668 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Moldisocks said:

  -  Both the cheetah and the tigris are both useless at defeating the new jets, even the neophrons and wipeouts aswell. On many occasions, i have attempted to gun down an enemy jet as they were slowly flying above me, i have counted each time that i had hit the jet around 10 times with the 35mm AA rounds. The bullets that impacted their jet didn't seem to matter, as they then proceeded to bomb my Tigris with GBUs and carry on flying with no issues.

...

...most importantly, the methods for taking down the jets has to be buffed, such that the Cheetah and the Tigris are actually effective towards the jets (maybe make the 35mm Rounds more effective towards air targets, almost as they were before).

The durability was definitely an issue and has been significantly decreased already in the dev-branch. Jets like these don't have any armor (unlike CAS) and should really fear getting slow or low, into the small arms fire reach. Not even mentioning facing something like a 30mm gun. Individual hits from such weapon should now have a noticeable effect on the jets flight performance. Whereas a single burst should be enough to render the jet combat ineffective.
 

1 hour ago, Moldisocks said:

  - Besides the AA vehicle's Cannon, their AA titan missiles are also useless against the jets for two reasons. 1) the new jets have a lot of flares, and the amount of times they can use countermeasures can be increased by switching between burst and single. 2) As soon as the enemy jet flares, the titan missle veers of course drastically, not even attempting to follow the heat signature of the flares themselves. The combination of both of these things, means that the titan missiles on the Tigris and Cheetah are now useless (jet can virtually continuously flare which will automatically make the missile fall to the ground.  

  - Because the jets all have a laser designators built-in, any jet with a GBU will easily dominate ground targets like cheetahs and tigris's, meaning they can now both dominate the air and the ground with no risk of  being killed.

 

....  

 

I would suggest that the new jets have less flares, are unable to laser paint their own targets and most importantly

This is up to the mission designer. The default setups are usually done as multi-mission, full combat loadouts. They need to be adjusted for the balance and specific requirements of individual scenarios.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be possible to add wheel-brakes? Or am I missing something as far as taxing to the runway is concerned? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Moldisocks

 

22 hours ago, Moldisocks said:

[...]

 

1: The KOTH developers have already removed the laserpointer from jets in their missions. Most servers have also reduced the air-to-air payload of the multirole aircraft.

 

2: The fact that your AA tank is getting GBU´ed is due to a glitch which is reported above (and hopefully soon fixed).

 

3: The AA tank´s cannon has been buffed with the DLC. You just need an experienced crew to take down player-controlled jets. You need to fire the missiles at the correct angles and ranges, turn your radar off sometimes, switch position etc...

 

4: The new AI-controlled SAM and AAA systems (the aircraft carrier ones) are very good at taking down (any) enemy airborne targets. The MK21 centurion for example is impossible to destroy with any Jet as you will never get close enough to it without getting shot down, it also has a range of 10km or so. So if a mission designer wants to restrict an airspace, he has the opportunity to do that.

 

5: About the "Anyone can get in a jet and kill an aircraft with 4 missiles" statement: Im sorry but this is how it works in reality. In reality air to air combat takes place at ranges of often over 50km. Radar guided missiles will destroy the target long before you actually see the enemy visually. Also: Attack aircraft like the A-164 Wipeout (A10) are not made for air-to-air combat and will not stand a chance against air superiority jets, which BIS has (in my opinion very sucessfully) tried to simulate here.

 

One thing that i agree on though is the efficiency of ground to air missiles. In reality these things are quite good at shooting down enemy aircraft. But this is not because they are good at maneuvering and or have a long range, but this is because in reality you dont get a missile warning 90% of the time if a heatseaking missile is fired at you, as the missiles sensors are passive and do not give you any warning at all. In Arma that would a be a bit too much. My suggestion would be to make heatseeking missiles give you a warning only once they get within 1-2km of your aircraft.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, sasha013 said:

Would it be possible to add wheel-brakes? Or am I missing something as far as taxing to the runway is concerned? 

X is the standard airbrake button. As far as i know the airbrakes act as wheel-brakes when you are on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WurschtBanane said:

X is the standard airbrake button. As far as i know the airbrakes act as wheel-brakes when you are on the ground.

 

I have tried the airbrake and for, me at least, it makes no difference. Having said that, my airbrakes are mapped on my joystick, but I wouldn't have thought that made a difference? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12.7.2017 at 3:10 PM, oukej said:

The durability was definitely an issue and has been significantly decreased already in the dev-branch. Jets like these don't have any armor (unlike CAS) and should really fear getting slow or low, into the small arms fire reach. Not even mentioning facing something like a 30mm gun. Individual hits from such weapon should now have a noticeable effect on the jets flight performance. Whereas a single burst should be enough to render the jet combat ineffective.
 

