Page MenuHomeFeedback Tracker

Give Mi-48 flir screen of gunners view (like AH 99)
Closed, ResolvedPublic

Description

(To those saying that Mi-48 has 8 passenger occupancy, read my comment below)

Also, to people downvoting. Please understand that I am not trying to balance factions, I am trying to add the flir screen to Mi-48 so that me and my gunner are on the same page about what we are doing.

The small screen helps greatly when:

  1. Pilot sees where the gunner is aiming and can adjust attitude, distance, give clues etc.
  1. When piloting with AI gunner and using manual fire, you can actually shoot the guns and kill enemies, MI-48 nearly impossible.

Details

Legacy ID
4143422620
Severity
None
Resolution
Open
Reproducibility
N/A
Category
Feature Request
Additional Information

We need a small FLIR screen in MI-48. Maybe instead of the static radar on the left screen.

Event Timeline

exxDUDExx edited Additional Information. (Show Details)
exxDUDExx set Category to Feature Request.
exxDUDExx set Reproducibility to N/A.
exxDUDExx set Severity to None.
exxDUDExx set Resolution to Open.
exxDUDExx set Legacy ID to 4143422620.May 7 2016, 3:35 PM
AD2001 added a subscriber: AD2001.May 7 2016, 3:35 PM

*cough, cough* 8 passenger seats *cough, cough*

But I still upvoted.

True, but other things outweigh it. in my opinion, since there are actual transports.

Basically, Blufor has:

  1. A small and nimble AH-9/MH-9 with rockets :D
  2. A Medium and very agile AH-99 attack chopper with bad ass weapons and FLIR
  3. A Medium and agile UH-80 transport

OpFor Has:

  1. Big Orca transport kind of adgile
  2. HUGE Mi-48 slow and clumsy with poor weapons systems Attack chopper/Slash transport.

Is Opfor trying to transport china? They don't need sooo many transports. Where is their nimble little bird, and agile attack chopper.

But that's not the point. Mi-48 should have at least similar targeting systems and weapons to AH99

Now whenever I get into a lobby all I see is a full team of Blufor and 2 people on Opfor. (Lobbys where vehicles correspond to factions)

arziben added a subscriber: arziben.May 7 2016, 3:35 PM

those are two different factions, thus they don't use the same equipments

"/Slash"

Really?

(back to topic)

Well, I can't say you're wrong. Although OPFOR has the armed Orca.

And Blufor has the UH 80 with guns.

@arziben. Well Blufor looks like they are from the future and Opfor looks like they are from 1960's

And again, All I am saying is Mi-48 needs to atleast be reasonably close to Ah99. And I am saying is it needs a Flir screen for the pilot. So that he atleast knows where his gunner is shooting.

this is not battlefield, vehicles should be realistic, not baalnced, downvoted

exactly my point, even Mi-35 in real life has flirs, and all that stuff. Youtube it.

this is not an Mi-35, there is no AH-99, there is no UH-60 nor MH-6 in the game, i do hate the fake names, but that means they can do whatever they want to the in-game vehicles because they "do not exist"

Bohemia added a subscriber: Bohemia.May 7 2016, 3:35 PM

Are people really downvoting the idea of the kajiman having a CPG camera visible because it can carry passengers?

Also duplicate of http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11729

@NodUnit: I am also shocked. Not sure why all the downvotes.

I think some see the word "balance" and forget any implications of how it is used, or even if stated that you aren't trying to balance them per say.

Anyone who says any vehicles in Arma are not based on real life are lying to themselves. Even Opfors attack heli is based off of two separate helicopters combined into one. The names of vehicles ingame are only changed to prevent lawsuits from the companies which make these weapons and vehicles. The devs and the community still know them by there real life equivalents, the names are not changed for any reason other than legal reasons.

I find it fine that one side may have the better vehicles and weapons. If your on a server with people staking on Blufor, it's probably not a server you should be playing on if you want teamwork. Playing the weaker side means its more challenging but more rewarding when you win. Arma has never had factions balanced between each other and I would never like to see such a thing happen.

you're thinking too deeply about this balance thing, in this case it's more of a capabaility in terms of visual suite.

Context is key.

I am thinking in terms of how Arma always was and relevant things from the devs.

Geaux added a subscriber: Geaux.May 7 2016, 3:35 PM
Geaux added a comment.Jul 22 2013, 5:18 AM

Im beginning to notice alot of opfor hate going on in these things lol. I agree it should have the camera, the three versions this chopper is based off of has it, why not this one?

mbbird added a subscriber: mbbird.May 7 2016, 3:35 PM

God forbid the game have some level of asymmetry.

Asymmetry is fine, having two aircraft capable of the same things and one excluded is NOT, IE a display of what the optic sees.

How about asymmetry on the level of "hey Mike, you want to take that AH-99? It has that p cool camera doodad. Or nah, lets take the Mi-48, we'll be working with infantry later and we need the extra firepower", not on the level of complete asymmetrical warfare.

Did you really just suggest logic that because the helicopter can ferry troops that it should not PIP...did you really just say that.

Cypher added a subscriber: Cypher.May 7 2016, 3:35 PM

A lot of retards around here that don't pay attention to what the original post is talking about.

I fully agree that the Mi-48 needs FLIR support. It's a simple display to let the pilot see what the gunner is aiming at, it's completely realistic, it also is installed on the real life model this heli is based on, and it won't provide any advantages or disadvantages, it's just a feature you whiny little shits that keep downvoting.

Also, as stated above, Arma is not SUPPOSED to be balanced. REAL LIFE is not balanced and this is a war sim so guess what? Some things are better than others in this game but there is always something else to counter it, get over it.

I upvoted for common sense.

actually the mi 48 is a HIND version of the mi 28, with a touch of ka 50. anyway, if the FLIR screen is actually included in the mi 28 that's a good reason for me to change my vote, I thought it was lacking it. /upvoted

Geaux added a comment.Jul 23 2013, 5:17 AM

Thought it was a mash up of 3 different ones? Front cockpit is like the mi28 HAVOC, the mi24 HINDE with the gunship and cargo, and the twin rotors like the KA50 blackshark. All of which have FLIR. The model of the Mi48 in the game even has the FLIR dome under the front nose. Should definitely have it.

Totally agree with people that understand the topic and don't go banannas over "BALANCE" I cant even see that word anywhere.

FLIR screen is not there to balance but to give pilot and gunner the ability to work together, since pilots cant shoot anything and have to work with Gunner.

I see that the gunner should get FLIR. It's a gunship of the year 2035, the pod for it is allegedly there (wouldn't know what it looks like myself), and the time period supports it perfectly. What most of us are talking about is a PIP screen for the pilot. Two things:

A. I would like sources on those of you saying that there is a screen to stream a guncam to the pilot in either the Mi-24PN or Mi-28N.
B. Who is to say that the fictional designers of this fictional vehicle included any such screen in their fictional cockpit?

http://www.f-16.net/attachments/mil_mi_28_3_125.jpg I don't know which optic belongs to whom, the M-28N and NM follow the same design of the AH-64 with a pilot vision sensor and a cpg for designation and whatnot.

I would think that the bottom one has the weapon equipment based on size though it seems a bit odd given the fact the drum can only rotate on azimuth.

MadDogX added a subscriber: MadDogX.May 7 2016, 3:35 PM

Closing as duplicate.