x3kj

Vanilla is inconsistent there, as with many other things. Drivers will never be woundable because they force-hidden on tank vehicles by the game engine for some (likely legacy) reason https://feedback.bistudio.com/T83066 You dont have to be able to see the gunner visually to kill them. The proxy just has to be in the firegeo. As said, tank shots (exclusively AP penetrators at that) have to hit the soldier precisely . There is no fragmenting, overpressure or anything. Thats why it is so rare. OFP didnt have real penetration mechanic. It was propably just global damage to the vehicle and then the passengers received a portion of the damage at random or whatnot.

speed- aoa-curve is not something you can define as a parameter. What this graph is representing is "required AoA" to keep a given heigth, depending on speed. What actually needs to be changed to achieve a change in speed-aoa curve is the Speed-Lift-curve for given AoA's. More speed, more lift (generally, within normal flight parameters) at a given AoA. Means less AoA required to keep same heigth...

Dont spread half-knowledge. Crew can die individually from penetrating shots. Its just not very frequent because you have to hit them with a AP projectile spoton. If the shot misses a hairs width, nothing happens to the crew whatsoever. HEAT projectiles are not modelled in arma properly, they are treated as HE instead. Which is a different but somewhat related issue. Having 3d viewports modelled gives significant benefits for gameplay, because tank crew are not force-glued to their narrov FOV optic and can look around to assess their surrounding significantly better - eliminating the almost obligatory use of 3rd person view to be aware of your surroundings. Having the rest of the interior modelled in full fidelity gives no further gameplay advantage (at least not for arma, where pushing individual buttons is not a thing), only more immersion. But even 3D optics already provide a significant boost to immersion and give the biggest gameplay benefit from 3d interiors.

Certainly not, other people and myself have mentioned multiple times in the past. The truth is that the FM in Arma feels very lackluster, because apart from flying straight, pitching up with elevators and rolling, it does not behave at all like a normal plane would. There must be something seriously wrong or missing in the flightmechanic, otherwise tweaking config values would be able to fix most of this. Without access to the source we will never be able to tell what that issue is... I played around with the addforce commands on planes and by doing that, the hack nature of the FM really comes to light. If you catapult a plane high up into the air (from normal parking position), it will fall down slowly like a feather. This is what i also observed when "stopping" a jet midair and have it falling sideways (video some pages back). I have mentioned the same case many many months back as well (and was "rejected" because my custom plane i used to demonstrate it was vtol... skip forward to now. We have vtol, we have jet dlc, same exact problem remains.) Not only are the planes affected, but their wrecks as well. And this looks especially silly. Shooting down an incoming plane while it dives on you for a gun run. Wreck crashes into the ground, bounces off like a rubber ball, and falls back down slowly like a feather. Ridiculous. At least we can take matters into our own hands now... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebp8-MUwRbI

You can add cargo light in A3, but it shines through the vehicle. Looks very stupid. And since you can potentially open hatches or even have viewports in cargo LOD, you can't just use a totally different "environment light". Adding lights to interior will only work when light-occlusion feature is added, like dayz got it.

Exactly. Part of BIS's Arma team will already have to work on the successor or whatever game is next in the pipeline. They can't all develop DLC and addons for 3 years and only then start working on a new one, since it takes around 4 years on its own. Especially now when they have a new engine they have to make functional.

hours of work directly translates to the manpower ressource available for the project. Priorities. Changes that enhance gameplay and variety significantly and require little work from art deparment will always be favored over big tasks that only enhance a very small aspect. Demand all you want, that doesnt make it more realistic of a wish. Youd be surprised how little difference there is between modding and game developing... time = money.

oh ok, didnt have those commands on the radar. This makes it easier. You basically have to create your new coordinate reference to the center of mass all the time then when applying force. Smaller amounts of torque can still result, because of numerical inaccuracy. Depending on the objects moments of inertia this effect may be smaller or greater.

