RKSL Studios

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

BUZZARD @ May 17 2007,14:38)]Sorry Farles, didn't know you were the author of that Cessna, looks darn good!

I dare say RKSL Studios are going to be the BAS and DKMM of ArmA!  

Sorry I should have made an announcement... well better late than never....

TEAM UPDATE:

I'd like to say thanks and welcome to Farles and VXR to the RKSL Team.  They are both going to help out with the texturing efforts as well as modelling.  And no doubt add some moree addons to the project list :P

WANTED:

With ArmA the workloads and necessary standards have gone up a lot over those of OFP.  We're building a nice team in RKSL now in anticipation of the Proper modding tools being released.  If anyone feels they have something to contribute please drop me a PM.  We are in need of:

- Texturers

- Dialog Experts

- MP Scripter

- Animators

LYNX BETA UPDATE:

Even without the mod tools we've found we can do a lot of things we didn’t think were going to be possible just yet.  But we're having some fun learning  and developing  The Lynx video is just some of the beta Testers mucking about in MP with the BETA Lynx models.  Hope you enjoy it.

<span style='color:red'>DOWNLOAD HI-Res Lynx AH7 BETA Test Video - 60.2mb</span>

[AfrographX 0]

Very nice model, cant wait to see it textured in its full glory.

And awesome flying by JAO

[ck-claw 1]

Amazing guys!

This is where it all started for me in ofp! some random map with a mate and the Lynx!

My most wanted addon from ofp into Arma!

[Callsign 128]

lol awesome work as ever guys, apart from minor mishaps at the end

bootneckofficer

[VXR 9]

BUZZARD,May 17 2007,14:38]TEAM UPDATE:

I'd like to say thanks and welcome to Farles and VXR to the RKSL Team.  They are both going to help out with the texturing efforts as well as modelling.  And no doubt add some moree addons to the project list :P

Thank you for the welcome , from what I have seen so far RKSL models are looking very good and made very clean.

[Commando84 0]

oh sweet talking about imersion with that special Cam view!

[M.Andersson(SWE) 4]

Totaly awsome video, and might say AWSOME flying...

But, i just need to know...............

How many times did you guys crash making that video

Cant wait for the release of your "goodies"..

Specially the Jets....

[Daniel 0]

Wow, can't wait for the choppers!! Good work, and good flying! Thanks for the music too.

[HamishUK 0]

Looks great. Nice to see someone developing British kit.

I did notice you had the Harrier VTOL with full ordnance. Realistically the Harrier is incapable of taking off with an all up weight of fuel and kit. The Pegasus does not generate enough thrust.

Gameplay limitations I am guessing ArmA cannot identify if the Harrier is clean or not?

[USMCWall 0]

Looks good, would be awesome if it had the resupply drop ability from the C-47 Skytrain in OFP.

[-HUNTER- 1]

Oooh nice video!

That must be lots of fun to fly by the looks of it! Really agile, which is nice, its fast, another great addon.

[Baff1 0]

Blooper reel.

Rofl.

[Kirby 2]

^ Was just thinking the same thing, rofl ^^.

Those things seem a bit touchy? Why did it just spazz out on the first part of the Blooper reel?

Edit: I made ferpicly gooc nence!

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

How many times did you guys crash making that video  

More than I’m willing to count when we were flying under the bridges.  I do it a lot in MP games in the Littlebirds (fly under bridges not crash).  But the Lynx is very quick and its hard to take such tight turns at speed!

I did notice you had the Harrier VTOL with full ordnance. Realistically the Harrier is incapable of taking off with an all up weight of fuel and kit. The Pegasus does not generate enough thrust.

Gameplay limitations I am guessing ArmA cannot identify if the Harrier is clean or not?

Actually, in some circumstances they can take off vertically with war loads.  But not the max take off weight, it’s all about ambient vs. engine temp.  But generally you are right.

The version of the VTOL you saw is an ongoing development system.  Eventually we want to add all the limits etc, just like we said we would 18 months ago when we began the VTOL project.  

Those things seem a bit touchy? Why did it just spazz out on the first part of the Blooper reel?

They are very twitchy, just like the real thing (so I’ve read anyway).

In our defence.  That was the 1st occasion we’ve ever flown them in MP.  And for Mac and Stu the first time they’ve flown the newer model. They just take some getting used to.  Just like a real helo they take a lot of skill to fly properly.

