IrishDeviant

Good to hear. So, is this another LoD that needs to be added to the stock pile of mesh? Or, does it just use the shadow LoD or something like that?

I'm able to max out the settings with my system, but when I get into the cities, I've got to lower my view distance to around 2000-3000m. Even then, I'm still only getting about 15fps. Again, all the LoDs probably do help frame count, but in the cities it becomes counter-productive because of the large amount of verts that have to be managed. However, I really think there probably wasn't any other way to make this game. At least with current technology. The terrain system is 3 times larger than gameworlds in Crysis. Although, the biggest problem with terrains this large is accuracy. And, with the 1cm they managed to achieve, I'm perfectly content dealing with the frame drop in the cities. (would still like some more optimization on the engine though, and that isn't going to come from poly count on the models) --edit-- ... Also, does anyone know if there is even an occluder proxy to block geometry behind buildings and other objects. Cause I haven't seen anything about them, and the lack of occlusion would defiantly explain the frame rate in the cities.

Max Power, I agree, I noticed that as well. But, I was running late for work this morning, and didn't feel like messing around with it. Nevertheless, because I'm still modeling the aircraft, I'm not at all concerned about optimization. That's something that I do when the model is finished. Anyway, I know they look the same in the screencaps, but their not. However, after see how well some of the mesh was able to be reduced, I don't see why LoD-0 would need to be any higher than 15k-17k polys. Which I don't think anyone can argue with. Considering that's the poly count of models from Arma 1, which is pathetic. Update your hardware peoples.

Ok, first, ADUMB, there is a lot of wasted real estate in your unwrap. A proper unwrap utilizes 95% or more of the pixels on the texture map. DM, thanks for the link to the thread, but seriously, I don't feel like wasting my time going in and trying to explain to them just how wrong most of them are on their facts. Although, Rock is usually correct in is comments. MehMan, I'm getting ready for work at the moment, so I'll have to make this brief. The lods created for the screencaps I just took were literally made in about 3 minutes. When I get ready to make the lods for real, I'll spend more time on them. Realistically, it takes about 45 minutes to an hour. And, by "real", I mean after I've actually finished modeling, the model is unwrapped (Pro Optimizer retains UV's), and model is ready for export. LoDs are really the last thing I do when modeling. Also, keep in mind, that when done for real, things like the intakes will be capped off for the lower lod levels. And, cockpit will be deleted entirely. The lod level texture will have the glass of the cockpit grayed out, and the weapon bays will be filled in. All of that is done using the Edit Poly modifier, with preserve UV's turned on. And, this tool can't be used for things like PilotLoD, GeoLoD, FireLoD, etc. It's just for the visual LoD mesh. Anyway, in the screen caps, there is a solid and wire overlay version of each LoD. Again, I did this (including Photoshop work) in about 10 minutes. So, don't expect miracles here. There really isn't a LoD 4, unless I need it. I just found a part of the jet that hadn't been optimized yet, so I squeezed a bit more out. Below is a screencap of the Pro Optimizer rollout. Fairly simply to use. Select object, add modifier from list, click Calculate, enter % of verts to remain, done. As far as the reason for all the LoDs and optimization efforts by Bohemia, I guess it makes sense. Considering the size of terrain, I'm sure they had squeeze performance from anywhere they could. But, that doesn't mean I like working with an asset pipeline that feels more like it's year 2003 than anything I've used recently. But, I get your point. Now, I'm going to be late if I don't get moving. I'll post some progress on the landing gear later today.

rstratton, Thank you! The help would be very appreciated. I sent you a PM, also I took a look at your model. Nice work on the weapon bays. ;) The cockpit looks nice too. Anyway, the help would be great. I still want to learn to do it on my own, for my first Arma II model, it'd be nice to have someone who actually knows what the hell their doing with this toolset. lol Anyway, I'll be done with the model sometime this week. Thanks again.

