Sundowner

Don't, rather consider it as another variant. I really hope you won't stop at the SMAW, and continue making other launchers and their variants too :)

Interesting, I'm out of the loop when it comes to infantry anti-tank weaponry so didn't recognized which variant you were modeling. However I see on that AT-4 picture a rail for the laser designator. Older PEQ-2 or PEQ-15 is a cheaper option for night aiming than a NV scope, since most western troops do have access to personal night vision equipment today. Are there any limitation in ARMA to giving a launcher other attachments like on rifles ? Is it possible to make something like that modernized M72:

Will that AT4 accept sights like the AN/PVS-4 ? http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/antiarmor/AT4/AT4.jpg Not saying you would have to model the sight. With the mounting bracket, we could mount the PVS-4 that is included in the RH acc pack.

The only non-vanilla content I was testing was the M3. I did more tests yesterday, and any tank gun with muzzle directly over AIs head did nothing. Then after running ARMA another time, I got the backblast of M3 and all tank guns as intended... must have been something wrong with mod initialization.

I've just started using this mod and stumbled on a problem - the Backblast effect on people only work with RPG-42. Tried NLAW, and the guided missile launchers and also the TF47's M3 MAAWS, as well as the Merkava's 120mm gun. I don't think any of the few other mods I have could affect it. Is this a known problem or there's a way to troubleshoot it ?

This is a great mod, especially for flying the Huron, which have useless pages setup on the MFDs ;) What I would like to see though is hover symbology when bellow certain airspeed (will have to check flight manuals for AH-64D and UH-1Y to check what the specific numbers are IRL*). And I don't know how ARMA3 does things - is it possible to get PIP visual on the HMD and semi-transparent at that? What I would like to have is NV/IR picture that would allow us to "look through" the aircraft using a PNVS-like system. All of the larger helicopters have very poor visibility out of the cockpit, this could help in some situations, when we can't relay on friends guiding our landing. [EDIT] *Hover iconology show up when descending bellow 45kts, and disappears when accelerating past 50kts.

Since the helicopters are still very much a work in progress, I don't want to go here into the flight mechanics, and animations, which need work on their own. What I want to write about is the armament performance taking the AH-9 as an example. 1. The armament controls: Since 2001, we had to choose either a weapon, or its mode of use, switching back and forward. This is not how it's done on the Little Birds, which are very specific in that regard. Most armed helicopters, like for an early example - armed variants of UH-1s - had armament activated with a single cyclic switch, and its mode or type, was chosen using a control box located on the pedestal console. OH-6A and later AH-6 (with exception of MELB which is more complex and modular) were a bit different, the armament system was integrated in such a way, that the weapons were activated by separate switches - when armed, always ready to use. The miniguns under two detent trigger switch (first detent - 2000rpm, second - 4000rpm), and the rocket launchers under thumb switch. What I suggest is allowing to assign buttons, and keys to fire separate weapons without the need to cycle trough them. So far (A2, OA, TKOH) I was using a macro that cycled the weapons depending what I did with my joystick, but it's not very reliable. 2. Rockets dispersion: FFARs are very finicky in real life. They weathervane into the relative wind upon launch and during flight - the Vietnam-era Mk.4/Mk.40 were especially inaccurate. HYDRA 70 are a bit better with more spin, and different design of the fins, yet still the kill ratio was improved by the cluster munition warheads, and not superior aerodynamics. In the game, rockets fly straight into the point where we aimed them, their rocket motors burning all the way to the impact. In reality FFAR engines burn for less than seconds, and after that it's ballistics. We need changed FFAR launch effect, and more dispersion - if weathervaning can't be implemented, then at least take into account some of the momentum from moving helicopter - if you shoot a FFAR moving sideways, it should go waaay off to the direction you are flying - same with ascend and descend off-boresight. 3. Miniguns dispersion: M134 have dispersion of 6mrads, which basically means, that at a range of 450 meters (1500ft), 80% of rounds will impact in a circle of 2,7m (9ft) diameter, and its a normal (Gaussian) distribution - so the closer to aiming point - the more likely that space will get a bullet. Right now, the miniguns spray wildely, and the safest place for enemy to be, is inside the aiming reticle - pretty much no matter the range. There's something fundamentally wrong here.

For infantry it might be a bit high, for aircrafts that terrain is pretty much flat ;) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/41767723/Pictures/2013-6-19_17-38-57-504.jpg Agios Efstratios in the foreground, further north (up) Limnos, then Samothraki island. Game - FSX without any addons for this region, so generic textures, taken from around 14000ft.