The main reason for the handling issues is the OFP P3D format.  It would seem that the Geo LoD mass handling in OFP’s O2 isn’t the same as the ArmA P3D format.  When we get the ArmA mod tools it should become far easier to control properly.

[HamishUK 0]

Quote[/b] ]Actually, in some circumstances they can take off vertically with war loads.  But not the max take off weight, it’s all about ambient vs. engine temp.  But generally you are right.

With all due respect having flown for Jaguars for nearly a decade and worked (in my twilight years) with various OCU's on Harriers, a Harrier cannot VTOL carrying an all up weight. The Harrier simply does not have the power or stability to operate in this form.

A Harriers loadout is decided on many factors. Weather, air temp, range and mission target. Taking the GR9 as an example even with the 15% margins the Mk107 offers the Harrier is still not cleared safe to fly with all stores (although with this engine the Harriers VTOL margins are slightly higher). An example of testing using twin drops, twin AIM-7's and twin BL755I or 1000lbs GPB's resulted in the Pegasus popping (compressor failure) on a number of occasions. A clean Harrier is a very different kettle of fish in both stability and weight.

As a result the Harrier GR9 is not yet cleared to VTOL with full stores. After recent tests I would deem it highly unlikely any pilot would want to VTOL in the Harrier knowing it's nuances when stability is tested to the limits. The transition from hovering to forward flight and vice versa is not for the faint hearted even when the bird is clean.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

With all due respect having flown for Jaguars for nearly a decade and worked (in my twilight years) with various OCU's on Harriers, a Harrier cannot VTOL carrying an all up weight. The Harrier simply does not have the power or stability to operate in this form…

…

As a result the Harrier GR9 is not yet cleared to VTOL with full stores….

Again with all due respect, the video recently on Sky news showing a 4 (AC) Sqdrn Harrier doing a STOL approach and VTOL landing with a CAS Warload did not happen then?  I spent nearly a year at BAe Warton working on the project (before being moved to Eurofighter) and watching the Harrier trials out of my office windows as well as more recently Wittering and Cottesmore whilst working on the JHF supply chain. Ive seen Harriers VTOL with a variety of stores, admittedly never with a full warload but then again I’ve never claimed to.

I realise you could not possibly fly with the Full loadout but the lighter CAS loads do seem to allow VTOL to be used.  I wasn’t suggesting that it would be possible to VTOL with at the max TOW.  Straying back on topic; the release VTOL system will have limits placed on it about weapons load outs as well as a variety of other limits built in. Its been at the core of the RKSL harrier that we simulate the aircraft as accurately as practical within the game's limits. In fact it’s been part of the stated spec since development, much like the “water injection†and the use of key binds for the nozzles and not action menu options.

[bk1276 0]

this is one addon that im realy looking forword to  

(i miss the lynz)

[HamishUK 0]

With all due respect having flown for Jaguars for nearly a decade and worked (in my twilight years) with various OCU's on Harriers, a Harrier cannot VTOL carrying an all up weight. The Harrier simply does not have the power or stability to operate in this form…

…

As a result the Harrier GR9 is not yet cleared to VTOL with full stores….

Again with all due respect, the video recently on Sky news showing a 4 (AC) Sqdrn Harrier doing a STOL approach and VTOL landing with a CAS Warload did not happen then?

Quote[/b] ] I would refute your claim without seeing the details for myself. Having worked with members of 1 Squadron on numerous exercises / exchanges and over Bosnia I am perfectly aware of what is and what is not with the Harrier. Sky news often uses stock library images from testing as deployment requirements are to return 'clean' and on low fuel to ensure the ground crew safety. We always dropped our unused ordnance and dumped fuel over the Adriatic during Bosnian sorties as landing with 'live' weapons is far too dangerous for both pilot and airbase. FOD ingestion (the Harrier as you are well aware is notorious for) is also a requirement for STOL operations as is runway damage from the tremendous amount of heat generated by the Pegasus thrust.

 

I spent nearly a year at BAe Warton working on the project (before being moved to Eurofighter) and watching the Harrier trials out of my office windows as well as more recently Wittering and Cottesmore whilst working on the JHF supply chain. Ive seen Harriers VTOL with a variety of stores, admittedly never with a full warload but then again I’ve never claimed to.

