Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

dragon01

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    2030

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Everything posted by dragon01

  1. dragon01
    Land softer. :) You probably need more flight training, airplanes and helos in ArmA require flying them like the real thing, not like in GTA. I can land just fine on dev. Also, you need to land straight and on flat terrain, tipping over will make whatever you're flying explode.
  2. dragon01
    If it was used on some MANs, then this must be one of them. :) Simple. Who says that every vehicle available has to be the most bog-standard example. It's nice if it is, but we can use a less common variation just fine.
  3. dragon01
    Nice. I guess I never paid much attention to it. If it affects BFM, then maybe implementing this on planes would be possible. Still not sure how often this would come up, but it'd be good for consistency.
  4. dragon01
    I don't think that ArmA does anything with the wind, besides having it blow smoke around. It doesn't affect ballistics and I think that AFM isn't affected, either (it was in TOH, but not all features have been implemented, I think). TBH, I don't see much point in wind affecting planes. It'd be nice, but you'd barely notice it in the jets. The only plane that would be significantly affected would be Caesar BTT. Landings in strong crosswinds could be interesting, but that's about the extent of it. With helos and VTOLs it's a big deal and with parachutes it can mean life or death, but planes, especially fighters, aren't gonna be too bothered.
  5. dragon01
    What else is there to say about the FM? It's pretty much perfect now, aside from not factoring software G limits into maneuverability curves.
  6. dragon01
    Yeah, it's especially sad since the actual missions are pretty decent if you ignore the mechanics. The second to last one is actually downright awesome even despite them, though you do have to play your cards exactly right and be very careful if you want to get through it completely solo and without dying even once. The third one is a complete nightmare, on the other hand.
  7. dragon01
    Of course it is. The difference is what they do with the logs. Airframe life due to metal fatigue is a lot bigger concern when planes aren't in much danger of getting shot down. I'm not saying it's gonna get ignored, but you're not gonna lose your career over it during a war (in peacetime you probably won't lose it either, but it's not gonna look good on the record). What are they set to, then? The latest Viper does 9G by default, for example. If you're referring to "it's been around a long time" part, then it's on the F-16, which isn't exactly a new design. You have to go back to the 80s to find fighters without it. I know what I want, namely, an FM that "checks all the boxes", while not being bogged down in minute details. There's a lot ArmA could take from DCS, especially since it has a low-detail FM with simplified controls (for example, the Su-25 that comes with DCS World has it). G-limiter, for example, is a fundamental element of modern air combat tactics, so it should be in. Airframe fatigue from repeated hard pulls, on the other hand, doesn't actually come into play very often (you either have to abuse the plane a lot, which is rare, or abuse it a little over a lot of flights, which isn't simulated). Isn't the switch in the Viper an AoA limiter? It's been a while since I played Freefalcon, but I don't seem to recall redout-level negative Gs during deep stall recovery (at -4G, it sets in really qucikly and can easily kill you). In fact, the F-16 really can't pull or push much Gs in such a situation, because stalled control surfaces aren't that effective. "Pitch limiter" usually refers to an AoA limiter, which can be disengaged in many planes in order to perform stall recovery and some of the crazier aerobatics (notably, anything involving supermaneuverability). However, it's quite possible it disengages the G limiter as well. This is true, but pulling high Gs can get you out of a pinch when other methods have failed. It's preferable to notice the missile early, but if you fail to do that, you're not going to sit by and let it hit you. Likewise, if you end up in scissors, being able to pull more Gs than the opponent can very much save your backside. Sure, it's better not to end up in them in first place, but you do get an advantage if you got the limit set at 10G and not 9.
