- User Since
- Mar 8 2013, 5:45 PM (480 w, 5 d)
May 10 2016
This is definitely nothing to do with BIS, its either the mission maker or a MOD used in the mission
Even the basic Hunter would be on the heavy side for a ch-47 unless the former was devoid of any form of cargo, ammo and a mounted weapon and the latter had a small fuel load.
I have no problems getting them to land in combat zones under heavy fire using called heli transport support (NO WAYPOINTS other than for player), using invisible heli pads is the only way to avoid perpetual hovering.
The AI logic seams to be:
Can I land at the point the player has marked as a LZ or am I under fire there, if not >
Can I find a relatively flat place to land clear of obstructions within ~ 100m of the place the player has marked and am I under fire there, if not >
Is there a heli pad within <500m, if so it WILL land regardless even if under fire, if not >
Enter a perpetual hover.
But they are signs, though something invisible is not an object or anything really which confuses things slightly, while the visible one replicates white painted marks in the same way white lines/arrows etc painted on a road do, it requires an actual physical object beneath it like the ground which it conforms to.
BTW, they are useful, as using heli transport support, the AI will defer to the nearest heli pad within <500m if the player marks an imposable landing location and there is no suitable flat place the AI can find within ~100m OR there are enemy firing at the location, by adding invisible heli pad the AI will land in hard/tight places even under fire and don’t then just end up in a perpetual stationery hover.
Has been touched upon extensively here in the causal thread:
You should try looking at the footage you posted, Hydra and Hellfire cause NO vibration and definitely NOT in the realms of capitalised “VIOLENTlY” shaking, it’s just the net effect of almost 50kg dropping off a pylon or ~ 10.5kg out of a tube mounted off-centre as the CoG moves, also the comparison of a 7.62mm or .50 BMG to a 30x113mm cannon is a magnitude of difference.
An M789 projectile is in the order of x5.2 times the weight of an average .50 BMG projectile, or ~ 21 times the weight of an average AP 7.62x51mm projectile and all fire at give or take about the same velocity, while the rate of fire of M230 is ~625rpm vs. the GAU-19 @ 2000rpm or the M134 @ >2000 <6000rpm which are all also a magnitude of difference to the A-10’s GAU-8 firing PGU-14 30×173 mm (projectile weight x1.68 and speed x1.258 of the M789) at 4200rpm.
Next take the weight of the platform into consideration, e.g. a AH-64D @ ~ 8000kg to ~ 8500kg, AH-6 @ ~ 1500kg and a MAN at a generous ~ 120kg including the gun, then factor the movement speed thus the kinetic energy the platform has, there are plenty of video of stationery men firing mounted and unmounted 7.62mm and .50 BMG chambered guns.
Then take into account the effects on a giro stabilised sight zoomed-in and the effects of how it will appear to amplify any vibration vs. a 1:1 view as the motors react to vibration as well as any backlash within the system form worn parts.
You will then quickly come to the conclusion there is NO VIOLENT shaking just mild vibration from the mounted gun/s which could only really be replicated with a FFB joystick giving a tactile response.
Anyway try this video, firing to the side whish should maximise any vibration.
the same as:
Did your comment ADD anything useful or was it just YET ANOTHER self-serving attempt to cover up SPAMING when the “VOTE UP” would have done exactly the SAME thing as “I agree.” AND without the need for the extremely vague loosely related thread link!
The objective would be NOT to fly over places with AA or to have a false reliance on countermeasures which are by NO means anywhere close to 100% effective in real life.
I think it may be because in vehicles in 1st person view, if you use “attachTo” the “items” get done in the first render-pass and not the 2nd render-pass. I think the only time “items” that are placed with the “attachTo” will appear fully in 1st person if there is nothing in the 2nd render-pass to block the view of them while anything this is in the 2nd render-pass will appear in front if it blocks them due to perspective etc, in 3rd person only the 1st pass is done.
That’s why the guys appear bigger than they should be for the perspective and why the bench and the floor is rendered in front of them rather than behind/beneath them.
You get a similar effect with partly submerged vehicles, in that in 3rd person the water level in them can be seen, while in 1st person the water in them cannot, as the environment is done in the 1st pass, not the 2nd pass.
Like said by AD2001, I think I recall the rear tailboard being reported already.
it seems like somehow they (Fireball) confuse "3d periscope head" with "3rd person camera" and tagged an older lower numbered post as somehow a "duplicate" of a newer higher numbered post defying logic and the English language, so I can only guess they are not interested in fixing it even IF you can get a "developer" (pettka) to agree with logic.
Even asked to have it reopened by email and got a reply back saying it's a duplicate! (CSR Kryssar) even though I said I have more proof from photos and the manufacture who sell them worldwide to military's (that they are permitted to sell to), can even tell the length it should extend to! which are ALL inappropriate in a topic specific to “3rd person camera” position.
As far as I am aware there are only 2 units who have visible watches on their wrist, the range-master and the competitor, no one else has visible watches on their wrist, not even civilians when equipped with one.
If you took your watch off your left wrist to protect it and to avoid reflections from sunlight on the face giving you position away, you would more than likely put it in you left top pocket (inner or outer) with your right hand, you would then thus reach into that pocket with your right hand to view it, so it would appear right of centre, the argument of putting it in a top right pocket would be moot as it would then be close to or touching the stock when firing unless it was a left-handed person who would have their watch most likely on their right wrist and do things directly opposite.
But a fail to see whatever side of the screen it’s on where there is a problem, if most of the units don’t have visible watches on their wrists which surly from a merit point of view would be A: more important, and B: would fundamentally dictate the likely side of the screen for the majority.
I am sorry but I don’t see ANY problem in PvP, as any player should have the face THEY pick personally NOT the face YOU think they should because of some narrow-mindedness OR personal problem of YOURS, the proper face is the face they have picked to use.
besides you use the uniform NOT the face to ID an enemy!
Organised PvP has NOTHING to do with it, whatever side has NOTHING to do with it, whatever uniform has NOTHING to do with it, what the AI use has NOTHING to do with it, all that matters is the person has the freedom to pick independently of all the other factors.
And quite why it warranted 2 consecutive 3min spaced reports for something very similar is beyond me.
Anyway I am only up-voting on the basis of “The Iranian faces are not available when editing the player's profile” NOT the rest of what you have written.