Quote[/b] ] Harrier testing and DA conditions are somewhat different from final Squadron and RAFTT tested aircraft. As I indicated in my post (as this is not a pissing contest on who is right or wrong) a Harrier GR7 cannot VTOL with full fuel, drops and ordnance (offest loads are subjective). The GR9 has a 15% margin over the GR7 and can VL in temperate conditions where humidity and temperature does not exceed certain conditons (as you have already stated).

I realise you could not possibly fly with the Full loadout but the lighter CAS loads do seem to allow VTOL to be used.  I wasn’t suggesting that it would be possible to VTOL with at the max TOW.  Straying back on topic; the release VTOL system will have limits placed on it about weapons load outs as well as a variety of other limits built in. Its been at the core of the RKSL harrier that we simulate the aircraft as accurately as practical within the game's limits. In fact it’s been part of the stated spec since development, much like the “water injection†and the use of key binds for the nozzles and not action menu options.

Quote[/b] ]Absolutely my friend. Loadout is incredibly important on the Harrier. More so than any other aircraft due to the nature of the single engine and it's limitations. The GR9 will address many of the GR7's shortcomings in terms of raw power but the Harrier itself is still limited as the Pegasus can be a tempremantal beast.

Having Thankfully spent my career flying the (late) Jaguar (another underpowered aircraft at full combat weight) I would still reject flying the Harrier on pure safety grounds.

I wasn't attempting to piss on you fireworks far from it and I am truly delighted to see you are making massive efforts to bring the British Forces kit into the game (game-mechanics aside). I only wish I had your talent in design as it is something I would loved to contribute on.

Keep up the good work!

Damn I am such an internet virgin. Mixing up my quotes!

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

That first reply sounds far more hostile several hours later than I intended.  Sorry about that…

I would refute your claim without seeing the details for myself.

 

If I find can find a video link I’ll post it.  I was honestly surprised but according to the video then it is possible with “light†loads.  “Light†being CRV7, BOL rails, at least one 1k GP (Video was only a few seconds and side on) and tanks.

Having worked with members of 1 Squadron on numerous exercises / exchanges and over Bosnia I am perfectly aware of what is and what is not with the Harrier. Sky news often uses stock library images from testing as deployment requirements are to return 'clean' and on low fuel to ensure the ground crew safety. We always dropped our unused ordnance and dumped fuel over the Adriatic during Bosnian sorties as landing with 'live' weapons is far too dangerous for both pilot and airbase. FOD ingestion (the Harrier as you are well aware is notorious for) is also a requirement for STOL operations as is runway damage from the tremendous amount of heat generated by the Pegasus thrust.

 

I’m ex Regiment mate.  I’ve spent a lot of time around Harriers, admittedly not flying them but I’ve spent enough time in the mess with the aircrew to understand exactly where you are coming from but I promise you it’s real.

Harrier testing and DA conditions are somewhat different from final Squadron and RAFTT tested aircraft. As I indicated in my post (as this is not a pissing contest on who is right or wrong) a Harrier GR7 cannot VTOL with full fuel, drops and ordnance (offest loads are subjective). The GR9 has a 15% margin over the GR7 and can VL in temperate conditions where humidity and temperature does not exceed certain conditons (as you have already stated).

I understand that but since Warton were doing all the weapons integration trials we saw a lot of different config’s flown.  Not just test loads but combat loads too.

I think if you look back far enough into the RKSL threads about the Harrier you will find at least 3 or 4 post where I say the same as you. But if I see something that contradicts what I know then I’m willing to change my mind.

Absolutely my friend. Loadout is incredibly important on the Harrier. More so than any other aircraft due to the nature of the single engine and it's limitations. The GR9 will address many of the GR7's shortcomings in terms of raw power but the Harrier itself is still limited as the Pegasus can be a tempremantal beast.

 

I know quite a few JHF Harrier crew from time spent at Wittering and Cottesmore and some of them have provide some fantastic input into the OPF/ArmA Harrier.  They all seem to be wetting themselves over getting the GR9.  They seem to think is going to be a far safer platform.  Although the FAA guys are bemoaning the lack or Radar and an onboard camera.

