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

    War Plan Blue (W.P.B)

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

    Looks lovely. Never thought I'd say it about an ACU, but here you go. :)
  2. dragon01
    FFW FTW. :)
  3. dragon01
    I guess that's as close as you're going to get in ArmA. The real autogyro is more like an autorotating helicopter (including helo-style controls) that can control forward speed using throttle/prop pitch control. Odd birds, but considering that there's been a recent resurgence of interest in gyrodynes (same thing, but with an optionally powered rotor) in the US military, maybe we can hope for a better implementation in ArmA4...
  4. dragon01
    Is that autogyro actually an autogyro? :) That is, is the FM correct, or is it just a fancy helo/VTOL? AFM might be up to task of simulating such a thing, I suppose, but I never seen it done in ArmA.
  5. dragon01
    The throttle thing is unsurprising, remember that those engines are quite powerful. I agree that automatic rudder coordination would be useful (though it should be enabled on a per-plane basis, so that it can be disabled on the likes of Caesar BTT). The jets do feel somewhat "airliner-ish", but I think this is still a great improvement from when they used not to feel like airplanes at all. I see what you mean, but I think that if anything, its them not having enough drag, especially at high AoA. Lift is OK, but induced drag is somewhat low. However, I was able to make a controlled, 3-degree approach with the Black Wasp using the ILS and AoA indexer just fine. Control speed with throttle (in such low ranges it's pretty easy), align with stick. It's a bit though on Malden because the airbase glideslope goes through a mountain, but it does work even there.
  6. dragon01
    Did anyone have an issue where Steam would constantly redownload all subscribed mods? I had to unsubscribe from everything because of this. Is there an easy fix?
  7. dragon01
    I can tell you that this was fixed on (fairly recent) devbranch. Flight model is good. Banked turns are possible, landings work great and the planes are really agile (at least up to their G limits). As for not lifting off without stick input, this is realistic behavior. Jets don't have much of AoI, and their wings are thin and symmetric, for efficient supersonic and transsonic flight. The result is that they will generally require a bit of a pull to take off.
  8. dragon01
    As far as G limits go, this would be best implemented as simple, "artificial" limits, where the plane would have been able to turn faster, but the software doesn't let it. Note that corner velocity is about turn rate, not G. In a real plane, you would be able to pull 9-10G at supersonic speeds, too (unless your plane is not designed for those speeds and loses control surface efficiency, but this is not the case with the aircraft we have) - it's just that the actual rate in degrees per second would be lower, due to greater speed. The faster you move, the slower you need to turn to produce the same G. One way of doing this that would not involve messing with physics is changing control surface deflection limits based on speed. It would probably still require a code change, but you could scale positive and negative input axes separately. I think that the scaling is basically linear with speed, with a cutoff point at corner velocity. This is, as far as I know, how the actual G limiters in aircraft work. An additional use of this feature would be making it harder to break off the rotor in advanced helos. Another way would be not implementing any limiters, but implementing mandatory blackouts and redouts instead. This is potentially easier to do (since you're not touching existing systems), but could make it difficult to manage Gs for KB+mouse players due to lower control precision. It would also be somewhat harder on all players, and you may get complaints about it being easier to black/redout than IRL. In that case, a G indicator on the HUD would be a must.
