dragon01

Still not in tweaking phase? :) Somehow I doubt that you'll manage a release in the first quarter of 2015. Not that I mind, it's better to take your time than to rush it.

Nice. I like it.

The simplest way is just to ask authors themselves. If someone disassociated with a mod completely, he might as well let you have it. It would be somewhat odd to have assets shared with a clause that requires not crediting the original author, but that's politics for you, I guess. :) I wish you best luck with this, I love using ISIS as targets to bomb/strafe/shoot. Make sure to include some military vehicles, too (love watching them blow up). Don't let politics get in your way.

Nice one, though variable sweep wings are a somewhat dated feature. Still, ArmA3 needs a good, futuristic carrier jet.

Nice, the light gray paint really gives those helos a sleek, future-ish look. That said, I'd love to see dedicated "Marine" helos someday (preferably cooler-looking than Army ones, as is the case IRL :) ). The BIS helicopters are all derived from land-based ones, none of them really had much in terms of carrier capability.

VTOLs in ArmA need to be done as planes, using plane FM. That means all the fancy helo stuff isn't going to work. MV22 sample is likely the way to go, since A3 didn't really concern with improving VTOLs, so there isn't much more that can be done over A2 version.

I agree that Huey might use a bit of a touch-up. It is the icon of the Vietnam War, afterall, and your to-go helo for both infantry transport and fire support (so it's gonna be seen up close a lot). What I'd really love would be AFM support for it, though. Even without a new model, that would greatly benefit helo pilots who'd like to try their hand on that legendary machine (not to mention bomb Charlies to "Ride of the Valkyries :) ).

Rather than shrink them (though they might use a wee bit of that), move them so that attachment points are nearer to the nozzle. That could mess with the plane's profile (dunno how long it is), and would certainly make the engines jut forwards (the pivot needs to be located at the plane's center of mass), but it could work. The only problem I see is transition to forward flight, which is gonna be tricky. To get body lift you need to go fast, and unlike with a runway, this needs to happen fast, too. TWR on those things would have to be through the roof, not an entirely unlikely prospect, but keep that in mind. Also, I now think that the body should be more streamlined, akin to lifting body spacecraft designs. Fuselage intakes seem superfluous, and putting weapon bays there would create too much drag, I think. Also, now that I think of it, the "takeoff/landing configuration" makes little sense. TVC will usually net you enough torque to rotate, and the design looks like the landing gear could only really be on engine bodies. The only thing lowering the engines would do would be putting the center of thrust below center of mass, which is generally undesirable unless you really can't get the pitch-up torque from anywhere else (which would be incredibly odd for a fighter, where you need a lot of control authority for combat). While the TVC system on that particular plane would't work on the ground if the wheels were on engine bodies, it should be able to pitch up the body to get enough lift for takeoff. Dunno about you, but IMO this is way cooler than lowering the engines, and also more realistic. :) I'm not an aircraft engineer, but I'm somewhat familiar with flight (including spaceflight) physics. I believe this mod would benefit from "hard" SF approach, and ArmA engine would lend itself to it. I don't think you need antigravity "inertial dampers", for instance, and the engine system should actuate in a way that makes sense. A lifting body hypersonic fighter makes sense (especially with a nuclear engine), but remember that landing and takeoff speeds are going to be atrocious. There are ways around it (for example, thrusters for additional lift and control at low speeds), but they need to be considered. Fortunately, nuclear power gives you plenty of realistic options. Also, high angles of attack this thing would fly at mean that the pilot's view would be obscured by the nose (unless there's a screen with a camera to counteract that) and that TVC would have an additional role of keeping the intakes pointed into the airflow.

Some kind of astronaut stat system would be nice, but it seems that the release deadline is closing in and there won't be too many new features added. It would be nice to give them a bit more "personality", though, with various astronauts having various kinds of training (especially if some sort of AI is introduced someday). As for building your own LV, there are three rules of an affordable space program: 1). No new launch vehicles. 2). No new launch vehicles. 3). Whatever you do, don't design new launch vehicles. So I don't think it's necessary. :) A real commercial Mars program would certainly look into launching on existing vehicles (Apollo had its own LVs, but it was a national effort, not a commercial venture), Space-X are the only corporation that actually made their own LV that wouldn't be derived from a long line of previous designs (even Antares is basically Zenit 1st+engines from N1, with a shortened Peacekeeper 1st stage as an upper stage). Even they started out with a rather pathetic safety record with their Falcon 1. The only "all-new" LV that's truly operational right now is the Angara, and even it inherits engine tech from Soyuz and Zenit. I suspect launch costs would be incorporated into overall vehicle cost (the instruments cost so much not only because of their own value, but also because of mass added to the vehicle). Spacesuit design would have some merit, but you don't have too many options here. Configuring attachments is the most feasible options, there's no real way to "modularize" the suit itself. Now, LV customization (to a small extent, not KSP-like) would be possible if a license from ULA could be acquired. Delta family is amazingly configurable, and Atlas has its share of variants as well. This would likely be a pretty simple gameplay element (could likely be done entirely with 2D graphics, even), but it would require a license, which is unlikely. A fictional LV could likely be substituted, but that could gobble up too much dev time. Even then, you'd basically be choosing a fairing, top stage and booster configuration (number and type) according to the payload you're launching and your budget (it's about as much as you can do IRL). Maybe engine type and number on both 1st and 2nd stage, in case of a fictional LV (you can order an Atlas V with either one or two engines on the 2nd stage, for example). It would not affect the end result much, either (as in, what happens when you get to Mars), though perhaps if the spacecraft was customizable, too (a much more likely prospect), it could be made interesting by introducing cost vs. landing precision tradeoffs.

