Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

maffa

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    237

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Everything posted by maffa

  1. maffa
    i cant wait for the LCAC and Mk10 to be completed! These are the only vehicles that make any use of all that sea on Tanoa and Altis...
  2. maffa

    Scrap the AI System

    maffa replied to captmoose344's topic in ARMA 3 - GENERAL

    Arma is not a twitchy competitive FPS. It has nothing to do with COD or BF, or Overwatch for whats worth. Ai is paramount important to Arma. Half the matches in clan nights are COOP. Other complex missions like Antistasi totally rely on AIs. High Command module is a great promise never fullfilled: you cant even order a unit to get in a vehicle for god's sake, not to mention all the times they get stuck and wont move. Not every clan can field enough players to have TvTs all the time, and the very low bottom line is 20 players, 10 per side, just to have an Unreal Tournament like small scale mission. In a coop it's not unusual have x1.5 up to x3.0 AI for every player, and the scope of coop missions gets grander and grander. And yet we still have AI inside buildings laying low below windows, never getting up and sometimes firing by clipping their guns from walls.
  3. maffa
    Hello everybody After the news about the Jet DLC, i couldnt help but wonder why something has never been done about amphibious/littoral operations, namely something around the concept of a Marines DLC. More than a third of all vanilla maps are made of water, but in turn the only seafaring vehicles available are the RHIBs, the minigun boat and the submarine thingie. Way too little, considering all the operations that can be conducted from the sea. Burnes had started to make some landing craft utility boats, namely the LCAC and the Mk10, but due to a hardware meltdown everything was lost and the project has been halted since. But i feel there should be more in terms of amphibious operation vehicles -moreso than jets, BTW, but as far as i am concerned thats gonna be a badly needed Sensors DLC with some planes thrown in as a bonus. In particular, there should be for both west and east sides, something on the category of a LHD (more on that later), LCU, AAV and LCAC or heavy cargo lander. About the issues pertaining such a large ship as a LHD, there are some unexplored problems: there hasnt been such a big vehicle yet, so there is no reference about it's physics, hitpoints, vulnerabilities, how it should be damaged and eventually break and sink, etc; there is an engine issue about moving objects with people standing on them which wont stuck on the surface of said object but will slip away (or rather they stay still while the vehicle moves away), and this is a problem that also Burnes met when working on his landing crafts of his; and if our maps are waaaaaay too little for jet operations the very same thing can be said about naval operations (once you create a LHD for both sides it stands to reason that then youll place them both in a map and try to have the both of them throw things at each other). But if the first two are engine's problems, the third one is rather easy to solve: the space outside the map of Tanoa and Altis is still seawater, so you can go off the map as much as you want to. But then again, i dont plan to solve all the problems: i dont have the skills to address these issues. And the smaller vehicles are useful for storming beaches and badly in need to put all this water to some use. I only wanted to raise awareness on this issue and gather (or maybe just test) the interest of the community. So, what say you?
  4. maffa
    there are a couple oil rigs in the workshop already. You dont need much in order to do one, there are all the assets ready to make a passable one. What we need are operable things, nominally landing ships, stuff that can combine with land troops. I am not too convinced about riverine/patrol boats because thats something that cannot be done nothing about: say the enemy has such an asset, how are you (you infantryman) supposed to do anything about it? It's like an out of target tank that can obliterate you from afar and that will never come closer to your position, nor you never will to it. Now, landing crafts: thats another set of things. With landing crafts (and USMC AAVs) you have a vector of entry from sea to land, you can hope from a Tanoan island to another, you have shore storming scenarios. And yeah, a functioning (as in "non clipping to your death") Khe Sahn is badly needed.
  5. maffa
    (In the topic opened to take some attention away from planes to give sea assets some love, here's the proposal for yet another scenario irrelevant plane. This is hopeless...)
  6. maffa