I use 3DS Max 2010 to model, and Maya 2009 to unwrap. Release date... Um, just took a look at the Arma tools... and well, um, the release date is when I either learn how to use the tools, and/or when RKSL-Rock posts his tutorial for making jets in Arma II. Modeling should be done tonight, textures in a few days. But, actually getting it into Arma II looks like it might take a bit before I understand enough about the process to have a fully functional and community-release ready model. However, if anyone who is efficient with the Arma tools wants to work with me to get in-game, I'd be happy to share credit on the model. But, just the tutorials will help a lot. (this engine reminds me of the BF2 asset pipeline... and that scares me.:( Oh, and as far as stealth goes... The purest form of stealth can be found on the F-117A. The idea is simple, make sure that no face (or curve) is facing the direction of the radar. So, the challenge is to determine the likely trajectory of enemy radar, and see to it that there are no faces of the aircraft pointing that direction. But, it isn't fool proof, and no aircraft is invisible from every angle. Which is why the F-117A got shot down. The mission commander had that F-117A flying the same route multiple times, the enemy took advantage of this and position themselves directly under the flight path. Then, with a jerry-rigged, shoulder mounted AA missile, he got a great view of the non-stealthy belly of the aircraft, and pulled the trigger. Stealth isn't hard to accomplish from a select group of viewpoints, the tough part is making it stealth from a wide angle of viewpoints. Which is what the Raptor and JSF do. But, that doesn't make them invisible. The Eurofighter does have a very low cross-section, but that cross section isn't the whole picture when it comes to stealth. ...But, it is still a very good aircraft. (and looks good too)

Sniper, if you want, take your base LoD of the model you're working on and export it as an obj., send it to me and I'll crunch it down for you. (not tonight, I've got too much to do this evening, but could do it tomorrow.) Max 2010 has Pro Optimize that is able to reduce polys without sacrificing much quality. And, it doesn't effect the UV's. In fact, I can even type in the number of verts that I want the mesh to have, and it will actually figure out how to use that number of verts to best keep the shape of the model. DaSquade, this isn't what I thought you were talking about. I didn't realize that there was a "shadow mesh". This is actually kind of a dumb way to do shadows, there are much more efficient routes that could have been taken by Bohemia. But, this is what we have I suppose. Anyway, as I haven't yet gotten into that aspect of the engine yet, I really don't know what the problem would be. Max Power, thanks for the info. The geo LoD is actually a lot like what PhysX requires. Anyway, this is actually somewhat of an outdated way of making models for a game. But, I didn't design the game engine (not that I could). But, it makes sense. As far as proxies, I'm going to have to download O2 and take a look. But, I'm pretty sure that it should recognize dummy objects from Max for placement at least. If not, no big deal. Thanks again. DaSquade, something to keep in mind while modeling is the Tri/Vert ratio. This is a factor in the performance of the model. You are absolutely right when you say that the verts have a big impact. These are what the CPU is processing. (as well as the GPU, but for a different reason) What you need to try to do is use each vert for as many tris as possible. After your model is done, convert it to tris, and start target welding the verts you can. It's not a huge deal, but worth paying attention to. For ex, my F-22 currently has 18,482 tris and 9,389 verts: I just got home a while a go, but I'm back to work on the Raptor. I've got Top Gear, Entourage, and True Blood to watch tonight, so I'm probably only going to finish the gear this evening. I was hoping to have it unwrapped today, but will have to work on that tomorrow. --Disclaimer-- As I am new to using this engine, if anything mentioned above is incorrect, let me know. However, I'm fairly sure all points mentioned are somewhat universal.