  8. dragon01
    Exactly. I couldn't see any option to play with AI teammates, either, which is the biggest problem when playing solo. It's not terrible right now, just bad. You sometimes have to abuse the respawn mechanic, especially during the later missions, when you'd have much better chances with a squad (the short periods where you're supported by Raider One are much more manageable just because there are friendly AIs around).
  9. dragon01
    That's what I'm talking about. At least in SP, you don't have to worry about damage accumulated between multiple flights. Or even the fact that it's very possible to completely junk a plane by overstressing it too much, despite being able to land it safety.
  10. dragon01
    Sure, but they do happen. Pilots will respect G limits if it doesn't get them killed. Sure, there might be a situation where you either break off your wings from over-G or get shot to pieces, but that's war for you. However, I can assure you (as was seen many times during actual wars) that pilots will do things that will cause the airframe to be written off post-flight, if they have to. A lot of weird tricks were pulled over Vietnam, including bombing helicopters and even a fighter in mid air (the latter with iron bombs!), slowing down to almost stall to gun down PO-2 biplanes (this ended badly at least once), and one plane towing the other with a tail hook. One MiG-25 clocked Mach 3.2 for some reason (this one is not from 'Nam), which also probably ended with the airframe being retired. I really don't think pilots held back on Gs in dogfights back then, and would be unlikely to do so now, if they ever faced a real threat as opposed to a generation-old junk. Also, we're not only talking dogfights here. As you said, most air combat takes place in BVR. You know what's the actual number 1 source of high-G jinking? Missile evasion. Sure, you don't always have to pull hard, but it's one of the better techniques. Note that exceeding G limitations doesn't usually instantly break the aircraft apart unless you truly go overboard, while missile hits definitely tend to do that. About G limiters, this is what I've been saying. They generally prevent you from having the plane break up in mid air (though hitting them without a good reason is a good way of getting to have a long, unpleasant talk with your CO...). All modern fighters have them, this tech has been around for a long time. However, they tend to be set at either 9 (for Western fighters) or 10G (Russian ones). Airframes can generally take at least two more, unless they're in a really decrepit state. I do know what I'm talking about, but I've chosen to simplify what my replies as not to introduce complexity which is either unnecessary or infeasible to implement. I know how things work in real world, but ArmA isn't even a flightsim, so some things do not need to be considered. Only short term. I was talking long-term fatigue, that is, something you worry about between flights. As far as I know, damage in DCS is only done during the flight and you get your plane in mint condition at the start of the next flight.
  11. dragon01
    Any news on that Apex SP campaign overhaul? I've just bought Apex and it is just as bad as they say. I think this could be much more enjoyable if it was converted to proper SP setup (or at least given a few bots...).
  12. dragon01
    Which ArmA3 also doesn't simulate. Not only that, if you're fighting an actual war, this sort of thing typically goes out of window. Pilots would rather pull high Gs and possibly break off the wings than don't pull them and get their wings shot off with certainty. Planes would either get rotated out if the conflict doesn't involve the whole air force, or end up pushed to the limits (and occasionally past, with unpleasant results) if it does. Remember, this is, ultimately, an ArmA3 Dev Branch forum. Which means that discussion should be, ultimately, related to what ArmA3 can or should do. We are discussing a simulator, not real life, which means certain things such as metal fatigue or assorted bureaucracy are irrelevant. I'm all for realistic simulation, but certain things are simply out of scope. Even DCS, to my knowledge, doesn't model long term airframe fatigue.
  13. dragon01

