Concerning the MI48 Kajman, it's remain a fictive helicopter because it's an hybridization attempt of MI28 and KA50.
-triple barreled turret cannon (pure invention of BI that doesn't exist either on KA50/52 or MI28)
why BI doesn't simply implement the real MI28 instead ? it's better to play a military simulation with realistic equipements that have verifiable and observable characteristics IRL.
if the developers start to take the liberty of implementing fictive stuffs (not even prototypes) it can tend to open the pandora's box for the rest.
Last edited by cychou; May 7 2012 at 18:05.
Does the cannon (looks like a GAU-19 or M197 to me) have verifiable specs? Yes
Do the missiles have verifiable specs? Yes
Do the rockets have verifiable specs? Yes
Will it have a specified fuel capacity? Yes (engine specs and rotor configuration dont matter in the ArmA series)
Will it have a specified top speed? Yes
I really dont get how its so different from anything else. Afterall, the visual model makes jack shit of difference when it comes to the actual performance ingame.
People need to chill the fuck out and stop making such straw-man arguments for why the Mi48 is "the end of all things!!1!!11!!1!!"
I hope they expand the realistic Flight model from ToH on Helicopters with coaxial rotors. They have totally different fligt dynamics.
The arguments about the Merkava tank are dumb. Why argue about something projected 20 years in the future? The very symbol of Soviet Communism, the AK-47
is almost a copy of the German StG 44
So Communists were very content to perfect a weapon designed by Nazis. Thousands of German scientists worked for the armaments industries of the West and East following the end of WWII.
Last edited by MissionCreep; May 7 2012 at 20:09.
System: MSI GT70, i7-36710qm, 16GB DDR3 RAM, 2X64GB SSD RAID, 750GB SATA, Radeon GTX670M GDDR5 3GB, 17" Screen 1920X1080, Windows 7 Pro
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spa...pons--Railguns Projectrho on railguns. Also has a power calculation for the shell, to give you an Idea of range and damage, as well as power consumption.
The rails suffer from massive abrasion due to the shell´s sabot being in contact with them. The energy flows trough the sabot and pushes it forward trough lorentz force. So the rails get rubbed down with each shot, and they get -very hot- due to inefficiency issues and friction. (I would imagine if the efficiency limit for a perfect railgun is similar to that of a perfect laser, total efficiency would be around 50% or something. That means half of the energy fed into the weapons system would be turned into waste heat.)
Problem is energy, obviously. The Navy´s proposed weapon has an energy on target of 32MJ (Being fed by 64MJ of energy), with a range of 200+ nautical miles. Such ranges aren´t needed for a tank projectile, 5 ish kilometers would suffice.
Encumbrance + Fatigue System basic suggestions: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11030
Suggestion for improvement in absence of 3D vehicle interiors: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=12555
Request to improve control of vehicle AI: control turning out, weapons and engine on/off: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=13397
DR style handling of Missile Launcher reloading: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11075
They're about as similar as the K98 and the Mosin are.