Any planes or jets?

[[BAC]honzikpen]

Hi all,

i saw some vehicles in the screenshots but no planes or jets.
it would be nice if there stil would be nice planes like in arma 2 and Operation Arrowhead like the C-130, MV-22, A-10, Harrier, F-35, and some other russians and german, british.... :):):)

greets
alex

[Max255[PL]]

ArmA without planes? No, that won't happen...

[teaboy]

Well the official announcement did say airplanes so i suspect they will be in, especially when you consider the size of the map being bigger than any previous map. Also looks like the astute sub is in too, looking at the screenshot of the diver where you can clearly see the aft of the sub at the top.

[CannonousCrash]

I cant see the A-10 or the harrier being in A3. Probably not the C-130 either.

I can however see the C-17 or the A400m being used. The C-17 will be the work horse of the Western airforce transport division.

the A400m is the new airbus heavy lift STOL military aircraft.

As for attack aircraft, The f35 is almost a certainty.

How about the f-22, The Su-47 Berkut, the J5 Chendu? (Chinese/Japanese Eurofighter/rafael rip off)

The Eurofighter should definately be in the game considering our player is a member of the SBS.

The firescout might also be incorporated.

With this being set a good 15 years into the future, It allows BIS to be a bit creative in their design.

Afterall the have made a Kamov and Havoc have real dirty sex

[ProfTournesol]

This isn't FP:RR, but ArmA. So there will be all kind of vehicles, as usual.

[Liquidpinky]

The Eurofighter should definately be in the game considering our player is a member of the SBS.

Bet the MOD still hasn't shelled out for the cannons for them by then though, the tight bastards.

[shadowhunter388]

Whats up 2nd Lt.Honzikpen. Yes there will be Planes, No pictures yet or atleast I don't think there is but I wonder what aircraft they are going to add for opfor, it would be awesome to see a PAK-FA vs BIS F-22 :D

[JDMT]

I'm sure the F-35 will be making an appearance again. And the use of UAVs will be through the roof.

[BloodxGusher]

I can't believe he seriously asked if there will be jets...

[[BAC]honzikpen]

I can't believe he seriously asked if there will be jets...

why?
jets are important on battlefields, this game will be in the future so there will have to be jets.

[Dysta]

How about the f-22, The Su-47 Berkut, the J5 Chendu? (Chinese/Japanese Eurofighter/rafael rip off)

J-5 is Mig-15 in real...

[NodUnit]

disregard this post.

[Flogger23m]

I would be happy if they didn't bother with fixed wing aircraft and focused on the armor and infantry. The jets are simply awful in ArmA 2 and the maps are far too small.

For AI? They are a must. Controllable? Skip them and work on the infantry. Flight sims are extremely difficult to make... it is just too much work for BI to do at once. I'd rather have them get armor and infantry right.

For flight sims you can play Lock On FC 2.0, DCS, or Cliffs of Dover.

[SgtBigRig]

not sure...hows the flight mechanics? because they were god awful in flashpoint..

[MattXR]

From the Story Line Anyways why is it still US Forces?

[Flogger23m]

not sure...hows the flight mechanics? because they were god awful in flashpoint..

And in ArmA 2.

[AUS_Twisted]

not sure...hows the flight mechanics? because they were god awful in flashpoint..

They were still fun to fly with a joystick considering what the OFP engine could do at the time, using a A-10 to drop bombs manually or with a laser over a target does what it needs to do and not everyone could just jump in and be good at that (many good memories destroying bases in MP with the A-10 in OFP)

[[FRL]Myke]

I would be happy if they didn't bother with fixed wing aircraft and focused on the armor and infantry. The jets are simply awful in ArmA 2 and the maps are far too small.

For AI? They are a must. Controllable? Skip them and work on the infantry. Flight sims are extremely difficult to make... it is just too much work for BI to do at once. I'd rather have them get armor and infantry right.

For flight sims you can play Lock On FC 2.0, DCS, or Cliffs of Dover.

Well, myself i'm not that unhappy how flying in ArmA 2 works so i hope that planes in ArmA 3 can benefit from certain engine improvements that are made for ToH.
IMHO ArmA 2 fills the gap between arcade flight games (HAWX) and the above named hardcore sims.

[NodUnit]

I would be happy if they didn't bother with fixed wing aircraft and focused on the armor and infantry.

Ah! don't you dare go there.

[Minimalaco]

I would be happy if they didn't bother with fixed wing aircraft and focused on the armor and infantry. The jets are simply awful in ArmA 2 and the maps are far too small.

For AI? They are a must. Controllable? Skip them and work on the infantry. Flight sims are extremely difficult to make... it is just too much work for BI to do at once. I'd rather have them get armor and infantry right.

