AV-8B Harrier Plus DCS version

[joey45]

Have predetermined locations on the map ie roads that support aircraft movement.

[zaelu]

We should have spawn points placeable on maps already... not just FARPS. Just spawn points. A lot of cool coops could be made between those mountains... Don't worry... we can take off and land from roads.

[arteedecco]

The FARPs are needed. You can't just land a Harrier anywhere you please. If you land it on soft soil for example, it's not moving out of there.

 

In addition to this, the FARP is really a collection of aircraft spawn points, and those are needed as well. Even if the FARP itself is invisible, it's needed to help the game make sense of some things.

 

In theory I guess you could use a 'takeoff from ground' in addition to 'ramp' and 'runway'. I don't know what the programmatic implications of that are.

I understand the current limitations of the SIM design.

 

I am advocating for more flexibility. Just make it so you can lay-down a "mobile spawn point". It is conceivable that an aircraft could be deployed in a mission scenario w/out a FARP.

 

Again, thinking of ARMA, just let me place the vehicle wherever I want and let the SIM handle the game physics / ramifications.

 

If I place it in soft dirt... then I would expect the craft to have problems and probably not be able to takeoff; fine.. that is expected. However, the limitation of having to have a FARP to deploy ground-start aircraft should be eliminated.

[aaron886]

I understand the current limitations of the SIM design.

 

I am advocating for more flexibility. Just make it so you can lay-down a "mobile spawn point". It is conceivable that an aircraft could be deployed in a mission scenario w/out a FARP.

You're not listening. The FARP object is a "mobile spawn point." If you're desperate for an unrealistic takeoff from the middle of nowhere, it would most likely be supported from an invisible FARP object.

 

This is not ARMA, it's a flight simulator. It's not going to support every unrealistic expectation that you have. That's a result of the "simulator" bit.

 

In theory I guess you could use a 'takeoff from ground' in addition to 'ramp' and 'runway'. I don't know what the programmatic implications of that are.

ie roads that support aircraft movement.

Actually, it could work in a manner similar to ground objects, which can be made to follow roads.

[arteedecco]

You're not listening. The FARP object is a "mobile spawn point." If you're desperate for an unrealistic takeoff from the middle of nowhere, it would most likely be supported from an invisible FARP object.

 

This is not ARMA, it's a flight simulator. It's not going to support every unrealistic expectation that you have. That's a result of the "simulator" bit.

 

 

 

Actually, it could work in a manner similar to ground objects, which can be made to follow roads.

Then make the FARP invisible. That achieves my feature request. Also your categorization of unrealistic is off. Open the ME and try to place a CH-47 anywhere on the map other than a FARP or an airfield. Now that... is unrealistic. What if a designer wants to make a mission that is a continuation where a copter or other vehicle starts where it ended in the previous mission... well with the ME as it is today I can either create a FARP (which is fixed as four pads and is very unrealistic for all conceivable scenarios), or I can create an airborne copter and then make it land again, which is a workaround.

 

I'm simply stating something I would like to see in the sim to make it better; a feature which is included in other very noteworthy sims (FS and Arma, for example). It would be very handy to have the ability to place a vehicle anywhere you want without being forced to lay down a FARP (as it is currently implemented with four pads and uneditable dimensions).

[Buzpilot]

I'm simply stating something I would like to see in the sim to make it better; a feature which is included in other very noteworthy sims (FS and Arma, for example). It would be very handy to have the ability to place a vehicle anywhere you want without being forced to lay down a FARP (as it is currently implemented with four pads and uneditable dimensions).

 

I agree, this is not a civil sim, that would need a premade landingplace.

Or maybe a Caterpilar 613C-II in ME, to make a new FARP, a CH-47 is able to transport it in 2 sections , or in a C-130 drop.

 

Edited April 29, 2013 by Buzpilot

[aaron886]

That achieves my feature request.

 

And I'm sure everyone is just beside themselves waiting for your next feature request.

 

 

Or maybe a Caterpilar 613C-II in ME, to make a new FARP, a CH-47 is able to transport it in 2 sections , or in a C-130 drop.

 

Hold on now, we'll need Congressional funding approval to be modeled first!

Edited April 30, 2013 by sobek
1.2

[SUBS17]

He has a point as with the KA50 you will want spawn points to be flexible and not fixed to airfield and FARPs as a starting location. Arma has a very good ME and some of its features would actually help here.(some of those missions that they create are very good) IRL Harriers and Ka50s/UH1s can be based anywhere including inside towns possibly even using industrial buildings as hangars.:thumbup:

 

As for the idea of being able to build FARPs ingame its actually not a bad idea with the flexibility of having a mission controller such as what you have with CA mods/missions such as Warfare in Arma are possible and would make MP quite fun.:joystick:

[arteedecco]

Point is... pretty much anything is possible and not even far-fetched when you account for physics. If this is a SIM, then simulate. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it couldn't, or won't.

