RushHour

Now this can be fun, I´ll take a race version in Red Bull livery. Then maybe do a competition with the windmills flying slalom through them :)

Barely got out of that one, we should thank the bushes for not being physical. But it´s great to so see someone doing it, seems like you need to get some momentum there in the beginning which is the key to just barely having enough speed to produce lift. I have, this is what my video is showing, it´s only X all the way down. But the drag/accelleration/speed is wrong though. Most drag equals slowest acceleration and top speed. Do you get the same numbers if you start up the game again?

It´s not even consistent on the different armor settings. Looks to me it´s as i said, body armor means armor for the whole body regardless if you get shot in the face. One shot to the head and you simply should not stand up, you´re either dead or in Nirvana.

I don´t want to spam my post but i would greatly appreciate if every flight fan of Arma would vote on the ticket, we just have one plane now so it would probably be fixed before others arrive. Edit: it´s been reviewed, woho :)

Yea for your point 1. Being able to drag and drop gear for units would be so much simpler then having several lines of text in a init file.

Graphics Cockpit animation/visualization Inventory Mod adding made easier Altis Sea factor Animations (although jumping and climbing over walls would be quite welcome) Weather engine (beautiful) Probably forgot about some things, much easier to memorize the bad stuff ;)

Could you explain the physics behind this? Very curious to how the weight distribution can pull the plane in one direction on the ground. While in flight i can imagine but then the plane would be slightly tilted due to equal force being generated on both wings while the weight distribution is not. But on the ground you have three points that take up the weight, two taking up the majority of it. With regards to commerical airliners i was always under the impression that the reason for the rudder was to negate the effect of the wind pushing it one or the other direction.

Not sure i fully understand what you mean, could you explain with some different words? ---------- Post added at 13:11 ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 ---------- Hmm this is a bit weird, now the plane will take off by itself with maximum flap angle and it will exceed well over 200 quite easily. correction, well over 500km/h.. And with no flaps it won´t take off. And with medium setting it now won´t take off from the ground... How can this be? It seems the game generates random physics every time you start up the game, and once you are in, those are the physics you will have until you exit. Lowest Flap Setting - 193-197km/h before crashing. No lift. Medium Flap Setting - 203km/h before crashing. No lift. Highest Flap Setting - hits´s over 200 long before the other flap settings, and takes off with no problems. Here´s a video showcasing the different flap settings. BI it would be very helpful if you could explain what is going on, i know it´s a DEV build but this honestly does not make any sense. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sf1fLg_pK0&feature=youtu.be ---------- Post added at 14:36 ---------- Previous post was at 13:11 ---------- Ok made a ticket now, hopefully they take a look at the flap angle physics. http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=14085

Cutting it in half is just a saying... It should destroy the plane to the point where you need to buy a new one because parts are laying around everywhere. Don´t try and comb over the obvious fact that the damage model is so far away from realism it´s not even funny.

Correct, I did some testing on the main airport, just to see if it takes of by itself. Without any input only the middle flap setting will lift the plane up by itself, most extreme setting will hit a wall at just under 200 and no flap setting won´t create any lift (on the length of the runway at least) Actually while i´m doing this, i might as well do it properly, test everything and write it down so we get a full overview of what speeds does what, what flap angles does what, how long of a distance it needs to land/take off etc. Just going to watch Formula 1 then i´ll start.

Altis, By grassport i mean airport on grass. Not a real properly built airport. Tried the one to the south east as well, flaps makes no difference at all, and it´s incredibly bumpy, a bit too bumpy for an airport, even one that just got some cones and lines. Are the BI team aware of the Coanda-effect? http://i.imgur.com/FYG5ajN.jpg (161 kB) With the flap angle the air flowing over the wing will actually follow the shape of it, meaning it will bend and go down = generating lift. Some aircraft even puts their engines on top of the wing to not only have the air produce the coanda effect but also the engine exhausts. Edit: here´s an updated image of the airflow and how it is being affected by the flap angle, roughly speaking.

I love the shift click feature as it´s better then any GPS system or map-looking out there but with flying an aircraft it would be very useful to be able to have multiple shift clicks. For example an airport. Being able to shift click on the start of it and the end of it would allow one to line up perfectly from very far away. Especially with Altis where you are more or less forced to run in the mist. This would get rid of quick maneuvers left or right just prior to landing and i would not have to check the map while flying so i can see where to start turning. So with that said, is this possible? If not, is there some way to go around this problem?

Is it possible to make a ticket for this sort of thing? Seems anything that´s written in request threads is quickly forgotten or buried in more requests. It´s relatively simple just to add the ability to have one more shift-click marker.

I wonder how hard it would be to take all these various simulation tools (like the weather one, this dirt one, some flight models etc ) and incorporate all of that into one game. I think it will be much easier if you have that as a goal before you start building the game engine.

I think this might be a better representation of it since they actually test this in the wind tunnel. Almost the same design though. http://nanopatentsandinnovations.blogspot.se/2012/07/take-peek-at-lockheed-martins-speed.html

I think it´s because once the guy has body armor, he´s got that all over his body according to the game. Rather then torso only.

I just remembered seeing in a video showcasing the CAS that one of the guys commentating said "fly around the map first to decrease the lag" or something along those lines. Could be worth testing. It might have been a chopper they were in but nonetheless, worth a try.

No F35 please, i think we already will have dogs in the game.

Same here. Just limit the damage by turning everything down and hope it´s just the DEV build that has devolved a little bit in the FPS department. I think the actual release build will run more stable and better fps.

The only thing that is even a percent accurate is the body shape. Everything else is pure fiction that has 0% correllation with reality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EdshnJc9RY This is the same as having an aircraft stopping mid-flight, turn around then get on the power with no loss of elevation. It´s pure science fiction. It´s not even arcade at this point. Put simply: The car follows no laws of nature.

A car with no downforce (probably producing lift) can not and will never take a high speed corner at 270km/h. EDIT: Actually it´s over 300km/h... Where is the downforce produced from? What wings? What ground effects from this FWD hatchback? It´s unicorn stuff and the least you would expect from a game like Arma. "the car goes up on suspension" That tells you right there where the bar has been set. It´s Nintendo 64 MarioKart vehicle dynamics.

And yet the downforce is equal to an F1 car and it´s got the physics of MarioKart. ---------- Post added at 08:52 ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 ---------- If the world only consisted of guys like you we would still be running around with sticks and stones. Just a bunch of yes-men devolving the human race instead of having people saying this can be better, this needs improvement etc.

Yea why not bring in unicorns while we are at it.

In the last code only 1 of 3 "3rdPersonView=" is set to 0. Not sure if that helps though.

I would probably try and talk to the guy that is working on removing the action menu, that way none of you have do work someone else is already doing. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?161146-KEYS-No-action-menu You and that guy are probably working on the two most interesting concepts imo. Keep up the good work!