dragon01
-
Content Count
2030 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
-
Medals
-
Everything posted by dragon01
-
My suggestion was specifically to give the destroyer (and carrier, too) some sort of "master radar" object that could be targeted by ARMs and killing which would effectively disable missile-based defenses on the ship unless datalink is available from somewhere else. Also, there's no good place to put a Spartan on the ship. There are two obvious CIWS mounts, and the one "danger" ring aft of the bridge is too large for a Spartan (looks good with a Centurion, though it's a bit big for that one, too).
-
I think that the idea here is for them to be fully autonomous. In fact, this is why I asked for an arty version of the gun - that way they could all be linked to the artillery system and provide naval fire support. Defenses can very well be fully automated, but then the gun has little use outside maybe fighting boarding attempts (for which a couple of static MGs/AGLs work just as well).
-
Happened to me once with the main hangar doors, but I couldn't reproduce it. I'm not sure what conditions are needed for this to happen.
-
Tested it out. 1). Destroyer's heli deck has some floating lights. 2). A way to lower the deck fences would be nice. 3). The main gun could use an artillery computer. Either as a different version (config-only, same visual), or as a dual-mode weapon. The latter might not be doable with AI. 4). Some kind of ship's radar object would go a long way towards making both Freedom and Liberty work better with ARMs. 5). The CSAT SAM launcher (didn't test the NATO one) is ridiculously though. It took two shots from a tank gun to kill, and survived a whole bunch of SDBs. It should be pretty much made of paper, you could put one of those things out of commission with a rifle IRL (missiles don't like having bullet holes in them). It should only be as though as a regular truck, and the turret should get destroyed even by small arms fire. 6). It'd be great to add a Zamak or Tempest tractor. There's a "bare" HEMMT which looks great when paired with the SAMs, but not equivalent CSAT truck. They don't have to be functional, just there to give the SAM sites a little more authenticity. 7). Variants of both radars and missiles stowed for transport (as static props, preferably destructible) would be useful as well. Alternatively, a way to stow the working versions. Future additions or mods could make it possible to tow them around.
-
Project - Vertical Lift 2035
dragon01 replied to martinezfg11's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: DISCUSSION
I disagree. Giving good advice is not pointless, and if I thought it was pointless I wouldn't be giving it (you're free not to participate in the discussion, though). -
Project - Vertical Lift 2035
dragon01 replied to martinezfg11's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: DISCUSSION
I know that, and this is the exact reason pretty, finished-looking models go unreleased and mods that show a lot of promise wither away in this very phase. Rigging and configuring is harder and less fun than modeling, but it has to be done. This is also why I was worried. It can be very tempting to start another model and put off the tedious part "until later", but this is exactly the road to never releasing anything, one I saw quite a few mods go down. They make a load of models, get everyone excited with ever expanding scope, then, once the easy part is done, the modder loses motivation at the sight of the amount of configuration needed to actually bring them into the game. I really hope this isn't going to happen here. -
Project - Vertical Lift 2035
dragon01 replied to martinezfg11's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: DISCUSSION
That's a relief, though "working on more than one thing at a time" can be a pitfall, as well (admittedly, one that I fell into myself, more than once). I suppose with two modelers on the team it can be manageable, but in my experience, "one thing at a time" still beats every other approach in terms of actually things done. The Valor looks great so far, even a "no frills" infantry transport version would be a great addition to any modern unit roster. -
Because PID tuning is largely an experimental science (read: lots of trail and error). BI team working on A3 at this point is small, and it'd be rather inefficient to have them all sit down and fiddle with the PIDs. Community can do it just as well (probably better, as players may have a better idea what "feels" right in missions).