DaSquade, great work man. When I'm not in the air, I'm behind the scope of an AS50. lol Probably because I'm too much of a wimp to get up close in combat. rofl Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by bugging shadow volumes, but I have a feeling that it is probably a smooth group issue. The weird dark shading that you get on the surface of the model is usually a sign of either 2 verts on top of each other that need to be welded, or smooth groups not meshing up. It could also be caused by a degenerated face. Basically a 4 sided polygon that is being twisted. Even though polys have 4 sides, hardware still sees it as 2 triangles. Literally, there are only two differences between tris and polys (or quads): First, obviously, you don't see the diagonal line between the corners of the quad. And second, both triangles that make up the quad are forced onto the same smoothing group. The way to fix it, cut the poly into a tri, and possibly change the smoothing group of one of the sides. However, if this isn't what you meant, then I've got no idea, therefore, ignore everything I've just said. lol

Well, that wasn't really what I was saying. I just meant that if people are having frame rate issues in general, then to lower settings. But, the point was, if you're not having frame rate issues with vanilla Arma II, then I doubt the polys within the poly limits (which are set by the engine developer) will make much of a difference. As for LoDs, typically engine developers follow the 50% rule of thumb. Which influences a variety of factors, such as distance that LoDs are triggered, poly count of vegetation, terrain resolution, etc. However, those limits should be considered as minimums, but you can reduce further if necessary. I've already crunched the Raptor down to see where it stands at the moment, and I'm able to reduce to around 8,500 polys without loosing much quality. At least not quality that would be noticed from 20m away. However, I appreciate the concern on my model. I'm sure you mean well. But, I've made quite a few models before, and am confident that I'll be able to produce a model that the community will enjoy. Also, like I mentioned above, I will actually test the model to make sure it performs well. And, if it turns out that nothing over 16k polys is going to work for everyone in the community. Then, I'll reduce it to 16k. Also, hardware prices for good, fast hardware have come down dramatically. And, that cheap hardware has been out long enough for game developers to take advantage of the extra bang for the buck. But, that means that gamers who want games that continue to get better will have to upgrade. The average gamer should expect to spend between $200 - $300 per year on their rig keeping it up-to-date. (I spend that much in gas for my car every month) I'm not saying that I think people should upgrade their systems just so I can add some extra polys. What I'm saying is that Arma II is no slouch, so if 4-5k polys on screen is making a big difference on your rig, it's time to update. Again, if vanilla Arma II runs smooth on your system, 5 of my Raptors parked next to each other won't make a bit of difference to your frames. The 1-2 fps that I mentioned was pertaining to people with out-of-date rigs that already have frame rate issues. To put it in perspective, Crysis, at any given point in time, has over 2 million polys on screen. Granted, I doubt Arma II is as well optimized, but 4-5k, that you only see when your are up close to a model, is really nothing. At least when you're talking about current generation games on a current generation system. Also, the only people who are ever going to see those extra polys are the pilots that love to fly these aircraft. Those are the people I'm making it for. I'm not criticizing what you're saying, but in the bigger picture of how many polys are on screen vs how many polys I'm trying to squeeze into the Raptor, it really isn't a system killing proposition. And, again, if by some freak of mathematical phenomena, those extra polys do cause performance issues, I'll cut them back. But, thank you for your feedback. I definitely read all the feedback I get so I can make sure that the model isn't only as good as I want it to be, but also works for everyone else. Anyway, what I'm really looking for are engine specific things such as naming conventions, animation requirements, weapon integration, etc. I'd also like to open up a "Gear" menu when the aircraft are near a vehicle supply crate so that the pilot can change the load out of his armament. Those are the areas that I'd love to get some info on. Anyway, gonna be out most of the day. I'll be working on the Raptor some more this evening though. --Hey, Fortran. Remember my mile long posts from CryMod... Nothing changes does it. ;)

I don't think that polys are going to be a problem. If users have a computer that is able to run Arma II smoothly, then they shouldn't see more than a 1, possibly 2 frame-per-second difference between a 15k poly model and a 25k poly model (if they even notice a difference). Also, the LoD levels are triggered by the Model Detail setting in the graphics settings. So, if users are having problems with frames, they can try lowering settings a bit. However, I will do some testing to see what the difference is. If for some reason, though I doubt it, the 25k poly version shows any performance problems, then I'll turn it down a bit. Also, the second LoD will only be 10k, so it shouldn't be a big deal. Although, my rig is running an nVidia GTX 260 (less than $200 I definitely recommend this card, it's inexpensive and fast) and an Intel QX9650 (a bit pricier), and 8 gigs Corsair Dominator RAM. So, when I get that far, I may upload a beta for people to test on different machines to see what others get as well.

