Jump to content

reconteam

Member
  • Content Count

    368
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

19 Good

About reconteam

  • Rank
    Staff Sergeant

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So I added an "and" command and have been trying to get the script to function on only pylons 8-12, yet is there any actual method to do that? neither pylon == or pylons == seems to give any result.
  2. reconteam

    Jets DLC Official Feedback

    Any chance of increasing the rate of fire of the 120mm gun on the destroyer (USS Liberty) somewhat? I understand it can't be too high for balance reasons but it is still very low for a naval gun.
  3. Excellent. Is there any way I could get it to address only pylons 8-12 (which represent the internal weapons bay) however?
  4. Alright thanks for letting me know. Yes the AMRAAM C is the same one used by the Gryphon. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an internal "INT" variant of that missile for the correct jettison from the weapon bays of the F/A-181. Such variants exist for the AMRAAM D and R77. I can see in the editor's config viewer the one line used for that jettison effect, (initSpeedY = -25;) Yet even though I can see all of this in the config viewer there is no way for me to edit that and plug-in that line into the AMRAAM C? Or is there some functionality to the config viewer I haven't discovered? Otherwise I guess I'd be looking at the hideously complicated task of creating my own addon so I can stop obsessing over such minor details.
  5. Is there anyway to create a script that would substitute one model for another. I want to substitute the AMRAAM D model which isn't a realistic representation of the actual AMRAAM with the AMRAAM C model used by the AAF jet fighter. In the config.bin file the model for the AMRAAM D is listed as model="\A3\Weapons_F_Jets\Ammo\Missile_AA_06_fly_F"; proxyShape="\A3\Weapons_F_Jets\Ammo\Missile_AA_06_F"; while AMRAAM C is model="\A3\Weapons_F_Jets\Ammo\Missile_AA_10_fly_F"; proxyShape="\A3\Weapons_F_Jets\Ammo\Missile_AA_10_F"; Is there anyway I can achieve a method of replacing the former two with the later?
  6. Would anybody be willing to write an example script for me using one of the vanilla ArmA 3 vehicles such as the AMV-7 Marshall? I'm not quite certain how to account for the multiple magazine types necessary. (in this case it would be 40mm GPR and 40mm APFSDS)
  7. Looks like I was mistaken about the muzzle flash. But why is a different memory point used for the smoke effect? Sorry my ArmA 3 modelling knowledge is very limited so that may be a stupid question to you.
  8. My mistake, I'll post in the correct thread from now on regarding the F-15 and other aircraft packs. About the F/A-181's 20mm gun perhaps "bug" was the wrong term to use. The effects from the gun just do not correspond with the location of the gun port on the aircraft's 3D model which is located on the nose and not in the wing root.
  9. reconteam

    CZ BREN 2

    Normally when you switch firing modes with vanilla weapons there is a small "click" sound that corresponds with moving the selector switch. It's no big deal but apparently I have some sort of OCD about that sound.
  10. Thanks for the help, I must admit this is quite a bit more complicated than I thought. Do you have to find the correct parameter for each of those categories corresponding to the 25mm chain gun? Seems weird that you can add an init line that reduces small arms recoil so easily yet boosting rate of fire is so complicated.
  11. Hi Firewill I have some more useful useless comments about your work and minor bugs to point out. I love the F-15B Strike Eagle demonstrator aircraft with the green camo it flew with back in 1980 due to the crazy bomb load it can haul. Yet to the best of my knowledge the CBU loadout for it is a bit incorrect. On the wing pylons the multiple-ejector racks only ever carried four CBUs each on the outer and center stations. I don't know what weight those wing pylons are rated for but ensuring enough clearance for payload separation was probably a factor. On the F-15A through F-15D those wing pylons are rated to carry up to six Mark 82s on a MER but I've never seen a photograph that clearly shows if that particular F-15B was carrying 4 or 6 on the wing MERs when flown in that "all Mark 82" configuration. It's possible that they kept the inner MER stations clear for separation clearance. This rear cockpit of F-15B 71-0291 during this testing was also different from a usual F-15B or F-15D. It had four display panels but not the same MFD type as on the eventual F-15E. It probably isn't worth the effort to model this change however. Anyway a minor bug I ran across the gun smoke and flash from the 20mm cannon on the F/A-181 appears on one of the wing roots when the gun's location is evidently in the nose like an F/A-18. Also if/when you do get around to updating your excellent F-15SE Silent Eagle pack I'd really love an option for the turkey feathers on the engine nozzle. That reduced RCS airframe doesn't look right without them. It's different from the F-15SE I know but most of Boeing's promo stuff for their current offering of the less ambitious F-15X/F-15EX show the fighter with them. If Boeing is going to keep offering updated F-15s they ought to combine the F-15SE with the wing envisioned for the F-15U which was a McDonnell Douglas project from forever ago. Of course they'd be better off with something completely new to offer the Air Force or Navy.
  12. reconteam