Zero-G probe makes a lot of sense if you plan on exploring Deimos, I found that with its unlimited fuel and easy maneuvering, it's much more economical to send one, maybe two of them to Deimos instead of bothering with normal probes.

TBH, if thermal vision has such problems, I'd rather see it gone. It adds almost nothing and TI cameras weren't on any actual rovers/landers (they're heavy, need cooling and there's little scientific value in using them). As a TI googles/visor mode, perhaps, but it's not on rover cameras. It'd be a shame to ditch it completely, seeing as it basically works, but its utility is very limited here. I think that NV would be best implemented as a separate camera or two. Just a pair of early, primitive NV cameras (something between Basic and Terrain Imager) would do, but they would be the only ones with that capacity until the final tier. Navcam/hazcam need a night mode for night navigation, multizoom should have it, too (no point for Advanced Imager, since navcam has similar quality and NV has no color anyway). The NV capacity should be a separate tech, too. Manual focus isn't that important, but photo assignments being able to tell the time of day is, IMO. Anyway, really looking forward to the updates. Especially to science reports and power system. I hope you can make it, 3 months for all that has to be done seems an awfully short time, and I wouldn't like it to gain a reputation as "released in an unfinished state" (sort of like ArmAIII ended up). Still, I suppose that as long as none of the bugs discovered in the EA phase persist in release, and as long as clearly unfinished stuff is finished, it should be fine. But if you won't make it in the first quarter, it might be better push the release back. KSP is in EA for even longer than Take On: Mars, and nobody has a problem with that. :) Happy holidays, BTW. :) I hope you come up with some neat ideas for implementing what is left to do during that time.

Isn't it a bit early, though? I have some concerns I'd like to share. Aside from the obvious (missing experiment reports, broken rocket/light FX when moving fast, manned missions not integrated into campaign), there are a few things I noticed. 1. Mast seems too costly for the benefit it gives. Being able to rotate cameras on a rover is nice, but there are only two of them and much of the imaging can be done using a fixed camera. It's a very expensive addition for what it does. I think it shouldn't cost as much. Same goes for the advanced version. 2. No ability to disable/configure "gamepad", meaning my shiny HOTAS set actually hinders gameplay rather than be of any use. More control customization is definitely needed. 3. The aeroshell physics. It's a bit jarring in every aspect. Parachute behavior is the worst part. The way it works (no precision landings seem to be possible with it, landers have to fly a ridiculous distance, rovers just miss), the way it lands (it just stays there, rigid as ever), the way it doesn't jettison... Some things (Large Lander and Large Rover) clip through the aeroshell. When there's no wind, it doesn't fly off too far (it even landed on the Small Rover lander's solar panel once). It has no collision. Even with tons of instruments on site, we still don't have the slightest idea how the wind blows and how it will affect the descent. Better aiming should definitely be possible, and the aeroshell and chute should both dispose of themselves somehow. 4. For that matter, the landing platform for Small Rover is not customizable, despite being modeled in a way that implies it should be (slots and all). You get a Mast and a pair of color cameras regardless of your actual tech level. It just seems odd. 5. Limited base building parts. Some more 2x segments (not only the bay window) would make building much quicker. The wall slot isn't good for anything but a single big monitor (which is also useless, currently). I'd love to see more base parts. 6. NV/Thermal. This is a very jarring feature in an otherwise well thought-out system. On any camera, even a crappy cycloramic one, you can enable NV and have an ArmA-style night view. Or thermal imaging, for that matter. I'd love to see this completely revised. A new NV camera (two tiers, ideally), which would allow nighttime B/W photos to be taken. Color photo assignments should be impossible to fulfill at night. Thermal imaging camera should be a separate part, too, with it's own photo areas that would have to be photographed via TI (and a hefty price tag and power drain. Those things need to be actively cooled). Also, it's currently perfectly acceptable to send back pitch black nighttime photos of what you're supposed to take high-detail color images of. :) Or images that are completely out of focus (indeed, manual focus should be a thing as well). Those thing should matter when trying to get photo assignments done. The target area should be visible and in focus for a picture to count. This would also make Mast much more useful, in that taking pictures with a fixed cam could become harder if criteria were tightened. 7. Power system. Right now you can drive around on batteries for half the mission. Almost nothing consumes power (only robotics, and then only when moving). This should change. Even a lander without either solar panels or RTG shouldn't work (right now, solars on a lander are kind of pointless). Basic batteries should be just enough not to let the vehicle shut down during the night, chemical ones could allow it to (briefly) operate instruments or cameras, but that's it. For serious night roving, RTGs should be a must. BTW, I'd be glad if notification spam when driving under solar power at low battery level was fixed (it happens either at 25% or 50%, if you don't have enough light to keep driving, but have chemical batteries. They keep it exactly at 25%, which causes a notification every frame or so). There are also some minor things. For example, the LEM on the Moon still has its ascent stage attached. I find it rather unlikely, seeing as it blasted off when Apollo 17 guys left. :) Or the VTOL, which looks rather out of place, it's a very odd sci-fi design in a hard science game. I once got a minor assignment to micro-image atmosphere, which probably shouldn't happen as well. Sometimes, after taking on a side assignment, all other areas of interest would flicker between two instrument names (though the color of the name will still indicate the correct one to use). Perhaps another good idea would be to have some sort of difficulty panel, for example with the ability to disable external view or adjust mission reward/cost modifiers. I'm not sure if any of those were already suggested (the bugs I reported are likely known). I played Take on Mars for quite a while now, and I love it. :) There's still a lot of room for improvement, though. I'm not sure if it can all be done in 3 months or so.