Having Thankfully spent my career flying the (late) Jaguar (another underpowered aircraft at full combat weight) I would still reject flying the Harrier on pure safety grounds.

Strangely you aren’t the first person I’ve ‘spoken’ to that’s said that about the Harrier.

Give me a few weeks (got a bigish job on) and  I’ll should have something you’ll like!

I wasn't attempting to piss on you fireworks far from it and I am truly delighted to see you are making massive efforts to bring the British Forces kit into the game (game-mechanics aside). I only wish I had your talent in design as it is something I would loved to contribute on.

Keep up the good work!

I am happy to be corrected, if I am wrong.  If there is something I post that’s wrong please shout up.  I’m after the most accurate portrayal of everything we make.

Damn I am such an internet virgin. Mixing up my quotes!

Got to admit you did confuse the hell out of me there.

[Messiah 2]

Quote[/b] ]I only wish I had your talent in design as it is something I would loved to contribute on.

Keep up the good work!

You'd be very suprised how valuable a good source of information can be above other talents, so no need to put yourself down on that account.

I won't pretend to understand anything you two have been bantering on about. Rockape's been talking at me for years about flying jargon and things that go boom - I usual whistle a tune in my head and pretend to understand.

What I can say, is that the OFP harriers were truely amazing even in their beta guise, and I was privelaged to fly them. Anyone will testify to my awful flying skills, yet I managed to fly them. I have no doubt the ArmA harriers will supass their forefathers, and as for the Lynx - she's an utter stunner - even the greyscale model is giving me dirty thoughts as I fly it around Sahrani.

Keep up the good work Rock, as I said on TS, these gems are lining up to set the pace in aircraft addons in ArmA.

[HamishUK 0]

To RockofSL:

I am not disagreeing with you on lighter (mixed) loads for the Harrier. The whole topic was based on ArmA's Harrier set-up rather than any particular tactical mission set-up (my fault I should have clarified my original post). 4 x 1000lbs bombs and a full fuel load is a definate negative on VTOL ops for the GR7 and even GR9. Sidewinders are a lot lighter however as are the SNEB rocket pods.

That aside the GR9 does offer increased safety margins over the GR7 but is still affected by operating conditions.

As for the FAA demoaning the lack of radar. The GR7/9 is really not suited to naval ops regardless of shipboard compatibility. The Blue Vixen was an absolutely fabulous Gucci piece of kit. The lack of camera? Who cares the SHar's onboard wet film camera was pretty naff. Stick a Vinten or LORPS pod on the GR Harriers and it would do the job a thousand times better!

I was a RockApe many, many years ago. I did 3 years before tranferring for a commission. We used to use the SLR so you can see how far I go back *ouch* Bimbling about the perimiter fences at RAF Marham prior to transferring to Coltishall. We used to bump the guys over at RAF Raynham when they had the Bloodhound Missiles as part of the UK taskings for Exercise Lionheart back in the 80's.

Back on topic the main thing that I find odd is the actual loadouts for the ArmA Harrier (hence my original post). It would have been much more interesting had they been equipped with SNEB or CVR rockets. Is there any chance of this? Also I am assuming you have deleted the 25mm gunpacks on the Harriers as the Harrier Squadrons removed these way back in the early 90's and added lift strakes in place? Another lovely MOD cutback that resulted in a degraded CAS capability.

One last thing is there any way that the ARBS can be incorporated? The Angle Rate Bombing Set is as you probably know a small nose mounted camera that is used for Designation on the IP for a first pass bombing run. Maybe use the Cobras site picture to provide the pilot with target information?

Keep up the good work!

[M.Andersson(SWE) 4]

RKSL PPL...Please shut up and go back to work..

My eintire body is aking for this addon...

It´s like im on drugs but i havent the money

to get more...

You guys are doin a fine piece of stuff here and

when its done id like to get in some dogfights

with you all...

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

As for the FAA demoaning the lack of radar. The GR7/9 is really not suited to naval ops regardless of shipboard compatibility. The Blue Vixen was an absolutely fabulous Gucci piece of kit. The lack of camera? Who cares the SHar's onboard wet film camera was pretty naff. Stick a Vinten or LORPS pod on the GR Harriers and it would do the job a thousand times better! !