  9. dragon01
    Gun cross should be easy to implement, though. Just make the gun point a bit above the aircraft centerline and draw a fixed graphic on HUD in the proper spot. Using the "watermark" as a boresight is weird.
  10. dragon01
    First of all, I have to congratulate you guys on finally getting it right. :) The FM on DLC jets is perfect. It may not be DCS, but what matter is that the planes simply feel right. The Buzzard is one exception, though. It seems like it's either too heavy or not getting enough lift. I noticed that its AoA is always very high, like it's riding the edge of stall just to stay aloft. As a low speed, straight-winged aircraft, its behavior should exactly opposite. Second, there's the matter of AoA indicators. On Black Wasp, the indexer works fine, and if it wasn't for Malden airbase's glideslope literally going through a mountain, I'd have pulled of a "nominal" landing just like in a sim. Two other jets are simply missing theirs, though. Buzzard does have an AoA indicator, but it seems to indicate an AoA that puts me at about 500km/h with full flaps, which is way too much for a safe landing. This might be related to the problem above, but it's just as likely that the indicator itself is not working properly. Speaking of HUDs, it would also be nice if alpha (AoA), G-force and mach number were displayed on the HUD (usually, they're where you put pitch, roll and numeric climb rate). Thirdly, I wanted to mention the G-load limiters and/or effects. Real planes are usually limited to either 9 or 10G positive and 4G negative acceleration. The latter, in particular, can kill the pilot very quickly over that limit (and even -4G can be very dangrous, if sustained). This is where "corner velocity" comes from - the faster you go, the more agile the aircraft becomes (due to control surfaces being able to exert more force), but it also increases the G-forces acting on the pilot. Corner velocity is, as such, the velocity at which peak G during the turn just reaches the limit. Non-fighters (or particularly heavily loaded fighters) can have the limits set much lower, because of structural concerns. I don't think there's a need to implement G-based airframe damage, but software limiters themselves would be a great idea and blackouts/redouts would be a nice touch, as well (thought it could be good to make them difficulty-based).
  11. dragon01
    I hope you do it. I found TLI rather unintuitive and imprecise. Gun cross is often rather large, and I found that trying to aim at the TLI bug is not easy. It also runs counter to CCIP, where you put the CCIP piper over the targetbox and fire. I also found DLC aircraft guns rather underwhelming, compounding the problem. Nevermind being useless for strafing (they were never supposed to be good at that), but in air combat they're plagued by low rate of fire, poor sighting and lack of stopping power. GSh-30-1 (presumably what Shikra's gun is) has a ROF of 1500 rpm, but can destroy an air target in as few as 5 rounds. Even for something like the Wipeout, a single hit should cripple multiple systems, not to mention they should cut through trucks like hot knife through butter (limited ammo notwithstanding). The Vulcan fires at a rate of 6000 rpm instead, dealing much less damage per round, but practically ensuring you get a few on the target even during a snapshot (spraying as the target passes the LCOS piper is a valid gunnery technique). Gripen's BK-27 is similar to GSh-30-1, firing powerful rounds at 1700 rpm. Additionally, rounds fired by air-to-air guns are closer HE rounds (usually a bit more complex) than to API. On a final note, quit localizing "gatling" as "minigun". The former is not trademarked and the way it currently is looks rather silly.
  12. dragon01