All three ranges are correct for me on all 4 mortars (blue, red, green and empty)
The mortars have an inner and an outer circle denoting minimum and maximum range, you have to be zoomed out from the artillery computer map to be able to see the outer range circles especially on medium and far, the right hand margin has “dist” which is how far your curser is from the mortar and Min & Max which are the relevant range limits which are shown correctly on your images, so you just need to zoom out.
Min & Max range:
Close = >34m <499m
Medium = >139m <1998m
Far = >284m <4078m
Really an APU would be used IF you were sitting still for protracted periods of time and needed to keep all the systems up, outside of that it doesn’t really fit into A3, as you are NOT going to be sitting still for protracted periods of time to warrant it.
Common misconception “size” on its own, just ask a female friend if she prefers a slightly smaller one with someone who knows how to use it, or a slightly larger one with someone who doesn’t. ;)
The runway has number on for the heading, “02” on the southern end for a northerly approach and “20” on the northern end for a southerly approach.
I virtually never use the RMB to enter optics mode, there is a temp optics button which the optics are only active when held down, as this alleviates the RMB optics/target lock problem if you fumble a RMB press, as you just release the button to close the optics.
However it may be somewhat easier for me, as I use kpad_ins with my little figure being a left handed mouse user (though right handed) but mapping the temp optics button to something you can use over time you may become accustomed to it and reduce your use of the RMB to just locking targets.
And what if someone makes a weapon that fits in that slot that can take attachments?
Launchers in real life can have attachments, be they baseplates, bipods, tripods, shoulder rests or additional hand grips which can all permit different firing positions and even optics that replace standard iron sights.
There are even mods that use that slot for long rifles which take ALL the same attachments as the normal gun slots.
There is no logical reason to remove them.
In KardasLT defence, the “rearm feature” just ends up giving you SOME items that you don’t want/need that take up space so you then end up going into the inventory to drop them anyway to get more of what you do need (in my experience) especially if you play in coop MP games as a longer range unit (sniper, marksman, etc) so don’t need some of the things shorter range/assaulting units need in bulk (smoke and frag grenades, etc)
But whatever you do there will be a trade-off somewhere, so maybe “alt + RMB” just empties every item out of that single container, the equivalent of just undoing the top of your bag and just turning it upside-down with everything falling out, as if there was only a couple of items you wanted to keep, it would be quicker to empty the lot out then just put what you need in.
your referring to the virtual ammo box in MP which is a drop-in mod for mission makers (think it can works in SP to), as opposed to the vanilla A3 rearming at ammo box in SP and MP, which as you say just gives you a default load out unless you go via the inventory and manually select items.
I would rather right click 10 times than lose the right click then be forced into always having to drag and drop which is good as it is for moving stuff between containers.
A better idea would be e.g. “Alt + right click” #1 removes all the same items BUT ONLY from the selected single container NOT all containers, as most of the time there is more need to just drop same items in bulk from a single container as large items cannot span multiple containers.
#1 Alt because you cannot temp free-look with the inventory open, while with Ctrl (step over in my case) is active when the inventory is open as is shift (walk/walk toggle/etc in my case)
About the only function that could work smoothly would be to change binoculars/rangefinder/designator to function like a gun in your hand (though not held like a gun out in front), so when in hand RMB (or the temp optics button) functions like with bringing up the gun sights to your eye/s, alternatively with the weapon up/down function key at a push.
Myself I don’t use RMB for sights, I use the temp sighting button held down with gun sights and zoom in/out keys (e.g. some scopes and rangefinder/designator) which leaves my MMW, MMB and RMB free for the order menu etc or RMB held down to reveal targets (initially before ordering), anything else that gets screwed around with and shifted to LMB/MMW/MMB/RMB starts to screw things up be it at a fundamental level (default keys mappings) or a personal level (personal key mappings), be it screwing up the designator lazing function (LMB on/off toggle [default]) or interfering with the order giving menu when open (MMW/MMB/RMB [default]).
I would disagree with this as it just doesn’t work on ANY level!
it would make giving orders while using the binoculars etc more of a pain and prone to error and would be slower zooming in/out vs. keys and if using the laser designator would keep turning on/off the laser every time you pressed the LMB to make a zoom change besides scrolling up/down any open order menu with MW scrolls or every RMB press while trying to give orders closes that order menu and goes to the prior order list if any and would interfere with reporting when “auto report is off”, so would make the whole system of binoculars/rangefinder/designator use AND order giving OR reporting while using them clunky and error prone.
I don’t believe "Loiter" is for this purpose, loiter is somewhere for a unit/s to in essence wait without just ending up hovering/standing around at a traditional wait point (incomplete move etc WP) though they will engage.
Introduced in Arma 3 and makes group loiter around a position.”
So IMO there is nothing wrong because if flying around in a circle whatever is in the direct vicinity of the WP is going to be at the gimbal limits, but AI will engage threats while loitering.
Imposable is a much overused word.
About the only unit that is really affected are ones that can repair vehicles etc, who you could argue would be one of the least likely to be on a para drop unless they were airdropping vehicles too.
explosive/demo experts can carry everything they need to set explosive charges including 2 charges and the mine detector, 6 primary mags, 1 fak, 1 frag grenade and a fully kited out MX# and have all their ancillary slots fully filled, they lose out on the toolkit and a sidearm BUT can have a loaded AT/AA launcher!
Noting they can take also take backpacks from dead opposition to use and fill with goodies they find.
Medics can carry 20 FAKs, 8 smoke grenades, 8 primary MX# mags, a fully kitted out MX#, all their ancillary slots fully filled, they lose out on the medikit and a sidearm BUT can have a loaded AT/AA launcher!
given they can also take any FAKs from people they treat if they have any to maximise healing and retention of FAKs, they can also take them from dead opposition AND take backpacks from opposition to use and fill with goodies they find.
BTW: the above is using the default assigned cloths and chest rig and no doubt there are cloths, chest rig etc with more capacity.
There is also nothing with doing a supply drop at the same time as a para jump.
Invariably in RL a guy may jump out with his backpack in front of him then before he land its dropped on a lanyard so it hangs ~ 20ft beneath him so the weight of his pack doesn’t injure him on landing, as a ~ 35kg pack on you as you land increases the chance of it happening.
“exponential increase in time/effort”
Time &/or effort would be significantly increased, i.e. eluding to the fact the materials the building “appear” to be made of WILL have a bearing on IF it would be feasible within a “game like” period of time to have made a “hole” with e.g. just a "normal" hammer.
