Proper SEAD platforms (Wild Weasel, Growler etc.) tend to have more extensive passive countermeasures as well
#gameplay_arma
median ruin
daring dock
RWR vs. passive is a tricky topic
There are several systems (from code PoV) making up the abstracted representations of IRL systems in a mixed way.
Don't expect this to become BMS, DCS or SAM Simulator 😄
Also because we have to deal with legacy systems and can't overhaul everything.
So we have passiveRadar component for both - part of RWR and for antiradiation functionality. The other part of RWR is the older, not-overhauled countermeasures tech.
But also only partially, as it can somehow also be used to abstract missile warning receiver or in a very limited way laser warnings
chilly oar
@daring dock Do you mean lockDetectionSystem and incomingMissileDetectionSystem?
daring dock
yup
safe wigeon
Hey Oukej, just wanted to say, love the DevBuild stuff sofar!
daring dock
🙇
sour mango
oukej, whatever's possible man! Anything's better than magic radar lol
And no, i don't expect DCS, i just reference it as a "gold standard"
I understand it's outside the scope of Arma as such
It's just that if the vehicles have some degree of specialisation then it makes things interesting
Like the Panther being very tanky for example
Or the Gorgon getting Titans
Would be good to have a reason to include an A-10 over a Blackfoot, or Neophron over a Mi-48, for example
Or Buzzard over A-10 (if the mission maker decides that AAF and NATO are friends)
etc.
Of course if things become complicated to do then it's understandable
It's just that vanilla communities don't use mods, so we rely on BI for striking a balance b/w fun and complexity (and future war authenticity)
chilly oar
@sour mango Anything's better than magic radar See the first sentence of the thread OP: "Magic radar is dead, long live the feature-creep!" ;-)
sour mango
I know
that's what i meant
magic radar will die
The replacement may have to be RWR+Passive radar combined, but at least it's not magic radar
😄
chilly oar
@spark dragon Dunno if you had anything to do with the Jets DLCs features but thank you for all your work and highlights over the years!
spark dragon
No I didn't
chilly oar
@sour mango they = visual/IR especially visual i know there's a narrow view cone and stuff, and not 360 coverage, but it does make things less threatning if the vehicle can autodetect where things are
This isn't squaring in my head because I'm not getting the "autodetect" part... then again after oukej's words I get the sense that the visual/IR sensors themselves as an engine thing -- not necessarily the specific stats on a specific vehicle -- are I imagine just like with RWR vs. passive radar, quoting @daring dock here, There are several systems (from code PoV) making up the abstracted representations of IRL systems in a mixed way.
Which not coincidentally had me wondering why the heck the Hellcat didn't have IR/visual sensors if for IRL years the co-pilot has already had the ability to look around like Blackfoot/Kajman pilots do minus the gun... 😉
@sour mango It's just that if the vehicles have some degree of specialisation then it makes things interesting Like the Panther being very tanky for example Or the Gorgon getting Titans Would be good to have a reason to include an A-10 over a Blackfoot, or Neophron over a Mi-48, for example Or Buzzard over A-10 (if the mission maker decides that AAF and NATO are friends)
I had thought that this had already been done to some degree -- the specific behaviors of each componentType may be hardcoded (ask oukej) but the specific stats/ranges/effectiveness can be varied by vehicle config and 'in action' via everything from view distance (if the sensor's been so configured for that vehicle), <IR/visual/radar>TargetSize, and ground background/clutter, and these can be varied by vehicle to make them 'unique'/'asymmetrically balanced' in conjunction with other aircraft properties such as performance characteristics and weapons.
sour mango
By autodetect I mean "show up on a display"
chilly oar
I didn't quite have the problem imagining that as a thing that can be 'actually' happening 'in-universe', but that's in part because the game already allows me to 'tab lock' (not quite the keybind anymore hahaha) something if I can point my vehicle/turret/weapon towards it, I suppose the term is 'marking' now
sour mango
Yeah, and it's not nice, but at least at the moment ground vehicle crews have to see something before they can spam tab lock lol
My concern with visual sensors especially is that people will not even have to look (and conversely won't be able to hide) because the vehicle sensor does a lot of the work
(again, not a mod consideration, just a vanilla one)
chilly oar
@sour mango Yeah, and it's not nice, but at least at the moment ground vehicle crews have to see something before they can spam tab lock lol
And my reason for defending the idea of the IR/visual sensors is because I felt that that was my own experience even with aircraft when playtesting vanilla dev branch
may or may not have been shot down by Y-32s along the way
chilly oar
Just taking another look at what vehicles should have IR/visual sensors, or the specific stats of them on those vehicles? That I get 😃
sour mango
Just that visual/IR sensor targets showing up on a "radar" display thing should possibly be made a server difficult setting
And yeah, what you say above.