For flight sims you can play Lock On FC 2.0, DCS, or Cliffs of Dover.

x2. :yay:

[NodUnit]

So we're degenerating into CM's community now? Where if a feature isn't superb it would be better just tossed? You do know that effects the community as well, if they toss jets then that means we lose jets period, are we seriously going to start going down this road.

[Flogger23m]

So we're degenerating into CM's community now? Where if a feature isn't superb it would be better just tossed? You do know that effects the community as well, if they toss jets then that means we lose jets period, are we seriously going to start going down this road.

We should. The game is an infantry simulator first. If you think otherwise you'd being disillusion.

The maps are so tiny for fixed wing aircraft it is a joke. I can fly across the biggest maps in seconds. Unless the maps can at least be increased in size by 6-10 times, then they are worthless aside from being left to the AI.

The infantry and armor aspects of ArmA 2 are lacking in so many ways. Work on that first. Once it is a perfect infantry simulator and a light armor simulator, then we can look at fixed wing aircraft.

[[FRL]Myke]

We should. The game is an infantry simulator first. If you think otherwise you'd being disillusion.

The maps are so tiny for fixed wing aircraft it is a joke. I can fly across the biggest maps in seconds. Unless the maps can at least be increased in size by 6-10 times, then they are worthless aside from being left to the AI.

The infantry and armor aspects of ArmA 2 are lacking in so many ways. Work on that first. Once it is a perfect infantry simulator and a light armor simulator, then we can look at fixed wing aircraft.

FPDR well deserved. The ArmA series is a Military Sim and aerial warfare is a important aspect, also for ground troops. Maps are big enough to justify planes and more than once my fellow mates were more than happy to see me in my A-10, clearing the bad situation they were in, trapped by a tank platoon and out of AT ammo.
So ArmA 3 deserves a well presented air force for all sides. Just because you prefer to walk, everyone else isn't forced to feel the same way. Try to be less selfish, would ya?

[NodUnit]

I never believed it to be a full on simulator of any entity but rather a game with more depth to each one with untapped potential. They may not be the best but getting right of a n entity would not only cause people to leave but also leave a bad rep because they would have gone the same route CM did and I doubt many here actually want that.

[Steakslim]

Pretty much the literal "Jack of All Trades"

[Hamm]

We should. The game is an infantry simulator first. If you think otherwise you'd being disillusion.


If you're only looking for infantry simulation in ArmA that's fine, it's how you want to play the game. Others might want to play it differently, it doesn't mean the game is broken or that "they're playing it wrong" it's a combined arms military game. Personally I find fixed-wing aircraft essential in many scenarios, and they work great on several maps. If Limnos is indeed modelled 1:1 then you're gonna have a 477 km^2 map to play on with planes.

[wamingo]

If arma3 has no official A10, watch the multiplayer scene break down in moments as 50 thunderbolt warthog A10 addons gets released within minutes, splitting the community in a million pieces, and arma3 flops worse than ET:The Game.

Also I will be sad.
Therefore, there will be jets and A10's.

Hmm.. I hope I didn't open pandoras box there. BIS might have their work cut out for them now.

[Flogger23m]

Myke;1931932']FPDR well deserved. The ArmA series is a Military Sim and aerial warfare is a important aspect, also for ground troops. Maps are big enough to justify planes and more than once my fellow mates were more than happy to see me in my A-10, clearing the bad situation they were in, trapped by a tank platoon and out of AT ammo.
So ArmA 3 deserves a well presented air force for all sides. Just because you prefer to walk, everyone else isn't forced to feel the same way. Try to be less selfish, would ya?

You're falling for their marketing. The flight combat in ArmA 2 is comparable to the infantry combat in CoD. The flight model, weapon systems, and controls are so stripped down that it is essentially CoD in the air.

ArmA 1 and 2 where focused on infantry. There is no point denying it. If the game was designed with flight in mind the maps would be of sufficient size.

Just the other day I was playing some Lock On FC2. A simple air to air engagement between four aircraft took place over 50 kilometers or more. Considering the map isn't even that big in ArmA 2 (and probably ArmA 3) it is hard to call that a sim. ;)

If you think you'll see a DCS A-10 + ArmA + Steel Beasts simulator rolled into one you can quit dreaming. It will never happen due to computer limitations (imagine a 500x500 kilometer map with ArmA 2/3 level detail...)


My point isn't to remove jets from the game. Just leave them to the AI. Make it so that the AI isn't falling out of the sky when flying.

And shift the focus to the infantry first - the core of the game which is where the vast majority of the player base comes from. Move to armor next. BI has to take it step by step. Once they improve the infantry and armor until it is near perfect, they can pick up flyable aircraft again.

This is of course my opinion. Will they do this? I am not sure. I would hope so. I want to see ArmA 3 turn into the perfect infantry similar. If that means putting the CoD like air combat on the chopping block then so be it.

[Madus_Maximus]

You're falling for their marketing. The flight combat in ArmA 2 is comparable to the infantry combat in CoD. The flight model, weapon systems, and controls are so stripped down that it is essentially CoD in the air.