Hammers exponentially increasing in size to reduce time:
It dose depend on the building material the building is made from, a modern building that use light-weight hollow brick/block a could be done in a few mins with just a hammer, on the other hand with just a hammer, a stone or solid heavy brick/block building you’re talking about an exponential increase in time/effort which just doesn’t fit in with time constrains in A3.
Are you inferring opening the parachute at 100m above the ground OR opening the parachute 100m lower than when you jumped out?
As to open at 100m above the ground would be pushing the envelope of survival at terminal velocity (~ 54m/sec) with a standard parachute, which is somewhat different from very low BASE jumps <100m where you have a pilot chute which once release pulls out the main very quickly, also you are naturally nowhere near terminal velocity then either.
The comparison of sport parachute for BASE jumping or that of ejection seats both of which are for fast/hard opening to more normal parachutes which are slower/softer opening dose not allow for such low opening with the latter as with the two former.
BTW: I get smoke and death at just under 100m opening with all weapons, ammo etc removed (just to rule out them as causes of smoke), but no game crashes etc like in
In RL not all glow stick sink, just as not all float, some are very slow to sink, some will only sink so far before they become neutrally buoyant, others will do conversely opposite if released at depth, one trait they ALL share is in water that has flow/currants they are useless unless tethered to something or water flow/currants will move them very easily, another trait is many (NOT ALL) that DO sink don’t lay on their side on the bottom, they take an end-up attitude due to any airspace and/or the displacement characteristics of the plastic housing and the position of the activator capsule within.
Likewise, if you compared the same make of glow stick, different colours would have different propensities to sink/float due to the different mixing ratios of the base chemicals in order to produce a specific colour.
Anyway the ones in the game sink relatively slowly mostly in a horizontal attitude and lay on the bottom in a horizontal manner lighting up quite a large surrounding area, BUT there are no flow/currants in the Arma 3 sea even with maximum waves and bad weather to move them around!
Terrorist can make simple bombs that can be remotely triggered using mobile phones which in essence could be detonated from the other side of the world, so ~ 300m via remote using an encrypted trigger (to avoid incorrect detonation) would be very easy/low cost in military terms with very high reliability.
The problem of AI and explosives is more a mechanic of the game and the simple placing method in that explosives mostly end up on the ground even though it’s really “implied” that have been physically placed out of sight hence AI don’t see them, but you then end up with the other problem that if the object moves the explosives stay where they were.
But where do you draw the line, with vehicles they could just change it so when you place explosives it disappears from view from the opposition (becomes invisible) and only reappears again in the presences of a “detector” or they could add a node to the memory point LOD of all vehicles, so when explosives are attached they get attached to the node rather than end up on the ground and if a detector is used the warning triangle appears on the vehicle, so disarming would be much like the repairing of a vehicle.
On the other hand manmade extensions to islands are never going to look natural sculpted by thousands or millions of years of sea/rain/wind erosion, especially if they are made for an industrial use like an airport.
Try looking around “Chek Lap Kok Airport” on Google maps/earth (with photos on) or other reclamations around Hong Kong and other places around the world.
Really about the only thing you could use as criticism is a lack of riprap or the manmade variants (interlocking concrete shapes), but sometimes they are underneath with sand over them IF the area is not often exposed to powerful storms and tilde surges etc.
"Rifleman (heavy)" would imply a larger calibre rifle or a level of ballistic protection being used.
"Men (Support)" are in essence ammo bearer with a specific task of assisting a single unit such as AT/AA/MG as a sort of team within a team, whereas normal “ammo bearer” is just carrying extra ammo and is not in essence a team within a team.
But I think "Men (Support)" is really being used in the wrong context and would be better served with "Men (Assistant)", which better defines their role without causing problems with the terminology of “Support”
Line drawings produced by 3rd party’s are NOT proof of any kind UNLIKE say an engineering drawing done by the manufacture, that’s like quoting Wikipedia entries as being a reliable and 100% fact and NOT riddled with inaccuracies, omissions or just dam right lies.
Simple information of the 2 built:
BOTH seats had for all instance and purposes identical controls/systems, permitting BOTH to pilot and operate weapons systems.
The project WAS cancelled and the remaining 5 prototypes there were supposed to be built weren’t thus final configuration of the aircraft was NEVER set.
IF the RAH-66 program was ever resurrected they would start where they left off with at least another >10 years of additional knowledge along with advanced in metallurgy/composites, engines, systems along with the scaling and processing power increases, they would still have to build ALL the prototypes and they would still have to solve ALL the problems the RAH-66 had which contributed to its cancelation.
Likewise was RAH-66 program ever resurrected even IF they intended to reuse the airframe they would NOT be following the original military requirements from the 1990’s, they would use military requirements from >2013.
Therefor ANYONE wishing to portray a resurrected RAH-66 program that yielded some 22 years later #1 or 31 years AFTER the RAH-66 was cancelled #1 has a pretty free reign over IF they put the pilot at the back or the front IF they take the essence of the aircraft how it was when cancelled even IF the same basic airframe was used, also if the original has 2 identical cockpits with identical systems then you have the ability to remove some items from one while leaving them in the other which is radically different to adding something that was never there. (#1 based on year ~ 2035).
The two development ones built had 2 identical cockpits, one for the co-pilot and one for the pilot.
In this video you can see the rear seated pilot flying along with both cyclic in view from the side, you can also see near the end from the other side that the rear pilot is also using the collective:
it’s worth noting in the early days the rear one used normal mechanical controls while the front used fly-by-wire, which was a throwback to when they graphed a front cockpit onto an S-76 (image below), by having this setup they could make changes in one (front) while still having the rear unchanged thus there to take control in the event of a failure.
You should also remember the RAH-66 was cancelled, only 2 were ever built and there was to be 7 versions built in all with slightly different configurations using what was learnt from the earlier ones, therefor the final design was never set so is open to interpretation, likewise given both had controls in the early ones and given conventional wisdom in comparative aircraft of mostly having the pilot at the back looking over the co-pilot, there is nothing wrong with how it is now.
Most speedboats have propeller/s directly in the water, if you shift the morse controls into neutral position the propeller then generates drag in the water, you also have the ability to put the boat in reverse and throttle up which provides massive braking effect.