This is up to the mission designer. The default setups are usually done as multi-mission, full combat loadouts. They need to be adjusted for the balance and specific requirements of individual scenarios.

 

While you´re at it. Any chance for adding a explosion effect on Jets "miniguns" ammo? Splash -damage could still be low or zero, but would be good to have a visual confirmation when you actually hit something with the gun.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think another slight issue with the Anti Air missiles is the missing emulation expanding rod or shrapnel warhead. Those missiles never use a solid warhead, they rely on expamndign rod or shrapnel, so it is posssible to inflict enough damage to a target without a direct hit to make the target unable to continue the mission.

 

Do ArmA II AA missiles have any "splash damage" at all?

Physical shrapnel simulation would be too taxing fpr the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/07/2017 at 9:15 PM, R0adki11 said:

I can appreciate that the Jet DLC may have altered the way that KOTH works. But if you want mission changes you should contact the authors of KOTH, or play on the servers where Jets are disabled. 

@R0adki11

Yeah i understand this for some of my points, but there are still alot of things that need to be changed in the actually game, not within the mission. The damage model, the titan missiles and the laser designator make the jets over powered for any PVP mission.
 

@oukej

On 12/07/2017 at 10:10 PM, oukej said:

The durability was definitely an issue and has been significantly decreased already in the dev-branch. Jets like these don't have any armor (unlike CAS) and should really fear getting slow or low, into the small arms fire reach. Not even mentioning facing something like a 30mm gun. Individual hits from such weapon should now have a noticeable effect on the jets flight performance. Whereas a single burst should be enough to render the jet combat ineffective.

Ahh ok, so this is being worked on and might be changed in a later update?

Also where you have said

On 12/07/2017 at 10:10 PM, oukej said:

This is up to the mission designer. The default setups are usually done as multi-mission, full combat loadouts. They need to be adjusted for the balance and specific requirements of individual scenarios.

I understand this for things like the jets loadout (Including flares and designators), but what i said here:

Quote

2) As soon as the enemy jet flares, the titan missile veers of course drastically, not even attempting to follow the heat signature of the flares themselves.

This cannot be easily modified by the mission creators, and i think it needs to be reworked.

@WurschtBanane

On 13/07/2017 at 8:10 PM, WurschtBanane said:

1: The KOTH developers have already removed the laserpointer from jets in their missions. Most servers have also reduced the air-to-air payload of the multirole aircraft.

Yeah ok, maybe the laser designators are only on the australian servers, which wouldn't supprise me, they have been having alot of admin issues lately.

On 13/07/2017 at 8:10 PM, WurschtBanane said:

2: The fact that your AA tank is getting GBU´ed is due to a glitch which is reported above (and hopefully soon fixed).

Was it reported via the forums? if so can i please have a link to it.

On 13/07/2017 at 8:10 PM, WurschtBanane said:

3: The AA tank´s cannon has been buffed with the DLC. You just need an experienced crew to take down player-controlled jets. You need to fire the missiles at the correct angles and ranges, turn your radar off sometimes, switch position etc...

Nah, maybe it had been buffed with the after the DLC released idk, but it is nothing like the old damage model where I could easily take on three or four enemy player controlled jets trying to take me out. Wipeout could take around 6 hits before being red hulled and then another hit or two would usually destroy the jet. Neophrons were much weaker and Buzzards were always impossible to hit XD.  

As for knowing how to use the missiles correctly, the way that it had worked in the past (which makes total sense) was that you would fire the missile as the jet was either flying over you or doing a gun run on you (flying towards you in someway). Now as soon as the enemy jet flares even one flare, the missiles just does a u turn and ignores the jet (unlike how it was, where the missile would follow the flare's heat signature).

On 13/07/2017 at 8:10 PM, WurschtBanane said:

Im sorry but this is how it works in reality. In reality air to air combat takes place at ranges of often over 50km.

Yeah sure i agree it's realistic, but in any PVP gamemode with more than 2 jets on each team, the current air to air combat dynamics have been noobified. 

I respect the fact the you and BIS want to have a highly realistic game and im all for that, but there needs to be an option for mission makers to change alot of the aspects about the radar (radar range, locking range, etc..) so that mil-sims can be made for realism and PVP gamemodes can be less realistic for the sake of gameplay complexity and diversity.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jone_kone said:

While you´re at it. Any chance for adding a explosion effect on Jets "miniguns" ammo? Splash -damage could still be low or zero, but would be good to have a visual confirmation when you actually hit something with the gun.  :)

Nothing but my opinion, that's all:
The rounds for the jets that i assume you are talking about (Wasp, Shikra and maybe Gryphon) are armour piercing and shouldn't explode on impact. Besides, i think that the fact that they don't show you if you have hit you target is an interesting mechanic that will make it harder to targets, which might help to balance the new, already OP jets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Moldisocks said:

Was it reported via the forums? if so can i please have a link to it.