Thank you Max Power. So, if I understand you correctly, the LoD-0 has the full cockpit, but only the parts of the exterior than can be seen by the pilot.? Also, the model I'm working on right now will be fine for all the versions except for the collision mesh. Off of this version, I can detail the cockpit and cut off what isn't needed for LoD-0. For LoD-1, I can keep pretty much everything the same. LoD-2 and LoD-3 will simply be poly crunching (10k tris, 5k tris, etc) And, the collision mesh will just be a basic concave mesh that wraps around the aircraft for collisions. What I'm not entirely clear on is whether the null objects (for weapons, effect, etc) need to be in place for each of those versions, whether each version needs to be exported separately, or all in the same scene file, and also what the texture size requirement is. As well as whether materials should be applied to each object individually or through sub-object materials. And, if so, how many is the limit. Like I've said before, just waiting on RKSL-Rock to release his tutorials. From there, I should have it in the air in around a week. Then, it's on to the B-2B Spirit of Kansas. --Edit-- Also, are you sure about the 32k poly limit? I've been told that it's either 20k or 25k. 32k would open up a lot of room to add more details. Hell, that would even give me room to get my 40k poly F-16 into Arma II. (crunched down of course)

Thanks, the cockpit I'm working on is just for the "external view" LoD. I'll make the higher version a bit later. The cockpit I have right now is only 1k tris. Thanks for the info, though. I figured that 2 cockpits we're required, but I hadn't gotten confirmation on it.

Thank you Franze, ....back on topic. I've started working on the cockpit. With what I have, I'm right at 18,400 tris, and I still have the gear to model. But, I think I'll be able to squeeze in right at 20k tris. (if need be, I can always poly crunch the model a little)

Max Power, simply put, your a douche. Your comments are unnecessary and obnoxious. I posted one damn comment about saying we needed some OpFor aircraft in addition to the USAF jets being made, and you have taken it upon yourself to become an advocate of "relevant posts only". 99.9% of what I have said (with the exclusion of dealing with you), has been on topic and related to my F-22 Raptor that I am spending my time making for the community. You on the other hand, haven't posted one relevant word in this thread. So STFU! BTW, I'm reporting your post so that hopefully, an admin can tell 'you' to keep it 'on topic'! By the way, the poly count of my Raptor thus far: 17,100 tris And, thanks Sniper, but 3DS Max 2010 has a modifier called Pro Optimizer that triangulates and "poly crunches" the mesh. It is absolutely priceless when it comes time for LoD's! But, thanks for the tip.

That's sweet man. Ok, so I haven't even gotten far enough to know how to export to the engine, would you mind sharing some links to the apps/tuts that you're using? Would be much appreciated. ;) ---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:24 PM ---------- Earlier someone was asking about the weapons configuration of the Raptor. I found this pic which illustrates it's different load-outs. Also, I fixed the weapon bay and gear bay doors so that there is a clearly defined edge between them. --Question-- I'm assuming that the cockpit is a separate model from the exterior, so does anyone know how many polys should be used for the "exterior model" cockpit?

Ok, felt like doing some renders. Probably because I'm sleep deprived and about to pass out... Anyway, it's getting close to being done on the modeling side of things. Just the gear and cockpit to go. Also, the weapons bays and gear bays will need a bit of detail added. Yeah, so I'm exausted... Will probably have texture WiP's sometime later today or tomorrow.

Ok, so I'm behind a little bit. You did have a head start though. lol ...It is looking really good! I can't believe you even modeled arms to hold the ordnance. I should be done modeling the Raptor tomorrow, so brace yourself for some wicked screenies. ;) And, if you're bored, you can always UV map and texture mine as well. jk Well, I'll report back either tomorrow or Sunday. Later.

