frankfranconi

That's great to hear, thanks for the update! I thought so too at first, but it looks as though currently RHS have more time to work on the mod than the original creators. Since its inclusion, there has already been an update to various parts of the RHS mods, but none to the standalone MELB despite the glaring issues. But I'm glad RHS is taking it under their wings, they seem to take good care of their stuff. The Mk V SOC, a standalone mod that never quite left the W.I.P phase before being included, now even has a nice system that allows loading of smaller boats. It has really started to shine with RHS.

Haven't tested it, but I have to assume the worst. Isn't really an argument anymore though, because with the VTOLs we already have vehicles that don't really work with AI. Don't get me wrong, I love them (except the armed Blackfish of course) and I'd rather they include them even though AI has its gripes with it. I find it really admirable though that they try hard to make new stuff like the vehicle-in-vehicle accessible to scripting, AI and so on.

I'd love to see something like the one that already is in the Spanish mod (and works extremely well, even without vanilla vehicle-in-vehicle).

True. Another one of the strange configuration issues that could be fixed very easily but seems to have been left out.

We almost have that already because you can decrease the zoom so much you basically get that effect. But yeah, the Falcon is definitely subpar right now. It's so puzzling, because they've managed to more or less get all the other UAVs right before.

Yeah, having clarity on the license would be a good start. Back in April I saw on the OFPS forums that they started working on a new BECTI mission, one that Benny did most of the work on. Admittedly, they were paying him to do it, so I somewhat understand they don't want to hand it out like free beer, but it just seems like such a shame that all the hard work that could benefit the community as a whole can only be used by a small subset.

thecapulet, have you considered developing your version on GitHub? It's been bugging me for a while now that there are so many offshoots of BeCTI, but no sort of central repository people can contribute back to (as far as I've seen). There are already multiple edits for Tanoa, and imagining all the duplicate work being done by different authors to get all the new content in really pains me. I think A3 Wasteland development is a great rolemodel here, because they have a central codebase which is being continually updated and from which people can fork and create their own versions but still selectively merge improvements from the main version. This leads to pretty consistent quality of the mission on servers across the board and it would also facilitate continual development even if the current main developer loses interest at some point. This would make it much easier for someone else to pick up development.

I'm a bit disappointed that almost two weeks after release, the MQ-12 Falcon still has configuration issues that would only take a few minutes to fix but really screw up the vehicle as it is. The driver/pilot camera is zoomed in way too much by default. I really don't understand this one, because all the other UAVs with identical pilot cameras have no zoom applied and have been working perfectly for years now. The pilot camera still has no HUD with an aiming reticle for the unguided DAR rockets, which makes them pretty useless when flying it in first person. Why bother having them in the first place if you can't aim properly (only in 3rd person)?

I just really hope that vanilla vehicle-in-vehicle functionality is added to more vehicles we already have. Just think of the Mk. V SOC craft that is in RHS right now, which can already transport smaller vehicles (though not well, because there is no way to fix the load). Looking at the biki, it doesn't seem like too much work either. As far as I understand, it's just about creating some memory points on the model and adding them to the configuration.

Considering it is roughly the size of a littlebird, that thing should even go down after some amount of small arms fire. I'm pretty confident this is going to be tweaked at some point.

Oh wow, you're really knocking it out of the park as they say. Especially with RHS support now, because I've always had a personal preference for it over CUP units.

Thank you very much for getting back to me so quickly!

Well that's the thing, it really feels like a very bad solution (if it was intended to be like this in the first place). It's not possible to control the flaps and the propellers at the same time, it's propellers in vectoring and flaps in horizontal flight. And the funny thing is that it's only possible to control the rotor angle manually while using the analogue joystick throttle. If I use the keyboard control for throttle, the flaps action only affects the flaps in both vectoring and normal mode and has no effect on the rotor position. So effectively, only people with a joystick get access to the manual rotor control? That doesn't make sense at all. Also, I've been flying the Osprey in A2 as well and interestingly enough I haven't had this kind of issue there. In A2, auto hover as it was called back then, worked perfectly fine for me.

I see how this can be advantageous, but the fact that this only happens to some people using joysticks makes it look much more like a bug. Unless you have any official information on this of course.

Another (and hopefully the last) update on the VTOL issue: I've been able to isolate it to the way my joystick (Logitech Attack 3) controls analogue thrust. Whenever I'm using the keyboard to control the thrust ('left shift' to increase and 'y' to brake) everything works as intended and when coming out of horizontal flight, enabling vectoring mode and reducing thrust, the rotors/nozzles switch to the hovering position as they should. It's only when I'm using my joystick to control analogue thrust that this does not work and I can instead manually control 5 degrees of rotation on the rotors/nozzles by using flaps up/down. One tap of the "Decrease thrust" keyboard key 'y', will solve this though, the rotors/nozzles go into hovering position and I can use the joystick's thrust control to finish the landing attempt without problems. Since there are people who don't have any joystick problems, I'm guessing it's just the way my (and possibly other) joysticks control the analogue thrust. Maybe it never truly goes down to zero thrust and instead just something close to it and the engine therefore thinks it's something different from what I see in the behavior of the vehicle. There is definitely a discrepancy there. Because I haven't seen anything similar yet, I filed a bug report on the feedback tracker. Please add more information if you have something.

