Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

nmdanny

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    291

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by nmdanny

  1. Posted

    Suggestion: Interception of missiles & precision guided bombs.

    If there's a way to make the game treat those munitions like airplanes by making them destructible and targetable, then I figure existing SAMs could intercept them with the existing anti-air algorithms. After all, most guided munitions in the game fly at a subsonic speed, in a pretty stable and predictable pattern - similar to planes. (Of course, I may be wrong - I don't know much about the Arma engine.)

     

    This would add a lot of depth to the game and give more purpose to many of the Jets DLC & Encore assets (especially the SAM units & cruise missiles).

    Air defense would be more interesting - do you spend all your missiles on enemy planes, or do you conserve some in order to intercept missiles/bombs coming towards you or friendly units?

    Attacking highly defended airbases/carriers would be trickier - a lone cruise missile or a few MLRS rockets would be easily intercepted by one of the many AA units that are stationed there, so you'd need to coordinate bigger salvos of missiles coming from many directions in order to overwhelm their air defense network.

     

    On a similar note, what if you could control cruise missiles with the UAV interface? That would be really cool, especially if it'd be possible to intercept them. You'd have to plot waypoints that utilize the terrain in order to hide from radars, time the arrival of multiple missiles, or control a missile directly.

  2. Posted

    48 minutes ago, Lbbde said:

    Is there a reason I can not use the Artillery Computer with the VLS anymore, or is my game just broken?
    Btw it's really cool that the VLS now has real cruise missiles and you can choose between HE and Cluster. :O

    Now you can lock onto lasers from far away (IIRC the spotting unit needs to have 'datalink send' in order for the VLS to see the laser),

    and the VLS can also lock into vehicles on its own, for some reason.

    • Like 1

  4. Posted

    There seems to be an error when trying to perform a scripted launch:

    I used this statement('cmdr' being the player who is near the launchers) 

    _launch = [cmdr] spawn pook_ARTY_FNC_SRBMMISSION;


    After the launcher is selected successfully for firing HE, it does shortly open the missile hatch but doesn't raise nor fire the missile, it says in sidechat that launcher is unable to fire at the chosen grid + gives the following error(taken from the .rpt) 

    17:10:49 Error in expression < = (clickPos) inRangeOfArtillery [[_L], _am];
_inRange2 = (clickPos2) inRangeOfA>
17:10:49   Error position: <_am];
_inRange2 = (clickPos2) inRangeOfA>
17:10:49   Error Undefined variable in expression: _am
17:10:49 File pook_ARTY\functions\fn_SRBMMISSION.sqf [pook_ARTY_fnc_SRBMMISSION], line 223

    However, firing manually with the artillery computer does work fine.

  5. Posted

    19 hours ago, hcpookie said:

     

    Well as far as the radars in my SAM pack, they are simulating real world values.

     

    OOPS:   SA10/20/21 uses values that were published as MILES instead of KM.  SA21 isn't 215km, it is 215 MILES... 400km.  Fixed in next build. 

     

    Is there a 400km map?  Not yet.  There ARE 200km maps however.  I like you all secretly guess, of course, that a game with a JETS addon will of course eventually have those big-huge maps.

     

    The "issue" if you can call it such is that SA20, SA21, etc. have minimum engagement ranges of several km.  MEANING on a "normal" sized map like Utes or Chernarus you only get half coverage on the map.  SA2/SA3 is even worse with a 4-6km minimum!!! engagement zone. 

     

    I'm still deciding whether to reduce the minimums so that they will be able to function on "normal" sized maps.

     

     

     

     

    If you're going for realism, it should go both ways :p

    Plus having a minimum range gives use to your SHORAD units as well as vanilla A3 AA units.

    1 hour ago, ski2060 said:

    Looking good Pookie!

    So, are you still using full scripted systems for your site engagement parameters?
    If you are using the Dev build in any capacity you probably already know that they have settings to allow targeting through a data link sending unit.

     

    Can't wait to see this new build. I really want to get it into rotation for my unit to provide a new facet to our games.

    This feature seems to be available since the 1.72 main branch update

    Quote

    Tweaked: It is now possible to mark Data Link targets using remote sensors

     

     

    Would definitely love to see data link support, it would open up many interesting scenarios.

  7. Posted

    30 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Man said:

    The AAA and SAM assets are desperately in need of camo textures. Or at least hand over a texture template for them.

    Hiding them within trees and bushes is just too tempting.

     

    Cheers

     

    They're based on ship defense platforms which are white (like a ship), but I agree, since they seem more appropriate than having a Tigris/Cheetah (more "strategic"/long ranged)

    A CSAT and AAF camo variants would be also great.

    • Like 2

  8. Posted

    1 hour ago, pipyn1970 said:

    OK then, regarding this DLC.

