Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

reconteam

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    378

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by reconteam

  2. Posted

    8 hours ago, Damian90 said:

     

    But T-80B still used T-72A armor, while T-64B had again completely different armor.

    I thought the T-64B and T-80B had what was essentially the same armor scheme which is estimated to be roughly equal to that of the T-72A?

     

    I've also heard the T-64BV and T-80BV besides for the addition of explosive reactive armor had some improvements to their composite armor. But that raises a few other questions. Were all BV models new build tanks? Were older B models upgraded with ERA but no integral armor changes? Did they share the same designation then?

     

    There are so many sources with different information on the minute differences between T-64, T-72, and T-80 variants that it is a nightmare to study if you ask me.

  4. Posted

    So I have an i7 8700k, an RTX 2080, 16GB of RAM (I can get exact details later if needed) and on Tanoa running ultra settings at 3440×1440 resolution I can't seem to break past 40 FPS or so in deep jungle with view distance set to about 1200 meters. And this is before I'm actually in a scenario with stuff going on around me. Should I be getting more from this setup? Also the game is on a Samsung m.2 SSD so there shouldn't be a bottleneck in that area. Altis seems to run a lot better but is there anything I can do to increase my FPS in the jungle?

     

    I know ArmA 3 is heavily CPU dependent but that's a pretty good processor and often CPU usage is only reaching around 30-40% while in the game.

     

    One oddity(or maybe its normal for ArmA) I've noticed is that when I "zoom" in to look at something the FPS often goes up by 10 or more, even if what I'm zooming in on is a detailed area.

  5. Posted

    Gotta say I like a lot of the more recent additions to the mod. One minor thing I noticed however is that on some of the weapons like the M16A1 and M16A2 if you look directly down the muzzle there is just a grey texture rather than one trying to simulate looking down the barrel. Other weapons like the XM16E1 and M4A1 have that feature.

  9. Posted

    I'm still debating whether or not to purchase this DLC. I love the setting of Cold War-era Germany but the problem seems to be that this is a very small slice of that. There are no US Army or Soviet forces and the Germans are lacking a lot of vehicles like the Leopard 2, Marder, and (for the East Germans) T-72. No airpower either.

     

    So my question is mainly, are there plans to expand upon this content and add more over time? 

  10. Posted

    So I'm trying to learn a bit of basic configuration by making an addon that will effectively add a few modified variants of existing ArmA 3 aircraft weaponry. I'm starting off with a modified cluster bomb and air-to-air missile.

     

    Yet I'm having a difficult time finding what exactly is required to create a complete .pbo and addon that the game will recognize.

     

    In the config.cpp file which I will at some point have to turn into a .bin file and later pack in a .pbo what exactly is required besides for the parameters of the modified weaponry and the "base" ammo values which are drawn from when there aren't specific values for that weapon? Do I have to include the visual models I am using from the Jets DLC in the .pbo?

     

    If I wanted to allow jets to select these weapons in the editor loadout screen would I have to include another PBO that added modified versions of the existing aircraft? For the time being I'm going to avoid that and just use scripting to load the aircraft.

     

    Are there any good tutorials out there that would help cover this topic?

  14. Posted

    3 minutes ago, POLPOX said:

    You simply cannot without using MODs. However you can use setPylonLoadout to change the pylon loadout forcely. 

    
gryphon setPylonLoadOut [6,"PylonMissile_Missile_AMRAAM_C_x1",true]

     

    By the way in vanilla you already have AMRAAM C for Gryphon, aren't you?

     

    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.

  15. Posted

    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?

  19. Posted

    On 2/25/2019 at 6:33 AM, Qinetix said:

     

    Now I'm not sure if changing firing modes makes any sound in vanilla weapons, then I could fix it.

     

    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.

  21. Posted

    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.

  24. Posted

    13 hours ago, ShadowSix said:

     

    Yes, I'm well aware of this... however, I'm thinking why not use some creative license and "build" the next generation Fleet Defense Aircraft?

     

    You've gotta admit, the top pick looks Tomcat-esque, but with fift-generation thrown right in! 😛

     

    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.

  25. Posted

    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.

×