Ok first, ch_123, yes I am actually modeling the weapon bay doors right now. They will have their animation tied to the firing of the appropriate missile (if it can be done) Such as the side bays opening to "toss" out a Sidewinder, and the bottom bay doors opening to drop a JDAM, etc. I don't know how practical this will be, but it is the goal for now... Once I get my hands on a tutorial and actually do some digging around, I won't really know how much I can actually do with it. Eble, go ahead and port the Su-47 over to A2. I've got at least another week or two on the Raptor, then probably 2-3 weeks on the B-2B, and 2 weeks on the Tu-95. So, the Su-47 won't be done for a while. I will still make it so that we have an updated model to use, but it would be nice to have the OFP Su-47 until mine gets made. I'm sure the community will enjoy having your port to play with in the mean time. Oh, and thanks for the link to the Mykes IAWS. I'll take a look and see if I can make it work. Although, I'm still around a week away from even thinking about getting into that stuff with the Raptor. I'll probably post some pics before I head off to bed. Making quite a bit of progress. --Update-- Well, I'm off to bed. Weapons bays are cut and I'm setting up the topology to cut the gear doors. By tomorrow afternoon it should be completely modeled and ready to unwrap/texture. (the hard part) Anyway, I won't keep boring you guys with a bunch of pics. My next update will probably be after I get the basic texture on it.

I started working on the nose. The blueprints I was using were incorrect on just about every aspect of the entire front of the aircraft. I had to push the intakes back, move the cockpit forward, flatten the nose, raise the curve of it's top-side, etc. So, now I'm cleaning up the mess of moving everything around. Anyway, not a big deal. As soon as I'm done with that I can move on to the canopy, weapons bays, and landing gear. Here's what the front looks like now: ---------- Post added at 06:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:59 PM ---------- Thanks for the comments... Um, haven't really thought that far ahead. I'm not sure which armaments are actually already in A2. Such as JDAM, etc. But, that's still a ways off. Right now, I just want to get it modeled, unwrapped, textured, animated, and make the LoD's. That by itself is quite a task. Then, hopefully RKSL-Rock will have his tutorial finished so that I'm able to get it into the game. At that point I'll start worrying about what to stuff into the Raptor's weapons bays. lol Here is what the Raptor can carry: Armament: 1x internal M61A2 20-mm cannon 3x internal weapons bays: --Underside Bay 4x AIM-120A AMRAAMs --2x Lateral Intake Bays: each with 2x AIM-9M Sidewinder AAMs. (total of 4 Sidewinders) Revised bays for 1,000 lb JDAMs (replacing 2x AIM-120s and AIM-9X AAMs) 4x under-wing stores stations with provision for 2x AGM-137A Tri-Service Standoff Attack Missiles and/or fuel tanks. So, there is likely to be a bit of coding to get all that working. In fact, I may ask a programmer that works with me on another project if he'd be willing to try to find a way to get the "Gear" feature to work with aircraft when they're next to a rearm source. Then, add armaments to the vehicle supply crates to get the extra weapons. I don't know how difficult that would be, but I'll ask him.

Thank you... Making some progress. I just got home from work, but I should be able to post some more later today. ---------- Post added at 04:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:17 PM ---------- --Breaking News-- Congress is pushing the Pentagon to build 7 more F-22 Raptors (likely to retain jobs in the 44 States where the parts are built), even though the Pentagon says they have enough of them. And, President Obama says that he'll veto any bill put through Congress that attempts to further the Raptor program. Therefore... the 187 that we have is all we're going to get. (unless the Pentagon opens up the export of the Raptor for the Aussie's and Brits) It's kinda sad, but it isn't really money we have to spend... And, though there are a lot of jobs hanging on the Raptor program, most of those will be diverted to the JSF program as it is based largely on the Raptor... A lot of the parts for the JSF actually come from the Raptor's design. Anyway, thought the F-22 fans would like the update on it's situation. Also, the rear of my F-22 is taking shape, so I thought I'd share it. I'm going to be working most of the afternoon on this, so check back later for more pics...

