subs17
-
Content Count
449 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by subs17
-
-
That is, in my opinion, realism gaming of the future. I have no doubt that between 2 and 20 years we will not only be able to play in an environment like that, but for every room of every building to be enterable and even the AI to have realistic actions and even schedules. It will be amazing. Look back 20 years to 2d MUUDS and see where we are now, and just think where we will be in 20 years.For now, though, I'll settle with Lemnos. :)
Same can be said for flight sims at 1st were very small terrain areas now it is global terrain. In the future FPS/Combat simulations will have Global terrain whats required is an engine that supports a similar design to Falcon 4s dynamic campaign system which worked by showing detail of the area the player was in(bubble) and blocking out everything outside the bubble until after the mission to calculate dynamic campaign progress and generate new missions for the Air Tasking order. So a future FPS combat simulation would have a similar terrain method is sim mode as in A2/A1 in the air a distant lower detail terrain level. If however you are on foot or closer to the building the player bubble expands terain detail to show more detail on the ground. Building interior shouldn't load until players is extremely close and only include what the player interacts with. So a future FPS perhaps late 64bit/early 128bit sim will likely be global terrain with realistic buildings etc. You can have a gun fight outside your own house.:cool:
Also because before we lacked data where as now they have SRTM elevation data for a global map and Google is currently mapping the ocean floor this data will go together for a combat simulation that includes Sea combat. For the current A2/3-TOH sim mod they can if they want to allow TOH/A3 engine compatibility so both sims can use the same terrain(just like now TOH/OA). To view TOH as a heli sim only is incorrect in my view they can start the sim by using FPS(which they are;)) and include a briefing in the briefing room, walk to the chopper do a walk around(look out for birds nests etc:D) climb in, fly to a burning building, climb out, fight the fire with a hose, do 1st aid etc.
All of that is possible compared to FSX EH101 missions landing on a high way etc. Waiting for the medics to carry wounded to your helicopter.
You could have actual players being winched off the mountain.
In combat if a player ejects you can fly in and rescue them or the sims ATO could generate a RESCAP mission as well.
-
That would make it good to buy TOH just to have that scenery in there but other improvements could include working MFDs as well as FM from TOH.
-
How about a different approach maybe the devs should get Steelbeasts and a real tank gunner and base it closer to the real thing.:cool:
-
The environments in ToH would not look good in ArmA 3 or any FPS game. Why? because the environments are meant to be seen and look good from the air. There may be certain parts of the map that will be extremely detailed, but not the whole map.Basically it's satellite imagery with 3D buildings and trees on top. It's not going to be detailed like the current maps of ArmA 2.
To give you a bit of an idea, would you want to play an FPS game with FSX terrain?
Well actually this is quite clever of BI, currently ED has mixed a complex jet sim with a complex gunship addon(as of next patches for A-10C and KA50). But BI is taking a different path from FPS to aircraft sim. There is no reason not to increase detail to buildings as they already function with detail as they are in A2 etc. The engine supports this detail so my view is because they have this ability you can have detailed terrain like seattle work in an FPS mode. In the past it has been debated about how difficult it would be to make an FPS mode for Lockon/Falcon 4 etc. FC2/DCS KA50 and A-10C all have an FPS mode;) but the detail is not as high as A2/1 because of the engine. You can walk around after ejecting etc.
With TKH its a heli sim evolving from an FPS so you do not have that issue on the helisim the problem is in other areas such as FM, avionics etc. The FPS mode and scenery is already there so no its not FSX with sattelite scenery or DCS/FC2 sim. Its actually an FPS with a complex helicopter, BI has already found a way around the issue of detailed terrain vs sim mode. In the past for sims like DCS it was mentioned to have 2 sims in one eg FPS sim and then Flightsim engine. With TKH and A3 thats all within one engine so where is the limitation? Its in hard drive space so the way around that is to have detailed terrain for the map and then high detail for campaign areas such as a city block etc. There are no limitations in this sim with FPS as far as I can see in those screenshots. Also the new PCs with Quad core and 64bit can now handle that. They could if they wanted to make a Global map using sattelite imagery and SRTM data then just make high detail to key areas of the campaign. Another possiblity is Global map with payware or freeware detailed terrain including FPS detail. The major hurdle BI has is FM and avionics etc. When they do decide to go the whole hog and make a sim addon like DCS A-10C they will run into problems as the detail of weapons/systems and threats/A/A and radar take a long time to get right.