    That'd be nice, but as i said there's the problem that infantrymen canot move around the boat while it moves. If the ViV works because vehicles arent supposed to move around while being ferried around, people do move around, and if you need to defend a large obvious ship then you got a problem on your hands. Now, if i think at Burnes' LCAC and Mk10, they where made so that even if people remain stuck on the platforms if wont change much because the ship walls are so high that they wouldnt be able to do much anyways. But be as it may, im happy with anything. I just say that landing ships and USMC AAVs and a static LHD are much more urgent than anything else (as far as this supposed Marines DLC is concerned).
  7. maffa
    LOL if i could i'd already done it, dont you think? ;)
  8. maffa
    let the launcher slot be used for whatever weapon you want to shoulder, and let it swap with whatever you want to keep on your hands.
  9. maffa
    That's exactly what i asked for in my OP, except i can do without the coastal patrol boat since there's already the minigun boat. I never though of having a mobile, functioning LHD, with armaments and bells & whistles, even though i can hope for it. Unfortunately there's the problem of having unattached units to mobile vehicles that skid on place as i wrote before, so iether everyone has a position inside the vehicle (driver passenger you name it), or it wont work. Besides, the real missing asset is the landing craft, as there's nothing like that in either vanilla nor mod.
  10. maffa
    if you are interested in landing ships and marine warfare you might lobby for them in the relevant thread on general :)
  11. maffa
    Thanks guys for the feedback. The poor urgency of a Marine DLC, or any other sea related activity, is shown by the very low response to this very thread. I wrote it more than a month ago, and yesterday it got its first reply. This says all. Compare it to any jet or airplane thread, and get your own conclusions. TYhis thread was meant to cater attention and interest on the topic, but as you all can see almost nobody gives a toss about ships, period. Be it because there never were ships in any other arma titles so there's no experience attached to the activities involving marine warfare, be it because ships are seen as slow moving unexciting pieces of hardware, be it because beach storming dont excite anyone's fantasy... search me, honestly. In my mind a mission where you start from a LHD and you can land anywhere on a island shore with a fast armoured transport is much better than being transported by a C130 that took off and landed 6 km away from the dropoff point. it also is a much more employable piece of asset in public server mission types as KotH and alike. I fought for years against the tide of people that want the strangest jet planes on Arma maps, because they dont make any sense whatsoever. Of course anyone is free to like anything they want, but dev time is a limited resource and i wanted something that was much coherent with the scope where Arma moves in. Serious fighter jet maps include both Koreas and sea up to japan, or the whole Balkan area, half of Italy and a piece of Greece, and DCS maps are as big as the Caucasus, while the second biggest map on Arma is an island you can stroll coast to coast and back on a lazy afternoon. moverover, with all the due respect for the outstanding job BIS devs do, planes "fly" like drifting air balloons, be it because flying is something that the engine doesnt handle very well, or because if they were to properly fly they'd need ten times the space to do so. I am an avid Arma player as i am a flight enthusiast, and everytime i see a plane on Arma my heart aches and my eyes are in pain. But again i cant blame anyone for liking what they like, and in this specific case this Jet DLC will bring a major sensor overhaul which is most welocome as it is overdue, and i cant wait for the Armor DLC. But i cant just help but wonder what all that water on Tanoa Altis Stratis is there for, if not to brag on map sizes on gaming magazines.
  12. maffa
    A moving GPS/map on a Hud with waypoints on it would be good...
  13. maffa
    Control + function keys (or even better ctrl + arrow keys) arent currently used by anything, and in any case airplane and helicopter have their own dedicated keyset. I understand that you dont have any time to browse thru pages in a jet in a 30x30 map (see my opinion on the topic of having jets operating on Altis) but i can see workable MFDs on apaches and blacksharks alright, and then you can have all the time in the world. Then those who have HOTAS can very well map those keys on their joysticks. It doesnt sound too bad to me.
  14. maffa
    well, if you bother going with ALT+ combos why not going on function keys and/or the arrow keys? You could also rotate different pages of MFDs (ATG/ATA/System/etc) But what about vehicles and systems that have a radar but dont have a weapon? Im thinking about pure radar systems (with server missile station as in a IADS architecture (integrated air defense system) where the missile pods are slaved to a radar site, or more probably scout helicopters (OH-6M scout Littlebird, OH-58 Kiowa, etc)
  15. maffa

