of supplies with them upon ejection. I really can't see anything negative about it other than those that feel "robbed" of the possibility to fly with the "one man army" kit and dominate the skies AND ground. "Combined Arms" in persona :P What do you think?

Well.... I had a few weird ones.. I'm short in time, but I'll try to post a video later. Jets DLC scenario: -Launch sequence out of sync: I always take off before Lead. One crew member seriously glitching animation. -Arresting hook first gives error message, then deploys (animation) -Arresting hook does not. ;) (Overshot the deck every single time. Ended up bailing out on 3rd attempt after tipping over the edge). Otherwise a cool showcase with some nice radio comms and all, but... (spoiler alert)

You are absolutely right. Because the MD-500 is a real helicopter. The point is, ArmA as a game benefits from letting the player decide certain things. If you make the AH-9 support HMD tech, but only make it active when the pilot is wearing a HMD helmet, then you can have both versions. The hardcore realism guy can fly with the standard heli pilot helmet and have no HMD. The arcade or future-guy can have HMD if he wants. At least both options are available. This would also work well for obvious gameplay reasons. Ghilliesuit sniper with Titan AT launcher and Parachute + shemag has to prioritize wearing a HMD helmet to use its potential. (LOL). Anyways, your point about it being "no sense" from a weapon point of view is correct, but it is indeed a huge aid for pilots to be able to see airspeed, compass heading etc on the visor for situational awareness. You can point your head to a target and immediately read the exact three-digit compass heading to target. You may also see your airspeed, vertical speed etc when looking down at the landing spot. And let's not forget a flight path marker! I would dare say these reasons alone make it perfectly good sense to place HMD tech in a small chopper too. I believe that the reason it isn't feasible today is because of bulkiness, pricetag etc that makes the whole concept "over-kill" for a MD-500 style heli. It requires a whole magnetic field set up in the cockpit and I think just a helmet is about 150.000 USD. If you scratch the HMD visor and ruin the chrome-coating it's about 2.500 USD to replace the visor. :) In other words.. in 2017, the painted crosshair on the windshield is "just fine" :)

Technically two criteria have to be fulfilled to have HMD: Aircraft that supports HMD technology Helmet that has compatible hardware (visor, connector, projector etc.) I wish BI would make the HMD style helmet a requirement in order to utilize the HMD. That way, if you get into a Littlebird without HMD helmet, you won't get the full HMD tech (for those who want simplistic dot on the windscreen sights). Those who want the full HMD need to strap on the correct helmet prior to flying :) That would work for all aircraft with HMD tech and be optional. (Except black wasp that has no HUD...)

@Blackbomber200 Ok. I can tell that I have offended you, I am sorry for that. But you (and I) are dragging this off-topic. When I read your post I could not see anything constructive towards the feedback of the Jets DLC. You are basically begging for two more carriers, an upgraded 25mm gatling on the F/A-181 and an A-10 that is compatible with carriers, less than one month from DLC official release. That's what grinded my gears, and that you tried justifying your personal needs by using a friend in service as a credible account. Now here's my suggestion. We should all stop asking for additional ships, aircraft etc and focus on discovering potential improvements or bugs on the current devbranch material. This is what the thread is actually for - devbranch feedback related to Jets DLC. Modders will cover all of your needs, otherwise there are plenty of tutorials on how to create your own textures on this forum so you can make your own USS freedom skin! :) So let's get back on topic! :)

Wow! Well that's a humble post. First of all - The devs have already said that the content of the Jet DLC has been settled, which means we not getting any more jets or carriers. The 2017 Scanning the Horizon video already reveals what is part of Jets DLC, and the bonus is an absolutely free carrier that comes with static AA defenses. Secondly, regarding the A-10. Just like in real life, you can't have your cake and the topping too. There's always a tradeoff. Last time I remember someone converting non-carrier aircraft to carrier craft was probably in the 60's there was an attempt with the C-130. The problem you see, is that modifying an A-10 to work on a carrier is something you would have to do pre-production, meaning re-designing the entire aircraft. The reason for this being that the landing gear would need to be bigger and heavier, there would need to be a tailhook, probably foldable wings to save that precious space.. and with all of this comes strengthened structural elements. The area where the landing gear attach would need to be beefed up, as well as the attachment point for the arresting hook. So on a closing note, is it possible to modify an A-10 (A-164) to work from carriers? Yes! Would the cost and reduced effectiveness of the aircraft ever pay off? Would the Navy/Marines ever consider buying such an aircraft? 100% guaranteed NOPE! Still not convinced? Watch boeing drop an F-18 from 20ft (~6m). There's no way an A-10 could withstand that..