Nice. I love the weather. :) I wish being able to simulate going out in a snowstorm could prevent me from having to do that IRL...

It already did, look in the releases board.

Bah, that's what you get for posting at such a late hour... Obviously, Black and Tans were who the IRA fought. :) Sorry for that, English is not my first language. And you're right, by 1916, they were still called Irish Volunteers, IRA was formed a few years later (blame Wiki for "Which existed in various forms since 1916"). In my native language, you can get away with implying a lot more than in English. To clarify, my request was supposed to be "Black and Tans and early IRA (formed in 1916 1919) that fought them".

Wow, I knew AII was realistic, but something like this? :) It's a good thing AIII isn't set around Ukraine or the Middle East, or we'd surely be getting some interesting news reports... Any chance of some Black and Tans? :) I suppose it's unlikely that anyone actually wore black brimmer and trenchcoat uniform of the "old" (1916) IRA by the time of the Troubles, but it could also be a nice addition.

It'd be really interesting to see Tiberian Sun units, especially. Besides the most advanced hardware, the battles in Tiberian Dawn were mostly fought between M113s and Bradelys (or at least something very similar, used as a light tank). :) Tiberian Sun, on the other hand, ran a whole gamut of interesting machines. How are you going to handle Nod drillers?

I wish I had time to learn scripting and help you out. This mod looks like a wonderful addition, it's a bit of a shame it's limited like that. Also, I imagine that having to load up MP just to make a test run with more than one unit doesn't help. Perhaps some day I'll try getting into ArmA scripting and help you out a bit. I'm mostly an SP player, largely because I don't have time for MP. Not to mention I wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than a hardcore realism game, which would likely mean joining a clan and at least semi-regular sessions... Hard to do. The perspectives I see for this mod are just incredible, especially if you had more manpower to work on it. And not only for players, think just how much of an improvement it would be if you implemented, say, a simplified pain simulation and internal organ damage for AI. Just that, all our woes about "ironclad AI" would be over. :) Especially for snipers, an ability to aim at and hit different internal organs would add a whole new layer to gameplay. Just a thought. :)

Try shooting IS thugs. They deserve it more. :) Not to mention there's a nifty mod that adds them (and also some Iraqui BLUFOR).

Is that possible to use this system in SP, on a certain, hand-picked group of AIs? I know you're not focusing on it, but it'd be a neat feature if AIs could work with the system. Not enemies, of course, I was thinking of a small squad like in ArmA2 campaign. Does the medical system require the affected unit to be an actual, human player, or is it possible to implement on bots/SP squadmates? Also, is it possible to have a bot medic healing human players?

Speaking of uniforms, I found that there's no "folded" model for them, when removed and placed on the ground, they look really weird, like they were on a mannequin. You could likely take the folded model from the male cammies, there should be no difference there.

Good to hear. :) I wish I could help, but I'm to busy to even think about playing, let alone learning to develop for ArmA.

Nice video. What's what island, BTW?

Nice. Really nice.

I'm afraid Osprey mods are out of luck on this one. MV-22's rotors are something between propellers and helo rotors, perhaps improved fixed wing FDM will be able to allow making the Osprey more realistic. Since we're talking mods, I think that given the right tools, the modders will manage to make it fly well.