    High Command Module - MP

    dragon01 replied to tmynott's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH

    I've played around with it in SP. For some reason, it seems that AI behaves worse under HC waypoints than normally. If BIS made a better UI for High Command (lots of orders and behaviors) and fixed that problem, it could be a really fun game mode. I think that the two big mistakes BIS made in ArmA2 were base building and not making proper use of UAV support. I think that a good High Command mission should give you all forces right at the start, without any base building. Also, a good number of UAVs to observe the action and spot targets for your troops. The latter could be done using datalink, so that you can directly help your subordinates. Right now, switching between commanding, UAV and supports (also an important factor) is clumsy. Ideally, there would be a single, unified UI allowing your to call in artillery, direct aircraft and ground troops (for example, have troopers board a transport helo, then order the helo to drop them off somewhere else, or paradrop if they have chutes).
  14. dragon01

    Help for someone new to Arma games

    dragon01 replied to DaddyFatSax's topic in ARMA 3 - GENERAL

    Also, play SP missions. At the very least, the "Bootcamp" campaign, then the showcases of whatever is of interest to you. They cover pretty much everything you need to know about mechanics. Note, the "Fixed Wings" showcase might change soon, since jets are currently in a state of flux. Most other things aren't going to change, though. Another thing to check out is the "VR Training" under "Learn". It covers a lot of advanced concepts such as weapon resting, fatigue, inertia, recoil management and stances in great detail. I don't know how accurate it currently is for vehicles and missile launchers (the targeting system recently got a major overhaul), but infantry stuff should be OK.
  15. dragon01

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    dragon01 replied to soul_assassin's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE

    In case it makes your job any easier, an option to assign a pylon to a specific crew position (pilot, gunner, even crew chief and the like) was added in a recent dev branch update. This should make it possible to replicate the "old" RHS pilot/gunner weapon setup without additional scripting.
  16. dragon01
    Click the button several times. It'll scroll through both door gunners, the gunner and the pilot. There should be a tooltip telling you which one is selected.
  17. dragon01
    As you said, ArmA3 doesn't simulate the weight of an armament or fuel. A typical AA loadout usually could still permit pulling more Gs than the pilot could endure. To actually damage a fighter with G forces, you have to weigh it down with stuff like bombs, heavy rockets or cruise missiles. Planes loaded like that are not expected to engage in air combat, if you are jumped enroute to target, you simply jettison all this and focus on getting home alive. It would've been nice if ArmA simulated that, but it currently doesn't. The basic dynamics of a turn are already there, what it needs is a "G limiter" for restricting turn rates at high speed. This, along with slightly altered speed/maneuverability curves, would be all that's needed. The planes would handle like they're unloaded or (at most) loaded for air combat all the time, but I'm fine with that as far as ArmA goes. Regarding landing gear, it presents a basic problem: ILS. Currently, ILS is enabled by extending landing gear, so if you're making an approach under IFR, you'll want to do that early. While generally, you should slow down to the proper landing speed before flying the glideslope, I don't think that strictly enforcing that with gear damage is necessary.
  18. dragon01
    Is it just me, or is the new LCOS piper "jumpy"? It seems like it's updated every second or so. Still more accurate than the old method, but it doesn't feel right. BTW, the latest cannon updates work great. I was able to bring down a Wipeout with Shikra's cannon in just a few short bursts. Black Wasp took a bit longer against a Neopheron, but that might have been due to me not noticing it's been shot down (for some reason, I haven't seen it pop the top). Just please stop calling the Vulcan a minigun...
  19. dragon01
    Right now, high-speed jets are incapable of doing things that would overstress the airframe. They can only pull 9-10G turns due to the way their physics are set up, which is not enough to actually harm a fighter. Those things are sturdy. Dynamic pressure at max speed can't rip the wings off a fighter, either, even if you're doing a 10G turn. Thus, the G limit is the only realistic restriction on maneuverability. As for Cessna TTx, doesn't it have some sort of "power-steering", though? Either way, it's kind of moot, because it can't go that fast, anyway.
  20. dragon01
    This would tie quite well into the "G limiter" idea I outlined. The control surfaces will, in fact, rotate to their maximum deflection during flight below or exactly at corner velocity, but above their travel range they become limited to limit the forces on the airframe. Roll and yaw axes probably also have a similar behavior, but I guess it'd be somewhat less noticeable and occur at higher speeds. Remember, in air combat you always want the highest turn rate that you can get. I think that we don't currently have any planes with mechanical linkages. Even Caesar BTT uses a side stick, which is ill-suited for a mechanical installation.
  21. dragon01