    Tanks - Fire-control system

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

    Parallel motion over flat terrain at constant speed is not a significantly different problem than stationary firing. In fact, even if the target couldn't be lased, manual data input (well, that and a bit of luck) would work just fine in such case. It is possible to accurately estimate target speed and range using the reticle or a mechanical rangefinder, but it's a very special case. Most notably, the range stays almost constant. With some skill, I can see this being a repeatable performance. Trying to hit a target moving diagonally, or even moving over bumpy terrain (commonly found everywhere outside of test ranges and golf courses) would make such shots purely a matter of luck, though. Not to mention that APFSDS in particular requires a direct hit to a vital component if you're shooting at softskins (forget about penetrating any sort of armor at that distance), you need to do a lot better accuracy than 2x2m area to do significant damage. The point is, this is on paper maximum performance. In actual combat, it's very unlikely to be replicated.
  13. dragon01
    I'd rather see the TOH buildings ported. It might be a lot of work (could entail remaking the textures) and you may want to seek out an experienced modeler, but in the end, I believe it would be worth the trouble. Making the reflections work should be possible in A3 (I'm pretty sure Applegate terrain had buildings with something like this working at some point).
  14. dragon01

    Tanks - Fire-control system

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

    Is that data from actual combat, or from tests? It sounds like a bit of a stretch. I can imagine that being possible only if they're moving in parallel, in the same direction and over relatively flat terrain. Even then, it'd probably have to be firing the APFSDS round, which is useless at such extreme ranges (HEAT does not lose effectiveness with speed, but it has inherently shorter range due to being larger and heavier).
  15. dragon01
    The problem is, neither CUP nor vanilla A3 have suitable buildings. Skyscrappers from TOH are quite unlike anything in ArmA. Not even Apex has anything like them, we're talking big, American-style skyscrappers here.
  16. dragon01
    There was a good Queen Elizabeth-class carrier model for ArmA2. IIRC, JDog made it (same guy as the Nimitz). Somebody even started porting it, then lost interest after a while. It was a long time ago, but the model should still be good...
  17. dragon01

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

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

    Nice one. Usefulness of pistols in ArmA is limited in general, but a silenced variant will be occasionally useful, I guess.
  18. dragon01

    Mogadishu Map v2

    dragon01 replied to Variable.A's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE

    Thanks. Couldn't find any other mention of it on the forum.
  19. dragon01

    Mogadishu Map v2

    dragon01 replied to Variable.A's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE

    Where did you get that helo from? Looks a bit like Samson from Avatar...
  20. dragon01
    Sorry, but detecting a Falcon 9 launch from 1200km is in the same category as seeing the Moon from 400000km. It's literally the most obvious thing in the air short of an Ariane V (which uses solid rocket motors that tend to give off a nice smoke trail in addition to heat and light). The maximum for a more realistic target is going to be a lot shorter, even ordinary artillery rockets are less conspicuous.
  21. dragon01

    Tanks - Fire-control system

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

    That is usually the case. :) Manufacturers and propagandists alike tend to put up stats achieved in ideal conditions during testing. In actual combat, it never works out that way. It's easy to hit a wooden dummy which isn't popping smoke, moving to trying to shoot back. In actual use, capabilities go way down. This is a serious limitation that is often overlooked by tank fanboys. Many critics of the Armata system don't get it, either, as far as I saw. It's indeed impossible for its gun to be able hit moving targets at 4km using shells - the impressive-looking stats are for guided missiles, which just happen to be fired from the gun barrel (and which are not even a new idea, Soviets have been using that tech for years) and only require you to keep your sight pointed on the target, as opposed to fiddling around with a firing solution. It is a big advantage over Western tanks, but missiles come with their own disadvantages, most notable being vulnerable to APS and reactive armor.
  22. dragon01
    I hope that Tanks DLC takes a serious look at the penetration system. Otherwise, we'll have to bug BIS about it the moment ArmA4 enters EA...
  23. dragon01
    Works, coordinated turns are quite possible with analog stick and rudder. The FM is not quite perfect from a flightsimmer's perspective, but it seems to get most of the basics right.
  24. dragon01

    Tanks - Fire-control system

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

    Armata "cheats" a bit by using guided missiles, which require no firing solution. IIRC, its maximum range with unguided shells is actually something like 3 or 4km (mostly limited by the ranging equipment). Generally, tank-mounted lasers don't have the capability of measuring such extreme distances, because they would have to be too large and power-hungry. Kills at 4km+ could have been achieved by ranging with the reticle and manually inputting the range into FCS. This is inaccurate, but only limited by how far the manual ranging knob goes (or maximum barrel elevation, but I don't think it's usually the case).
  25. dragon01
    Also, sometimes manufacturers stick with old schemes (even if they're inferior) for the sake of minimizing pilot retraining. Something that might have made sense back when it was introduced (or was simply the first thing they came up with) can carry on with minimal improvements in order to make sure that pilots of older aircraft can use it. Of course, this means new pilots get trained for the old scheme, as well, and by the next plane you design, those then-new pilots will be oldtimers... Generally, cockpits tend to have things added to them, rather than replaced. Even MFDs in the latest Dreamliner mimic the instrument layout that originated before WWII and was used on 50s fighter planes (though that one is a good scheme, so it's not like there's any reason to change that). The vehicle that probably illustrates it best is the Space Shuttle, which not only had two cockpits in its lifetime and despite looking different at first, it turns out that the actual functionality was pretty much unaltered, but also had its original flight controls (excluding orbital stuff) look very much like a contemporary military jet.
×