    NIArms Release Thread

    Oh nice I hated how that was ending up on all of my weapons by default even those of the wrong caliber.
  13. reconteam

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    Very nice Strykers hiding in the background. Hopefully we'll eventually get the new Dragoon variant at some point. I love autocannons and cannot lie.
  14. I see what you mean. Personally I have no problems with people working off existing concepts and designs to build something that's "semi-fictional" as long as it's not too crazy or unbelievable. I think BIS did a decent job with their F/A-181 of mixing elements of various US fighters for example. I must admit that side view you posted is cool looking. If Firewill was looking to do anything more with the F-14 I'd again have to suggest doing a fictional "F-14E" using elements of the ST-21 design first. The only significant changes to the external airframe profile that I'm aware of was the reshaping of the wing root area (where the glove vanes were on the F-14A/B) to carry additional fuel, and a new canopy that provided better frontal visibility. There would be some basic treatment to reduce radar cross section similar to what has been done for the F-16 and other fighters but nothing extensive like what was envisioned for the ASF-14 or NATF. Engines were to be F110-GE-129s which offered a significant increase in thrust over the earlier variant used on the F-14B/D. Besides for that it would be a matter of simulating the improved avionics, new cockpit with multicolor MFDs, HMDs, etc, and new weapon systems. The AIM-152 which was intended for the F-14D should be one of them but they hadn't down-selected to one contractor team before it was cancelled. Personally I favor the somewhat more conventional Hughes design. Firewill don't view this as me asking for anything I'm mostly just using this as an opportunity to ramble on about the Tomcat and what could have been. The mess of 1990s NAVAIR procurement is a somewhat interesting subject.
  15. I'm not certain what that first aircraft drawing is but I don't think it is the ASF-14. As far as I know there are no official drawings or plans of the ASF-14 that are part of the public record. Grumman themselves wasn't entirely enthusiastic about the concept as it was significantly more costly than the ST-21 and for the amount of money even they figured starting with a clean sheet of paper might be a better choice. The ST-21 was a much more concrete proposal and existing F-14Ds could be upgraded to this standard. There was also a "Tomcat II" proposal at some point which like ASF-14 was also a significant departure from the existing F-14 yet I haven't been able to determine where on the timeline that idea occurred. The bottom picture looks to be an artists conception of what the Lockheed Martin NATF would have looked like in squadron service. This aircraft would have shared as many components and systems with the ATF (F-22) as was viable. The most obvious change is the variable sweep wing but there is no relation to the F-14. Some of the basic features of Lockheed's NATF carried over to their A/X and A/F-X proposals. A/X was the successor program to the A-12 Avenger II after that mess of a program had been cancelled, it was later changed to A/F-X after additional air-to-air requirements were added when NATF was cancelled. A/F-X itself was soon cancelled and instead the USN got a place at the table in the JAST and JSF programs ultimately culminating in the F-35C. Of course this isn't exactly the aircraft they were looking as the goal of JSF was a smaller shorter-ranged aircraft aft than the USN's earlier programs.
×