John Spartan

This is awesome. Congrats on release RHS team. Good luck in competition.

@Eduzumaki, sorry mate DEV BRANCH is not supported, mod is designed to work with STABLE 1.32

@DarksideSix - it's based on real, but if you look more carefully then you will find 10 things that are changed. It looks like Advanced Super Hornet but the same time it's not [the big B company and their copy right's would apply otherwise]. By making fictional unit, also allows us some freedom on design and concept in general.

@All - Saul and me already have made a decision on our next project it's goanna be an aircraft carrier [called USS FREEDOM, a Ford class super carrier] to finally replace A2 ported one [uSS NIMITZ]. And then there is one more project Saul recently suggested and I 100% agreed with him - to have a nice break/holyday from all this. So sorry, if there will be a F117 then it will be some other crew to create that. I would emphasize on create - since ARMA 3 standard's are way further than ARMA 2 detail/quality, so a quick port over version is not an option in my opinion. If you do it then do it properly, or better don't bother at all. That does not change nothing for our current projects, we will look after them with same care as before.

@Odie - we were looking thru such concept, and we decided to restrict the EWP to centre weapon station, for other wing pylons something like a JSOW would be a perfect fit, but that latter down the road.

@BFGfreak - deciding on futuristic squadron names/logos is one of the things we would like to get community involved, so if you have some cool ideas what in your opinion will fit in Arma 3 setting let us know. @All - the concept behind the visual customization will be simple. - Two base camo patterns [current Black camo and NAVY grey like on RL NAVY jets] - tails will have a choice of 6 - 10 fictional squadron logos - all hull numbers fully customizable - squad XML logo will be possible to apply to tails, to create a replacement to match your game clan/group - some of the cockpit light colours, glass colours [transparent/orange tint] and few small visual adjustments in cockpit With all that + arming interface player should be able to fully customize FA18X to it's mission needs and taste @DarksideSix - it's already in game, it's a vanilla feature, no external code here bro

@Mmahdi - I agree, that F14 is an iconic fighter, but atm we have no plans to create one for ARMAVERSE, sorry, but we just don't have that much of a free time [it takes about 3 months to create a BETA and then another 2-3 to shape it]

@All - thank you for your support. Also since latter down the development we have plans to expand visual customization of the FA18X we will need some fictional squadron names/logos to be used on the jet tails - any ideas? @Olive - SDB's are currently only for usage with EWP. Also they are not currently fully GPS guided as GBU31/32/38 where bomb seeks target even without a diamond lock [just get a square lock and be at altitude needed for bomb to travel to target]. We will look in to guidance for sure, but there was no initial plan to make them as part of conventional loadout, since there is enough "toys". @Gerrald, atm moment we are busy with finishing the features we have, we will look at possible solutions once our priority task list is done.

@Chortles & Tuna, all F35 related questions are really up to and author of that mod, so I guess that's a different tread. Also if you have not noticed we have been always for collaboration between modding community member's, even regardless the contest we have been helping others to build some cool stuff, but again wrong tread, you will have to talk to authors of that mod if you wish him to implement something that is already done by us. @All - as for upcoming USS FREEDOM [Ford Class Carrier], then it will have a detailed function library available to be used by other community mods. @Tuna - as for cockpit then, you will have to wait a bit, Saul is finishing up the last detail on it. So don't rush on that statement you made - we have an OPEN BETA here.

@Doomsta, no atm we have no plans to add it to add it there. Also it's a clear separation between these lead-out types since there is scripted LOW radar cross section functionality [with EWP equipped, bay doors closed you are not a target to enemy unit until you open the pod or get as close as 5km to the unit that is capable of IR signature detection]. So the game concept we would like to emphasize is - carry less but gain "stealth" or take more weapons and be a clear target. We are open to suggestions here. @Skariaxil - park the FA18X near a hangar or a NATO HEMTT ammo truck, spped 0, use action menu entry - service menu

@Gunny - well spotted, booth reported issues are fixed, will be deployed with next update @Liquid & Zukov, thank's that was our main intension, to add a quality asset to existing NATO faction, so it actually fits in the game setting. The carrier once ready will be nothing less than the standard we have for our fighter jet mods @Randomslap & Syncie - USS Nimitz is not the carrier we aim to make it 100% compatible. Nimiz as it is now has to placed very carefully on the map, it has a tendency not to be assembled correctly, to many bumps, that might be one of the causes and also may I suggest some more "flight practise" @impatient one's - here we go Armaholic and SW download links @All - thank you for your support, also please remember this is BETA and within next few weeks it will be shaped in to a fully capable multirole platform with a "day one" fighter capabilities.

@All - As Saul promised - BETA 0.9 available now @Forum Moderator's - please close this tread since project has been moved to "RELEASED ADDONS" category. Thank's.

Saul and me decided that it's enough screenshots... check it out yourself - BETA 0.9 available

@Shannguy, there is no need to rewrite default RSC classes, also that would complicate your mod in case of vanilla game being updated. Best way is to inherit all the definitions and only if you want to add/change something the create a new unique clasname for your new RCS control BASIC DEFINITIONS Also to fully understand the issue a game RPT file with actual error could be useful.