Ahh, then yes, we're in agreement :)

The cost is an issue - the only one there is, but looking at recent US DoD projects that got pretty advanced, then being scrapped, of which I can name a dozen that went over one billion US Dollars, I think US DoD can easily afford that.Now, as far as performance goes, you're locking yourself on the bullet performance, forgetting, that it is only one part of the "weapon system" in which the central element is the soldier himself. He have limited capabilities, that vary greatly between individuals. What that new ammo promises is not increased lethality per say, but greatly limited weight. And given Afghanistan experience, any pound less on the war-fighter is very welcome. Everyone is trying as hard as they can to get the gear weight to be as low as possible, and getting the weapon+ammo weight down by 40%+ IS A BIG DEAL, worth spending money on. PS. US DoD never cared about what other NATO forces are using. Didn't cared when the 7.62x51 was pushed, and didn't cared when soon after the 5.56x45 was replacing it. Same with going from 105mm to 120mm for MBT ammo. And frankly at this point NATO forces don't care either. Since the scenario of fighting side by side on continental Europe, locked out from supply lines diminished - everyone is going their own way, obeying STANAG only to get more sales (look at HK G36). And US is not the only one working on telescopic, or caseless ammunition either, whoever gets all the quirks out first, and get the manufacturing costs low enough - will implement it, not looking at others - what they would think, other than "can we sell it to them?".

Hehehe. Sorry guys, only big boys toys :cool:

I'm writing this after work. At my work I share the same room with people that deal with replacement of one rifle round to another - different calibers, different packaging, different magazines (more standards than for US AR-15 family). It is nation wide change, it is going on for more than a decade and... it's a non-issue from logistics standpoint, something that happens all the time - for logistics it's only numbers. Numbers of boxes incoming and outgoing; volumes of space, available and used; numbers of trucks coming and going or fuel they burn; numbers of people involved; numbers of old round disposed off either by destruction, or given to a branch specialized in selling that surplus elsewhere. Its all the same, no matter what we would talk about. Remember, that your military still have .30-06 stored, and the major purge of M-14 rifles was during 1990s - how many decades after introducing the M193 as standard nation-wide rifle cartridge ? You would be surprised, what vintage antiques I see some days - think Maxim machine guns, or WWII era Colt 1911s - that were NEVER issued in my country - you get a cookie, when you guess where those came from ;).

You're over-dramatizing it. Such movements are being made constantly. Be it newer rounds (like the "silvertip" Raufos .50 cal), new gear (Molle pouches are being implemented - what ? New one every other week ?). Newer variants of AMRAAM missiles are being introduced every 4 years, making the previous ones obsolete. USAF and USN are going to change from 20x102mm to 25x137mm as standard aerial gunnery round, only years after the 20x102 new propellant was introduced. Not to mention rotations of gear in units themselves (25x137mm to 30x173mm, 105mm shells to 120mm mortar rounds in AC-130 units). Nobody is really loosing sleep over such stuff.

Not really, lots of paperwork, but that's every day job in logistics.With US military, you simply take on stock the new cartridge, and the old ones you can temporarily dump on the National Guard, or sell on civilian market (like it is currently done with overflow), or to other countries, preferably ones needing to restock their army from scratch - like it was with Iraq and Afghanistan - together with old weapons using such cartridge (remember what US did with most of the M14 in the 90s ?). Such change doesn't happen overnight, and truth be told - it's happening constantly - look at how standards have changed with the 5.56, .50 cal and 20x102mm over last 3 decades. Same with artillery and tank rounds, a-a missiles - constantly in rotation. Ammo type replacement is happening all the time. Unless the new ammo needs to be stored in cryogenic environment, then it's a non-issue.

And it really depends on the helicopter. For example:- Hughes 369 family (which H-9 is based on in TKOH/Arma3) - only have "beep trim" - two feedback servos actuated by the china hat switch on the cyclic, adjusting trim on bank, and pitch movements; - Bell Kiowa - only force trim on cyclic - resetting feedback actuators to "zero" when depressed - effectively resetting cyclic forces upon depressing and releasing the switch; - Blackhawk - "beep trim" for cyclic, and force trim for both cyclic and rudder; - RAH-66 Comanche - no trim to speak off. Fly-By-Wire controls, in normal flight mode it was effectively flying on autopilot executing commands given by pilot using 4 axis ( FOUR AXIS !) side mounted stick handle. PS. Some helicopters also have option of collective trim - either wired with force trim switch, or/and beep trim function. Those are available for Blackhawk (SeaHawk), Bell 429, etc.

Per gun. The sample was the total ammo capacity, which took a bit of time. BTW I tried to test the guns dispersion, but I run into some problems regarding the bullet holes effect. They're showing only on some objects - most of them to small for a 100m+ distance test. And there appears to be a very low amount of bullet impact stencils that can be displayed at a time, resulting in very small samples sizes.