 

We could be operating on bombed-out runways, highway strips, FARPS, building austere runways, working off of amphibs, large-deck carriers;

- General Robert Walsh

Linked from SLD, here.

 

Some vids:

Vid 1

.

Vid 2

.

Dirt takeoff.

 

C-130 Carrier t/off / landings

U-2 Carrier t/off / landings

 

Three C-130s were modified under a top secret project at Eglin Air Force Base Auxiliary Field #1 (Wagner Field), Florida. The contract called for two to be modified to the proposed XFC-130H configuration within 90 days, and the third to be used as a test bed for various rocket packages blistered onto the forward and aft fuselage, which theoretically enabled the aircraft to land and take off within the sports arena's confines.

From wikipedia here.

Video of C-130 rocket assisted t/off landing, here.

 

Huey "FARP" photo.

[sobek]

Keep it civil, gentlemen.

 

Just a reminder, repeated breach of forum rule 1.2 is grounds for disciplinary action.

[scottt]

Hi,

 

Not sure when this is going to be released as I didn't read the entire thread, but just wanted to let you know you definitely have my money!

 

The Harrier is my favourite aircraft.

 

Imagine this with a Falklands map and campaign...

[arteedecco]

Hi,

 

Not sure when this is going to be released as I didn't read the entire thread, but just wanted to let you know you definitely have my money!

 

The Harrier is my favourite aircraft.

 

Imagine this with a Falklands map and campaign...

+1 :pilotfly:

[whiteladder]

Hi,

 

 

 

Imagine this with a Falklands map and campaign...

 

 

Imagine the C**p storm that would be release in the British Press if this were to happen. They see most computer games as the tool of the devil as it is. If Jet Thunder had even been released they would have had a field day.

 

I can see the Daily Mail headline now... Russian computer deviants cash in on Falklands Veterans memory/causes house prices to fall/take all our jobs

 

(delete as appropriate)

 

They had a fit over a Counter strike mod of Port Stanley.

Edited May 1, 2013 by whiteladder

[arteedecco]

Imagine the C**p storm that would be release in the British Press if this were to happen. They see most computer games as the tool of the devil as it is. If Jet Thunder had even been released they would have had a field day.

 

I can see the Daily Mail headline now... Russian computer deviants cash in on Falklands Veterans memory/causes house prices to fall/take all our jobs

 

(delete as appropriate)

 

They had a fit over a Counter strike mod of Port Stanley.

Really!? I had no idea. That's crazy.

 

If you remember Fleet Command (?) they had a Falklands conflict scenario. I loved it because the technology was a little older and less automatic everything.

 

It would be amazing to fly around in an A-4, Pucara, Etendard, Mirage, or Sea Harrier.

 

I've been very interested in the Falklands conflict since it happened. I wish there were more video available.

[WildBillKelsoe]

So, any updates on the Harrier?

[BeachAV8R]

So, any updates on the Harrier?

 

This!

[arteedecco]

This!

 

What am I missing?

[LexiconG2]

This!

 

lol

[WildBillKelsoe]

What about it? This?

[badger66]

I dunno but , some of these ED partners and like folk can be a little abrupt , and adopt a God like attitude at times . They shouldn't forget that old saying about customers , or has that gone out the window too ?

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I think they're quite respectful with costumers; we, on the other hand, have been very impatient and paranoid, like a very over-obsessed paranoid girlfriend who tracks you via GPS and reports you as missing to the police if the signal dies for 2 minutes.

 

Remember, no news is good news. If they haven't been here, it's probably because they're working their asses off in coding, bug-solving and testing, and as said a million times by all developers here, it is a f***ing boring and arduous process. You wouldn't be thrilled to see a screen full of coding with 75% of them blurred out because of NDA.

 

Let's trust our teams, people. If they said they're at work, then they're at work, and that's the status until someone says otherwise. They haven't given us any reason to distrust them, let it stay that way :)

Edited May 5, 2013 by Lucas_From_Hell

[badger66]

I said some ..... not all .

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I know :) but the general attitude towards developers has been pretty much the same with all aircraft except in cases where the devs happen to be active forum members and drop by their forums on a daily basis. There's always people posting desperate messages about it being dead and how sad and whatnot, I think it's pretty unfair with the developers.

[monotwix]

Has anyone got a hacksaw?

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Teeth should do the job. :D