However the speedboats in the game are shallow draught boats like PBR for coastal waters and rivers, as such they don’t have propellers in the water they have impellors (aka pumps) which suck water from underneath the boat and push it out of the back of the boat while steering is achieved by vectoring the water jets to supply steering (like a jet ski), as a result “reversing” can only be achieved by clamshells which close over the water jets and effectively divert the water backwards which is very inefficient, thus water-jet boats have limited reversing speed/power in comparison to forwards or to conventional propellers which much more efficient in reversing.
Also as the underneath of the boat is free from propeller/s and rudder/s their momentum will carry them for longer, as they don’t have the drag, however I do feel that should slow a little faster initially until they drop off the plane and into the displacement phase, however if they did things to fully work like water jet drive boat then you would probably get lots of people complaining, you would also need to be able to operate the throttles of each engine individually and remember things like at speed to turn sharply you actually need to throttle up as with little or no water being pumped out of the back you have NO steering!
You logic I am a afraid just doesn’t stack up in the real word regarding relatively hilly 270km2 island with tight roads, it would actually be MUCH faster to drive the dam tank everywhere rather than load/unload it on something that makes it more than twice as long and just as wide but that cuts in on corners even IF the trailer steers that has just 1/2 the power while moving >1.5 times the weight, the logic only works on major roads with very few hills and tight corners.
HEMTT comes in addition to the one you mostly see in RL, as a tractor units and a recovery vehicle, between them IF the need arises they can handle basic recovery of vehicles on the battlefield, however tanks and other large vehicles actually on the front line are normally recovered by engineer tractors like M88 Hercules ARV as the HET simply won’t get to most “off-road” places tracked vehicles or even wheeled APC can get to yet alone get back out with something heavy on the trailer when the trailer has NO driven wheels and just acts as a giant anchor to sink in any soft ground.
HET’s would normally operate to/from engineer FOB and mostly do transport to/from rearward positions, while recovery from forwards positions is normally handled by ARV’s and HEMTT recovery vehicle for lighter stuff first before a HET would get near it, that not to say that HETs don’t go forward, they do but only to recover stuff on/next to roads and other hard surface tracks or areas which normally means something else has dragged the object to be recovered there first out of the firing line so has thus done the primary recovery.
As a basic rule of thumb, if a tracked or AWD vehicle has driven somewhere off-road and broken down then you need something of a similar ilk to recover it to a position lesser capable but faster vehicles can take over, if it’s on the battlefield and you are under fire you need a comparable armoured vehicle which the HET is not.
BUT for A3 a HET wouldn’t add anything that couldn’t be achieved by making an additional version of the HEMTT or making either a medium or heavy ARV and slightly changing the vehicle repair support class so that engineers vehicles are required for major track/wheel or engine damage that can be repaired there while anything more than mild hull/turret damage would require recovery to a main base or a place with a main repair point.
Other notable ARV is the CRARRV based on the Challenger MBT platform showing the primary method of battlefield heavy recovery.
With a BLUFOR rifleman, sniper etc in the empty BLUFOR SDV I don't get this problem, the view works just like for a regular diver.
Even tried couple of none divers with rebreathes and it all seemed to work as normal hatch open or shut and above beneath the surface.
Perhaps it’s specific to a single unit type that displays this affect as it has some type of required animation or node point missing?
I don’t have this problem either.
GPS works in the SDV in game.
In the real life SDV it has an auto pilot and an autonomous mode, which will follow an uploaded route via GPS (primary) and/or the inertial navigation system [INS] (secondary) via the integrated bridge system [IBS]
Therefor intrinsically if you near the surface thus have GPS or if you are >15m depth so don’t and are using the inertial navigation system the moving map display will tell you exactly where you are, the error of the inertial navigation system is +- 0.5 meters precision after 12 nautical miles undersea.
So in the game about the only way to improve it, would be to add a selectable page to the MFDs in the SDV that displays a larger version of the normal GPS image or to have a secondary GPS image background used specifically by boats/subs to mimic a marine chart with spot depth and undersea obstructions etc marked.
As far as I know, all lights on poles etc could be shot out including all the ones at the airport in the alpha, though admittedly I have done most light shooting at other places on the island.
At the base of the hand grip at the front in the centre is a small hole <2mm diameter which contains an optical eye that senses when your hand is on the joystick, so if you’re not holding the joystick FFB should be OFF, in essence IF you hand is not covering/near the hole then the joystick should offer no resistance what so ever and should just be floppy.
If it has resistance and keeps wanting to return to the centre when on e.g. if you push the top of the stick with you finger near the hat switch then in all likelihood there is some dirt or something in the little hole fooling the joystick into thinking your hand is on it that activating the FFB.
I used a MS SW FFB2, its only configured for flying, but I have seen this.
And exactly how long is the mag on the screen for at an angle you would most likely never see it from unless you used splendid cam and deliberately tried to capture the mag.
Perhaps you missed the part where the mag doesn’t actually appear until literally the last couple of cm before its feed into the gun, or when pulled out it disappears almost as fast, but the most likely time you see it was when it was pulled out – thus would have no bullets in most of the time.
Anyway this is not a bug, it would be more a practical limitation.
Added Untitled.gif to show it is unlikely that you would see bullets IF you missed the fact the mag is not seen until the last moment (adjoining frames from video captured at 60fps during the reload sequence)
edit: cannot upload .gif so a link
The HEMTT has a roof hatch, which in RL shares mounting hardware with some coaxial guns mounted on slue rings, is also serves as an easy way to get to the top of the engine cover and beyond and is also used as an escape hatch.
On some of my truck that have been ex-military or military derived, it was easier to open the roof hatch climb out then jump in the back to retrieve something than it was to exit by the door and walk around to the back then to climb in etc etc.
Just use the remove all weapons etc commands and the setCaptive command in the units initialization box, if they are captive from the start, or via a trigger if not
removeAllAssignedItems unit; removeAllContainers unit; removeAllItems unit; removeAllWeapons unit; unit setCaptive true;
unit = the name you gave them in the editor.
If you set their damage via the slider, they should appear injured or use “unit setDamage #” on the end of the above i.e.
Whare # = a number >0 to <1, 0 = fully healthy
I know the driver of the Zamak when dead still plays “alive” idle animations of looking around, so from a distance still looks alive, it’s not until you get up to the truck that you can see you can enter it as its driver, thus he must be dead.
At the moment smoke grenade countermeasures can only be activated by the driver of AMV-7 Marshall and MSE-3 Marid, while with the Strider it’s done by the commander.
Countermeasures are activated via the countermeasures key-binding.