chilly oar
From an admittedly limited attempt to think of that in UX unfortunately I can't think find a consistent rationale for why those two sensors should be singled out
Though these targets appearing on the display may be due to the fact that the Sensor Display is itself a one-stop-shop abstraction
sour mango
Because the third is radar. Players can't see in the radar spectrum :D
And radar is supposed to be BVR anyway
chilly oar
There's three sensors that have cones, but remember that there's also laser and 'NV' spots. 😉 More specifically re: the Sensor Display, it jams a lot of functionalities into one window
sour mango
Don't they appear on the HUD though?
the spots?
No issues with laser and NV spots though
Since that's players working together etc
It's a good thing
But yeah, if the difficulty thing can be done it should be fine for everyone
chilly oar
Not sure if you meant this: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/File:showAllTargets.png
Comparing/contrasting the existing 'magic' radar here: https://community.bistudio.com/wikidata/images/3/37/Arma3radarTargetTypes.png with the current symbology Sensor Display: http://i.imgur.com/IPaFwup.png
sour mango
Yeah i mean it doesn't make too much of a difference unless the vehicles are mixed (and note concerns over ground radar)
chilly oar
Again, please define "ground radar"?
sour mango
Thing that picks up targets on the ground
Which is what it looks like in the last link you've posted
But yeah, try imagining this mission with visual/IR sensors: https://youtu.be/MtY7HlpiY74?t=667
chilly oar
By "in the second last link" did you mean the current magic radar on stable?
sour mango
no i mistyped 😭
there
last link
wtf am i doing
😄
i was going to write second link, then mentally corrected it to last link. sigh
chilly oar
But yeah, try imagining this mission with visual/IR sensors: https://youtu.be/MtY7HlpiY74?t=667 Been there, done that
chilly oar
It is entirely possible for a vehicle to have sensors but not a sensor display... because the vanilla tanks already do; see the sensors overhaul thread OP: Tanks have a narrow field (60°) IR sensor to allow for ballistic computer and targeting aids. Tanks however don't have any sensor display. (On 13 January 2017 the dev branch changelog amended this: Tweaked: Tank sensors now have narrower field of regard and use visual sensors instead of IR)
sour mango
Ah, that's fine
That's perfectly fine
It wasn't clear to me how this is going to work for ground vehicles
Like i said in my post too, I don't have an issue with sensors for stuff like ballistic computers, etc.
It's just the whole thing about relaying visual/IR data to the player that i'm skeptical about (and ground radar)
chilly oar
groan You keep using that phrase
chilly oar
Should I take it to mean that you're talking about the ability of a sensor to distinguish between air-silhouetted targets and ground-silhouetted targets?
sour mango
Don't know what to call it
Well...no, i kinda have an issue with ground vehicles being picked up by radar
e.g. on gunships
chilly oar
coughlookdownshootdowncough
sour mango
"look down radar"
Okay.
Yes, have an issue with that.
Since it makes hiding things from the helo difficult (or at least appears to do so)
Currently it's very hard to work gunships into missions because of magic radar. http://i.imgur.com/IPaFwup.png makes it look like the current "look down radar" will work similarly (in the sense it can see ground targets) within a cone. While better, it's still too much info.
(imo)
chilly oar
... didn't I show you that one video demonstrating that terrain blocking still worked? Without that there'd be no reason for oukej to bring up nap of the earth (NOE) flight either
sour mango
yes
I'm not talking about that
If gunship has LOS on vehicle
Vehicle does not have radar.
Gunship can see it
Target pops up on display
That.
chilly oar
The gunship can see it, but whether or not it does would be subject to various conditions... such as view distance, ground clutter, whether or not the vehicle's warmed up (IR sensor)...
sour mango
Assume within view distance
Assume existance of ground clutter (buildings, tall grass)
And assume vehicle is warmed up and in flight, assisting a ground op
chilly oar
To which I'd say that sensors' ability to distinguish from ground clutter can be tweaked/nerfed/enhanced
(I tested that IR part with a stationary Zamak Fuel once, my own vehicle having a turret-aligned IR sensor with no visual sensor pointed at the Zamak and no active radar on... I could face the Zamak Fuel, mark it, maybe even begin locking, but I sure don't remember the Zamak Fuel showing up on the sensor display within my IR sensor's red cone)
sour mango
hmm.