ArmA 1 and 2 where focused on infantry. There is no point denying it. If the game was designed with flight in mind the maps would be of sufficient size.

Just the other day I was playing some Lock On FC2. A simple air to air engagement between four aircraft took place over 50 kilometers or more. Considering the map isn't even that big in ArmA 2 (and probably ArmA 3) it is hard to call that a sim. ;)

If you think you'll see a DCS A-10 + ArmA + Steel Beasts simulator rolled into one you can quit dreaming. It will never happen due to computer limitations (imagine a 500x500 kilometer map with ArmA 2/3 level detail...)


My point isn't to remove jets from the game. Just leave them to the AI. Make it so that the AI isn't falling out of the sky when flying.

And shift the focus to the infantry first - the core of the game which is where the vast majority of the player base comes from. Move to armor next. BI has to take it step by step. Once they improve the infantry and armor until it is near perfect, they can pick up flyable aircraft again.

This is of course my opinion. Will they do this? I am not sure. I would hope so. I want to see ArmA 3 turn into the perfect infantry similar. If that means putting the CoD like air combat on the chopping block then so be it.

The engine is actually capable of streaming unlimited sized maps apparently, it's just that so far nobody has really bothered to put the time and effort into making truly massive terrains for us to play on. I remember someone working on a map of Australia back in ArmA 1, but I've not idea what came of it, my guess is they gave up because it's such a massive undertaking.

Aircraft are very much needed. We don't even know how big the map will be yet or what the flight model will be like (and if it's too small... make a new, bigger one with the updated version of Visitor they're no doubt going to put out there at some point). They've done a LOT of enhancements to it for VBS and BIS love to give us those same enhancements in their civilian offering too.

It annoys me how people think BIS are so incapable of doing anything, they just put them down without knowing anything it seems. We know next to nothing of the game so far, it still has a YEAR in development, a LOT can change (and will). The engine is being constantly updated and improved and it's capable of FAR more than many people seem to realise or give it credit for.

Also, getting rid of aircraft would be silly. If you don't like the air aspect of things, then fine, just play it how you like. That's the great thing with BIS games, they give us huge amounts of wiggle room for us to be as creative as we like and give us the tools to make it happen. It'd be stupid and not in their interests to remove a portion of the game that adds so much to it.

[NodUnit]

The devs at CM wanted to remove aircraft from players grips so they could focus more on infantry, how wel did that work? (no seriously I don't know, never played it)

[Flogger23m]

Also, getting rid of aircraft would be silly. If you don't like the air aspect of things, then fine, just play it how you like. That's the great thing with BIS games, they give us huge amounts of wiggle room for us to be as creative as we like and give us the tools to make it happen. It'd be stupid and not in their interests to remove a portion of the game that adds so much to it.

Read my post next time before replying. :) I never said removing aircraft... I said forget about improving the fixed wing aircraft as there is so much work to do that it would take away from the resources to improve the infantry aspects of the game.

BI have limited resources and funds. Focus on the core of the game (the infantry). There are so many short comings with the infantry aspect of the game that it would take a lot of effort to improve it. In time they hopefully will (hopefully in ArmA 3).

As for aircraft, I don't even know where to begin. There is so much to do... radar modes, weapons, flight model, ect.


The devs at CM wanted to remove aircraft from players grips so they could focus more on infantry, how wel did that work? (no seriously I don't know, never played it)

That game failed in every single aspect.

[DARK-STEALTH]

Yea, that's a great idea! Lets remove all aircraft. I really like the idea of having to ride in the back of an MRAP on the way to an AO for 45 minutes or walk an hour and a half before I see any action.

[Flogger23m]

Yea, that's a great idea! Lets remove all aircraft. I really like the idea of having to ride in the back of an MRAP on the way to an AO for 45 minutes or walk an hour and a half before I see any action.

I have a better idea. Remove yourself from the forum until you learn how to read and comprehend English. :idea:Your location claims New York. If this is true and your lack of basic English reading and comprehension is a sick joke.

No one advocated the removal of aircraft in this thread.

[metalcraze]

If ArmA3 island is anything like its IRL counterpart Lemnos in size (which means 477 sq.km of land only - as in bigger than Sahrani - which is 400 sq. km including the sea - and more than twice as big as Chernarus let alone Takistan) - then BIS including planes is a given.

Because 477 sq. km of terrain makes them viable again.

[Steakslim]

If ArmA3 island is anything like its IRL counterpart Lemnos in size (which means 477 sq.km of land only - as in bigger than Sahrani - which is 400 sq. km including the sea - and more than twice as big as Chernarus let alone Takistan) - then BIS including planes is a given.

Because 477 sq. km of terrain makes them viable again.