There are NO windows to be transparent in the back of the AMV-7's troop compartment,
I believe the square you see in the rear door is a periscope so they can look outside before opening the door, i.e. the hole on the outside of the door is higher up than the aperture on the inside of the door, which also strengthens a natural weak point and makes it safer to look out of and keeps things water-tight if the outer window gets broken.
The SDV has to be turned ON first, which can only be done by the driver, once it is on you can switch to the gunners seat or even get out and get back in as gunner and it will be on until a driver turns it off.
But given the width of the SDV it should be possible for the gunner to turn it on/off by the mouse wheel menu though if there is no driver
Correct, but the standard steam A3 desktop command line e.g.
Wont except -noSplash etc command lines, it’s only when you use a link to the arma3.exe directly that –noSplash etc will work, as you are starting the arma3.exe directly which in turn starts steam, whereas with the default steam desktop icon, you are starting steam which then in turn start the .exe.
The standard steam A3 desktop icon is a web link type shortcut, if you want a conventional .exe link, then you need to go to you A3 folder and copy and paste a link to arma3.exe to you desktop or other preferred place, then you can use command lines as normal.
e.g. ignoring 
["C:\FolderName\Valve\Steam\SteamApps\common\Arma 3\arma3.exe" –noSplash]
With the direct link to the .exe, you can have as many different shortcut links as you want provided they have different names, so you can run different command line parameter for each.
-noSplash works for me too, though with steam, you have to put the start-up parameters within the A3 “set launch options” options in steam, as the desktop icon for A3 starts steam, which then in turn starts A3 using the “set launch options” parameters.
Right click on A3 and select properties.
In the window that opens on the first page (general) there is a “set launch options” button.
Press the “set launch options” button and enter the start-up parameters in the box provided with a space between each as you would a conventional command line parameter, once done, close all the A3 properties pages and start the game.
This should be override by the pilot at all times and IF nav/collision lights are off then interior lighting should not be available other than IF the pilot explicitly turns it on.
In real life red light would only really be used earlier in the mission and you would expect it to be off at lest >10mins before getting out into combat, also where there is no full bulkhead between the pilots and passenger compartment invariably only the pilot/co-pilot can activate cabin lighting as it directly effects their ability to see out of the windows in real life.
So can’t vote up or down, as the idea is not a bad one in its self, but it’s the implementation that could make it bad IF not done with a little thought trying to capture an “essence” of real life constraint.
Krovogad: they spin in opposite directions randomly rather than in unison relating to direction of travel.
It’s related to
Yes more than ready, that is rather a silly question, testing is about finding problems, getting/giving feedback, etc and making sensible suggestions and offering informed insight and confirming any reproducibility if any.
On the basis of the primary question “Arma 3 Not Ready for Beta?” I voted this down, as it is ready.
Alternatively remove the ability to get into an APC with a rear door via the rear door when it is in the water and partly submerged/floating, instead force entry only by the commanders/gunners hatch using a proxy for the for the cargo area when partly submerged/floating.
Something along the lines of only allowing rear door getting in IF:
“isTouchingGround obj AND (getPosASLW obj select 2) >-0.75;”
I Alt+Tab out of the editor/game quite a lot, not had a single crash yet from doing so.
The only thing I have noticed is, there must be a window/application either open or minimised to the taskbar even though you with Alt+Tab will end at the desktop, with NO open/minimised window/application behind then Alt+Tab doesn’t work for me.
Normally instead of reducing steam to the system tray (small icons on right-hand side of task bar next to clock) I just minimise it (page tabs stacked on the left of the task bar next to start button), alternatively I just have a blank txt document or a webpage open/minimised.
So I wander if you did the same before you start the game, so when you Alt+Tab it gives it something to switch to, given in my case it’s imposable to Alt+Tab without doing so, but for you, you may find it possible to Alt+Tab with no open/minimised windows behind which is causing a task switching error.
Are you sure the long thin one is not the UHF high gain aerial for the ability for radio/data coms while still submerged under water in real life (i.e. with command or with teams you would pick-up/drop-off), while the periscope is the short fat one with a T head so it has room for optics and other things in the head for IR/TI modes and ranging.
UHF on submarines normally needs at least 1meter of aerial above the water to be effective (UHF 10cm to 1m wave length) given VLF (can penetrate water to ~20m) from “hot-spots” is intrinsically incapable of voice coms and limited to one-way low bit rate txt (like SMS text messages) and well ELF (can penetrate water hundreds of meters) is literally limited to a couple of words per min.
Either way I don’t have any proof of the above so it is just logical suppositions, however the main cut and thrust was the misalignment of the PIP vs. optics.
Image (best I could find), the thin one looks precarious sticking beyond the housing unless it was a flexible aerial in comparison to how well protected the “T head” part is sat in a neat recess:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS NOT FIXED AND HAS ACTUALLY CREATED A BUG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Under absolutely NO circumstance should the side amber markers be lit UNLESS the main vehicle lights are ON, and they should definitely NOT be on with empty AMV-7 that can be seen from >500m away.
In combat conditions under absolutely NO circumstance should the side amber markers be lit.
As none of the other principle vehicles have amber side markers that can be lit, the lighting ability should be removed OR it should be added to ALL the other long vehicles, BUT again under absolutely NO circumstance should the side amber markers be lit UNLESS the main vehicle lights are ON AND In combat conditions under absolutely NO circumstance should the side amber markers be lit.
Military vehicles have multiple light switches or a rotary master knob with different lighting modes, as excess light is a killer at night on the battlefield and drivers are taught to use as little as possible light or preferably have them OFF.
Under EU law there is no need for amber side markers to be lit on the road (though many are including the AMV ones) as they are retro-reflectors first and foremost.
The other problem, the one on the front quarter is erroneous, as they just have 3 on each side mounted under the wheel recesses, the modals that have the one on the front quarter omit the one above the first axle, however the one on the front quarter could be changed to a raised light unit rather than a recessed light to mimic an indicator of an alternative styling (not a proposal for working indicators but an easy workaround which shouldn’t cause a need for redoing UVW maps on the front quarter and would permit reuse of the amber “light” texture and the creation of a couple of extra polys)
Added some pictures of the various marker positions marked with red boxes and the indicators marked with yellow boxes.
At the moment, you can destroy any 2 tyres on the same axle excepting the very front axle and can do ~ 83kph (~ 51mph) in turbo mode (fast rather than normal forward), if you destroy the two tyres on the very first axle you will do ~ 51kph (~ 31mph) in turbo mode.