    These are my suggestions that SHOULD of been part of this DLC & maybe they can be put in an update under the "potential improvements" section:

    1. Give the people whole like to play in MilSim groups fully working MFD's. If need be, the scroll wheel can be used to go to a different screen.
    2. On the NON NATO jets, there's a daytime monitor. Why? What is it there for? Can we access night time mode or heat mode? Is it meant to be part of a targeting pod? Are we meant to be able to move the camera around?
    3. Proper in cockpit targeting pod: How many people out there really think a JET pilot would stick his/her head into a gun sight? This should be within ALL the Jets cockpits & not full screen! The Jet pilot needs to be aware of EVERYTHYING going on around him/her. When he/she uses the sight then he/she is blind to the outside world!! The pilot needs to see EVERYTHING on the MFD's & NOT FLOATING within the UI.
    4. The HMD info is nice but taking it a bit further & in line with RL, then the HMD info should only show up if the pilot is NOT looking down at the MFD's.
    5. Helmets: I think & wished that whoever designed the NATO 5th Gen helmet had watched some videos about the F35 Helmet. They would see that not only is the current NATO helmet for the new 5th Gen Black Wasp lacking in 2017, but in 2035 if falls far to short.
    6. Cockpit warnings: I saw a video on this thread regarding this & to me it made the flying more immersive. Why haven't we got that installed? Why don't we have lights light up in the cockpits if certain things fail or when there is a fire? The UI info panels for jets could be taken away now & that info incorporated into the cockpits properly themselves.  
    7. Radar: All the Radar sensors need to come into the cockpits of ALL the jets & Helicopters. Do away with the STATIC pictures of radars & replace them with what is now floating on the screen.
    8. Taxiways: If the new UAV is meant to be deployed from the fancy runway in the ocean then it would of been nice that new coding for the interaction could of been made. Something like this maybe - player connects to new UAV, player selects all the waypoints, A new waypoint could be "taxi to runway or CAT 3". The UAV doesn't move until the player clicks on the new "Launch" button. The UAV then follows its waypoints - taxi's to CAT 3, waits as the shield is placed up (cant remember what's its called) & a pause of 3 is counted down, then the UAV is launched off the CAT.
    9. MFD pages: these pages would be nice & practical (for future thought) - A NAV page (the player can plot his/her route on this page. Be nice if it included a marker that says AO or something that was maybe 500 metres round maybe so the pilot knows that's his/her race track? A TAC page where any markers the JTAC puts down or the pilot sees would be seen here, Also any threats the Jet picks up like SAM sites would be automatically placed maybe? A weapons page so the player can select the weapon to be used & see what's left to play with. Always on the MFD screen would be smaller screens telling the pilot about fuel, gear, flaps, thrust, artificial horizon & maybe height?

    I'm not saying to give us the same detail as DCS, I'm just saying we have the info we need but in an arcadeish fashion. Bring it into the MFD's. Let the player decide what screen they what to see while flying. The NATO 5th Gen cockpit would be identical to the one the 5th Gen F35 has now. By all means dumb it down for playability & game play but give us all the info we need within the cockpits. 

    You're asking for too much, it is simply not worthwhile for BI to spend so many resources on making immersive cockpits while the majority of players will probably keep using the UI elements.

    Especially regarding MFDs, making them is very complex whereas there are already well-made UI solutions. Though I agree with no.6 that warnings should appear on the cockpit (and HMD)

     

    I'd argue that tank interiors and tank interior interactivity (consoles and displays like MFDs) would take priority over similar aircraft parallels, simply because ground/armor vehicles are much more prominent in ArmA.

     

  10. Posted

    2 hours ago, mooopz said:

    Just have tested the newly on Dev Branch released Aircraft Carrier and noticed a few BIG flaws I'll be listing here:

    - There is no "Hangar" inside the Ship, and the Big Elevators for the Aircrafts are not functional at all (I'd think if the guys that made the Nimiz Mod could make that work Bohemia Should be able to do it too). A big problem (specially with these "missing" features in my oppinion is that if the Creator of the Nimiz Mod wille be continue woking on his mod the USS Freedom will become relative obsolete.

    - The interior life of the bridge is very sporadic, since only the entrance is accessible (also functional PIP displays for the Weapons systems ect. would be nice too, as well as a working onboard radar).

     

    They already said they're not going to add hangars or interiors to the carrier (besides the small interior which should work fine for briefings etc), so don't get your hopes up. Use the Nimitz mod if you want more advanced functionality.