It'll also make helicopter transport a godsend. Here I am sometimes moaning about the travel time in a humvee driving across Takistan (not always a bad things but sometimes you just want to RTB without it taking forever). If point A and point B is the entire 22km or so stretch across the island and you have to traverse that on wheels or tracks, woof!

[DARK-STEALTH]

I have a better idea. Remove yourself from the forum until you learn how to read and comprehend English. :idea:Your location claims New York. If this is true and your lack of basic English reading and comprehension is a sick joke.

No one advocated the removal of aircraft in this thread.

You advocated the removal of all user controlled aircraft. Basically, that's removing aircraft.

It seems your memory is worse than my English comprehension skills. Here's a couple qoutes:


"I would be happy if they didn't bother with fixed wing aircraft and focused on the armor and infantry."

"For AI? They are a must. Controllable? Skip them and work on the infantry."

Now, to clear up some confusion, by fixed wing aircraft, do you mean only fixed wing aircraft? Or rotor wing as well? Because rotor wing aircraft would need just as much work as fixed wing aircraft.

Also, if all rotor wing aircraft were to be AI controlled, will an AI Blackhawk pilot be able to land my squad where ever I want them? If I want my squad dropped on a roof or dropped in a tight area, will that AI pilot be able to do what I want him to do? I highly doubt it. Therefore, I would consider AI controlled rotor wing aircraft to be mostly useless.

One last thing. You shouldn't throw around personal insults like that, especially considering that I didn't say anything that even remotely resembles a personal insult to you.

[Flogger23m]

You advocated the removal of all user controlled aircraft. Basically, that's removing aircraft.


Not it is not. Did you bother to think before you posted ? Think about it for a moment. If there are no flyable aircraft... there can still be AI aircraft. :idea:

:butbut: Amazing concept isn't it? I play flight sims. Guess what? There are ships, tanks, hell, there is even a school bus in the one I just finished playing. But they aren't controllable. Why not? Because it would be done so poorly and the terrian would be of such low detail (for ground vehicles) that it isn't even worth the effort. The resources would be put into more advanced flight models, better radar modeling, ect. rather than adding in a controllable school bus.

Just like BI should focus more on the infantry aspect of ArmA - because the infantry aspect of the game needs so much work that they should fix that before working on the aircraft.




It seems your memory is worse than my English comprehension skills. Here's a couple qoutes:


Hardly. Lets pick apart your incoherent rant some more.





"I would be happy if they didn't bother with fixed wing aircraft and focused on the armor and infantry."

"For AI? They are a must. Controllable? Skip them and work on the infantry."


There is my quote. You claimed I advocated the removal of all aircraft. Did you read my post, even after you quoted it? Clearly you didn't.Take some time and read it again.

Either you didn't read my post or your English is terrible. The only other possibility is that you are trolling/flaming for the hell of it.





Now, to clear up some confusion, by fixed wing aircraft, do you mean only fixed wing aircraft? Or rotor wing as well? Because rotor wing aircraft would need just as much work as fixed wing aircraft.


By fixed wing I mean fixed wing...



Also, if all rotor wing aircraft were to be AI controlled, will an AI Blackhawk pilot be able to land my squad where ever I want them? If I want my squad dropped on a roof or dropped in a tight area, will that AI pilot be able to do what I want him to do? I highly doubt it. Therefore, I would consider AI controlled rotor wing aircraft to be mostly useless.


Arguing with an invisible person makes you look anything but intelligent. In case you are too lazy to reread my previous post I'll write it out for you again:

Who the hell advocated the removal all player controller rotor wing aircraft? :confused:

I'm still trying to figure out who advocated the removal of all aircraft in the game in this thread.



One last thing. You shouldn't throw around personal insults like that, especially considering that I didn't say anything that even remotely resembles a personal insult to you.

Don't post hostile, sarcastic replies that make no sense in the first place. It might prevent you from getting such replies. I would suggest to stop replying before you make yourself look like a complete idiot. :)

[DARK-STEALTH]

Not it is not. Did you bother to think before you posted ? Think about it for a moment. If there are no flyable aircraft... there can still be AI aircraft. :idea:

:butbut: Amazing concept isn't it? I play flight sims. Guess what? There are ships, tanks, hell, there is even a school bus in the one I just finished playing. But they aren't controllable. Why not? Because it would be done so poorly and the terrian would be of such low detail (for ground vehicles) that it isn't even worth the effort. The resources would be put into more advanced flight models, better radar modeling, ect. rather than adding in a controllable school bus.

Just like BI should focus more on the infantry aspect of ArmA - because the infantry aspect of the game needs so much work that they should fix that before working on the aircraft.




Hardly. Lets pick apart your incoherent rant some more.




There is my quote. You claimed I advocated the removal of all aircraft. Did you read my post, even after you quoted it? Clearly you didn't.Take some time and read it again.

Either you didn't read my post or your English is terrible. The only other possibility is that you are trolling/flaming for the hell of it.





By fixed wing I mean fixed wing...