 

this is even just 8 posts before your initial post.

 

37 minutes ago, Moldisocks said:

Nothing but my opinion, that's all:
The rounds for the jets that i assume you are talking about (Wasp, Shikra and maybe Gryphon) are armour piercing and shouldn't explode on impact. Besides, i think that the fact that they don't show you if you have hit you target is an interesting mechanic that will make it harder to targets, which might help to balance the new, already OP jets.

 

if you need hundreds of hits to the flank of an apc to destroy it, i wouldn't call it AP, at least not in arma.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2017 at 3:22 PM, Moldisocks said:

Nothing but my opinion, that's all:
The rounds for the jets that i assume you are talking about (Wasp, Shikra and maybe Gryphon) are armour piercing and shouldn't explode on impact. Besides, i think that the fact that they don't show you if you have hit you target is an interesting mechanic that will make it harder to targets, which might help to balance the new, already OP jets.

 

That´s my whole point. :) Modern 20 mm cannons use HE ammo. In any other sim (or IRL) you can visually confirm you hits from the exploding rounds impacting the target. Last time anyone used non-exploding rounds in AA -combat was in WW2 (at later stages of the war many fighters already used canons too).

 

Also... IMHO. As with any other asset, it should be up to the mission/scenario makers to achieve a playable balance. Nerfing and artificial balancing takes away from what Arma does best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jone_koneI'd remark rather that there's limits on what a mission/scenario maker can modify in order to achieve that playable balance without having to write and require a config mod for the scenario. For example there's no scripting commands or GUI with which to add to/define/modify the sensors on a vehicle, only disable/enable those already on the vehicle's config and/or their data link receive/send capability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having problems with the black wasp 2 sinking into the carrier does anyone one know how to fix this and whats the best way to get BI's attention on the matter. Basically put down the freedom with a plane and pilot on it and the back wheels sink into the carrier slightly and when you get in the plane the back and front wheels completely sink in to the carrier rendering the plane unable to take off. This also seems to happen on land as well the back wheels sink slightly into the ground before you get in but as soon as you start moving forward they jump up to normal height.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/07/2017 at 4:09 AM, jone_kone said:

Also... IMHO. As with any other asset, it should be up to the mission/scenario makers to achieve a playable balance. Nerfing and artificial balancing takes away from what Arma does best.

I agree completely, Mission makers should have the ability to change the balancing features, but by default they're set to the most realistic settings.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ReAchER_OnE said:

I'm having problems with the black wasp 2 sinking into the carrier does anyone one know how to fix this and whats the best way to get BI's attention on the matter. Basically put down the freedom with a plane and pilot on it and the back wheels sink into the carrier slightly and when you get in the plane the back and front wheels completely sink in to the carrier rendering the plane unable to take off. This also seems to happen on land as well the back wheels sink slightly into the ground before you get in but as soon as you start moving forward they jump up to normal height.

 

Already on feedback tracker:

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T126018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 3:08 AM, Moldisocks said:

I agree completely, Mission makers should have the ability to change the balancing features, but by default they're set to the most realistic settings.

Some of that is by overt dev-stated intention and thus probably not subject to change -- see the back and forth over what became of CCIP* -- but others not so much such as my bit about sensors; not that I'm sure how adding/changing sensors by script instead of config mod should work when there's so many parameters/possible values as seen in the Config Viewer, versus 'just' adding/removing weapons and magazines... though in your case, that laser designator/marker removal goes pretty far because the infrared-only air-to-ground missiles aren't that great.

 

EDIT: I didn't think of this scripting-only (and thus preserving KOTH's no-mods-required benefit) possibility earlier but here's one possibility for TvT scenarios using the AA vehicles:

vehicle player addWeaponTurret ["weapon_rim162Launcher",[0]];
vehicle player addMagazineTurret ["magazine_Missile_rim162_x8",[0]];
vehicle player removeWeaponTurret ["missiles_titan",[0]];
vehicle player removeMagazinesTurret ["4Rnd_Titan_long_missiles",[0]];

 

* If you weren't here for that a TL;DR might be "first-person/HUD-only because that's a real-world thing and not a game mechanic, but in return it definitely can't be turned off".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

Found 3 issues:

 

-when we take off the carrier, the gear no longer retracts

-in the showcase, the gear of the other plane is not out at the beginning, and it explodes when it launches

-when we land on the carrier, the gear retracts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now