-
Euclideon/UD topic is in the off-topic forums, not here.As for TakOH environments in Arma3, I'm not sure if we even want that. They're mostly designed to look good from the air, and especially the detail of the city at ground level probably isn't going to be that great.
Its A3 engine why not? It can be as detailed as they want it to be the difficult part is the PC and how they go about implementing that much detail to that large an area may require alot of hard drive space. I think that would be an awesome terrain and no doubt some people could mod it so you could use all or most of those buildings.:cool:
-
Is the A-10A capable of CCRP bombing? I never learned to use the A-10A, I just learned the A-10C...Yes using HUD you can lock tgts and CCRP them in FC2 but IRL I think yes also I know the C definately can IRL. The SU25T has about the best setup as the pilot can lock ground tgts using the Shival then engage auto pilot and CCRP.
---------- Post added at 07:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:18 PM ----------
Yeah, but note that I propose a middle ground. As SUBS17, I have played an indecent amount of hours in all kinds of flight simulators available to the consumer market, from FSX and its add-ons to DCS and all in-between. (just a "little" bragging, but I know from memory the startup procedures for a 747-400, F-16, A-10C, F/A-18C and a Kamov KA-50 :D). But ARMA is a different kind of thing. For instance the map size. You take off in Krasnostav in a jet aircraft, and 1 minute later reach the enemy base in Balota - not time to even warmup the systems on some aircraft. Even in the claustrophobic Georgia theater of DCS, you can have flights of 1 hour legs. So I think some concessions should be made from the simulation side so that those features are accomodated in the space ARMA offer. As long as those concessions don't violate the platform-sensor-target relationships.For example, you would not need to remember to turn the RWR on. But the RWR should work for its purpose: if a guy paints you, he appears on RWR, if not, he don't, but then he can't fire at you.
IRL he can fire a missile at you without you knowing by using an optical lock from for example a Helmet mounted sight on an SU27 with radar off. Firing R73s off boresight (up to 73 degrees) and you would not know unless you were in an aircraft with DAS or MWS(like A-10C). The MWS or DAS would detect the launch of the missile and automatically engage counter measures if its set to auto.;).
BTW A3 1000kmx1000km no problem with short hops.:D
-
Some CCIP video from FC2.
A-10A Maverick use.
As you see very simple and requires TDC left, right, up and down, zoom and just a lock and fire button. 1st you slew the TDC in the HUD, then lock once to Stabilise then slew TDC in the maverick display, zoom and lock. Then fire, its simple in LO FC2 for A-10A and thats the sort of fire control procedure you want. Mav seeker is very similar to the UAV display in OA except the ground stabilise which locks the seeker in the image from there its quite easy to slew the TDC to exactly where you want it.
-
1. Naval combat vessels are huge, extremely intricate machines that are crewed by thousands of people. It would require an entire development team to create even a halfway accurate representation of such a vessel, and you couldn't get the crew for even one boat on a server. I suppose you could just create a Fleet Command-style "I control everything" system, but this is hardly realistic and doesn't really fit at all with the spirit of ArmA.2. Modern naval warfare is utterly boring. Acquire target that is hundreds of miles away, press red button to fire magical cruise missiles, wait ten minutes, LOLIWIN.
3. ArmA is an infantry simulator first and foremost, and the only interesting interaction that bigass combat boats have with ground forces is support fire, which as I said earlier, can be simulated without actually having fully functional vessels.