chilly oar
There are also config parameters which can limit sensors' ability to pick up on targets based on stuff like target speed and altitude above terrain level (ATL)
chilly oar
Correct, I'm just pointing out that the answer for vanilla would be if the devs tweak those values accordingly on the gunships' sensors
sour mango
Yup. It would also be super handy to have a difficulty setting 😛
If we don't like visual, we could turn it off
If we don't like IR, we could turn it off
If we don't like both, could turn both off
If BI get the balance right, it's all good. If they don't, well, it's all good
chilly oar
Again, I find 'server/difficulty setting' for only two sensor types to be inconsistent with the design philosophy under which Bohemia's been handling the sensors/visualization-through-having-a-sensor-display
But then as I said it's clear that the Sensor Display is itself an abstraction for what might be several different systems/displays IRL
sour mango
Sure, but that's for them to decide, no? If it's impossible/not feasible they won't do it.
I shall chant "engine limitations" and make my peace 😄
chilly oar
Pfffft if you mean re: the Sensor Display having everything jammed into one HUD... well, I can believe it (seeing oukej's earlier because we have to deal with legacy systems and can't overhaul everything.) Although at last check detected contacts that leave all possible sensor coverage not only go grey like a destroyed vehicle but I understand that their 'absolute' position is no longer updated (thus making it seem stationary, i.e. changes in heading not reflected?) and eventually they outright disappear from the sensor display
sour mango
interesting, you can kinda have some degree of terrain masking with magic radar too
since i think it's LOS based?
daring dock
If LoS is blocked then it's clear for all sensors - you can't see through terrain and it's always been the case.
What's new is an abstraction of signal-to-noise and background.
abstraction of doppler and target velocity threshold
...in general many more ways for a target to stay hidden
Synthetic display - from tech pov it's possible to create a specific one (ground tgts only, or just threats...). And modders will be able to do so. The set up of vanilla is not 100% set in stone yet.
Combining everything is however a common approach in
contemporary displays (TAD, TSD, HSD...)
sour mango
Thanks for the reply. I don't mind combining, just if possible, the visual and IR components of the display could be difficulty based, then it would be cool
daring dock
That would be very unclear. Difficulty is there to add helpers or simplify parts of the game. Not to create different game balance.
Customizing the game is possible via editor or modding. Difficulty is there to mainly control meta elements that are not part of the game narrative and to simplify or extend some parts of the simualtion in a "global" sense (e.g. AI skills applied to all AI in game).
But to remain understandable and clear it shouldn't be mixed with functionality of individual ingame assets.
IR or Visual sensors are there for simulating EOTS's, IRSTs and similar systems on specific assets. They are not a helper, but just like the radar they are sensors that have specific properties, advantages and disadvanteges and uses.
smoky wave
is arma3 air temperature affected by elevation/altitude?
because currently you can define temperatures min/max for day and night. I was wondering if terrain elevation plays any factor in those
daring dock
no, it doesn't
smoky wave
would such a feature be hard to implement or would it laterally mess up anything else that makes use of the temperature, e.g. thermal modes
the reason I ask is that I have been modifying the rain used by the engine,. to get believable snow and dust storms generated by the engine instead of using any scripted method. If terrain elevation was a factor in temperature, then it could be possible to phase from rain <> snow once a temperature threshold has been reached due to altitude. the extra rain-like params could also be diversified into creating dust insead of snow for more arid regions, or perhaps both could co-exist along-side rain.
here is an example video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzqNmgzlFVQ
would this be worth writing up a feature request or is it outside the scope of current BI roadmap?
sour mango
@daring dock that's fair I suppose. Thanks for the response!
We trust you'll find a good balance
And maybe once it's on stable and we can use it in a few missions, will give you more feedback
BTW how do sensors affect AI?
daring dock
With same limitations as applied to players. Ranges, angles, IFF. AI doesn't know who's an enemy until it can confirm it with its own eyes (optics). But it is also very eager to check any new return.
sour mango
hmmm
BTW oukej, on the subject of AI, is it possible to make them not drive by at top speed an kill people with pinpoint accurate fire? Because combined with AI being "very eager to check any new return", I foresee pain... disregard the latter sentence, just remembered that ground vehiclesdon't have visual/IR sensor displays...
