simonmiller416

Rescuer

Pedro

Haec Ago Ut Alii Vivant

Something bad happened during AAR training, then turn into hunting

B-Team Going Dark...

UH-60L

I agree!

Thank you, I'm already familiar with these two techniques. But the problem is that the premise of using ANIMATION KEY is that the crews and the aircraft need to be integrated, that is, we don't use the pilot folder, but directly weld their models into cockpit, so that we can indeed let them turn on/off NOD by the same way of opening and closing the cabin door. Thing is, if we do that, we won't be able to replace the crew, so I'm wondering if we should do this.Maybe it makes sense for 160SOAR tho... Slimer is a good idea indeedBut I still need to figure out a way to keep them from lighting up with all the lights.

For DAPs,I already tested join missions with APKWS and Hellfire(from dels AH-64 mod), they were working great. APKWS is hell of a rocket, blow everything up. imo in SF2, MH-60s are suitable for COIN war script which need missions been certain modified.

In WIP thread, I showed a bunch of pilots with AVS-6/9. I actually thought it would be cool to put a few Operators on the left and right doors and set them all as gunners. We can't switch whether they use NODs, maybe it would be better if I set up a separate MH-60L for NIGHT_ONLY? Oh and, I have got permission from guuruu to for the well designed helicopter FM, great work!

Night Ops

Yeah well A3 is much better way to fly a heli

Some more test and some tricks

lol that's where my thought came from, I fly over Persian Gulf for a long time. This is a terrain I like very much. I can see some cross-sea bridges and other things (yeah many tall buildings) in the distance.

I didn't want to participate, I am just curious. In many terrains, I don't see much high-rise buildings, most of them are low-rise bungalows. It's not that there are none, but it's rare. Is there anything that limits this? I have a few guesses: 1. Game performance issues; 2. They don't make sense because they have no collision; 3. This is correct based on the design era and background story of the terrain; 4. The community lacks available resources. Again, I'm just curious,after all I am not a terrain modder, so don't take it too seriously. If it's because of guess 4, maybe I'd be interested in that.

Actually I used to do search on www.joebaugher.com,but that is good too,thanks

Air Force PaveHawk

That pit would be cool. I mean, since I'd rather have them(whole series) be AI controlled units, I'd probably look for a similar pit, not make one.They will be flyable by the player, but that's not the point.

So yeah,SOAR's hawk, still need to investigate their correct number, other aspects, so far so good... Following SUDNAVY's suggestion, I'm trying to add a "static" aircraft, named "Gunner Target", that is completely invisible, but the AI gunner will recognize and fire at it. I imagine it could be used in pre-made missions, placed next to ground targets like troops, so that the AI gunner would appear to be strafing the ground, and maybe even hit these "real targets".

Yeah, so basically I will leave them to AI, as kind of "Atmosphere Group".

I thought this was a thread for updating stock aircraft...I just realized it actually targets all old mods

But from a development perspective, perhaps some "commercial" resources are more suitable for completing such a project. After all, we will be facing different game engines, and many methods may be completely different. Even only for the appearance, for example in SF2, the number of polygons/vertices of a single part is limited. If it exceeds the limit, even if it can be exported as LOD, there will be problems in the game. Therefore, some high-quality resource, for example, may have 1 million vertices, so we have to split it into 333 parts. If you use something like it directly in other game engines, it may look very weird. If it were me, I would probably take a commercial resource and convert it from scratch into a usable form for your game.