  11. Posted

    Some bugs I've noticed:

    • The CIWS (Praetorian 1C) doesn't make a firing sound
    • The CIWS shells seem to be explosive but they don't make a visual splash.
    • In some rare cases the missiles fired by the AA turrets impact the ship, it's usually when facing low flying aircraft at odd angles, I suggest having a minimum cookoff time/minimum flight range before the warhead becomes active. (Similar to grenade launchers), so that turrets won't accidentally blow themselves up.
    • The radar sensors of the Mk49 Spartan, the Praetorian 1C are fixed and don't follow the turret's rotation. (The Mk21 Centurion is fine though)
    • When trying to place units on the ship(via 3D editor), many surfaces on the ship(some sections of the runway and most turret spots) aren't recognized as surfaces (there's no cyan circle when hovering the cursor over them), so upon clicking, the unit spawns on the sea-bed. Although they do snap when you manually change their elevation via alt.

    Also, some feedback about the CIWS:

    Assuming that it's based on the real life Phalanx, it should fire at a much higher ROF, and fire AP (non-explosive) rounds.

    Only the land version(C-RAM) fires explosive/incendiary shells.

    Also, I think red tracers would look more awesome than white tracers (though white tracers might be more realistic for a naval CIWS, red ones are only on the C-RAM)

    • Like 1

  12. Posted

    40 minutes ago, oukej said:

    Hm. Have you had the laserTarget marked? The current "LOAL" requires you to have something marked first (doesn't have to be in the munition LAR). It is a limitation.

     

    The problem is that you need to be fairly close to the laser spot to even just mark it, so if you're approaching from a high altitude (e.g e.g 3 km above the target) you can't mark it.

    And even if you're flying low, you have to bash 'R' until you're in-range, which is annoying.

    Perhaps increase the marking range?

  14. Posted

    Of course that pictures of Sayeret Matkal or any other SF unit isn't illegal, such laws do not apply to random sites on the Internet. Of course they wouldn't pass the censorship laws in Israel(if you post them in an Israeli website/newspaper) but it's not relevant here.

    The main thing is, you're probably not going to find pictures of them. Regardless, most Israeli SF units use gear that is pretty similar to normal infantry gear - the same OD combat uniform, pretty similar helmets(with or without a Mitznefet cover), plain OD vest(or more modern ceramic armor), using M4s and Tavors as their primary weapons.

  16. Posted

    The LIM-85: Grippod shouldn't have the bipod extended by default, and should have an animation (similar to the RHS grippod or SMA grippod)

    or even better, allow us to switch between a bipod or grippod (as with some RHS rifles)

     

    RPG-7: Must have zeroing

     

    I think some Apex weapons should have a 3GL, perhaps a 3GL variant for the Type 115 (instead of a .50 cal barrel), and maybe a 3GL variant of the SPAR-16?

     

    Also, not really feedback but I was really hoping there would be more MP5 variants besides an MP-5K. For example a MP5A4/A5 (solid or retractable stock), perhaps an SD variant.

  18. Posted

    Feedback regarding the ENVG and Viper Thermal view:

    The FLIR mode seems a little bland, the real ENVG ("AN/PSQ-20") looks like this: http://cdn3.volusion.com/wbkvn.efrmp/v/vspfiles/photos/DSNVG-(PSQ-20)-9.jpg

    which is a combination of normal night vision with infrared highlighting of hot objects.

    Now, while I assume that it might be hard/impossible to implement the above, some things that can make it more realistic/interesting:

    • The ENVG NVG mode has a circular FOV whereas the FLIR mode has a full screen view, it should be cropped to be a circle too(for consistency) or to a square(like the above real life example)
    • Use a different color scheme, instead of black/white, use this spectrum: http://i50.tinypic.com/2wobqls.jpg , or this one: http://i48.tinypic.com/acd25g.jpg
    • Perhaps put more elements to the NVG/FLIR overlay, such as a compass, something saying "NVG/TI/WHOT/BHOT" to indicate the mode, maybe even a rangefinder(or would that be too OP?)

     

    Regarding the new backpacks:

    I think they are cool, the viper harnesses are missing an MTP camo, the bergen's textures seem a little low quality/washed out.

    • Like 7

  20. Posted

    So, you guys are talking about the scopes... does anyone knows why all the scopes have been 'nerfed'?

    ARCO / RCO Went from 10x to 2x

    LPRS From 25x-75x to 5x-25x

    DMS from 25x to 5x I think

    Any reason for this?

    They haven't been nerfed, their descriptions have been changed to match their actual zoom level.

    I think that the only scoped that was nerfed was the SOS->MOS, which is now a marksman scope instead of a sniper scope, although I'm not entirely sure about that.

  21. Posted

    I would change them. I really would. The vehicles... They just feel lazy. I don't have a problem with them, I really don't, but I don't like all the foreign vehicles, especially for US Forces.