thats propably the assumption of many of us. But BIS havent said anything about numbers of tanks or anything. If you have 3 tanks + interiors. Plus retrofitting of Interiors for vanilla tanks and APC, somewhere around the 10-12 mark. In the amount of time you need for those interiors you could model 15 new vehicles instead ... So what are the chances of getting 3+15=18 new vehicles in a DLC.? Extremely unlikey. Therefore you can definitely count on Tank DLC not getting 3 tanks + complete interiors for all existing tanks.

i know how much work it is to make a full tank interior, because i made some. You could model 1-2 new tanks for every interior you do. So it's very unrealistic to expect fully modelled interior for tanks plus addition of vanilla interiors to match.

fair enough

why didnt you post this in tanks dlc thread? There is option B for 3d interiors - model only the viewports and keep the rest black or very blurred. Gives the gameplaybenefits of 3d interiors without requiring ridiculous amounts of model work. Plus generic interior cupolas could be reused by mods suggestion and proof of concept i posted here

Animation of engine nozzle for jets is not correct on some jets. Ingame: throttle 0% -> nozzle closed throttle 100% -> nozzle opened. IRL: When nozzle is closed, it produces maximum thrust. When nozzle is open is produces least amount of thrust. When afterburner is used, nozzle needs to be opened again for best performance , to not "clog" the exhaust due to increased pressure (in lay mans terms). So from going 0 to 100 throttle, it needs to close. When afterburner should be "visually simulated" it needs to open at > ~95% thrust or something like that (when we assume that afterburner gets ignited on 95% throttle usage).

wow... and i always wanted to know how BIS has their metrics for infantry defined to avoid stuff like this. Apparently they dont have it defined?

addForce is a bit quirky, as it uses the Worldspace for the direction of force, but a modelspace position on the vehicle for force application. A force that is not applied at the objects center of mass will result in a torque as a byproduct. So depening on the models orientation, it will lead to different results for the same addForce parameters. Since center of mass does not coincide with center of the models origin for every model, it is very tricky to just apply a force without creating a "by-product" torque. Also, addforce and torque is quirky when applied to vehicles with "active" simulation like helicopters that are quirky in their own way. These simulation may have artificial limiters and so on to deal with simulation instabilities, and their simulation is not necessarily physically correct in certain aspects. So adding certain forces/torques may not have a reallistic effect. Edit: I actually dont know if the force is applied to center of origin of model, or to center of mass. I assume however that its center of origin

this doesnt help much, because it only tells you what input it expects, but not what the input represents (for the addForce). reyhard notified me that this has been added today: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/addForce https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/addTorque

with a FM that is as borked as it is, that AoA not beeing precise would be the least of my concerns. Especially since the optimal landing parameters need to be known for this to be of any value.

Just apply arma logic. It works without women and children, so logically civilians driving military trucks is perfectly normal. To seem "normal" you would also need quite a bunch of vehicles to not be repetitious. I would prefer a focus on military assetts from the time. there can never be enough cold war hotness as far as i'm concerned.

You already mentioned a perfectly valid reason. If something isnt maintained anymore and was degraded by a game update i dont count it as valid option for mods i would use...

.3ds works fine, only thing is that your names get deprecated if longer than 8chars. Obj can cause issues with normals.

the sand texture is very nice with the parallax effect. However, the sat-map color/texture is really unfitting. Sat map in such areas should be more yellowish and smoother, less grey (note the transition in the background)

CSAT VTOL ccip is totally inaccurate, the rockets and mostly fall short

The rocketpods seem a bit too accurate in general. With jets you have good enough UI and ccip that you can shoot over 3km accurately with these things. That seems unrealistic. Esp. when considering the big amount you can carry on the vehicles now.

From a logical standpoint they are acceptable. I find them a bit overused (the halfsphere ones). They take a lot of space, but do barely offer any gameplay. Its like the gigantic cooling towers on dalian plant in BF2 if anyone remembers those... gigantic but entirely useless/noninteractable and uninteresting due to this.

does maldera have new trees? LODs are switching very late on trees (lowest resolution displayed even at short ranges), not sure if just my settings and PC. Can somebody confirm? Compare both screens, Right of the house, the pale green tree stand out badly.