Arma 3 is getting an Aircraft Carrier

[Sgt (Ret) Pleasant]

'Bout damn time you ask me. 

 

https://youtu.be/ptq7y-WpfhM

[HM2 Gluttony]

ITS ALMOST LIKE WE HAD A MOD FOR THIS

Edited April 14, 2017 by 1stLt Gluttony

[Maj (Ret) Ray]

2 hours ago, 1stLt Gluttony said:

ITS ALMOST LIKE WE HAD A MOD FOR THIS

A mod that caused a big chunk of the performance issues we experienced as a unit, and was only partially useful for something besides background scenery.

[Harrison]

[SSgt (Ret) Truscott]

3 hours ago, 1stLt Gluttony said:

ITS ALMOST LIKE WE HAD A MOD FOR THIS

Let's not pretend that the mod is really all that good. This carrier will (literally) blow that mod out of the water.

[HM2 Gluttony]

8 hours ago, 1stLt Ray said:

A mod that caused a big chunk of the performance issues we experienced as a unit, and was only partially useful for something besides background scenery.

8 hours ago, HM2 (FMF) Truscott said:

Let's not pretend that the mod is really all that good. This carrier will (literally) blow that mod out of the water.

The mod was incredible, and don't be fooled friend you can (literally) create that entire little teaser with current mods, so we wont be getting anything new.  All things considered its most likely going to be a polished version of the Nimitz. Also playing ArmA for as long as I have , going to just sit back and wait to see what actually comes out because I have been fooled by Bohemia's teasers before. 

[HM2 Gluttony]

8 hours ago, HMCS Harrison said:

 

This is the Non-Hype version of your thread.

[Maj (Ret) Ray]

4 hours ago, 1stLt Gluttony said:

You could tell me this, but it would contradict proven test results we sent up in the 13th. There was a clear, direct, and stark difference in performance when adding and removing the Nimitz on a template. It wasn't the only contributing factor, but it was a very demonstrable contributor, with a clear before/after change. It was removed from ORT 04 and 05 for a reason.

I'm optimistic about this new official carrier simply because it is not the Nimitz.

[SSgt (Ret) Grimm]

4 hours ago, 1stLt Ray said:

You could tell me this, but it would contradict proven test results we sent up in the 13th. There was a clear, direct, and stark difference in performance when adding and removing the Nimitz on a template. It wasn't the only contributing factor, but it was a very demonstrable contributor, with a clear before/after change. It was removed from ORT 04 and 05 for a reason.

I'm optimistic about this new official carrier simply because it is not the Nimitz.

Confirmed 

Edited April 15, 2017 by Sgt Grimm

[SSgt (Ret) Truscott]

On 15/04/2017 at 5:21 AM, 1stLt Gluttony said:

The mod was incredible, and don't be fooled friend you can (literally) create that entire little teaser with current mods, so we wont be getting anything new.  All things considered its most likely going to be a polished version of the Nimitz. Also playing ArmA for as long as I have , going to just sit back and wait to see what actually comes out because I have been fooled by Bohemia's teasers before. 

I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you. Aside from the server performance issues, the Nimitz is incredibly low fidelity (looking at you, lack of collision detection and lack of textures on the pale-grey walls), It's not nearly as refined. It's an Arma 2 mod ported to Arma 3. I'm gonna take the A3-native (and official) asset over that any day.

[HM2 Gluttony]

On 4/14/2017 at 11:09 PM, HM2 (FMF) Truscott said:

Let's not pretend that the mod is really all that good. This carrier will (literally) blow that mod out of the water.

Its not even half the mod Nimitz is literately, no lifts or hangars... if you believe the tweet they just put out. 

 

On 4/15/2017 at 11:45 AM, 1stLt Ray said:

You could tell me this, but it would contradict proven test results we sent up in the 13th. There was a clear, direct, and stark difference in performance when adding and removing the Nimitz on a template. It wasn't the only contributing factor, but it was a very demonstrable contributor, with a clear before/after change. It was removed from ORT 04 and 05 for a reason.

I'm optimistic about this new official carrier simply because it is not the Nimitz.