    Anyone using Tobii 4C?

    maffa replied to thirith's topic in ARMA 3 - GENERAL

    Oh ok, then either im remembering it bad or the site isnt updated yet.
  16. maffa

    Anyone using Tobii 4C?

    maffa replied to thirith's topic in ARMA 3 - GENERAL

    AFAIK the head tracking isnt implemented yet... And about the Eyex, i've bought it on a whim last year for Arma and E:D but it never satisfied me and im currently selling it on ebay, all in all my TrackIR does everything i need.
  17. maffa
    I wont derail this thread any further, just let me point out a few things. As far as i am concerned, this might be a Sensors DLC with a few goodies thrown in for good measure rather than a Jet DLC. And i consider Tanks DLC a badly needed addition, even though i am not sure what kind of improvements can be added (much to my ignorance about how a tank operates in RL, but im confident that things can and will be improved, if only on the physics side of the thing) And when i speak of a Ships DLC maybe I'd better talk about a Amphibious Ops DLC or Littoral DLC, or even better a Marines DLC. A LHD will serve its purpose even just by standing still as a floating base for the smaller units to start from, but the essential stuff are the landing ships. I should open a new thread about it though
  18. maffa
    I never thought at naval combat as an adversarial fight between two different navies (even thought, on Altis and Tanoa, maybe...). But in order to allow amphibious operations some ships should have been included, at least the smaller ones (from the LCAC down). I believe you when you say that creating a ship is a costly do as far as ther Arma engine is concerned, but im sure that workarounds can be found (like keep them stationary if you cannot have them mobile, just like the Khe Sanh) and they would have added so much to the game in terms of gameplay. Now, im sure you know that when we talk about jet planes CAS and short range there's only very few names to be made: Harriers, A-10s, M-346s and AMX for NATO and Yak-130 for Eastern countries. All the rest is either turboprop or flies too high to be concerned by a 30x30 km square map -between you and me, F36s on Altis is an eyesore). In any case, nothing much to be done here. I hope the sensors will improve everyone's life on Arma and i am sure they will be an improvement. For me, all this water is a waste and a missed opportunity.
  19. maffa
    A LHA, USS Khe Sanh, was a stationary object on Utes' waters: that was the smallest map on A2 and can be used as a prototype for all the others. All you need is a LHD with helicopter pads, a cargo bay and a wet bay. It's a mobile base and you get to treat it as such, expecially since there's enough firepower to take it down. Modders tried in all these years to add naval assets to the game, with mixed results. Burnes was almost able to provide the community with two landing boats, but had a hardware breakdown and lost everything. A third of all vanilla maps have sea on them: without ships it's almost wasted space. Beaching is a splendid game scenario: marines pouring vehicles and men off their LCACs, LCUs and AAVs. There's literally no need for jets on arma. it doesnt have a dimension that allows for jets to operate. No jet warfare happen in the same piece of ground where it sits. Maybe only in Pusan, during the korean war, jets took off and landed as close as 50 km from the frontlines, but that was a desperate situation; Saddam Hussein preferred bury his Migs on a very similar situation. I cannot see a jet taking off Altis, to travel 3 km dropping off his ordinance and then fly back to base: it's against everything Arma is about, it's just BF madness. The same goes for cargo planes: cargo planes are needed as international means of transportation, and in some cases intercontinental. Whatever a C130 or a A400M could do on Altis or Tanoa, a helo can and will do better without breaking immersion.
  20. maffa
    Sincerely, the more stuff can be output in order to be outlined and singled out by modders, the better. I suspect that BI will put out the kind of near futuristic/prototypical/once seen in a blueprint proposal and forgot in someone's hard disk kind of aircrafts, so it's hard to tell if they are really going to replicate the kind of actual radar technologies of AIM-120 Mavericks and Sidewinders (just to name three weapon systems that work with completely three locking methods). In a way, i feel like the radar system whould be attached to the weapon, and not to the vehicle: if you have an AIM-120 you need a targeting computer on board, because the AMRAAM need the help of the plane's radar to keep the lock until it's close enough to engage its own, while the Sidewinder just races after the heat signature you linked it up to and goes off on its own. TV is very much HUD dependant, just think of the Javelin or TOWs. Heat tracking systems can be both linked to HUD cues or to radars: heat seeking weaponry is short ranged for aerial purposes because an AIM-120 being long range can travel for almost 50km (again, what are we talking about here?), and this also means that it is unlikely that anyone will have the time to lock multiple targets at a given time (while for active radar targets you wait for many seconds and minutes and can and will lock several targets at the same time: IIRC an F15 can lock up to 8 targets in TWS. So all in all i'd place TV on HUD, IR on short range radar and LR on LR radar. But thats me. I dont really know how they plan to do things, nor what's the base of their project. Ships! But also tanks patrol etc! Everything is more relevant than jets! You cannot fit jets in the dimension Arma plays! It smells as fake and gamey as Battelfields'!
  21. maffa
    yeah, got confused with mph and kn (which are both on the lower half of 300). And i even went and rechecked all the numbers to be sure...
  22. maffa
    Ill be slightly going against the general grain here. Just hear me rant and whine, let me be your party pooper. I absolutely applaud BI for dedicating themselves to develop a better radar system. I cannot wait to see a working radar / heat seeking technology which will be applicable to a variety of weaponry: naval terrestrial and aerial. But i cannot hide my disappointment in hearing that the next DLC will be about jets. I mean, have you all seen our maps? As big as Altis and Tanoa might be, thats no playground for military jet operations. Take BMS: their theatres are a 100x magnitude bigger: both Koreas, Sinai plus Egypt and Israel, eastern half of Italy and ther whole former Yugoslavia. We are not talking about a 30x30km map, we are talking hundred thousands kmq. And even thought almost every map has seas, and vanilla maps go up to more than a third made of sea, we still dont have any litoral nor expeditionary ship available except for zenith inflatable boats, those submarine thingies and the speedboat minigun. And that's it: no LPDs, no LHDs, no Mk10s, no LCACs, nothing we can use in a beach landing or a seaborne operation. All to have a shark in a fish bowl that will be forced to float around like an air balloon in order not to zip past the map boundaries if he misses his 5G turn opportunity window by a couple of seconds. If a average jet is a F16, its normal cruise speed is mach 1, which means it travels 340km per second. Are we going to get the whole Germany as a map along with the DLC map? Or will they be constrained in a map that is barely long enough as the landing path they usually use? Im just so sorry to come and whine when a very good announcement has come, and again im so happy to hear the news about radars, but jets? Really?
  23. maffa

    [WIP] Female base model project

    maffa replied to HorribleGoat's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: DISCUSSION

    uh arent those arms a tad too long? It looks like is the arms were resting on the sides, the fingers might touch the sides of the knees, they should go past mid-thigh...
  24. maffa
    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand... it's gone. ((any chance to see some improvements on the LCAC or AAV ? )
  25. maffa

    WIP importing of PedagneMOD in ARMA 3

    maffa replied to arremba san zorzo's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: DISCUSSION

    are they M4/M16 reskins or do they have (or will have) different stats?
×