Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

dragon01

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    2001

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by dragon01

  1. Posted

    2 hours ago, soul_assassin said:

    We might consider rolling updates at some point, but we need to be more comfortable releasing unfinished things without the fear of being criticized and pummeled for unfinished work.

    I think it would be best to do exactly what BIS did - set up a public devbranch for unfinished stuff. You might have a few dimwits complaining about it, but most people who download a "development" build don't expect things to work perfectly (seeing as the point of running a dev branch is help make them so for everyone else). That would still require some changes in workflow, from what I gather, but it should allow more frequent (maybe not necessarily daily) updates, as well as extended testing of assets. Additionally, if main branch gets broken at any point, you could lock the dev down (or put up an RC branch if you feel like maintaining more than two), switch to "bugfix mode" and try to get a release out quickly.

  3. Posted

    Pity that in the end, nothing came of the talk of Steam Workshop allowing more frequent releases. I would have preferred releases with a smaller amount of content, but coming out somewhat more often. Looking all the way back, it was floated a few times (including a monthly release schedule), but for some reason, it always reverted to "one mega-release once in a blue moon" model.

     

    It would be more or less fine if new content was the only issue (though in case a bug in RHS is found, hotfixes are also rare and only happen shortly after a mega-release). However, despite the claims about "no major changes to the engine", BI is still releasing new features and occasionally breaking old ones. I've been pretty much only testing official content for the last few months just because I'm "waiting for the next update".

     

    Regarding "uninjecting" new content, this is what branches are for. If something like a game-breaking DLC comes up, you could, for example, base the fixed version on the "stable" branch, test and release that, then merge the fixes into the "development" branch, assuming it didn't change too much in the meantime. This is the paradigm that the base game uses, and RHS is definitely large enough to try that as well.

    • Like 1

  5. Posted

    40 minutes ago, hcpookie said:

    you can try to outrun or jink around those and it will still explode with a relatively large sphere of engagement.

    Realistically, the "sphere of engagement" would be more like a cone (granted, this may not be possible in ArmA). This, of course, depends on the missile, but proximity detonation in modern missiles relies on target being ahead of the missile. If you manage to maneuver yourself to the side of it, then even if it detonates, if you can avoid the mess of tungsten rods that those warheads fire off in front of themselves, you'll probably live. The actual explosive charge is rarely big, S-300 uses around 150kg warhead and S-400, according to Wikipedia, 24kg. And I never claimed that outrunning a missile is a valid tactic for anything but SR-71, but that doesn't mean that the burner part of "slam your burners and turn very hard" isn't useful in some circumstances.

     

    Granted, Falcon 4/Freefalcon 5 does, for most part, feature outdated SAMs, but that doesn't mean you can't evade modern ones, it's just more difficult and less reliable. I clocked a few hours in flight sims far better than ArmA3 with your SAM pack installed. For the record, I was thinking more in terms of AA combat (not necessarily dogfights) or short range SAMs of the sort we have in vanilla, where missiles are smaller and somewhat less capable (large SAMs, being static, are best avoided entirely if you can help it, or knocked out ahead of time by SEAD/DEAD if you really can't). And the SR-71 comment was me just being pedantic (this stopped working later on, anyway). 

  8. Posted

    Wrong. Hitting your burners and turning hard (jinking) is very much a proper missile evasion tactic, and something you should be doing regardless of whatever other equipment you've got. It's a very stupid thing to do to activate your jammer, pop flares and keep flying in straight line, with modern missiles you'll likely get hit if you try that. If IR missiles are in play you might want to skip the burner bit, but overall, the harder you turn and less speed you bleed doing that, the better. With proper technique and more than a bit of luck, it's possible to evade missiles (even modern ones!) by fancy flying alone.

     

    Also, SR-71 had "accelerate" (due to peculiar engine design, the afterburner was the only thing propelling it at cruise) as a standard evasion procedure.

    • Like 1

  9. Posted

    They do, however, behave better in dogfights and in general combat. Airfield stuff needs to be scripted, as it always has (as far as I know). And TBH, I given up on VTOLs having decent AI at that point (forget attacking, just try to have one of those land somewhere...). In SP, you can get decent results by unitCapture/unitPlay, at least. Oh, and landing two planes at the same airport at the same time IRL isn't gonna end well, either. The AI could probably handle it better, but it's up to mission designer to script those things.

     

    I don't expect all issues with tanks to be fixed, but the most serious ones that affect their employment in combat should be. That includes much of the stuff related to driving around.