All it requires is a weapons interface not that hard you have optical and you have radar. The addition of Sonar though is required to expand it to include ASW. Such a mod would work and is possible, you can have multicrew stations but a fully crewed vessel is not required as its overkill and only specific stations are required. For an FPS additct such a mod may not be their thing but there are alot of people who are into Naval warfare and would be interested in such a mod. If A3 has a Submarine then it should have controls for it to move up/down/left/right also Sonar with active ping and passive sensors. By having these features expands the A3 universe and increases game play and immersion. If someones willing to add these features then I say go for it. If you think Arma is just an infantry sim then you are mistaken. Just look at OAs added features.:cool:
Doesn't look that boring.
-
A carrier battle group is way beyond the scope of the game. It wouldn't work at all.As for naval support, e.g. naval gunfire, that can be simulated easily enough.
In what way would it not work, such an addon would only make the game better. 1000x1000km is big enough for Naval combat and ideal. Maybe more could be included to enhance the MP aspect such as Dangerous Waters type mods for ASW and ship to ship combat. All possible since OA and just adds to the fun.
-
Hello community.I am having a conflict between starting a Naval Unit; Carrier Strike Group w/Amphibious Ready Group, are an Army Unit; Stryker Combat Brigade w/Air Force Fighter Group. I would like to hear from the community the Pros and Cons of my conflict of these units.
Well you could join a clan that has both Naval and Carrier Strike Group plus Army unit. Or create your own Clan that has these units. I fly for a Virtual Air Wing that is part of a Clan but I'm also in the Virtual Army as well so I fly sims such as DCS A-10C, FC2, F4AF etc and then for the Virtual Army Arma 1/2. So you can be in both although when you are of senior rank such Squadron Commander/Plt Commander than you have to choose one or the other to support fully while still attending the other unit just for fun. eg. recruiting, administration, planning for wars etc.
---------- Post added at 12:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 AM ----------
OK guys. Basically what I was asking. With modeling from the community. Would you like to see a Carrier/Expeditionary Strike Group based clan? The option being that BIS has improved Phys X so that bigger terrains can be modeled (i.e. up to 400 km). If so it would open up more naval modeling for the community.Definately, go for it is my advice.
-
I'm too unco for that I only use trakir for flying its very slow for First Person shooter but I am amazed by what some people can do with them.
-
yeah, a new game means as many improvements as possible basically, you can't just re-release it, but, then again, no one said that BIS must include any of the things discussed here, just some suggestions, if people want to share their ideas on what they think will improve the game then I see no point posting just to say no one should do any of this.and by the way I did really like smurf's idea, sounded good.
Do you have a trakir? I suggest you get one and try it with Arma2, you have to combine trakir movement with the mouse to line your head with the sight to aim. From my own view it is much slower than IRL and more difficult for an FPS. Thats whats shown in that video, your head moves independently of where the rifle is pointing. I never use it as my trakir only gets used for flying flight sims in my view it is much more difficult with trakir than it is with just mouse.
---------- Post added at 09:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 PM ----------
ArmA II does include holding breath. It "holds breath" when you hold the right mouse button, which also zooms in.Not really, all it does is steady the aim the player does not actually hold his breath ingame also the rifle movement is not up/down as it is IRL with breathing rate vs aim. IRL the shot is not fired with breath held but instead at the top is when the shot is released.(and of course both eyes are open:D...IRL) Or during exhale like this guy.
-
correct me if im wrong, but at longer ranges youre supposed to shoot like this (more stable, less range of motion)
and use this for closer range (you can walk with it normally and your plates are towards the enemy, but its less stable but faster and you have better movement, but in arma they dont lean forward as much, they just kind of shoulder the weapon)
maybe a change stance button? i really like how SMK does the stand, squat, crouch, sniper sit, prone thing
Firm firing stances are already covered in ACE2 with Bipod and use of support from objects.