Check your PM.

I tested the miniguns, and firing them with 33-35 fps, resulted in average of 1040rpm - half of what the lowest setting should be. Definitely some work will have to be done here. Although, that's resulting in one bullet trajectory being calculated per frame... can others test if there is such exact correlation between minigun fire rate and rendering speed ?

You may like this too: That's how those Hydra 70 fly when you fire them in sideways flight at 45 kts.

DCS Warthog is pretty good when it comes to FFAR accuracy, although it's lacking in representation of their lethality, or even actual warhead effect. Plus bare in mind, that FFARs launched from planes are more accurate, because of the relative wind being always close to being parallel to boresight. Launching FFARs from helicopters is problematic, the rocket have to accelerate from none, or low initial speed - therefore the velocity at the end of 1.07 second motor burn is lower - therefore any side wind have more impact on the flight path. Firing from hover, results in rocked going initially through area of downwash, resulting in pitch-up, making the rounds go on different trajectory, than in translational lift speed, or above. Any side-slip movement is also exaggerated by the rocket aerodynamic design.It's not easy to compute impact point from this type of unguided weaponry - the most accurate, being the Apache gunship, utilizing, laser range finder, ballistic computer, and (something that is unique for its design) launcher elevation servos inside pylons - even with all of this, it's still very far from pinpoint accuracy. Even with all those advanced systems, Apache will get you accuracy resulting in 50% of fired rockets, landing in 26m circle, at 1000m. If you're engaging a target, you need a pinpoint accuracy - like a tank - the chances of hitting it are actually very slim. That's why the HYDRA 70 came with not only new engine, but a line of cluster warheads, like the M261, that have 9 grenades, that are released after a time delay. So, a CCIP option on a small, "bare bone" helicopter like the AH-9? Yes, you could put ballistic computer, and turret with rangefinder plus Helmet Mounted Sight, but you won't get much out of it, you will still shoot roughly into an area. If I would be managing such Arma 3 project, I would rather concentrate on different warhead options for the rockets, than the aiming system. For example 160th SOAR Littlebirds, have no aids for aiming the miniguns and rockets - although the OH-6A had a sight for the minigun - you use those weapons "by feel".

With TrackIR many of the computations are done on the devise chip, so you'll get less performance hit than with any other system that is webcam based and does everything on CPU. With Freetrack, I had about 8% of performance drop, with FaceTrack - depends, but usually around 25%. With TrackIR 5, I have none. TrackIR 5 have wider angle, and higher sampling rate - not as much as the chip on Oculus, but 5-7 times higher than you'll get on a webcam with this resolution. The TrackIR 4 is ok, if someone can't afford 5, but can a 4 - then get it, otherwise, shoot for the 5 Pro variant. BTW, go to Dslyecxi website, and get yourself a discount ;) http://dslyecxi.com/trackir5/

Umm... the Hydra 70 with mk.66 motor in reality have 29mrads of dispersion, and that's 50% of rounds (for some reason DARPA is measuring differently for guns, rockets and bombs).

This is all up for discussion. I don't really require ultra-realistic weapons behavior. I don't require the miniguns to have exactly that numbers of dispersion (actually in the old days you had sets of rings that would change the dispersion of that weapon), but make it consistent with laws of physics - put most of the rounds where I'm aiming at, not around my target. I would also accept a statement that those FFARs are inertialy guided, though the motor burn needs tweaking, and they need at least look as if they're obeying the laws of physics, they're not photon torpedoes you know.

TrackIR - rudder pedals with toe brakes - joystick In that order. TrackIR can be used no matter what you are doing in Arma. And as far as "free" and less costly equivalents go - until the Oculus Rift will be available - there is nothing that can be honestly compared to Track IR performance. I was playing with those things since 2004, and thrown all of those inventions to trash when I got my TrackIR 5 Pro last year - the difference is huge. Get it right now. Rudder pedals: use as many limbs as you can when the game is getting as complex as Arma. You can use pedals with toe brakes to lean when on foot, gas/brake and even precise steering when in a vehicle, and of course rudder and brakes, when the planes come. Joystick - you can go without one, although I personally am running out of space when trying to fly with mouse, and I have one of the biggest Razor mouse pads available. Good joystick set will make you more consistent when dog fighting, or constantly avoiding gunfire and lining up for attack - at the same time in a helicopter. Just few pointers for selecting good setup: Go for split joystick and throttle, Hall sensors if available. AVOID like a plague: force feedback (those designs have limited accuracy) and force sensing (very bad for flying helicopters).

You may want to check out this video: But don't try to do that in your Robbie though.