  10. Posted

    Hopefully they'll be able to make some fixes for Tanks DLC, at least. However, I think that major changes will only come with ArmA4 (new engine and all that). As far as ArmA goes, some paradigms have been here since OFP, which probably isn't the best way of handling things. That said, there's a new engine in the works, and a recent SITREP said that they're moving more and more of the team to work on it...

  12. Posted

    I can confirm that CCIP for the pilot in Xi'an is finally fixed. :) I didn't check Kajman yet, but it's looking good.


    BTW, would that be possible to assign Skyfire rockets to the pilot in Showcase: Gunships (maybe missiles, too)? For SP missions, it's better to give the pilot direct control over those systems (and the rockets should always go to the pilot).

  16. Posted

    Looks awesome. Can't wait to put both of those sights to use. :) 

    17 hours ago, da12thMonkey said:

    The three new config parameters are already put in place.

    To an extent, the physX update on dev is partially passive in terms of it being a physX library update, and the size increase of the physX wheels on tankX vehicles is done automatically.

    Oukej has mentioned some adjustment of tank handling config parameters other than the above, but states that it's not on dev Branch yet. So what you are currently enjoying on dev seems to be the sum of the aforementioned changes, and should affect RHS tanks to a similar degree.

    I was asking about those future additions, mostly. Tanks have already improved a lot thanks to the updates, but it looks like there's a lot more to come. I hope that it will be for tanks what Apex and the following Jets DLC config additions were for planes. 

    • Like 2

  17. Posted

    What's the RHS stance on the tank physics config improvements that are currently upcoming on dev branch? It seems like a big thing, and it would certainly be a great help for tank drivers, but that would mean no release till the next stable, which is probably a while away. On the other hand, if the next release after that is going to take another half a year or so, I'd rather see those improvements integrated into the next one.

  18. Posted

    Use missiles. Wipeout is a ground attack aircraft, the gun is not meant to engage enemy planes. If you want to use it in AA role, your only options are either heatseeker missiles or guesswork with the cannon. With helos, it's not very difficult to hit with a long burst (and Wipeout has more than enough ammo), planes are hard, though. All this is realistic, the real A-10 really shouldn't engage in air to air combat, except on defensive, as a last resort. In fact, the idea of gun combat is 50s-70s era concept as well. Missiles are the way to go in modern era, guns are either for ground attack, or for rare situations where you either end up too close to the enemy or get jumped after running out of missiles.

     

    The bottom line is, without Jets DLC, your best option for attacking enemy aircraft is the Buzzard. Outside AAF, don't bother, both Wipeout and Neopheron can defend themselves well enough, and their primary role is supporting ground troops, which they're really good at. 

  20. Posted

     

    On 8/31/2017 at 5:00 PM, Vasily.B said:

    Titan vanguard will have "civilian version" aswell. As for my addon, crew is taking damage in vanilla arma, you just need to hit in proper place to kill gunner for example. It happened to me twice as far as i remember, in RHS its very noticeable, tank crews are mortal.

    Which will likely be for training firefighters and the like. "Civilian" could just mean that it won't have features that are classified or depend on military-specific licenses. This isn't exactly competition for ArmA. Open-space VR isn't too well suited for consumer use due to the fact you might not have enough room for it to work properly and that if you're going to interact with a physical object, it must be represented outside the simulation somehow. You can't sit in a chair that isn't really there, for example, and I really don't think Titan Vanguard will feature an exosuit to get around that limitation. 

  22. Posted

    Are they? I thought that "svc drive" (not "service"!) was a separate function. "Lights" in ArmA are usually the low beam headlights, I would expect running lights (when they're controllable at all) to be toggled separately. Given that the action menu doesn't actually "simulate" anything, as far as individual controls go, I think that a more descriptive name is in order. Following that philosophy, you could have Russian vehicles display their menu options in Russian when they correspond to a control.

  23. Posted

    Fine, but it's not something an average player will know. Not every RHS player rode a military truck at some point. It would have worked if this was placed on an obvious light switch in the interior (so that anyone who ever driven a car could make the connection, assuming it's set up in a similar way), but when using the action menu, this isn't exactly obvious.

  25. Posted

    8 hours ago, jonpas said:

    So a separate mod by CUP Team named "CUP Missions" you wouldn't want? But if those missions would be eg. part of "CUP Vehicles" (that doesn't make sense btw) you would? ^^

    That's not what I mean (besides, the missions would logically be a part of the core). What I meant was that I wouldn't want to install another, 3rd party mod in order to use CUP missions. That said, if there are script-only solutions, they could be integrated, so it wouldn't be a problem.

    • Like 1
×