---------- Post added at 09:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 PM ----------
Actually ArmA2 has true enough recoils. I fired AKM irl and it doesn't have any hand-tearing recoil provided held right - and then recoil is really minimal. Just like it is in AA2 with AKs.The only challenge for me was aiming through ironsights - I'm right-handed but I can't close left eye alone without closing the right one.
Aiming in ArmA2 is perfectly acceptable. It simulates a trained soldier that had some battle experience and is a game so I don't see what's the problem.
All I want is breathing management from VBS2. In ArmA2 soldier doesn't really breathe when aiming - the gun just wonders around randomly after running. VBS2 has it done much closer to truth e.g. it goes up and down more than anything and much wider up and down it is as well - and it also simulates holding the breath and running out of air - in ArmA2 the gun starts to wonder around again after a while - but in VBS2 not being able to hold breath any longer looks much more realisticly.
Although I haven't looked closely at ACE2 yet I think breathing rate is a good one as is holding breath to take a shot.
-
I've never fired an assault rifle - what is difficult about aiming it? Lining the sights up? Getting the position right? Actually pointing it correctly in the direction?Its not difficult at all for a person that is taught how to use one IRL its actually quicker and easier to fire one than it is in Arma. The more difficult stuff is hitting targets far away eg sniper rifles etc. Which is where you have to hold the weapon correctly and squezze the trigger etc.
-
Something I thought of recently, that I had not seen mentioned anywhere else was a concept where to aim your weapon, you have to enter what some people may call a "minigame", where lets say you right click as usual for aiming your weapon, but when you do that, instead of automatically centering on the sights ready to shoot instantly, you have to maybe either drag the mouse or press a key or a few keys to essentially drag the scope to your eyes, once it is up to your eye, you proceed to shoot as normal.Sounds really clunky I know, but if done properly it could really make shooting interesting, although a problem I could see, at least with using the mouse to drag the sights, is that trying to shoot at an enemy to the left may be a problem when you are trying to drag your mouse to the right, but then in CQB not many people completely use their sights.
maybe another system could be where hitting one button makes your head go over the weapon so you have a good idea of where the bullets are going, and then looking down your sights requires hitting another key, and it could take longer to sight in, maybe even vary between sights, to simulate a reflex sights advantages over the ironsights.
Just my thoughts that I wanted to share.
Buy yourself a Trakir as that will add what it is you are trying to ask for here, with trakir you have your head free to look around outside the direction your weapon is pointing. There are extra features that could be added to A3 that would add more realism beyond whats already modelled which would make the weapons more realistic although it would require a plastic weapon replica wired to your PC with sensors and you would not be able to use the mouse as the weapon is in your hands. The effect of the replica is to detect the way the user is holding the weapon as well as that there is also recoil added by compressed air and accuracy is determined by how you fire the weapon.
Maybe this is what you mean't, already modelled in A2 by using trakir.
-
Attention to detail thats the good thing about ED. I'm going to post some more clips of weapons employment with just the basics listed hopefully the devs can get some inspiration for A3. In a perfect world DCS would be in A3 as both are very detailed sims.
-
Yeah I'm greedy I like to nail them all in one pass. I see there is a new HEI pipper for DCS A-10C even more fun to remember while straffing.
-
Heres a video of basic features you would want for straffing both guns and rockets for A3.
The HUD requires basic information for the A-10
1/ Altimeter in feet
2/ Airspeed in knots
3/ Climbing ladder
4/ Waypoint information
5/ Gun/rocket pipper
6/ Range indicator for pipper
I've used FC2 instead of DCS A-10C because it does not require complexity in order to be usable in CAS but instead the basics. The closeness to tgt is just as an example done properly you engage much further away so object draw distance has to match that.