I have no problems with removing the RWR on xH-9 series. It is a small and agile helicopter that can get away with a lot if you fly it low and fast. It probably also has a smaller IR signaure and Radar Cross Section than other helicopters. Like others have mentioned, I think this promotes some diversity and thinking into the game. Do I take the Ghosthawk with flares that can carry a whole squad, but is slow and sluggish OR do I get the nimble stealthy MH-9 and carry a few special forces guys behind enemy lines?. The MH-9 is already weak to small arms fire, so keeping clear of enemies is a must. Nap of the earth flight is the way to go :) How about considering a basic RWR for the AH-9, seeing that you are forced to fly higher to successfully attack something? The AH-9 has to "put itself out there" a lot more than the MH-9.

@dragon01 To add more to your already correct statement, the CAS aircraft tend to have more lethal guns (30mm very high ROF), and better armor/damage resistance. Or rather have AA vehicles, Static AA guns and Self-Propelled AA guns and aerial vehicles ignore parachutes. They are more likely to be targeted by infantry (which have shorter detection ranges and poor accuracy - which work in the favor of the pilot).

Thanks for the enlightenment. I read your feedback tracker article and the whole ordeal made a lot more sense. It also makes me wonder how hard it would be to model a "heart"/"lung"/"brain"/"gut" internal organ hitbox. It may sound gruesome, but it would definitely add to realism, because body armor protects these vital organs. I am less interested in Infantry because it's not a "human hunting simulator", but tanks are different. Tanks deserve some proper damage calculations and the way it's handled today I call for a change. I wonder how much can be achieved by only altering the Maths in the engine. It would be ideal if one could change the damage model without having to tamper with every vehicle damage LOD again, you know? Like implementing the correct penetration and damage simulations without having to re-do all of the vanilla + mod armored vehicles.

To my knowledge, certain aircraft such as the SU-25T may be equipped with a rearward facing IR strobe. It can be switched on to confuse IR seekers. Not 100% sure off the top of my head exactly what causes the seekers to get spoofed. (Over saturation? "blinded"?)

S3Blapin: I believe this works just as it should. First of all the Titan AA is an IR (passive) guided missiles. This means the missile does not give out any radiation from its seekerhead that the blackfoot can detect. Therefore you should NOT receive a warning PRIOR to a missile launch. After launch is something else. If what you're saying is that it doesn't warn after launch then it has to be some bug. The missile gives off light in the UV and IR spectre due to the rocket motor energy. Which should show on the RWR/Sensor HUD. I agree with you on this one. A zoomed out low res PIP doesn't really do much use, not even for eye-candy :) Fixed unguided weapons like rockets and free-fall bombs should absolutely be controlled by Pilot by default IMHO.

That's an excellent idea, but it only really applies for high altitude because: If you are flying low you may have this situation: Aircraft and-----------Obstruction-------------------virtual camera-------target REAL TGP in PIP range Which may allow you to effectively "spectate/ghost" enemy vehicles from behind cover. So the right way would be to detect obstructions like so: Aircraft and-----virtual camera------Obstruction--------------------------target REAL TGP in PIP range

Pasted this in from the Jets DLC official feedback. This mainly effects the new Sensor overhaul. I'd like to know what you think!

Here. I threw together a quick proof of concept video showing what ArmA may sound like with a more fleshed out cockpit warning audio. I hope you enjoy:) Pay attention to "New threat" on RWR. Also enemy guns lock tone and missile fired (overlapping the BIS default one). Also new is caution and warning sounds when taking damage. This is NOT a mod, purely a "proof of concept" video editing with new audio.

Havn't noticed this before trying on the carrier: Leading edge flaps on F/A-181 having a serious seizure. Almost contagious... Edit: They were spazzing out at a much higer rate, apparently in sync with the FPS. So while it hardly seems like they are "spazzing" in the video, they are actually moving hysterically fast on my end :) Edit 2: Watch in 60fps then you see :) Oh, and managed to capture it at the exact moment an AI landed in the arresting cables :) Cheers!