(our workaround is limiting speed to slow)
Only applies to air targets, not ground targerts
(look-down radar)
A radar system has look-down/shoot-down capability if it can detect, track and guide a weapon to an air target moving below the horizon as seen by the radar.
zealous estuary
I hadn't appreciated before now that air temperature was modelled, does that extend to the ability to distinguish warm targets more easily at colder temperatures and vice-versa?
chilly oar
@sour mango To some degree that appears to be how Bohemia defines 'ground target' too, air-silhouetted vs. ground-silhouetted...
sour mango
we had a long discussion about this within the comminity last night
conclusion was, if they're actually going for simulation then ground targets should only pop up if they're moving at a substantial speed (since oukej mentioned doppler radar)
and ground targets as such will be very noisy and hard to pick up
chilly oar
@sour mango As it turns out, that can be enforced via a minimum speed threshold, and you can sensor-specific configure its effectiveness vs. ground clutter
sour mango
I hope they do enforce it then 😄
otherwise it'll end up fairly similar to magic radar in terms of detecting things
chilly oar
i.e. one early seeming-idea going on in the first iteration of the dev branch release of this stuff before all the 'rebalancing' was that Buzzard (AA) active radar was less effective vs. ground clutter than Blackfoot/Kajman active radar was and shorter-ranged vs. ground-silhouetted targets, so you wouldn't have a Buzzard (AA, now CAS as well) trying to 'sweep' for ground targets such as i.e. SPAAGs in advance of a gunship assault
@sour mango IR or Visual sensors are there for simulating EOTS's, IRSTs and similar systems on specific assets. They are not a helper, but just like the radar they are sensors that have specific properties, advantages and disadvanteges and uses.
And now I see that there's a day/night effectiveness coefficient parameter for the latter... 😉
sour mango
that's nice
and shorter-ranged vs. ground-silhouetted targets
not sure if it's supposed to work like that w.r.t range
chilly oar
Remember that there's minRange and maxRange parameters, and that according to the BIKI the GroundTarget class "Defines the sensor detection range in look-down conditions, when the target is positioned against ground clutter. Properties are the same as in airTarget", so one can define separately how the sensor interacts w/ "targets with sky background" vs. "ranges for targets with ground background" while seeming ground clutter effectiveness is in the sensor's main class... which, by the way, is where minTrackableSpeed resides
sour mango
i mean, range for both should probably be the same
sour mango
Getting a loadout menu like this would be really cool (From the F/A-18 Super Hornet mod)
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/101479298812121088/276822686360010752/unknown.png
chilly oar
@sour mango A recurring wishlist item but as I've said in the past:
#1: For vanilla jets this would need a noticable revision to how the vanilla jets are modeled (more specifically proxied) and configured, which probably would break some existing community content
#2: I want to see this as a Virtual Garage thing, similar to how the Garage has Camouflage and Components, with the latter allowing gameplay changes such as removing the MB 4WD's rear seats)
#3: How configurable should things go, especially when now sensors and displays (not all of which are sensors) are now a config thing within a Components class?
Addendum: Don't look to VBS3 for a concept model, its take is rather limited
sour mango
@chilly oar
#1 is for BIS to evaluate, speculating like this won't help. They can leave in a compaitbility layer if this is indeed the case, and I suspect that modders would be more than happy to make use of the new goodies
#2 Agreed in general, but that screen is accessible in game, and the loadout changes in game. If VA can be reconciled with in-game stuff, then that would be cool. If not, i suppose it's fine, but yeah, would love a loadout system.
#3 It depends on how tied up things are. If removing a sensor means weapons won't work, then idk.
To add to #1, i think since the jets DLC planes will be new, then can get the new system from the start without breaking compatibility - though of course i'm not a modder (beyond random retextures using setObjectTexture lol), so it's possible i don't understand how messy things are
zealous estuary
Virtual Arsenal is already available in-game for instant, infantry, loadout changes, I don't see why virtual garage couldn't be
chilly oar
@zealous estuary @sour mango Garage is accessible in-game, gave it a go not too long ago... what I was interested in was seeing a loadout editor (and maybe 'sensor swapper'?) be built into that.