I was talking to a guy from 801 a few months ago and taking the piss out of the way they relied on china graph pencil lines on the canopy to use the F95 camera.  And I actually got him to admit that the main reason he moans about the lack of radar is that he now has to be far more accurate with his nav.  The Blue Vixen made finding the ship far easier, given how cold the water is around the UK I wouldn’t be too keen on ditching either.

I was a RockApe many, many years ago. I did 3 years before tranferring for a commission. We used to use the SLR so you can see how far I go back *ouch* Bimbling about the perimiter fences at RAF Marham prior to transferring to Coltishall. We used to bump the guys over at RAF Raynham when they had the Bloodhound Missiles as part of the UK taskings for Exercise Lionheart back in the 80's.

SLRs had just left the service when I went in.  I didn’t get the option for aircrew, I passed all the aptitudes, but was physically too big for jets.  I bare and un canny resemblance to a shaved down Bigfoot.

Back on topic the main thing that I find odd is the actual loadouts for the ArmA Harrier (hence my original post). It would have been much more interesting had they been equipped with SNEB or CVR rockets. Is there any chance of this? Also I am assuming you have deleted the 25mm gunpacks on the Harriers as the Harrier Squadrons removed these way back in the early 90's and added lift strakes in place? Another lovely MOD cutback that resulted in a degraded CAS capability.

One of the guys at 20® was kind enough to give me the approved load outs listings.  Proper mixed loads for strike and CAS will be supported including TIALD and Sniper.

I may add the 30mm ADEN just for the sake of gameplay on some loads but the rest will be 100% accurate as far as the game engine is concerned.

One last thing is there any way that the ARBS can be incorporated? The Angle Rate Bombing Set is as you probably know a small nose mounted camera that is used for Designation on the IP for a first pass bombing run. Maybe use the Cobras site picture to provide the pilot with target information?

I know a little bit about it, but if you have nay more info I’d appreciate it it.

BUT technically it is possible.  However BIS appear to have implemented a crude CCIP system in the HUD setup.  I haven’t really experimented with the HUD system just yet, but If I can simulate it accurately I will.  I did some initial experiments in OFP with mixed success, but ArmA’s engine is far more flexible  so we should be able to do something.

[4 IN 1 0]

Back on topic the main thing that I find odd is the actual loadouts for the ArmA Harrier (hence my original post). It would have been much more interesting had they been equipped with SNEB or CVR rockets. Is there any chance of this? Also I am assuming you have deleted the 25mm gunpacks on the Harriers as the Harrier Squadrons removed these way back in the early 90's and added lift strakes in place? Another lovely MOD cutback that resulted in a degraded CAS capability.

One last thing is there any way that the ARBS can be incorporated? The Angle Rate Bombing Set is as you probably know a small nose mounted camera that is used for Designation on the IP for a first pass bombing run. Maybe use the Cobras site picture to provide the pilot with target information?

Keep up the good work!

well aint this a bit too off topic for this topic?

[HamishUK 0]

Naturally I don't have any classified details of the ARBS sight and having only ever seen it demonstrated during a TEWA session with 1 Squadron (when they had initially taken delivery of the GR5).

In a nutshell it's a stabilised gimbel mounted sight mounted on the nose of the Harrier. Based on the Hughes AN/ASB-19 sight ( Originally fitted on the 'Scooter' ) it employs a TV and Dual Mode Laser Spot Tracker / Rangefinder. The former is similar to the Pave Penny in that it allows the Harrier pilot to pick up a laser designation and calculate release. It however requires external terminal weapons guidance by an LTD.

For GP release in real life you cue the ARBS pre-aiming mark using your HUD to boresight the camera picture. Using your MFD's you can then using an increased sight picture (ARBS camera) lock the sight on your inital run in to provide a much more accurate weapons delivery. The ARBS calculates your release based on your speed, height etc. It pretty damn accurate and releases the pilot to keep an eye on the MAWI and RWR to see if there is any nasties on there way up.

Game mechanics may restrict this for ArmA however using the exisiting cobra sight you can use it to 'simulate' the ARBS and allow the pilot to at least use the increased magnification of the 'simulated' ARBS to provide a better IP run in?

Harrier pilots were often using the ARBS during Bosnia operations to ID T-54/55 tanks prior to making any attack. Although the OA-10 negated the need for this later in the Air War.

Just an idea?