-
No, but if the code is modular, there's a chance it is as easy as changing a single value in one place in the code (like the uninitiated often expect it to be). If it isn't, then you're as likely as not to break, say, the landing subroutine. Or, the way things tend to go in these cases, helicopter landing damage. It's not a buzzword, but a paradigm that does tend to make the code easier to expand. Typically, there was little thought given to expandability of a given game engine in the old days - it just had to work right as shipped, and afterwards it was set in stone. For example, in OFP you had the A-10 - and planes that fly more or less like the A-10 don't have this problem. A modular design would have enabled a total rewrite of, plane AI, without worrying it'll break all the other systems in the game (of course, it would've helped if the value wasn't hardcoded in first place, but it wasn't a concern when they were making OFP...). What are your programming credentials again? I might not be a programmer by trade (though what I do does involve programming), but after a few university courses, looking into codebases of two games and extensively modding of them for years (along with a bunch of lesser forays), I did start to see certain patterns and know enough to make an educated guess. I couldn't speak definitely because I'm not a BI employee, but I would be really surprised if they were somehow thinking differently from all other programmers on the planet. Make/mod (as in, total conversion, not add one new gun) a few games yourself, and then you can tell people what is easy and what isn't. People like you keep railing about "easy fixes" and "low effort" while having no idea of how hard these things can actually be. This isn't helping anyone, whether you're talking about a game, a mail program or anything else.
-
Project - Vertical Lift 2035
dragon01 replied to martinezfg11's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: DISCUSSION
It's nice, but could we first get the first one in line? Expanded scope is nice, but I'd rather have just the Valor than another dead project. I've seen mods die while in "just about ready to release" state. I'd say, finish one thing before starting another. -
Wrong. If this was not a hard fix, it would've been fixed. You're assuming the AI code has been written 100% sensibly and logically, when it's not the case, considering its history. For example, the Z reference is very likely "quietly assumed" by the whole bloody code to be unchanging and permanently set to 0 (just a guess, it's the first such shortcut that came to my mind). Whatever's the reason, it probably made sense in OFP, given the limits processing power and memory back then. Maybe there's a way to fix it, but it is likely hard, will break other stuff and the people most qualified for fixing it have been shunted away to Enfusion a while ago. It's not the first game with legacy AI that I worked with, and hardcoded assumptions were the big limitation there, too. It was difficult to depart too far from the originally intended gameplay without running into them. And that was a relatively simple space shooter.
-
I can tell you that 1). Enfusion is highly modular, so changes in other places shouldn't affect AI (not saying it won't spaghettify by ArmA7, but the architecture is inherently modular). 2). It's being done with a relatively good idea of what vehicles are going to be like (note that OFP didn't have too many vehicle problems, which is when the AI was made). 3). As a science, AI development has considerably advanced since OFP days, so more refined methods can be used. Do remember that there was no revolution in ArmA AI at any point between OFP and now. There was some evolution, but it's running an outdated core made under outdated paradigms. Do note, for example, that there is one vehicle type (VTOL) that wasn't in OFP and was implemented later (in ArmA1, to be precise, with the Harrier). Also note that this vehicle type is one that the AI pretty much can't cope with without very heavy scripting, and even then it's basically a variation on the airplane. Granted, OFP did cover almost all the bases (which is why we're only getting a replacement now), but it's becoming increasingly clear that it just isn't enough today.
-
Just a few posts above. Use of the "column" formation for convoys is now mandatory. They aren't completely broken, they just require more setup than they used to. I agree that AI driving isn't in a very good state, but that particular issue has been addressed. In fact, as shown in the video above, the vehicles do exactly what they're told to - if you have them in the default "wedge" formation, they'll drive off the road and try to form a wedge. :) I've had occasional problems with convoys even with proper setup, far cry from nonfunctional, though.
-
Just saw the news that dev-branch will be switching to weekly updates. While I think it's a very good idea, I hope that in case of a change breaking something very badly (has happened a few times), it'll still be possible for the fix to be released the following day.
-
It actually depends. The backup inertial guidance is pretty accurate on its own, but it gets its initial data from the emissions sensor. The thing with that sensor is, it's rather inaccurate at long ranges. Normally, this is not a problem - it's still good enough to fly towards the general area of the target, and as the range to target decreases, homing on radar signal gets more accurate, and in terminal phase it's more than good enough to nail the radar. However, should the radar get switched off, the missile will have to rely on a long-range fix that will, at best, place it somewhere within the SAM site's perimeter. The best thing you can hope for is that the enemy will turn the radar back on too early, allowing the missile to update the fix while much closer to the target and promptly correct itself. If that doesn't happen, the missile will more likely than not go wide. Shutting off the radar is an effective defense even against modern ARMs. That said, with it being a passive seeker, you don't get much in terms of a warning when one is launched (even if you do have a radar good enough to detect missiles at a far enough distance, you can't tell an ARM from a regular AGM). Furthermore, a SAM site going blind for too long is not only rendered useless, but since the launch aircraft also knows its position, it's open to attack by AGMs or even bombs, 'Nam style. Neither side really has it easy.
