POOK SAM PACK (May 2022)

[john111 76]

Just made it to my list,sometime when you feel for it,a Viking tracked vehicle+RBS-70 AA,and a Rapier system would be much interesting  stuff to see in-game,if the Rapier could be towed,even better.

Tested a Vietnam map ,some time ago.Very Impressive!  A great feel of presence of being there...

 

Will be interesting to see how all them ported assets will work out . Thanks to you`re SA-2,it will be accurate resistance for air work through to give cover.

[linuxmaster9 101]

I noticed that there is a huge drop in performance when those AA emplacements go to work. It would be nice if there was an option to use the ABM and FCS in ACE3 with this. I dont think I should be able to see the 100mm Rounds flying through the air.

[hcpookie 3770]

"It causes lag" isn't something I can fix.  You'll have to be more specific.   What EXACTLY are you doing when the lag is noticed?  Like Dr. Evil said, "I'm the boss... need the info..."

 

"I don't think I should be able to see... "  UM you do realize that tracers are somewhat intrinsic to the game right?  :)  Every bullet and shell has a 3D model.  What you don't realize is that the computer renders all of those 3D models, whether you see them or not.  It just so happens the 100mm shells are so darn big you can notice them.  But thanks for your input.

 

 

SO... looks like the Russians have recently updated the SA-22 radar... I may have to make some new SA-22 versions :)

 

http://www.janes.com/article/57814/russian-deployment-of-new-pantsyr-to-syria-confirmed

 

[inlesco 233]

Excellent mod! Adds lots of variety to a field Arma 3 has been lacking in for so long! Thanks for contributing to this and hope there's more great goodies coming up! ;)

[Crielaard 434]

I really like your pack Pookie. The CUP requirement is something I do not get though. What do you need CUP for in this mod??

[R0adki11 3945]

I really like your pack Pookie. The CUP requirement is something I do not get though. What do you need CUP for in this mod??

eggbeast answered it below:

 

he needs crewmen from somewhere - what would you suggest?

also many dependencies that might be overlooked would be created by CUP

it likely saves him a lot of work debugging, instead he can make better kit

 

 

Basically this is an Arma3 version of his Arma2 addon which referenced Arma2 default content. As CUP ported this content, its much easier and simpler to reference CUP.

[Crielaard 434]

Ok thnx.

Well the crew is easily self-configured. But I missed the part that this has been made for A2 before. Makes perfect sense now.

Then a request. And it can be discussed in PM.

would like to have specific AA systems as a standalone. I would happily do the configing my self.

Anything possible Pooky to arrange this?

[R0adki11 3945]

Ok thnx.

Well the crew is easily self-configured. But I missed the part that this has been made for A2 before. Makes perfect sense now.

Then a request. And it can be discussed in PM.

would like to have specific AA systems as a standalone. I would happily do the configing my self.

Anything possible Pooky to arrange this?

 

Making it standalone will not be simple especially as you will need to port the content that was used Arma2, if you are interested in taking this direction i would PM hcpookie

[hcpookie 3770]

Not interested nor willing to "split up" the pack.  There are very specific reasons that the pack needs to be "the pack".  In fact the ONLY reason I didn't make it one big PBO was I didn't want to kill downloads, and it is easier to deal w/ the different updates and edits in split PBO's.  It is a misnomer to call any system "standalone" in this pack as there aren't really even "standalone" systems.  Very few SAM platforms are autonomous.  There are other reasons as well that I won't go into here.  "In for a penny, in for a pound"... one can certainly utilize single SAM or AAA systems as they are exposed in the editor... you simply need to d/l the entire pack as I don't split those things any further.  So if one were only interested in a single platform in the pack, fine, but you're occupying only a few hundred MB on your disk anyway so what's the problem.  And since BIS deemed it a community project to import their existing A2 content, CUP has so much rich content that why oh why would anyone NOT want to work with it.  However I digress.

 

Nor am I willing or interested in making A3 factions... bug-eye crew members are not something I wish to play with... "DO NOT WANT"... The A2 factions in CUP are the only factions that I am interested in playing with, as they represent modern-day real-world factions.  The Rangemaster mod, being one of the main mods I play and work on, is based on A2 factions, and therefore this mod will remain focused on "modern day" A2-content (read: CUP).  And since all factions and sides (BLUFOR, OPFOR, IND) are represented in the pack, there is no "loss" of content if one were to piecemeal add these units to their missions.

 

The focus of the next release in the upcoming months will be resolution of the several reported bugs and issues.  I can't fix "it doesn't work for me" or "it causes lag" so those reports will be ignored.  I really REALLY want this to be as stable as possible, so very little new content will make it in, if at all.

 

edit to add... geez I didn't intend to write a novel... really need to stop replying to posts with morning coffee! :)

[officeramr 269]

Bug eyed crew members? What do you mean? 

[R0adki11 3945]

Bug eyed crew members? What do you mean? 

CSAT OPFOR (because of the helmets they wear)

[officeramr 269]

CSAT OPFOR (because of the helmets they wear)

oh, those helmets do look a bit daft :P

[john111 76]

What about add "Sky God" system? Looks bad ass..

[john111 76]

What will you do next?