So, someone has finally brought up the 100 Million Dollar Question. How does a Eurofighter Typhoon (or an F/A-18 for that matter) shoot down a Raptor in a simulated dog fight. Well, there are a few possibilities, and probably a combination of all of them. First, the Raptor is truly the most advanced aircraft ever built... But, that doesn't make it invincible like the USAF would lead you to believe. Second, human error. The Raptor is useless without a person in the cockpit, and is only as good as the pilot. Third, simulation software. The software used during simulated dogfighting is tied directly into the aircraft's weapons system, but still makes "judgment calls" as to what is a hit and what isn't. And, finally, don't forget that the Eurofighter and the Super Hornet are both incredible aircraft. Fortunately, the US isn't at war with any European countries that use the Eurofighter. Russian aircraft are the only real concern. Now, typically speaking, Russian aircraft have fairly poor avionics and weapon systems. At least compared to US and British systems. (they are getting much better though) However, the Russians are very adept at aerodynamics, which is what makes their aircraft so competitive. It's really anyone's guess as to whether a Flanker or Berkut could defeat a Raptor. In a real-world combat scenario, my money would be on the Raptor... But, I wouldn't bet the bank on it. Although, what is really important is the kill ratio. And, that is still very favorable toward the Raptor. It's just not unbeatable like we've been told. (which is 99% of the argument for the billions spent on it) And, thank you BogdanM, I found Max Power's reply to my post rather unnecessary. Either he is in desperate need of getting laid, or is just naturally up tight, either way, all he had to do is say "please post requests in the request thread". Or even just report the post for an admin to say something. Regardless, I really don't care. I typically try to ignore people like our friend Max Power. Oh, and BogdanM, I agree that the mission designer can choose how to balance the battlefield. However, what I was suggesting is that the person who is designing the mission will have a massive amount of technology and firepower at his disposal on the BlueFor side, but if the OpFor is left to the two jets available at installation... Then, it is unbalanced, as a game, not necessarily the individual battles. Just saying we need some OpFor jets as well. Nothing more, nothing less. Anyway, back to reality, probably won't start on any OpFor's until after the Raptor and the B-2B. But, at that point I'll probably start with the Tu-95 or Su-37. For now though, I just want to get my Raptor in-game. I'm looking forward to the tutorials that RKSL-Rock is working on. Once I get a hold of those, it should only take a week or so to complete. If anyone is already planning either of the Russian aircraft I mentioned, let me know so I don't waist time on stuff that's already being made. But, I've already started on the Raptor and B-2B, so if someone is making one of those... Well, then we'll have two of them. lol Also, Max Power, I'm not really sure why you wanted to see the Raptor without the smoothing modifier. Anyway, here it is.

Thanks Python1. You can check out my progress on the Raptor in the WiP thread here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=74243&page=21 Here is the list of models I plan on making this summer: F-22 Raptor (stealth fighter and strike bomber) F-14 Tomcat (maybe, I think someone else is making one) Tu-95 Bear (heavy bomber, and strategic target) B-2B Spirit of Kansas (stealth bomber and strategic target) C-5 Galaxy (maybe, depends on whether or not I can find a practical use for it) U-2 Dragonlady (serves same purpose as UAV, and will likely tap into the UAV "location targeting" to mark locations for other units) Keep an eye on the WiP thread. I usually work on at least 2 models at a time, so you'll be able to track my work on those models. Again, glad to have joined the Arma II community. I've worked in other communities, but am always left feeling like it just isn't worth my time... The reason, no other FPS/RTS/RPG game (as if there are many out there), has even come close to the quality of physics and weapon implementation as Arma II. So, finally I've found an engine that will allow me to go crazy with aircraft. There are literally dozens of aircraft that I'd like to make for A2, but the list above is my target for this summer. (but that list may change) Also, RKSL-Rock, could you PM me when you get the tutorials uploaded. Not rushing or anything, I've still got about 4 or 5 days worth of work on the Raptor before I'll need them, just would like to know when they're ready. (or just let me know where to look for them so I can keep an eye out)