The issue of the Nimitz and performance from where I sat during the issues in the 13th was not the mod itself it was everything we were tacking onto it, all the scripts. Spawning all the aircraft on the deck via script, having the re-arm script, things of that nature not the physical boat sitting in the water. Even if you think the mod itself is the problem how do all these units use it without issue?

On 4/17/2017 at 6:03 PM, HM2 (FMF) Truscott said:

I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you. Aside from the server performance issues, the Nimitz is incredibly low fidelity (looking at you, lack of collision detection and lack of textures on the pale-grey walls), It's not nearly as refined. It's an Arma 2 mod ported to Arma 3. I'm gonna take the A3-native (and official) asset over that any day.

Of course it wont be nearly as refined. To the best of my knowledge the team working on the mod is one guy working with an A2 port like you said. Even with all that he still managed to give us a working carrier. It did what it was advertised to do, Launch and receive aircraft, and with this newest tweet from ArmA 3 they are saying it wont even have hangars or elevators. So from where im sitting if one guy can give us a fully functioning carrier, A2 port or not and a full dev team can only give us the  flight deck that's sad and typical Bohemia bs. 

I would love to jump on this Hype train but I cant. 

[HM2 Gluttony]

 

The tweet to which I am referring. 

[Maj (Ret) Ray]

9 minutes ago, 1stLt Gluttony said:

The issue of the Nimitz and performance from where I sat during the issues in the 13th was not the mod itself it was everything we were tacking onto it, all the scripts. Spawning all the aircraft on the deck via script, having the re-arm script, things of that nature not the physical boat sitting in the water. Even if you think the mod itself is the problem how do all these units use it without issue?

If the scripts are the issue, and other units use the Nimitz without issue, then what scripts are the other units you cite (not) running? The fact remains that there was a clear before/after difference when adding and removing the Nimitz on a template. Whether that was the mod itself or scripts added on can be up for debate, but its presence was a clear cause of performance problems. I know S-4 spent a lot of time on both the Nimitz and LHD trying to get either or both to work as expected, and I doubt highly that whatever additional functionality they included would cause such a huge performance hit.

It is accurate to state that the Nimitz caused noticeable performance issues. All the Matrix image macros in the world won't change that.

I think we'll all be happy with the vanilla aircraft carrier.

[HM2 Gluttony]

6 minutes ago, 1stLt Ray said:

If the scripts are the issue, and other units use the Nimitz without issue, then what scripts are the other units you cite (not) running? The fact remains that there was a clear before/after difference when adding and removing the Nimitz on a template. Whether that was the mod itself or scripts added on can be up for debate, but its presence was a clear cause of performance problems. I know S-4 spent a lot of time on both the Nimitz and LHD trying to get either or both to work as expected, and I doubt highly that whatever additional functionality they included would cause such a huge performance hit.

It is accurate to state that the Nimitz caused noticeable performance issues. All the Matrix image macros in the world won't change that.

I think we'll all be happy with the vanilla aircraft carrier.

The point is the scripts that this unit created to use with the Nimitz created the issue. not the mod itself.

[Harrison]

I can tell you guys affirmatively that the Nimitz has absolutely no performance issues, unless you also run the CUP LHD.

[SSgt (Ret) Grimm]

41 minutes ago, HMCS Harrison said:

I can tell you guys affirmatively that the Nimitz has absolutely no performance issues, unless you also run the CUP LHD.

Either way,  I'd choose something built by BI over a mod any day.  

[HM2 Gluttony]

24 minutes ago, Sgt Grimm said:

Either way,  I'd choose something built by BI over a mod any day.  

The point now is that the BI carrier wont do even half what the Nimitz does currently. It will not have a hangar nor elevators. It's not pretty but the nimitz has all this and I think the newest version allows you to launch boats.

[J. Wolfe]

1 hour ago, 1stLt Gluttony said:

... and I think the newest version allows you to launch boats.

Can confirm.

 

Regarding the performance issues, what Gluttony has said is correct: the scripts that run are the things that are causing issues, not the actual carrier asset itself. It was the same way in the 15th for some time as well. However, unless the new BI asset has those things inherently implemented in a non-script fashion upon release, those issues will still be present because those functions will need to be run in order to properly support aviation.