You can destroy any 4 tyres provided you are still left with 1 tyre on each side for each principle bogie set (bogie, a set of closely spaced axles generally working in unison) meaning each axle could just have one tyre with two tyres total per side and can do ~ 51kph (~ 31mph) in turbo mode.
It is actually easer to drive IF you suffer a single tyre being destroyed if you stop, get-out and either go an destroy the corresponding tyre on the opposite side of the same axle excepting if it’s the very first axle, in which case go and destroy one of the other tyres on axle two, three or four on the opposite side as then you will do ~ 67kph (~ 42mph) in turbo mode.
So really the only issue as far as speed is the first axle has more of an effect than all the other axles.
The real problem is the disproportion of yawing if you lose one of the rear tyres, it acts just the same as if you had lost a front one at speed, when really on an 8x8, 8x6, 6x6 having a single REAR tyre have a catastrophic failing is rather a none-event unless you’re going at speed around a corner at maximum weight and it’s a tyre on the outside of the turn that goes, but then that more a risk of it falling over because of the sudden weight shift vectored to the outside of the turn rather than a loss of directional steering control or yawing.
Likewise you could also argue that the yawing that is appropriate for a front tyre failing is intrinsically backwards for a rear tyre failing, as in a fully loaded state, if say if one of the left rear tyres was to fail, then the left rear of the truck then becomes more prone to causing over-steer to the right at the same time the right front wheels are unloaded as the left rear has dropped, but as a general rule of thumb, a front steered tyre that deflates will pull to the same side it’s on, while a rear tyre will cause slip to the side it’s on thus promoting over steer to the opposite side.
There are a few of the newer “beta” vehicles in the editor that have very small icon images that have little relation to their size.
I think its 16 they use in-game, but yes 16 would be to high for a 9mm 1911 single stack type mag, more normal would be a 9 or 10 round mag + 1 in the chamber, while .45 would by 7 or 8 rounds + 1 in the chamber, however there are definitely 14 round double stacked mag + 1 in the chamber giving 15 rounds of 9mm for 1911 made with double stacked sized handgrips/frames.
There are only so many ways you can make a 1911 before it’s NOT a 1911 and becomes something else.
The 1911 has been made in 9mm Parabellum and the 9mm NATO is pretty much the standard pistol round for NATO.
Anyway, assuming it was made by Colt and based on the M1911 and given the designation “ACP C2” then that could just be “Automatic Colt Pistol Commander 2” being a rehash of the original Commander which its self was at first only offered in 9mm Parabellum and was based on the M1911.
Likewise “ACP” is not always a reference to e.g. the .45 ACP being a reference to a built type, by Colt it is also used as “Automatic Colt Pistol” as in “Officer's ACP” or “Lightweight Officer's ACP” which denotes barrel length with the former & barrel length + lightweight frame with the latter of an Automatic Colt Pistol and is NOT a reference to the calibre/type of built used in the gun in that context.
The autorotation problem is a simple one, there is no clutch between the “engine/s” and the rotor system to allow the rotor to turn more freely from forward speed/rate of decent.
The clutch normally uses engine/s oil pressure and have an over-run future at beneath ~ <85% N1/N2 while above ~ >85% N1/N2 it would be completely locked.
At minimum practicable flying weight (pilot + ¼ tank of fuel) the main rotor of MD5#0e/f/ff WITH the engine OFF should be able to stay at ~ 470 rpm (main rotor) at minimum collective at ~ 65kts (mid point between maximum glide distance and minimum rate of decent), by the time you get up to maximum weight you should be applying some collective to act as a brake to keep the main rotor <520rpm, if I recall correctly, with a pilot, 1 passenger and maximum fuel there should be parity at 490rpm which is the normal operating speed of the rotor with the engine on.
I can fly much faster than 50kph sideways!
You would do well to listen to the link you provided and the use of “WHEN WE PROVIDE” as there were problems with the engines not having enough power for its proposed in-service weight, if you use power to lift it is not there for the tail rotor to counter the extra torque OR to provide the extra side thrust needed to fly sideways very fast.
Likewise, the ability to turn on the spot 180deg in 6sec & the ability to purportedly fly sideways >80knots <100knots do NOT tally with each other at combat weights as it gives a clue to the overall power of the tail rotor!
In A2/A3 in the helicopter flight dynamics there is a speed beyond which if you are flying sideways and you release the tail rotor input slightly it will snap into straight line flight in the direction you were going, this same thing also makes it imposable to enter sideways flight until you fall beneath the speed that the snap takes place, with the one in game it’s about 80kph then enter into sideways flight and if you already flying sideways you can get well above 80kph sideways.
It dose that because you haven’t set the behaviour to safe or carless for the first waypoint, in which formation matters little, if they are aware or above they will want formation which puts the Hunter in the middle OR causes it to overtake the second AMV-7
Speed mode also plays its part, on fast they won’t hold for others to catch up so often, while in other speed modes they will more often wait for other to catch up by driving slower/stoping.
Both behaviour and Speed mode have effects on each other.
Well I have just updated to the latest 5mins ago and it is still exactly the same, though now in addition as soon as the wheels are in land/water interface, the vehicles will lose their brakes and will roll into the water,
or if you transvers the shoreline with the wheels just in the water, so you not floating but driving on the wheels you also have no/much reduced braking effect, so at beaches where there can be stretches of shallow water (beneath hull height) that just the wheels are in, not only dose it become imposable to brake but also to change from forward/reverse, as then you fall foul of the first original problem.
Added “Amphibious_test.Stratis.zip” which puts all the amphibious vehicles (empty) on a beach where there is shallow water, added some signs and arrows to show the shallow part.
Enter the shallow part and try braking, changing direction etc and generally testing around the area.
This also affects the OPFOR MSE-3 Marid in the same way. So the title needs editing to include the MSE-3 & AMV-7 (add & MSE-3 in place of "Marshall")
title changed, found how
and also the Strider
While it is somewhat alien to have tyres screech on normal vehicles with smaller tyres on dirt and hard ground it dose happen with some off-road truck tyres when there is hard underlying ground and you are using a medium tyre pressure due to, weight, the depth of the tread blocks and how they distort then slip which produces a “chirp” that then gets resonated in the tyre, it can happen under load either from drive traction/high braking load or lateral scrub from groups of unsteered axles in tight turns or when differential locking is used and turns are made due to the vast amount of tyre scrub that happened if all wheels are forced to turn at the same speed across all axles.