Arguing with an invisible person makes you look anything but intelligent. In case you are too lazy to reread my previous post I'll write it out for you again:

Who the hell advocated the removal all player controller rotor wing aircraft? :confused:

I'm still trying to figure out who advocated the removal of all aircraft in the game in this thread.



Don't post hostile, sarcastic replies that make no sense in the first place. It might prevent you from getting such replies. I would suggest to stop replying before you make yourself look like a complete idiot. :)

"Flight sims are extremely difficult to make... it is just too much work for BI to do at once. I'd rather have them get armor and infantry right."

"As for aircraft, I don't even know where to begin. There is so much to do... radar modes, weapons, flight model, ect."

"Once they improve the infantry and armor until it is near perfect, they can pick up flyable aircraft again."

I guess I figured you were just against aircraft in general. You said you want BI to focus on infantry and armor. I figured you just put user controlled rotor wing aircraft on the chopping block like user controlled fixed wing aircraft. After all, rotor wing aircraft would need a TON of improvements too, like the examples you gave earlier, which would take time away from infantry and armor.

Suury I guews Imma jus a stoooopid puerson hu dooesnent nowes anythung abouwt inglish:butbut:

[Dingo]

Im not one for jets myself but I would still like them to be part of the game. I would like to see competent AI or Human controlled AC-130 Gunships thats the ultimate night time support.

[Flogger23m]

[B]

I guess I figured you were just against aircraft in general. You said you want BI to focus on infantry and armor. I figured you just put user controlled rotor wing aircraft on the chopping block like user controlled fixed wing aircraft. After all, rotor wing aircraft would need a TON of improvements too, like the examples you gave earlier, which would take time away from infantry and armor.

Suury I guews Imma jus a stoooopid puerson hu dooesnent nowes anythung abouwt inglish:butbut:


Considering I mentioned rotary wing aircraft many times in my previous posts I would have figured people would grasp the concept. Perhaps I overestimated the average posters ability to retain information.

Your typical helicopter doesn't have radar, and if they do they are nowhere near as complex as something like an Su-30 or F/A-18. The same can be said for weapon systems. The next advantage of helis is the map size. ArmA 2 maps are still very tiny for them, but it is not that bad. Finally, the flight model is in a better state for the helicopters than the flight model of the fixed wing aircraft.

Again, I hope BI doesn't bother improving jets. Just take them out. No need for a CoD: Air Combat in a simulator IMO. :icon_cool:

[NodUnit]

Due to being disgusted with the thought of this community sharing the mindset of CM's I cannot tell if you're last line was sarcastic or not.

[Steakslim]

Due to being disgusted with the thought of this community sharing the mindset of CM's I cannot tell if you're last line was sarcastic or not.

No mate, i think it's just him, and hopefully he's a debonaire of internet sarcasm.

[NodUnit]

Right, poor choice of word there...come to think of it remaining here would only serve to stir pointless drama since we all know jets will be included anyway, wonder what other topics are around..

[metalcraze]

Again, I hope BI doesn't bother improving jets. Just take them out. No need for a CoD: Air Combat in a simulator IMO. :icon_cool:

What are you talking about?

If you don't like planes don't use them. The modern authentic war isn't possible without them.

I also use (AI) planes in a missions as a support


Things that don't work like they should should be improved not cut out.

[AUS_Twisted]

We should. The game is an infantry simulator first. If you think otherwise you'd being disillusion.

The maps are so tiny for fixed wing aircraft it is a joke. I can fly across the biggest maps in seconds. Unless the maps can at least be increased in size by 6-10 times, then they are worthless aside from being left to the AI.

The infantry and armor aspects of ArmA 2 are lacking in so many ways. Work on that first. Once it is a perfect infantry simulator and a light armor simulator, then we can look at fixed wing aircraft.

Sorry but ArmA will never be a "perfect infantry simulator" If you think a "perfect infantry simulator" is possible on PC then you have no idea what your talking about. There's never been a perfect game or simulator released in history, theres always limitations to whats possible and in such a open game as ArmA that makes it even more difficult.

If the general public (gamers) were to play the most advanced flight sims in the world used by Air forces software that is not available to public then the first complaint would be the graphics are crap etc. To say remove aircraft for players use is just stupid, every type of vehicle has been usable since OFP and to take that feature away it would not be the same sim/game anymore.

[SASrecon]

Flogger I fail to see why you don't just go and play Battlefield/America's Army (If Red River just doesn't float your boat), I'm sorry but you're not going to change the open-nature of BIS' games and limit it to an 'infantrysim' just because you don't think the maps are big enough and the flight model means it isn't worth it... who gives a sh*t if it takes less than a minute to fly at full speed from one side of a map to the other, if you want dogfighting that's what BIS made infinite terrain generation for and Air support is a vital part of 20/21st century warfare, I don't get WHY you want to remove planes from this game.
If you'd ever played some tactical games with a clan/some mates you would probably know how important it is to be able to have a fellow player control the air-support, there's no way an AI pilot would be able to provide the same fidelity, speed and the ability to make important decisions out of their own choice. You can order an AI unit to attack certain vehicles and bomb laser-designated targets but it's usually slow, is more prone to getting shot down and you can't plan an attack with AI, it will always have the same generic behavior in most situations, making it slightly unrealistic (after all if this is a simulation then unrealistic combat wouldn't be a wise idea would it :rolleyes:).