Well, it's about time to report some progress on my F-22 Raptor. It is still very much a work in progress, but I thought I would share what I have so far: :868: By tomorrow I hope to be ready to start working on the cockpit. And, Saturday or Sunday I'll unwrap and begin working on the textures. Also, anyone who has some knowledge on setting up animations, naming of objects, exporting, etc., please PM me if you'd be willing to help out in getting this bird in Arma II. Even if it's just letting me bug you with a few questions during the process. Again, I'm a total Arma noob, so any help would be great. ---------- Post added at 12:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 AM ---------- Max Power, I wasn't wishing to turn this into a "plebeian" of addon begging. I only brought up the OpFor aircraft because we were discussing the implementation of Fortran's F-117 and my F-22 into ArmaII, and I happened to think that 2 very capable stealth/strike/fighter aircraft would make the BlueFor a "bit" on the dominate side. However, if it would suit the admins, feel free to cut and paste the later half of my comment to another thread. I apologize if I was out of line, but I did, and still do think it was relevant to the topic. And, I will likely be modeling the Tu-95 Bear myself, so you can drop that one from your "begging" complaint list.

While modeling my F-22 Raptor, and in regard to the above comment about Fortran's F-117A Knighthawk, I've been thinking about how these aircraft will be incorporated and used inside of Arma II. First off, the F-117A is a surgical strike aircraft. It's use is truly limited to predetermined strikes. For ex, when you know right where the target is, and need to get to it quietly and unseen. As for the Raptor, it carries a larger payload than the F-117, and has a comparable radar cross-section, therefore, is able to perform many of the same jobs, but carries enough armament to attack multiple targets as well as being able to defend itself against other aircraft (and attack aircraft with impunity if needed). With the introduction of the F-22 Raptor, the Knighthawk became obsolete. Which is why it was decommissioned. Although, the primary role of the F-22 is Air Superiority, it is extremely capable in strike scenarios. What it really comes down to in Arma II, is "will these aircraft have stratigic value?" Well, yes. The idea of Arma II is that it is a battlefield simulator. However, the world of Arma II is not a carbon copy of the real world. Unless each and every tool used by both the US and Russian forces were to be replicated, then Arma II is still a "gameworld". Which means different rules apply. You have to judge the value of each asset based on what it will provide the "gameworld". In Arma II, the F-117A will have a very important role of being able to take out hard targets such as capture points, bunkers, factories, etc., then RTB to rearm and refuel. This makes for an exiting pilot job of take-off, destroy target, and land. All three while flying one of the coolest aircraft ever built. The Raptor is capable of the same missions, but has the flexibility of staying airborne longer due to it's increased payload (no point in the F-117 staying airborne if it isn't carrying weapons), and is capable of achieving it's real-life role of Air Superiority. This makes for a "dominant role" that is sure to give the pilot a "God complex", which is always welcome in FPS/RPG/RTS games. Also, keep in mind that on the Arma II battlefield, you don't have tens of thousands of enlisted men to push around. With a limited number of men, the Commander must choose which assets he implements to get the job done. There will likely be warfare scenarios where neither of these birds make it off the ground. While others, these two will dominate the field. With this in mind, I would like to ask the Addon Community to begin work on OpFor aircraft to compete against these USAF titans. Otherwise, the battlefield with become largely uneven. Especially when I complete my B-2B Spirit of Saint Louis. (can we say carpet bombing?) For ex: Su-37/47? Berkut: http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/s-37_berkut.pl Mig-29: http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/mig-29_fulcrum.pl Tu-95 Bear: http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/tu-95_bear.pl Tu-160 Blackjack: http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/tu-160_blackjack.pl

sgt flyer, Thanks for the intel. After I finish the Raptor, I'll dig around and see if I can find a way to edit the aircraft scripts to null the radar return. Should have some renders of my progress on the Raptor sometime tonight. Ran into a bit of a snag as the 3-view blueprints I'm using aren't 100% accurate. I've found a few areas that need some tweaking. Anyway, I want to at least get the bulk of the model fleshed out before posting renders.