dragon01

Member
  • Content count

    1310
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

474 Excellent

About dragon01

  • Rank
    Master Gunnery Sergeant
  1. Visual has advantages in deserts, but it's still not exactly the paragon of reliability. It would be nice as an option for Macer, though. Laser guidance could be good as well. Besides the Macer, I'd love to see Scalpel get different versions. The current "one missile for everything" approach is silly. I'd suggest making an LG version and a radar-guided one ("Longbow Scalpel", if you will), with the "manual guidance" (SACLOS) being left to the Jian (OPFOR only, but it's not like real NATO uses a lot of SACLOS missiles on aircraft. It's a Russian thing, mostly). Also on the OPFOR side, the Kh-25 has variants with just about every guidance system available, even TV guidance (manual control with a view from the missile) and an anti-radiation variant.
  2. It seems that Buzzard's flight model got some improvements. It still needs work (for example, turning when banked is too slow and there isn't any "overrudder bounce"), but it's better than it used to be. BTW, I noticed a problem that was either missed or ignored for a long time. Would that be possible to make clouds appear at a realistic altitude? IRL, clouds like the ones in ArmA are generally found around 2km of altitude. In ArmA, it's double that. I'm not saying that they can't appear from 4 to 6km, but the clouds should start much lower, especially when the weather is bad. They can appear as low as 500m above the surface.
  3. Shock collars don't always appear when going through the sound barrier. The air has to be particularly humid. It would probably be, on an island in the middle of Mediterranean (or in the south Pacific), but either way, the effect is not so important. Sonic boom is great, though.
  4. Real AGMs are not visually guided. Early Mavericks ('Nam era) used a "contrast seeker" that worked in the visual spectrum, but it was so failure-prone that the missiles were known to turn away from the target (usually a tank) at the last moment and hit a so called "tactical bush". :) They switched to IR guidance later on, which is what most real air to ground fire and forget missiles use now.
  5. BIS devs have said that tank-like FCS and stabilized turrets don't work together. It's been tried on Blackfish, but it's either one or the other. I'd go with stabilized turrets and either manual ranging or CCIP.
  6. Yes, AFM. In standard FM weight is not taken into account.
  7. From what I've seen the tides on Stratis aren't all that big, about comparable to Baltic (which is also an inland sea, though much smaller and further north). I don't know at which date and hour the lowest water on Altis/Stratis is (tide tables for the islands would be nice), but I've seen a low tide condition and it looks pretty good, I think.
  8. Just a heads up, I think I found a bug with ASRAAM and Scalpel. They are too heavy. It's especially apparent on AH-9. The former's real mass is 88kg, while Hellfire is about 48kg. Meanwhile, with two of either, AH-9 can barely fly. Even in the default configuration it's very easy to overload the tail rotor.
  9. The noise might be the overtorque alarm. If you're not very good at realistic flying and are using AFM, then you're gonna be hearing that one often. :)
  10. I have a small suggestion regarding Scalpel and ASRAAM. Would that be possible to give them a smaller pylon? It's much bigger than the missile itself, and looks a bit strange when installed on AH-9. As for the Plamens, I don't think AH-9 needs those. Orca and Kajman certainly should be able to use them, though.
  11. Gun combat is an emergency measure in modern aircraft. The DLC jets should be superior to CAS ones in terms of air combat, but remember that this mostly comes from their air to air missile loadout, powerful radar and greater speeds that they can achieve. In gun combat, however, CAS aircraft have the advantage of tight turning circles due to their low speed and straight, lightly loaded wings. They also have powerful guns meant primarily for air to ground role. In a real situation, a plane like Black Wasp would never engage something like Neopheron in gun combat. It'd lock onto it with radar at over 10km and shoot it down with a BVR missile. I think that if forced into a low-speed dogfight with a CAS airplane, the best course of action for a fighter would be to bug out (easily done thanks to afterburner and superior engines), turn around and either use the missiles or, if the reason you're in a dogfight in first place is that you ran out of missiles, outclimb it and try to dive onto it at an angle it would not be able to sustain (especially useful as the top tends to be less armored). Your "superiority" comes from speed and acceleration, not from turning rate or radius. Getting into a turning fight way below your corner velocity is about the worst thing you could do. TVC could give you superior low speed maneuverability, but the current flight model doesn't simulate it and it probably wouldn't be the best idea here, anyway.
  12. Wouldn't that just swap the axes around? Position, I think, shouldn't be touched, while direction needs to have a sign changed on two of the three values. I don't know what coordinate system ArmA uses, but you need to flip "left-right" and "front-back" signs. The ultimate reason is that in default orientation (when spawned in editor, that is), the Nimitz has its bow point north, while Freedom points south. Thus, when taking data from Freedom, you have to rotate the runway direction 180 degrees. At least, that's assuming ArmA uses a "reasonable" coordinate system. Since I don't have experience with ArmA in particular (just with mathematics of coordinate transformations), it might use some bizarre coordinate system where what I said isn't true. The values suggest it's a vector or some sort, but I have no idea which number corresponds to which axis. Alternatively, it could be either Euler angles or a quaternion, which would require transforming the values in a different way. If anyone can find some documentation for what exactly those numbers are, I can come up with an appropriate transformation.
  13. I think that removing them is fine. At least as long as the helos don't have an AH-6 style cockpit, the equipment should be no different from the civilian version. I suppose you could put in an "addon" MFD wired to the RWR, but this would still require model modification.
  14. I don't understand the aversion to players taking away control from other players. As long as it's not abused (and I can't imagine a helo crew which wouldn't cooperate on such things), the ability to decide who controls what would be a boon, not a hindrance. As for AI, there should be restrictions on whether they use guns or rockets based on what they're firing at.
  15. I found a small glitch with the Sentinel. When equipped with 2x Macer, the missile fins protrude through the weapons bay doors. Also, the weapon bays don't close when the contents are expanded, only when the other bay is opened. Another thing I found in a Sentinel is that its flaps don't make sense. Generally, aircraft with elevons don't have flaps, for the simple reason that the only place to put them is so far behind the COM that they'd put the plane into a nosedive. Flaps have to be installed at the COM of the aircraft, which is impossible for flying wings like the Sentinel. It doesn't seem to have a visible rudder (split control surfaces or differential airbrakes), either. I'm fine with using differential throttling as rudder, but it should be relfected in performance (that is, no rudder when throttled down).