Also please do refrain fromcontradicting yourself
Again, I hope BI doesn't bother improving jets. Just take them out. No need for a CoD: Air Combat in a simulator IMO. :icon_cool: It's getting quite frustrating and confusing to follow you when you keep slightly changing your opinion, please if you want to keep this constructive then make your opinion a little more clear and stick to it please, no need to dish out personal attacks:
I have a better idea. Remove yourself from the forum until you learn how to read and comprehend English. :idea:Your location claims New York. If this is true and your lack of basic English reading and comprehension is a sick joke.

We should. The game is an infantry simulator first. If you think otherwise you'd being disillusion. -'Disillusioned' would be the correct term there :j:

I also fail to see how your COD Air combat analogy makes any sense (yes I have read your previous post, but in what way is ARMA air combat 'arcadey' and 'untactical'? It's probably more tactical than Air combat in any other game series.) I think you're failing to see the fact that there's a whole game covered by just Air-Ground support and Ground-Air measures, BIS is covering all areas and sticking it in their incredibly versatile sim, not just stripping out all the features they don't have time and resources to do to your incredibly high expectations and they are making their game, not yours.
:vvv:

[NoRailgunner]

Imho the default maps/islands are too small for modern planes/jets and modern air combat. Just spawning planes or pilots and having no or low AA(A) defense is far from "sim feeling"...
Btw how many missions can one download to experience the "modern aerial warfare" in A2OA?
IIRC support from pilots flying helicopters is much more requested and in use than assistance from jet pilots. ;)

[[APS]Gnat]

Imho the default maps/islands are too small for modern planes/jets and modern air combat. Just spawning planes or pilots and having no or low AA(A) defense is far from "sim feeling"...
Agree.

Fortunately Lemnos looks like its a 25km x 25km terrain.
Better, but not best.

BTW, VBS2 is going to be able to do 500km x 500km, with 40km VD.
Hopefully ArmA3 and VBS2+ will be based on the same technology so custom terrain could be created larger.
But anyone creating just a 50km terrain is going to need some seriously good "Visitor version 7" auto tools to get that made before the end of this century.

[CyclonicTuna]

I'd like to see a fully functional Nimitz class supercarrier, or "Queen Elizabeth class", or the French "Charles de Gaulle class". Anyway a big maritime floating airbase!

[Dysta]

I'd like to see a fully functional Nimitz class supercarrier, or "Queen Elizabeth class", or the French "Charles de Gaulle class". Anyway a big maritime floating airbase!

I'd rather looking for USS Ford, and PLAN (PLA Navy) Kuznetsov.

[DARK-STEALTH]

Considering I mentioned rotary wing aircraft many times in my previous posts I would have figured people would grasp the concept. Perhaps I overestimated the average posters ability to retain information.

Your typical helicopter doesn't have radar, and if they do they are nowhere near as complex as something like an Su-30 or F/A-18. The same can be said for weapon systems. The next advantage of helis is the map size. ArmA 2 maps are still very tiny for them, but it is not that bad. Finally, the flight model is in a better state for the helicopters than the flight model of the fixed wing aircraft.

Again, I hope BI doesn't bother improving jets. Just take them out. No need for a CoD: Air Combat in a simulator IMO. :icon_cool:

What if BI weren't to improve them and just leave them in the game? Would you still have a problem with that? I mean, it's not like anyone is forcing you to take to the sky. You can stay on the ground as much as your heart desires.

[Madus_Maximus]

What's all this crap about BIS having such "limited resources" and so on? Their team is pretty huge these days, and they have NATO as a customer for christ sake! I mean seriously! They know what they're doing. They've been giving us the improvements they've added to VBS for years now, and it doesn't look like that'll stop any time soon. They've recently done a pretty drastic improvement to their air simulation such as dynamic view distances and so on and improved the flight model. I know there's only a certain amount they can do for a civilian game, but they're working with and for the most powerful military alliance in human history to simulate these things. Have faith people.

[DARK-STEALTH]

What's all this crap about BIS having such "limited resources" and so on? Their team is pretty huge these days, and they have NATO as a customer for christ sake! I mean seriously! They know what they're doing. They've been giving us the improvements they've added to VBS for years now, and it doesn't look like that'll stop any time soon. They've recently done a pretty drastic improvement to their air simulation such as dynamic view distances and so on and improved the flight model. I know there's only a certain amount they can do for a civilian game, but they're working with and for the most powerful military alliance in human history to simulate these things. Have faith people.