I was wondering has anyone else experienced similar glitch with recent A3 Tools update - failure to upload/publish content via Publisher? http://i1290.photobucket.com/albums/b531/John_Rybeck/SW_publisher_upload_failed_zpsd518cf5d.jpg (102 kB) RPT file: Any ideas how to fix that or what to look for, RPT file contains only a little information, so it's hard to track down the issue.

@All - decision has been made, concept is already in work's, and - USS FREEDOM it will be. We were aware about LCS 1 named in RL with same name, but in Arma LCS 1 might end up with one of suggested names, but carrier will fit in with the rest of the existing vanilla units in Arma 3. When the time comes to taking that project to BETA, you will see the whole concept, and then we will believe the name will justify itself.

@Firewill, as for correct usage of attach to: attaching a object 1 to object 2 without usage of memory point. Capture the object before you give it to attach to Also make sure that you capture the right object Also try to attach a visible object instead of laser target first [like a small item] just to see is the code working visually.

@Firewill, OsaVelitele the memory point might not be present in all vehicles that are classed as target, don't go for memory point you can attacto with just offset [relative to center of 3d modelspace of tgt].

@Fennek, I cant really say that I am an expert on RL flight models so I wont argue on that. But for 0/0/0 being the centre of lift in RV engine we can disagree. Look up F35 by Chortles [released A3 mod, based on A2 sample models], and then download and compare this F35 [unfinished by me and Saul] - difference is centre of mass shifted to the rear of jet and we have added extra weight on wingtips [all config values are the same 1:1 by BI A2 FM]. Behaviour completely different, one spins around its axis and misbehaves other is more controllable in flight. How realistic, again I won't argue since I am not an expert bro, but its fun and OK for a game. I would vote for more authentic [don't confuse with realistic] FM/simulation airplane with emphasis on functionality of jet, to get player more involved [rather then TAB/fire]. I agree that more intel on what and how affects the FM so we can do some more authentic representation of our mods would be great.

@Fennek, geometry LOD setup [mass distribution/weight] also plays a mayor role in the FM behaviour. I understand what you are trying to archive, we had made similar mistake. SU35 FM, we are still working on, is based on carefully distributed mass [tail/engine part of the jet are the heaviest] with such setup we managed to archive something closer to FM we would like to see.

@Firewill, To define empty array use _RDRTGT = []; Why is the private in the loop? Doe is has any specific meaning for being there. Wrong positioned private variable will mean that variable will be visible only within the current scope of code block. If no specific reason for it being there delete it, or move to top together with base variable definitions.

@Firewill - define _RDRTGT = as nill in the beginning of code, it has to have an initial value - using attachto command for adding fake target use offset slightly above "target" [just a little] to avoid fake target geometry [and therefore visibility] to be obstructed by vehicles geometry, otherwise game engine wont let you see the target [see BI WIKI on LODS] And a small suggestion if I may, you have added 100km search radius for the radar [in RL correct] but in ARMA due to the scale of map it's worth considering a bit of a "watered down" radar sys. Like 2/3 or 1/2 of map size. Gameplay vs realism. If you make it to realistic it wont be fun. Also in the code evaluation you can use lineIntersects script command, since radar can be obstructed by terrain or bigger objects. Add this to an evaluation of valid target. Loop it with 0.5 or 1 [don't do per frame loops if possible, that costs FPS on weaker machines and is a hustle to already stuttering MP]

@Fennek - createvehiclelocal is solution in this case. Aslo via script you can manipulate hide/unhide object with more conditions [depends how far you want to push it]

How about different approach: - set the weapon ammo setting IRtarget = 0; and with same time add lasertarget =1; - that will mean the ammo wont be allowing tab lock on a tank in first place - then add a code [small loop] that waits until AGM88 is selected by player if (currnetweapon ==) then {}; - once player selects AGM 88 script looks for all suitable targets within your definition and adds a fake empty laser target at actual targets position - with the attached fakelasertarget player gets a chance to lock on it via TABlock - once missile is fiered game engine will do the rest - in the code you loop in case player switches to a different weapon add a line that destroys fake targets [camdestroy] not deletevehicle [that might crash the game if missile in mid air loosed it's target] - additionally create on a config entry a fake target vehicle [like example below] - side-effect on this approach is players being able to laser guide this weapon via designator In real life AGM 88 is designed to seek active radar targets, but payload in the warhead is still has enough punch to heavily damage armoured vehicle in case of direct hit [some players have mastered manual bomb/missile releases more than enough to hit a tank without a tab lock assistance]. See the code example used on FA18's to restrict JDAM/TAB lock usage: fake target cfgvehicles config just instead of using "_target hideObject" use createvehicle _target [for each suitable target] There is always more than way of archiving the goal.

@Eric, cngrat's on the release mate, looks really nice. I'll make sure the pylons are gone with the next FA18 update in November.