    War Plan Blue (W.P.B)

    dragon01 replied to clima_x's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: DISCUSSION

    It would be nice if we could get a "new" and "salty" (or whatever's the army word for it) version of the uniform. Specops would naturally tend to have the latter, while officer uniforms would almost invariably be the former, not to mention mission makers could use them to differentiate their characters.
  22. dragon01
    The new carrier objects look amazing. Could you guys make the towing tractor an actual vehicle? Please? It doesn't even need to have any towing functionality out of the box (though that would be amazing), that could be done by mods or scripts. Also, I saw mention of new soundtrack, but I can't find any new songs in Eden.
  23. dragon01
    Regardless of the engine, that would be asking a lot from players. As far as the Viper goes, deep stall recovery is incredibly difficult. A "falling leaf" stall isn't that bad, but try getting that resonance in an inverted spin... :) It's possible, just hard, not to mention it takes a lot of time, more than you would have at typical flight altitudes in ArmA. Not only does the rocking take a while to get going, you exit the stall with a nose pointed straight down, and usually some speed, as well. You have to pull up, but not too fast, or it's back to the square one (only this time, you're much closer to the ground). All in all, you do all those tricks with one eye on the altimeter and one hand on the ejection handle. I don't know if 5th gen fighters like Raptor or PAK-FA would be able to exit a deep stall by engine power alone, or if they even exhibit that behavior in first place. However, I'm firmly convinced that deep stalls are the territory of study sims and not ArmA. A toggle, like advanced AFM features would be required, but deep stall stems from the aerodynamic configuration of the plane, the FM is either accurate enough for it to manifest or it isn't.
  24. dragon01
    Actually, most real FBW systems won't keep the jet horizontal when "falling like a brick". Indeed, for most part, they will do all they can to prevent such a situation from arising in first place. There's a reason that most fancy aerobatics are done with limiters off. Also, jet thrust increases with airspeed (more air is rammed into the intakes), and if you're falling, then depending on intake design, you could end up with them in aerodynamic shadow. All in all, coming out of stall by increasing thrust is not the correct technique. IRL, stall speed varies with the weight of the aircraft, which is influenced by both its mass and G. Thus, by putting your nose down you actually put the aircraft in a low-G condition, which lowers stall speed (if you can manage 0G, to zero) and makes it easier to recover. In fact, aerodynamic stability prevents normal planes from ending up in situation where they fall straight down, since the drag distribution will reorient the plane nose down. When it doesn't happen, it's called a deep stall (on fighters, at least. A T-tail deep stall is a different thing). On Viper, at least, no amount of throttle is gonna get you out of it, though I suppose powering out of such a situation is theoretically possible, if not with F-16's engine. All I can say, the jets feel good enough over most of their envelope. Extreme conditions, stalling out and supermaneuverability would be nice, but ultimately, what's the use? ArmA is not a flight sim and as such, it primarily needs to maintain fidelity in the part of the envelope players most often find themselves in. Accurate stall modeling is nice, but how many times is it going to get noticed and appreciated?
  25. dragon01
    Are you talking RPM percent, or throttle percent? They're not quite the same thing. ArmA displays a "throttle setting", which goes from 100% to 0% in normal operation. RPM, on the other hand, goes from 100% to about 25% after engine is spooled up. What ArmA displays as "0%" is more like DCS' 15-25% (depending on aircraft) idle setting. While this idle thrust isn't simulated in ArmA (doesn't blow things around or suck people into intakes, which is mostly what idle setting does IRL), I think it's a reasonable approximation. Drag is too low, I agree, but I found that taxiing feels more or less OK, at least in DLC jets. Su-25 is an old-ish, heavily armored CAS aircraft, while DLC jets are light/medium weight (especially since we don't simulate either armament or fuel weight), high performance fighters. Of course, the vanilla CAS planes should be significantly less powerful and more draggy, but they're not updated yet.
×