Quick youtube e.g. of a Titan SLT 8x8 250 tonne GTW ballasted tractor with tyre “chirp” as the tyres spin on hard underlying ground with dirt/dust on.
Anyway that my experience of Michelin X, XL, XZL of Unimog’s and bigger AWD trucks.
Have you ever wondered why a helicopter take-off is sometimes referred to as a “dust-off”
Speed of the rotor blades has little to do with the main factor is minimum blade pitch and collective application.
In essence the difference between just sitting there and take-off is like night and day with respect to downdraught.
Quick youtube e.g. (dust – slightly different to smoke YES, but it shows that pitch is the main factor in downdraught thus lift in the opposite direction up)
The Swiss have army have bicycles.
They can be mounted with MG, AT, a 60mm mortar AND a drinks bottle!
From a technical point of view and provided it would be the best solution to a need even IF it was only a one-off event it would be plausible for military to buy hang gliders and quickly train some guys to use them.
As for military hang gliders, it is in a way rather old hat going back to the days of pre WW1, when they would be tethered behind moving ships acting as a hybrid between a kite and a hang glider, which gave the advantage of being able to see much much further, they were also used for artillery spotting on land with some going up to 2000ft (610m) and more, natural later advances gave rise to the man being directly under the wings allowing weight-shift.
You seem to underestimate RPG/AT and its purpose vs. that of the purpose of MRAP/MRAV being IMV’s
Some RPG have twin warheads for dealing with reactive armour even with the venerable old RPG7, even humble light single warhead, single stage HEAT warheads have RHM penetration capability’s far beyond that of most IMV’s and even IFV/APC, as one is a contact blast from a shaped warhead directly on the hull closer to a right-angle (stand-off cage-armour helps reduce this risk), while the other is a shaped warhead some distance away from the hull at a much reduced angle.
MRAP/MRAV are heavy vehicles in comparison to a pickup, therefor the latter has a lower chance of setting off an AT mine (this is given AT mines are normally buried and don’t normally appear on the surface like the AT mine dose in A3)
As for mines, like AT mines, MRAP/MRAV wheels and their suspension are designed to be sheared off in larger blasts to help stop them being flipped over as harshly, most smaller AT mines will quite happily disable MRAP/MRAV stopping them moving for any meaningful distance.
As for run-flat systems, there are 2 principle types, one is easy to fit (no special tools or knowledge other than basic tyre fitting) multiple part solution which is ok for tyre deflations from bullets etc but is useless for explosions or when the tyre is very badly damaged with parts missing, the other is a large rubber band that is expanded over the rim between the tyre beads which also acts as a bead clamp, extremely resistant and durable to mines but very hard to fit to split-rims without a press or other method of pushing down without damaging the tyre/rim and can only be fitted to single-part rims by a special machine.
Search = > View Issues page link > then the top part of the page are filters and there is a Search box and apply filter button.
"How do u search though?"
in the search box and press the apply filter button, it should just return this report.
I just made a completely new simple test mission using the Intel task modules linked to triggers etc, and ALL worked perfectly fine just as they have for the past few weeks when I first tried them.
Uploaded “task_test.Stratis.zip” to show they work which was made after reading this.
Therefor I would suggest its your trigger conditions OR your placement of the trigger relative to the master “Task Create” vs. “CREATED” task state and their synchronisation.
Master Task Create | trigger | created task state
While all the others are
Master Task Create | task state (assigned, cancelled, failed or success) | trigger.
See image or mission file uploaded
There is a lazar designator that is as part of the new Beta, it’s an uprated version of the standard rangefinder with lazing facility, it also has night vision and thermal imaging modes, the lazar function is dependent on a separate battery, so until you add a battery the lazing function doesn’t work but NV/TI modes do along with the standard rangefinder functions.
The lazar designator can be found in the blue/red/green “support” ammo crate and its battery in the blue/red “supply box”, the greens don’t have a supply box, thus don’t have access to batteries unless they use blue/red “supply box”
Currently no units are assigned the lazar designator by default as far as I know.
By gripe is the sudden appearance of the clipping “blade flap” sound far to early/prominently in the start sequence in 1st person, when really, the main rotor blades are hardly turning either in RL or in the game.
Also blade flap is more prominent outside when past the tip of the rotor as that is always the fastest moving part of a blade and is far less prevalent inside when it’s happening.
Some MD500D/E inside and outside start-ups (same engines etc and airframe as the MH/AH-6 AKA MH/AH-9)
MD500E inside up to full rpm’s:
Hughes OH-6A Cayuse (H500A/B/C/D/MD500A/B/C/D) going by the instrument cluster:
only getting to ~ 65% N1 & 60% main rotor (warm-up phase):
edit added “mh9_startup_shutdown.zip” (in game “blade flap”) though I chopped the shutdown bit off the file to get it under the file size limit and forgot to remove the “shutdown from the file name/.zip doh!
I get this to from todays update
I did see the video before posting, and you have NOT used “setWind [10, 10, true]” you have used much closer to “setWind [100, 100, true]” or some permutation using “100” in either the X or Y direction.
As the only way I can replicate it, is with “setWind [0, 100, true]” giving a wind traveling in a North direction relative to the trees bending.
The only other way is you have used multiple wind related setting that have somehow ended up becoming multiplied with each other giving 10 times the wind speed.
Added some missions to prove the point, in about the same location, with the same trees, just a single guy with its initialization box either empty, with “setWind [0, 10, true]” or “setWind [0, 100, true]” entered in it and in all cases the default editor GUI max wind/gust/overcast are set to their maximums.
You can also enter permutations of “setWind [#, #, true]” in the escape key debug box and execute them.
If it’s a constant “bug” like problem or you still have the mission file, then post it.
As for the Youtube counters, you do know they lag behind ;)
If you’re going to set a ridiculous wind speed using “setWind” parameter, thats NOT a bug, IF you set the wind by the weather controls to their maximum factor of “1” (100 in the editor GUI) you won’t get this, likewise with smaller settings with “setWind”
100 in the GUI for the wind = 1 in the mission file, which is NOT that same as “100” being used with “setWind”, I believe M/sec are used for “setWind”, thus 100 in that parameter is 100m/sec which is 360kph/223mph, using “setWind” with ~ 7.1 equates to about 100 in the mission editor GUI and about “1” in the actual mission file. (using observation of distance travel by smoke from smoke grenades to the point where smoke disappears and other things)
As I said I don’t have any problems, attached “int_waypoints.Stratis.zip” as proof.