I agree. Some people here believe that in order for BI to improve one thing, something else will have to suffer. I highly doubt that BI would neglect infantry and armor to work on aircraft. I'm sure BI is fully capable of improving all three.

[Avgeris]

Gnat;1932344']Agree.

Fortunately Lemnos looks like its a 25km x 25km terrain.
Better, but not best.

BTW, VBS2 is going to be able to do 500km x 500km, with 40km VD.
Hopefully ArmA3 and VBS2+ will be based on the same technology so custom terrain could be created larger.
But anyone creating just a 50km terrain is going to need some seriously good "Visitor version 7" auto tools to get that made before the end of this century.

thats the smartest thing we heard today

[maturin]

The maps are so tiny for fixed wing aircraft it is a joke. I can fly across the biggest maps in seconds.


Uh... and?

So is flying in a straight line the fun part of using jets or something? Are they useless if they don't spend twenty minutes in transit?

Silly me, I thought the important part of aircraft of a battlefield was when they get to their target and blow shit up.

It's an infantry simulator, so air support should receive all the resources while air-to-air combat remains minimal. But in the meantime, try to make sense.

I bet people have logged hundreds of hours flying the A-10 alone. Hands off my planes.

[b00ce]

A-10 C maybe? :D

The A-10 is supposed to be in use for a long time to come; same with the F-35. Hopefully we'll see some more modern eastern aircraft like the PAK-FA OR THE J-20.

[Steakslim]

We won't. Not enough is known about the PAK-FA, and even less about the J-20 to put it in game.

[Iroquois Pliskin]

The maps are so tiny for fixed wing aircraft it is a joke. I can fly across the biggest maps in seconds.

That's why the engagement capabilities are limited to 5-6 km. Agreed, Takistan is small, but you can have a lot of fun in Warfare on Chernarus, provided both teams hide their bases well. ;)

P.S. F-35 pwns j00. :D

[ricnunes]

We won't. Not enough is known about the PAK-FA, and even less about the J-20 to put it in game.

But enough is known to make that ridiculous "HAMOK" (Mi-28 merged with a Ka-50) or the Comanche which is a canceled project?? People say that having diferent vehicles or weaponry such as the "Hamok" or Comanche are cool since they are diferent but at the same time say that a PAK-FA or J-20 which will most likely see real life military service should not be modeled because there's not "enough" information! And BTW, is there any relevant information about the invented "Hamok" or even about the canceled Comanche?? :rolleyes:

[Flogger23m]

What if BI weren't to improve them and just leave them in the game? Would you still have a problem with that? I mean, it's not like anyone is forcing you to take to the sky. You can stay on the ground as much as your heart desires.


I wouldn't mind that. Just either don't bother making them flyable or just port them over from ArmA 2. Seeing the jets "sag" out of the sky is rather hilarious as it is in ArmA 2. :D If they could improve the AI/flight model for the AI to make the jets look somewhat authentic I would not mind that. As of now they remind me of the BF2 demo I played years ago.





Silly me, I thought the important part of aircraft of a battlefield was when they get to their target and blow shit up.




We might as well map the maps 500x500 meters. Silly me, I thought the important part of infantry of a battle was when they get to their target and blow shit up.

Maybe for your typical CoD game, but for a simulator, no. ;)


A-10s would also make sense as we plan on using them for many more years. We don't have a proper replacement in the works, or at least one publicly announced.


But enough is known to make that ridiculous "HAMOK" (Mi-28 merged with a Ka-50) or the Comanche which is a canceled project?? People say that having diferent vehicles or weaponry such as the "Hamok" or Comanche are cool since they are diferent but at the same time say that a PAK-FA or J-20 which will most likely see real life military service should not be modeled because there's not "enough" information! And BTW, is there any relevant information about the invented "Hamok" or even about the canceled Comanche?? :rolleyes:

Agreed. Regardless, the amount of detail put into the aircraft in ArmA 2 (and probably ArmA 3?) was so little that you can throw in just about any jet you want because the realism was non-existent.

[Dysta]

Why there's no people mentioning the importance with Early-warning plane battalion?

Something like a jet war in Middle-East, Israel's E-2C with few F-15 and F-16 can wasted a whole Air Force of Mig-21 and Mig-23, because of the radar and commanding advantage.

[Not_G]

Stumbled across this thread tonight and had to laugh at this.