-
The current FM has been evidently tuned without taking flaps into account. Maybe they'll fix it at some point. That said, outside of carrier landings, flaps are for most part optional when flying fighters. They're agile, have powerful speedbrakes for use in combat and very powerful engines as well. On a runway of average length, designed for airliners and cargo planes, they can take off and land without using them.
-
For AMRAAM, at close range you can launch without a radar lock (called a "maddog"), the missile will track the first target it comes across, so you need to be careful if you do that. It works as long as the intended target is within the missile seeker's range, or close enough that you can count on missile acquiring it soon after launch. It doesn't work for BVR for the simple reason that you can't see what you're shooting at. :) You can try hitting a datalinked target that way, but if it's not moving directly towards or away from you, there's a good chance it won't be anywhere near the missile when it gets there. Generally, at ArmA ranges ARH is the way to go with AMRAAM, SARH only comes to play at extreme ranges which are not usually a factor in Arma, although it can also be used to supplement the active seeker for a higher hit probability. And yeah, the wide view cone does make for though gameplay, but we're going for realism here. :) This is more likely to come up in dogfights rather than BVR, though. This is what boresight mode is really for - getting a quick shot off in a tight situation when you're out of Sidewinders and too far for guns.
-
Tanks - Missile flight profiles and weapon improvements
dragon01 replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Do note that 70mm is not much for a HEAT warhead - it's less than an RPG-7 (which is 93mm), and you've only got a single warhead in there. It might be that HE is currently too effective against MRAPs and such (a 70mm HE isn't a whole lot of explosive, either, about 1-2kg). 70mm AP should be useful for killing things like MRAPs and disabling (not blowing up) IFVs. S-8KOM, the real equivalent of Tratnyr-AP, has armor penetration of around 400mm RHA (curiously, the tandem HEAT variant, S-8T, has the same penetration listed, though it might be after ERA). Hydra 70, due to smaller diameter, is probably slightly worse, but makes up for it with better accuracy. AP rockets are not for big game hunting, but rather for destroying lightly armored targets and damaging buildings. HE is for actual softskins and anti-infantry work. -
Tanks - Missile flight profiles and weapon improvements
dragon01 replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
@oukej, if you're looking at the missile configs, could you try adding ripple fire to heavy rocket pods (Tratnyr and Shreiker)? Now that dispersion is a thing, it'd be really nice to be able to fire 2-3 rockets from a single pod per trigger pull. Right now one has to tap the trigger, which isn't very comfortable. Looking forward to trying out maddog launches with AIM-120. :) -
I'm not saying it doesn't work, nor that ArmA3 was from before VR in general - in fact, Mechwarrior 2 supported VR (Sony Glasstron, specifically), and had the tech caught on back in 1996, OFP could very well have used it. However, the road from OR DK1 to an actually viable consumer system was long indeed.
-
Idle animations would be a problem with any sort of headtracking, not only VR. Hopefully BIS will consider this issue for A4. ArmA3 is from way before VR was a thing.
-
And how would you aim your rockets without it? It's definitely an improvement. Even if you are out of alignment (which, BTW, you won't be if you look dead ahead), it's not meant for sniping, just indicating the general direction the rockets/minigun fire will go. It's more precise than the guess work we had to do before. IIRC, real helos of this sort often do have just that kind of marker. TrackIR users are a niche playerbase. Don't assume everyone has or should get one, because it's hardly necessary, and quite frankly not a good investment in a world where VR is rapidly gaining ground.
-
RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)
dragon01 replied to soul_assassin's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE
Any guarantee there won't be as much crap there as on Workshop? He's specifically asking for good missions (and I'd like to find some, too). -
RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)
dragon01 replied to soul_assassin's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE
Actually, there's one such vehicle already - the ZSU-23-4 Shilka. It is gun-only (an M5 variant with some Iglas hanging off the sides would certainly be a welcome addition), but it should be good enough air defense for most part. -
Fixed Wing Flight Model (dev branch)
dragon01 replied to dezkit's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
What you actually need is a 3-axis analog control with some sort of POV device. This is actually a rather affordable peripheral. May be a joystick or gamepad, the former is probably better. A full HOTAS enhances the overall experience greatly, whether car, tank or aircraft, but it isn't a necessity by any means.