-
Heres you answer from SUBS17 when I posted the same... I don't think anyone knows, but the OP... :)I used the Marksmanship principles as a way of showing that it is very similar in nature to firing a rifle. You have to do things the right way and not just place the thingy on the thingy and blow the target up. For marksmanship principles that I posted I believe it was as a joke but heres the real one for those interested.
Possibly the most succinct version of the principals of marksmanship is that used by the Australian Army:1.The position and hold must be firm enough to support the firearm.
2.The firearm must point naturally at the target without physical effort.
3.Sight alignment must be correct.
4.The shot must be released and followed through without disturbance to the position.
I've actually played an FPS that has this modeled, very boring compared to Arma2.
Right CCIP has a similar set of rules as per the USAF manual.
Use a smooth roll in and roll out, compensating for the wind and turn radius. Disregard the bomb fallline (BFL) and CCIP pipper during the roll in. Concentrate on rolling out with the gun cross close to your
aim-off point (no wind), for crosswind conditions, aim slightly upwind of the aim-off point. After roll-out
and HUD symbology settles, set the aim-off distance (AOD) by the target-to-BFL relationship. This will
pay off in the tactical environment. Once the initial pipper placement/aim-off point has been set, hold the
FPM on that spot and allow the CCIP pipper to approach the target as you steer out any azimuth errors.
Don't pull the FPM up in an effort to rush the pass. This “banana pass†will result in a higher than
planned release, and degrades delivery accuracy.
Remember, 3 to 5 seconds on final is fast enough, don't rush it any more than that by "pulling" the
pipper up to the target (Figure 5.3). If you find the pipper will not get to the target prior to minimum
release altitude, decrease the dive angle by raising the AOD to ensure pickle by the minimum release
altitude. Once established wings level with the FPM at twelve o'clock to the target, the BFL should be
near the target. Fly the aircraft to put the target under the BFL. Correct as necessary to keep the BFL
through the target and allow the CCIP pipper to smoothly track up to the target. Avoid the common error
of allowing the nose to rise and thus move the FPM beyond the desired aim-off point.
I teach this stuff to new pilots prior to testing them when they join my Virtual Squadron although I use a much less technical version for that.
Why bombs miss in CCIP one reason is the FPM is off the Bomb fall line, another is not having the wings level when bomb is released. Another reason is when the pilot applys sudden correction upon release of the bomb or applys G which throws the bomb on the wrong trajectory.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/16v5.pdf
Page 128
Aside my Squadrons own Tacmanual this is the best for teaching accurate CCIP delivery.
Heres some footage of a popup attack using CCIP delivery method against a nuclear reactor in Baghdad in 1981.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNmZPtPOed8
We have a Popup planner as well which is handy thats the beauty of F4AF/OF as it supports those features of the real aircraft.
---------- Post added at 01:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 PM ----------
That reminds me, How much detail do you think BIS will put into the manuals for FCS in ARMA III if it is implemented?P.S: whats with the Poll question?
I don't think I would....
Based on Arma2s trainning missions I hope for something better. The Arma2 JSF trainning mission was less realistic than ACECombat for the PS2. The mission required A/G using LGBs with no tgting pod or CCIP/CCRP sight. No way of designating the tgt. In the end I had to use sidewinder missiles to take out both tgts before using guns on the pair of SU25s.(LGBs were useless) The OA trg missions however involving the ULB involved much more detailed and realistic employment of the hellfire missile which impressed me. If the devs were to apply the same approach in A3s trg mission for aircraft they will make a far better and more usable aircraft. BTW the UAV was useless in how it is setup, too low and too fast and should sit high enough to see everything.