Flogger23m - Read my post next time before replying. I never said removing aircraft...
// then later on the same page....
Flogger23m - Again, I hope BI doesn't bother improving jets. Just take them out. No need for a CoD: Air Combat in a simulator IMO

I think this dude needs to read his own posts before replying lol

[NMDANNY]

There will definitely be jets, the confirmed jets/fixed wing airplanes are:
-F35
-MV-22 Osprey
-BLUFOR UAV
-L-159
Hopefully there will be some more aircraft(an OPFOR plane equal to the F-35 and a cargoplane)

You might argue that maps are too small for dogfighting, this may be true, but fixed wing aircraft are still in heavy use for CAS support, anti armor, providing recon and destroying enemy helicopters/jets. And ArmA is about giving players the freedom to create their own content, if modders create bigger maps for dogfighting, or if they want to create their own aircraft, or if they want jets for story/scenery purposes, they have the ability to do so.

Flogger, I don't see why you keep insisting on removing fixed wing, just because you don't like a particular aspect of the game doesn't mean it should be removed, there are plenty of people who like fixed wing in ArmA and ArmA was always a game about combined arms, it's not an infantry simulator or an infantry+armor simulator, it combines Ground,Armor,Air and Navy.

[rory_pamphilon]

Flogger I think you need to go and educate yourself a little. The Arma series has always been about combined arms with a focus on infantry. That does not mean solely focused on infantry! In order for infantry to do their job they require air power and not AI controlled air power, they need humans that they can talk to, to request support in dealing with a problem they are not able to overcome themselves. I cant think of one war in the last 50years that has not had considerable air power dominating the battlefield. Most modern armed forces wouldn't even think of putting men on the ground unless they have air superiority. You are obviously out of touch with the methods modern combined armed forces operate & voicing opinions that if BIS followed would truly dampen & spoil the multiplayer arma games I have participated in.

All I can say is thank goodness your on the outside of BIS here on the forums and not in there making decisions.

[NeuroFunker]

I do lay a BIG hope, to see T50 PAK-FA on opfor side!

[KidB]

Well, I kinda like the simplified FM, because I haven't got a joystick :) And complaining about it is really stupid. I think the devs said that military sim doesn't mean aeroplane/helicopter/tank/car sim.

[ric]

Well, I kinda like the simplified FM, because I haven't got a joystick :) And complaining about it is really stupid. I think the devs said that military sim doesn't mean aeroplane/helicopter/tank/car sim.

well it would be nice if there was the option of flight model difficulty, easy,medium,difficult, realistic...it just adds to the immersion :)

[Sneakson]

NO. Jets are too unrealistic and will make ARMA into an arcade game! :)

[Azzur33]

I can't imagine Arma without jets.
"Too small maps for dogfighting" ...... never have I crashed into an invisible wall during a dogfight in any Arma game.
"Not realistic enough ..too arcadey" ... fighter pilots in reality do not think flying is so difficult or complicated.

Arma is about taking roles as differend parts of infantry, support, tank/apc crew, pilots, in combat, not learning how to fly a jet or drive a tank or fire a weapon.
You can learn to be better in your roles in Arma, of course.

[RTEK]

I want to see some f16s, and f18s. All variants of them too. Especially in the 2 seat f18 variants. Would be cool to have 2 players in one.

[KingScuba]

Jets are already part of arma 3 if you launch all in arma, they work fine. I expect to see the A-10, F22 (Mebe some F34), and SU. I Think we might end up seeing a few sixth generation planes along with the 5th and 4.5th gens, since bi seems to be taking a futuristic concept towards their equipment.

[ProGamer]

I wonder if they are still using the f-35? I hope they will simulate the oxygen system failing periodically killing the pilot too then. I am not trying to make fun of anyone who died, I am just saying that the f-35 program was deemed to big to fail then it failed. The program though gained some valuable knowledge on VTOL aircraft for future aircraft.

---------- Post added at 00:35 ---------- Previous post was at 00:34 ----------


Jets are already part of arma 3 if you launch all in arma, they work fine. I expect to see the A-10, F22 (Mebe some F34), and SU. I Think we might end up seeing a few sixth generation planes along with the 5th and 4.5th gens, since bi seems to be taking a futuristic concept towards their equipment.

I would like to see some high tech spy planes as well.

[Chortles]

The F-35 hasn't even been heard of/from since 2011, so who knows; I'm not familiar with when this (http://www.armaholic.com/datas/users/arma_3_4.jpg_4.jpg) screenshot comes from.

As far as confirmed fixed-wing aircraft though, PurePassion (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?155622-Arma-3-Appreciation&p=2401984&viewfull=1#post2401984) pointed to the this (http://www.abload.de/img/arma3_screenshot_1202sp5of.jpg) screenshot of the Aero L-159 ALCA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_L-159_Alca), as well as the Osprey (http://h11.abload.de/img/290412_223952534318151sjul.jpg) and the YABHON-R UAV (http://www.abload.de/img/arma3_e3_20126pq7gt.jpg).

[rory_pamphilon]

ProGamer your thinking of America's pride and joy, the F22. That had a nasty habbit of suffocating the poor pilots. The F35 doesnt have that problem, yet. And it hasnt failed either. There are 3 types of F35, only one of which is VTOL.