[jabeitor 10]

Hi hcpookie, thanks you for this great mod, I have tested it deeply and it works fine under air defense environment which is the main purpose of this addon, but some mission editors finds interestng to use this mod as a high value targets on ground forces operations, because of that I would suggest you to improve a bit the geometry LODs of some units, like SA-10 / SA-12 tubes, actually we fire ATGM to vertical cannisters and missile went through without damaging( the vehicle is ok, but is hard to target it into the shelter), also I would ask you to decrease the damage capacity in general to the units, for example, the radars (is almost impossible to destroy a radar mast with ATGM, it is very hard).

 

Take this as suggestions only, I do not have intentions of criticizing, your work is excellent!!

[brainslush 13]

First great work.

 

But I've trouble getting my plane (Thunderbolt) downed. I tried the SA-20 site. Attacking head on will in most cases end in a rapid death but as soon as I start circling towards my target the SAM site sometimes is shoot empty even if I don't use any CM. I see the missiles exploding nearby but the do no harm. Only the ones exploding in front of me kill me in an instant.

[hcpookie 3770]

This has been reported before.  What you are seeing, or rather, NOT seeing, is the invisible "target" that the missile launcher attaches to you.  You see nothing, but the AI missile sees a giant sphere to attack.  When it 'splodes', the indirect damage hurts you but doesn't instant-kill you.  which, for a normal plane, should be enough that you are hurting pretty bad.  Apparently other mods (RHS perhaps???)  changes the armor values so that the missiles, based on vanilla values, no longer "breaks".  SOOOO... I am working on an update that 1) changes the missile speed to be more realistic, and 2) changes the impact values to work in spite of these changes in armor values.

 

Reference the pics here:

https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/187612-ef-2000-plane-community-addon/

 

You'll see the invisible "ball" that spawns around your vehicle... this is what the AI missile hits, and explodes, and the indirect fire damage values are supposed to apply.  This was done for reasons mentioned previously.... basically accommodating the AI.  So the indirect fire should be what wounds, but not necessarily destroys, your airplane.  This will be fixed soon!  :)

[General Kong 148]

A brilliant looking pack, I have 2 questions, (forgive me if answered beforehand)

 

1. Will this and your camonets be uploaded to steam workshop?

 

2. Are they compatible with zeus?

[lightspeed_aust 681]

just watched the vids of your work in action - brilliant work! congrats.

[jocko-flocko 13]

This modification is absolutely brilliant, thank you so much for porting it. I've been playing since the very first European release of OFP and the series has always needed some SAM and AAA assets, however back then the islands were small compared to what we have now and our view distances were quite limited. It's absolutely awesome watching these missiles chase a high speed fighter jet 5km in the air on the 'Mach Loop' terrain addon. You're work is greatly appreciated, it's added so much more realism to the game.

 

Again, thank you. :)

[dakaodo 52]

Hi, hcpookie. I don't think I've seen any other mod creators use a spawner unit in the factions' Men lists to deploy a composition/site. It seems really convenient for half-literate new users like me to deploy things beyond our own design knowledge (meaning real-world typical AAA and SAM site layouts). I never played Arma 2, nor do I use A3 air assets except as very limited support for my ground missions. But I placed an AAA site and a SAM site roughly in the middle of a 10x10 map, and between them they effectively grounded anything airborne I tried to call in for support. Great way to keep a mission focused on ground action, as well as to properly motivate a player to take out the AA sites, to make way for air support, insertion/extraction, resupply, etc.

 

I always get this when entering the 3D editor:

 

no entry 'bin\config.bin/CfgVehicles/pook_SA2_Decoy.side'.

 

I found that I was getting consistent errors in deploying the ChDKZ version of the SA-2 SAM site, which may be related. The CDF BLUFOR and INDEPENDENT SA-2 site scripts work without errors.

pook_SA2\scripts\SITE_SPAWN_CLIENT.sqf, line 434
error undefined variable in expression: _ramparttype

 

line 583
error undefined variable in expression: _samunit1

 

 

The SA-20 SAM site occasionally generates error for _aaa variable, but I've been able to most of the time deploy it.

[Matth_ 68]

This addons is really awesome, have you plan a update for errors ?

[hcpookie 3770]

Thanks for the feedback, good to see it is working for people instead of "you must build my idea or your mod sucks"  :)

 

Regarding the bug reports, yes I intend to get to it sometime this year.  I can't be more specific than "sometime this year" at present as I just moved.  Computer desk isn't even assembled at present!

[xxgetbuck123 945]

Just confirming whether anyone else gets a massive frame drop when a SAM fires?

 

Possibly considering using this pack for our Milsim group however if this is a global problem might not sure what we can do. 

[hcpookie 3770]

I keep hearing "it slows down when sam's fire" but no specifics.  Scripts aren't optimized into functions yet.  Do you have a repro mission?  Mission scenario conditions?  Which SAM site exactly?  The scripts are all basically the same, however I don't get this experience, and I have yet to get consistent reports of which SAM site is causing slow-downs.  In honesty, the SAM firing should have ZERO frame rate impact... the SAM detection script, however, could cause some occasional frame rate impacts on a busy server.