[grp1, 1] setWaypointType "HOLD";
Should work, I don’t think you can set the "0" waypoint type for any unit/team other than move it to their (or the leaders if a group of 2 or more units) location if you have used the copy waypoints function.
The starting point that a unit is placed in the world is their [unit_grp, 0] point, you can only change the type of [unit_grp, 1] and above as the [unit_grp, 0] waypoint is always completed thus [unit_grp, 1] can only ever be the next uncompleted waypoint.
I have been using triggers to set waypoint types, move waypoints and copy waypoints all weekend with no problems.
Movies are movies and mostly NOT like real life! so it would only be practical on short ladders or that are at an angle of repose much less than vertical.
In movies they generally use what is known as an air brake descender/decelerator that uses a very thin but very strong steel rope attached do a drum which is partly is conical thus changes the gearing for the paddles as the wire rope gets pulled off, thus speeding up the paddles until air resistance acts as a brake as the cone gets smaller thus slowing the person for such shots on silly long ladders,
Air brake descender/decelerator (old technology despite what is said in the video)
If you have ever been on vertical ladders that are attached to building and structures, you will know the vertical uprights that the rungs are attached to are much thinner as they are solid steel or alloy, meaning you don’t have the inherent friction you get from stepladders which have much thicker vertical uprights that are hollow and placed at an angle less than vertical, also ladders on buildings are seldom just attached at the top and bottom unless they are very short, at all other times the vertical uprights have “stand-offs” which attach the ladder to the building/structure which allows enough room to place your feet on the rungs without hitting the wall or allowing you to put the lower half of one leg behind the rungs (between a rung and the wall) so you can use the back of one knee to lock yourself in place to rest, this is the point where you proposal fails, as the “stand-offs” behind the ladder uprights or at the sides would rip your hands from the ladder as you tried to slide down, thus guaranteeing your demise at the hands of gravity from high ladders as opposed to it just hinging on being shot while moving down the same high ladder.
But if you are silly enough to present yourself on a tall open unprotected structure like a mast (unless you are taking >1200m shots with plenty of your guys between you and them) then it’s perhaps more a problem of the tactical shortcomings of your choice of position rather than the shortcomings of ladders. ;)
Anyway, its mostly tactical safer to fall/drop one floor than to use a ladder IF you are suddenly exposed, even IF you could slide down “short ladders”
the fall from the roof of a building that equates to 4.45m is ~ 26% from running/walking while standing up, if you are prone and move slowly to drop of the range is >15% <26% damage often being around ~ 20% but with a much fluctuation than the former being in the range of >25.5% <26.5%, a 12.5m drop is ~ 90% damage, while a second floor drop from e.g. the top of the accessible roof of the “unfinished” type buildings is about 61% damage (can be as low as 50% if you are prone), or if you use the topmost floor/roof (where there is a single short ladder) and you drop to the immediate floor below damage is ~ 10% if you run/walk off it, and as low as 0% if you are prone and do an evasive role off it.
what is perhaps needed for between adjacent single floors or low roofs, is a set-piece animation (like that of mounting a ladder) that can be invoked at the top of short ladders/floor/roof edges from either a crouched or prone position, that lowers you over the edge or through the hatch, before you select release to drop.
because the use of “~” to denote approximately screws up number formatting i.e. “~10” vs. “~ 10”
Yes brighten them up, then include it screwing up your night vision and the ability for commanding AI to order you to turn them off and if you don’t they shoot you, likewise remove the team kill penalty in MP when someone on your side shoots you for blinding them carelessly, and lastly make AI extremely inquisitive of unidentified lights that heightens there alert status one more place than a person without a torch who is unidentified.
It’s the space in “group transport” as “group” is a function word, thus if it sits with space after it, it is a function and not part of a name, would “grouptransport” or “transportgrp” or “grptransport” be better.
Also I assume you haven’t created the group with:
group transport = group transport;
As that its self would throw up an error due to the space, as you would have 2 instances of “group” both trying to act as functions though the first one is really a name while the second is a function.
Assuming you use one of the alternate names, you would need in the leader unit’s Initialization box (assuming the leader unit name is “transport”)
grouptransport = group transport;
transportgrp = group transport;
grptransport = group transport;
Then the following should work using the middle group name above
transportgrp addwaypoint [position player, 0, 1];
transportgrp addwaypoint [position player, 1]; (if you don’t want to add a radius)
[transportgrp, 1] setWaypointType "MOVE";
Think of it as
“NameOfCollectiveGroup” = “Group” “LeadUnitOfThatGroup”
Squelchgrp = Group Squelch
Attached “int_waypoints.Stratis.zip”, a simple test using only the unit’s Initialization box or trigger activations to add waypoints and change function.
The speed that something will do as an early prototype bares little to no relationship to what the end product will do once spec and options have been set and mass production starts.
It’s just a headline figure designed to trigger some interest mostly.
The discrepancy between ~150kph as an overpowered prototype that’s not at its standard marketable “fighting” weight like it would be once all the equipment is fitted vs. the in game 137kph with “equipment” is probably still a little to fast by 10 to 12 kph when full of people/equipment and inventory.
The rangefinder dose have a night vision mode. (Uses the same key as you use to turn NV goggles on/off), in fact it does all the things you want (binocular with night vision mode, variable zoom, with digital azimuth and range indication), the only thing it doesn’t do is thermal imaging.
As for old style binoculars, there is nothing wrong with that, super reliable proven technology that cheap, little changed for many years and has a long service life that will still be around many many years from now.
There are enough gaps between trees for fast-roping, if it was to be implemented, which could/would be reason enough to implement it.
Clearing a space of mature trees in a forest with explosives enough to land a helicopter safely is not necessarily as easy as it sound in RL or as fast as someone with a chainsaw.
Stumps have got to be low enough not to damage the helicopters underside, the ground has got to be relatively undamaged, it often means you need a space cleared bigger than you think and all the timber and branches need clearing, which is why the M121 & BLU-82 were developed in the late 60’s and is in part why they have the GBU-43/B (MOAB) now, which would be interesting for any C-130 in game!
There was a similar mechanism used in TKoH using the helicopter PiP display to take pictures of key locations in order to complete the mission,
I am sure also that in either OFP and is expansions or in A2 there was one mission requiring taking photos, but it’s a long time since I have played OFP or its expansions so may be confusing it with some other game!