-
Thats what its designed to do in particular using the gun against the 23mm gun on the Shilka which has less range IRL the A-10 can destroy it before the Shilka fires back. Its not tactics but weapons employment that I was refering to regarding CCIP. The USAF F-16 manual covers the reasons why bombs miss! And thats from a variety of reasons not just wind etc But also if you are attacking a tgt on a hill, valley. Its a very good manual and its why I can bomb very small buildings in F4AF, FC2, DCS A-10C. DCS A-10C the altitude you're setting is the Min low altitude not altitude of the tgt for CCIP or CCIP CR. Its actually easier to also drop in CCRP because of the TGT pod which is another good method. For FC2 the A-10A is quite limited in delivery methods because it does not have a tgting pod. So CCRP is through the HUD only the other altitude setting is the BA Burst Altitude for cluster bombs although its done manually by the ground crew the pilot can still set it in the A-10A, F-16, (haven't yet found it in the C :D)
-
Are you applying the marksmanship principals to your delivery using CCIP? Read the USAF F-16 manual it details there how to accurately use CCIP which is what methods I use in all flight sims. For CCIP in DCS A-10C you can use CCIP and CCIP CR modes both are good and I suggest you read up on it. F-16 manual will greatly increase your accuracy particularly in cross wind as you use crabbing during CCIP to hit the tgt. BTW A-10A uses the radar altimeter for CCIP/CCRP modes.
The answer may be an A-10C but its up to the devs the options are a decent 3d pit clickable with working MFDs much like mentioned in my previous post(same could also be used for SU25T). The ultimate is the DCS A-10C in A3 or BI making take on Jets addon.
-
CCIP for bombing runs, is basically the dive bombing method... The A-10C can utilize CCRP which is where you can fly level and drop your bombs accurate. It helps to avoid AAA fire. Rockets can use CCIP or CCRP. CCIP for rockets is the same as CCIP for the gun. While CCRP for rockets allows you to fire at longer ranges, although your accuracy will be diminished. To use CCIP for the gun or rockets you must have elevation data for where your target is. The gun also has three other sights it can use, each one requires you to know the distance from you to your target (this is where the lighting 2 pod is very handy). With the A-10C and the lighting 2 pod there is no need to find and lock on with the MAV sensor alone. The MAV sensor is very low resolution, so it is not hard to target a friendly vehicle on accident in a battlefield like arma... Sidewinder missiles, like the Mavericks can use the lighting 2 pod to locate and identify targets. Sidewinders have a circular sight on the HUD that you must line up with the target, you will hear a growl noise when in AA mode on the HUD, and while hear a higher pitch growl when you have a lock with a sidewinder... Also in the A-10C it needs a 3 minute calibration/warm up time for the lighting 2 pod, and mavericks... So even on a big island like lemnos, the CAS A-10C is not really going to work all that great, unless they fix the speed of the A-10C... The only way it would work is if people would fly out into the ocean, and after some time turn back to the island to provide CAS. Basically the armaverse is horrible for fixed wing aircraft, jets would be even worse...Just to clarify some things for people :p
I have DCS A-10C too but we are talking A-10A here BTW elevation data is gathered by the Radar Altimeter taking a slice in front of the aircraft which is how it knows for CCIP. SU25 uses a different method by employing a laser range finder.;)
-
I believe you are leaving out the CCRP sight :)... Keep in mind this thread was started for helicopters though...I'm keeping it simple but the list should look like this to cover everything:
CCIP
MAN(Manual)
DTOS(Dive/Toss)
CCRP(Opically/A/G Radar/Lofting cue/level delivery/JDAM with grid coords)
Although this is the delivery modes for the F-16 its what JSF/Harrier should also use. The KA50 also carrys bombs IRL and uses MAN mode for delivery. As for FCS for Helos these tgting methods are used by AH64 as well. Looking in detail at aircraft how they should employing weapons.
JSF:
LGBs - should use tgting pod view like the ULB view
- 1st depress of tgt lock should ground stabilise for ease of tgting followed by TDC slew onto tgt then 2nd lock to remain locked to tgt.
- laser should be armed and codes preset
- CCRP line in hud, pickle depressed but auto bomb release when in range. TGT should continue to be lased until tgt hit.(IRL laser doesn't fire until last 15 seconds(adjustable time) before impact.