    I think BI could have gone with something home-grown and made from the US instead of giving a bunch of Israeli vehicles to the US. I really do like, and generally approve of some vehicles, and it is realistic to include them within an American arsenal. The AMV-7 Havoc and the A-164 Wipeout. I'm not so sure about the IFV-6 Cheetah. I guess it would be a good AA platform, and it wouldn't have been very American-like to go with a heavy caliber anti aircraft artillery weapon. I think they would've gone with a rapid fire less powerful auto-cannon, something like the GAU-12/22 mounted on an AMV-7 Havoc. Along with a couple of missiles.

    Next we have something I generally don't like. What was chosen as a tracked APC. The US doesn't buy from Israel, period. And the M113 replacement will be a turretless M2 Bradley (which I like to call the M114) and it will come into service sometime in 2015 apparently. (According to military today.)

    http://pds25.egloos.com/pds/201211/09/60/f0205060_509c531fe9602.jpg

    Here's an image of a medical evac variant. It actually looks pretty cool. Would love it if you added it to the game BI. But that's very unlikely to happen as the game is already released.

    Now, the M2 Slammer. I don't like it. Instead of developing a homegrown M1A3 Abrams, I felt you went the lazy path and chose to use a merkava. Which doesn't even have a trophy system. I feel like this is a very odd thing to do. The U.S. Army announced a program to build an M1A3 Abrams that will replace the current variants of the M1 Abrams. But instead BIS went for the Merkava IV. Why? I've no idea. Either way, this was a big disappointment. The way Kaos studios approached homefront was perfect. Moving on...

    There needed to be larger MRAPs. Not just M-ATVs, it's too small to carry a large number of troops. And the HEMTT is too fragile to perform that job. There needed to be a larger MRAP, but that was missed as well.

    But hey, this is just my opinion.

    Lazy to choose a Merkava? What are you talking about? There are dozens of Abrams in the ArmA series so they chose an original and interesting vehicle for once. I do agree it was lazy not implementing trophy and the internal mortar.

    And you have to remember that is the NATO faction, not the US army faction. And BIS used some artistic creativity, it is well possible that in 2035 in some alternate universe(or this universe), Israel has become a major weapon supplier for NATO.

    I do agree some bigger MRAPs are needed.

  22. Posted

    This is such a bullshit excuse. That content shouldn't be given to me at all if its not what I paid for. Instead it is forced on me in nearly ALL hosted servers now. And whether I like it or not, the ads show up on my screen. I don't want to use the starter pistol, I dont want to use the new helicopters, but on every multiplayer server they are on there now. So what I shouldn't play multiplayer at all? No I guess the answer is I should pay 15$ for content I don't want, just to get rid of annoying ads on my screen.

    Seriously the fact that you are not allowed to drive the helicopters is enough of a premium content incentive. A really poor image move from Bohemia that a high incentive to buy the DLC is to just get rid of ads on your screen.

    Ok, what would be better then, you not being able to play in servers that use DLC content in the first place? Is that what you want?

    Ask the server owner/mission editors to remove the DLC content or provide alternatives, this isn't BIS's fault.

  24. Posted

    Why do i have to pay for two helicopters i don't like?

    The market works in a way that if i don't like something i don't buy it.

    Hopefully if enough customers do the same, BIS gets the message that evidently this futuristic scenario is not what their users want, or maybe i will be the minority and BIS will keep going this way.

    BIS chose this market strategy, why is it wrong if we take advantage of it and choose what assets do we want?

    As for the "cheapstakes" debate, I don't like to throw away my money on something that is (was) given with the premise of "we are going to add more stuff and features but we're not telling you what exactly, and maybe a couple DLCs along the way but we're not going to tell you what they are going to be either! you give us the money now and in a year we'll tell you!", and if i was to change my mind now i would still have to pay more as a penalty. So all in all is a fair system.

    You're not completely wrong, it's just that buying the 16$ DLC is also a way of showing support to BIS for implementing the new features.

    Ultimately BIS has put themselves in a bad spot by being too generous: The three new features alone(FDM,Sling loading/rope physics and firing from vehicles) can justify a 16$ price tag, with the two helicopters acting a bonus for those who don't mind the futuristic setting. But these helicopters themselves aren't worth 16$ when you can get higher quality helicopters as free mods.

  25. Posted

    Does anyone else have missing sounds for modded weapons? After installing the dev branch a few days ago I noticed this issue, I only hear bullet impacts/whizzing, despite not having any sound mods.

    I get an error such as:

    No entry 'bin\config.bin\CfgWeapons\weapon_name\Single.StandardSound'

    (happens for example in RH M4/M16 pack and massi's NATO SF pack)

    Though I haven't played normal ArmA 3 for quite a while so I don't know if these issues exist there too.

×