Another (and hopefully the last) update on the VTOL issue: I've been able to isolate it to the way my joystick (Logitech Attack 3) controls analogue thrust. Whenever I'm using the keyboard to control the thrust ('left shift' to increase and 'y' to brake) everything works as intended and when coming out of horizontal flight, enabling vectoring mode and reducing thrust, the rotors/nozzles switch to the hovering position as they should. It's only when I'm using my joystick to control analogue thrust that this does not work and I can instead manually control 5 degrees of rotation on the rotors/nozzles by using flaps up/down. One tap of the "Decrease thrust" keyboard key 'y', will solve this though, the rotors/nozzles go into hovering position and I can use the joystick's thrust control to finish the landing attempt without problems. Since there are people who don't have any joystick problems, I'm guessing it's just the way my (and possibly other) joysticks control the analogue thrust. Maybe it never truly goes down to zero thrust and instead just something close to it and the engine therefore thinks it's something different from what I see in the behavior of the vehicle. There is definitely a discrepancy there. Because I haven't seen anything similar yet, I filed a bug report on the feedback tracker. Please add more information if you have something.

Concerning the VTOL issue, I can confirm it's the joystick. As soon as I start Arma with the joystick plugged in, vector mode doesn't work automatically as it should and I can instead manually control the angle of the rotors/nozzles using flaps up/down. Without the joystick, everything works as intended. Edit: It's the joystick for me, but other people don't seem to have issues with joysticks

Can confirm, it's the joystick. As soon as I start Arma with the joystick plugged in, vector mode doesn't work automatically as it should and I can instead manually control the angle of the rotors/nozzles using flaps up/down. Without the joystick, everything works as intended. Edit: It's the joystick for me, but other people don't seem to have issues with joysticks

I'm on Dev too. This is really strange issue, because while my vectoring doesn't automatically work, I can manually control the rotor/nozzle position. People who have no problems with vectoring on the other hand, apparently can't do manual control. And you just ruled out that it's a joystick-related issue too, so yeah. No clue.

This is weird: I just checked with a friend who had no problems whatsoever flying the VTOLs. Interestingly enough, his propellers/nozzles act the way they're supposed to, switching position depending on if he's in vectoring or not (while this didn't happen for me). Also, he's unable to manually control their position while in vectoring mode, whereas I can use flaps up/down to adjust them to 5 different positions. For him, it just does the flaps (in the Blackfish), whether he's in vectoring or not. There is something really strange going on here. Maybe it's because I'm using a joystick.

At least for me, while not in vectoring mode the flaps actions control the flaps and in vectoring the position of the rotors/nozzles. But: I just checked with a friend who had no problems whatsoever flying the VTOLs. Interestingly enough, his propellers/nozzles act the way they're supposed to, switching position depending on if he's in vectoring or not (while this didn't happen for me). Also, he's unable to manually control their position while in vectoring mode, whereas I can use flaps up/down to adjust them to 5 different positions. For him, it just does the flaps, whether he's in vectoring or not. There is something really strange going on here. Maybe it's because I'm using a joystick.

Alright, I finally figured it out. As xxgetbuck123 said, in vectoring mode you can adjust the position of the rotors/nozzles manually using flaps up/down. Renaming this action for vectoring mode would be great, because people have and most certainly will continue to overlook this detail because the name doesn't represent what it actually does.

Yeah, that's another problem. At the moment the nozzles of the Xi'an only go into hover mode when flying extremely close to the ground, which is not really a safe maneuver to perform when quickly landing. There isn't a way to manually force them into hover, is there?

Is it just me or are the VTOLs almost impossible to land well? Reducing speed in vectoring mode causes them to nosedive (as if they were stalling, but no indication for that, such as the speed display turning red), requiring the pilot to increase speed and reduce again and so on... I'm beginning to think I'm doing something wrong here.

I'm seeing the same issue. Especially the fact that the VTOLs like to go nosediving while in vectoring mode when reducing speed. Landing requires a ridiculously long period of reducing speed, almost crashing, increasing speed and so on. I really can't imagine them making a precise landing with the current configuration. Edit: Figured it out. In vectoring mode it's possible to adjust the rotor/nozzle position manually by using flaps up/down. Maybe we could rename this action in vectoring mode to represent what it actually does.