- TGT Pod view also has WHOT/BHOT modes.
- Buddy lasing for other aircraft as well as JTAC lasing.
- CCIP sight for manual delivery of iron bombs.
- A/A radar real scan pattern not 360 degrees although IRL it will detect aircraft 360 degrees due to other sensors and data link.(JSF is tricky to model as IRL its sensors are extremely good it will colour enemy as red in the helmet mounted sight and friendly as green).
- JDAMs Grid coord input and CCRP line for delivery.
A-10
- CCIP sight for iron bombs/CBUs maybe add AD(arming delay) and BA(Burst Altitude) although not a show stopper to not have these settings.
- rocket/cannon sight requires a range indicator for accurate straffing.
Maverick sight MFD- requires WHOT/BHOT view, zoom ground stabilise and lock.(like LGBs view)
- Sidewinder missile
Harrier - Like JSF aside 360 degree tgt A/A, A/G identification.
AH64D - Similar to JSF LGB although without CCRP bomb fall line for Hellfires/gun.
- A/G radar but on MFD with TDC slew and lock plus with LOAL mode and LOBL mode(already modeled in ACE2 although I have yet to see it work.
- 3d pit requires MFD view.
Most of this stuff already exists in OA its just a matter of the aircraft getting a few tweaks to make the weapons procedure better.
---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 AM ----------
Have you tried the one that already comes with default MMA setup? Use a Harrier with iron bombs, move to CCIP mode (use L.CTRL by default to cycle HUD modes).I'll test it out today, its the 1st time I've heard of it.
cheers
Subs
-
^thisDCS is awesome but too specific and too much work for BIS to make in an infantry sim IMO.
OA already features the basics required to get it up to a realistic level of employment. The missing pieces are simple features like ground stabilised image, 3d clickable pit, working MFDs. As it is we can already buddy lase etc. Plus there needs to be CCIP sight in the HUD.
---------- Post added at 08:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:02 PM ----------
In fact, MMA is a framework bringing a kernel to create any type of missile warfare you want at mission level, scripted, so with full control of all the parameters and not depending on fixed values in any addon. Aside of that, MMA also comes with some usable examples like HUD, MCC, TV, Sam control. But these are just usage examples. People tend to believe that MMA is just that, the examples, and they miss completely the purpose of the pack: that you build your own systems, for you and for the community.Is it possible with Mando missiles to model a good CCIP sight for the HUD for accurate delivery of bombs and CBUs?
Take on helicopter environments for ARMA 3 ?
in ARMA 3 - GENERAL
Posted
If both maps are possible(TKOH and A3) then modding could also be possible to increase detail for seattle with community mods etc. Its very cool to have a city for something like A3.
---------- Post added at 11:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 AM ----------
Depends on how the devs go about getting the sim published if it is published by another company you run the risk of releasing a faulty/buggy product. I think in the future sims will be self published by the developers own company and such sims might also use subscription which makes it possible for the sim to further evolve. Looking at the above pricing the 1990 sims had 1 or 2 programmers the later 2010 would have much larger groups of programmers, vastly increased complexity and realism and much better graphics engine.(like FSX etc) But when a sim has reached its limit in FM, detail and complexity then the major hurdle is graphics engine and terrain detail. Because of that 2b is highly unlikely the other factor is console vs PC. Console are vastly larger users in number and so there will be only a few companys that do sims in the future as there are now. Consoles for simple sims/games but serious simmers are limited to PC(actually an advantage as far as sims are concerned). For Bis they can if they want to expand further from just TKOH to other sim types like ships etc. The winners will be those companys that listen to the community regarding improvements and continue to evolve their product. As it is there are:
DCS Series/FC Series
Jet Thunder
VRS
FighterOps
Combat Helo
Bis - TKOH
Lead Pursuit