Questionable performance issues aside, I think it comes down to a basic argument of utility vs fidelity. Sure the asset Bohemia develops may be prettier and more fleshed out visually, but all it has is a working flight deck and arrest system. The Nimitz is far better in terms of utility, leaving us with flight deck + arrest system, hangar storage, elevators, and a way to deploy boats/landing craft out the nose. If all the Bohemia asset is is a flight line you can plop down in the ocean, what's the point? Does having pretty textures really matter that much if it'll mean potentially hurting/limiting aviation in the process?

 

Edit: I would like to say I am still excited for the Jets DLC one way or another. This is a great step in the direction for naval assets being finally supported by BI. However, I think there are just some things we should be blatantly critical about. The trend in BI development is to build something that looks nice on the outside but has little to no internal development (looking at you 90% of the buildings in Tanoa), and that is not something we should praise them for. IMO, regardless of how many people are assigned to a project, I think it's just a lazy development. Even saying "we have some ideas for further development in the future" would be a thousand times better than just flat-out saying "We have no plans after making the flight deck work".

Edited April 20, 2017 by HN J. Wolfe
Clarification

[HM2 Gluttony]

For those who don't know the Carrier is now Live on the DEV branch so you can go test it for yourself. 

I tested it for 20 minutes and was competently disappointed, now im taking everything I saw with a grain of salt because I am expecting changes with the final release, however it dosent look good. 

 

So with the picture above comparing both carriers. The Nimitz mod looks brand new off the shipyard. while the Freedom looks worn and used. 

From a pilot perspective the ILS approach to the carrier is completely busted, not only is it unrealistic its completely broken. They also have this HUD that shows you the outline of the deck which is completely off from the actual landing straight. People who know how carrier ops run know when you are landing you hit deck with full power in case of a wire snap or missed hook. The Freedom does not actually have arresting gear its all fake scripted bs that just slows you down then pulls you back. The problem is it automatically lifts your hook and will launch you back into the water, also taking off from the sides without using the cats, you must clip or something because you go catastrophic every time. 

The launch from CAT #1 was completely underwhelming just hold space to go fast, the Jet Blast Deflector does not return to down position making it hard to use multiple times, so at-least you get 3 launches. I am hoping they fix this in the release because I saw them animating the shooter so hopefully they fix that. 

 

 

So just a break down so far from what I see

 

Visual Appearance

Nimitz: Too new, needs a rough finish to match current operating status, but what can you do with an A2 port.

Freedom: Looks better, but what do you expect from a full dev team. (definitely not elevators)

Functionality

Nimitz: Hangar / Elevator / Boat Launching (Normal carrier stuff)

Freedom: The hangar space is just a wall it looks horrible / not even an outline for the elevator. It looks like a kids play-toy where they didn't care at all about realism. 

Launch

Nimitz: The smoke coming from the track, the jet blast deflectors worked. The shooter that launched you even without the deck mods. The effects when you launch. 

Freedom: Complete trash, to sum it up Press Space to go fast. 

Recovery

Nimitz: The approach lights were spot on, the best you can expect from a mod and not having a controlling tower. The hook would malfunction sometimes and wire would snap, you could actually watch the hook catch the wire then stretch it out, and you have to release it before you could taxi out. 

Freedom: Approach is off, ILS is for a land base airfield. Hook works fine but no visible wires and once you tough its all scripted.

 

The Nimitz has it for me still. Sitting from where I am rite now, no true mil-sim can use the Freedom and be proud of it in its current state. Im sure the strong community of modders can fix it.

 

Like I said in the beginning I am aware this is still just on the Dev branch, but its not looking good so far.

 

 

Edited April 22, 2017 by 1stLt Gluttony

[HM2 Gluttony]

 

[Harrison]

Sorta surprised you wouldn't fall through something like the ladder lines. Either way, classic ARMA 3 Physics meme. Also thanks whoever did my ribbon rack.

Edited April 25, 2017 by HMCS Harrison

[SSgt (Ret) Miles]

13 hours ago, 1stLt Gluttony said:

 

Do you have a link for the feedback tracker ticket?

Edited April 26, 2017 by Sgt Miles

[Capt (Ret) Hito]

these are the prices for the DLC´s 

https://store.bistudio.com/products/arma3-dlc-bundle2