sour mango
no i meant making changes to the vehicle in game (like VA does for inventory) - i don't see why it can't be done, but then again #enginelimitations
(#enginelimitations is satire for claimed limitations by BI/community for things that are eventually done by BI/community 😛 )
zealous estuary
yeah, it would be good to see that used to change loadout
though hopefully without some of the shortcomings of the VA - like only being able to equip an empty launcher. Would suck to equip a rocket pod and then individually equip all the rockets
sour mango
😄
Nah, the rockets are a magazine themselves
i.e. you load all 30 or whatever at the same time
which is why, for example, you can't load Titan AP into a static Titan AT launcher - there are no vehicle mags for it
zealous estuary
yeah I was exaggerating, the empty launcher thing bothers me with the Virtual Arsenal - if you equip a rifle you get at least one magazine attached, equip a launcher and you get no ammo
sour mango
I think it depends on how it's added, i.e. if you add a rocket then add a launcher, it goes into the launcher (it's this way with scripts, at least)
But if you change rockets on pre existing classes then invariably there's already one round loaded, even if you think you've emptied everything
zealous estuary
right, but to add a rocket/missile you have to first equip a backpack large enough to store it, so it becomes a case of equipping three items separately then dropping the unwanted backpack to get a loaded launcher
and if you had to drop a smaller pack and it's contents in order to do that little shuffle you then have to re-equip/load all of that stuff too
chilly oar
@sour mango @zealous estuary I vaguely believe that individual non-rocket munitions (i.e. individual bombs and missiles) can work as '1Rnd_whatever' weapons with a hypothetical Garage-based loadout editor whereas if you're installing whole pods of rockets it's '7Rnd_whatever'... though there is the limitation of all of the rockets in a 'magazine' being of one type (see the seven-shot Shrieker HEs and seven-shot Shrieker APs)
median ruin
Submunition randomisation might sort of allow for mixed rocket loads https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Weapon_Config_Guidelines#Ammo_changes_on_fly_and_on_hit
chilly oar
But only if one configures the rocket shots as themselves submunitions?
median ruin
yeah, you have the generic rocket type and then randomise the warhead effect on target by having different sub-munitions ammo types configured for that rocket in submunitionAmmo[]
but it wouldn't be like you could select specific rockets from the pod. It'd all be random
chilly oar
And then selecting specific rockets from the pod demands loading individual rockets no?
slate granite
LOL found this old video on my old channel , arma 1 gameplay, good times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4bkzgvrcQ0
median ruin
@Chortles#3140 if you want specific rockets to be selectable it requires no only separate individual rockets, but separate weapons/muzzles for each rocket type. That's where things become rather complex
if loading two types of rocket ammunitions to the same launcher weapon on a plane or helicopter, the aircraft will fire one type until it empties the magazine, and then reload the second magazine type
zealous estuary
I wasn't suggesting that rockets being individually loaded instead of being in magazines, in fact I was making the opposite point that a rocket pod should come preloaded when attached with the option to change the loadout. I was using the analogy to criticise the way the VA works with certain weapons with alternate loadouts (Titan Launchers) don't automatically come loaded, making it annoyingly fiddly to use - particularly when used in-game. I would hope that any in-game loadout selection for vehicles wouldn't inherit some of the same failings that the virtual arsenal does now.
fwiw, mixing rocket types in a single pod would probably be useless most of the time, but I can sort of imagine a scenario where with additional warhead types a mix could just about be useful - i.e. mixing HE rounds with incendiary/thermobaric rounds for used against entrenched infantry. Or mixing airburst rounds with impact fused rounds which may give increased penetration of tree cover (making this example up, no idea whether that would work in practice).
of course you wouldn't be able to select which type to fire, those examples imagine that you simply want both effects at once in a volley of fire.
I would just settle for some customisation of loadouts in game - mostly for air vehicles, though it would be cool if you could say swap out the HMG on a prowler with a mounted AT launcher or minigun
sour mango
....or the M2 HMG of the technicals...
zealous estuary
right
having the option to put an SPG on a technical, or for that matter any sort of weapon through mods as an alternative to having to have completely different models for variants. That would be a really nice addition
median ruin
can vehicle-in-vehicle do that already?
minus perhaps the pilot view rendering issues
chilly oar
@sour mango ....or the M2 HMG of the technicals...
@zealous estuary I would just settle for some customisation of loadouts in game - mostly for air vehicles, though it would be cool if you could say swap out the HMG on a prowler with a mounted AT launcher or minigun having the option to put an SPG on a technical, or for that matter any sort of weapon through mods as an alternative to having to have completely different models for variants. That would be a really nice addition
This is a wishlist item of my own but from what I understand the only reason that "have completely different models for variants" isn't necessary for underwing stores is because they're proxied... which poses some technical issues with regards to mounted/'integral' weapons; if I recall correctly there's limited possible animations for a proxy versus the full range of possibilities for something that's part of the vehicle model
@median ruin The main issue I can imagine of is that the player riding the carried vehicle is never treated as part of the crew of the carrying vehicle which could pose some other issues... I'm admittedly a lot less familiar with ViV so anyone else feel free to correct me
chilly oar
@median ruin @zealous estuary @sour mango This one's a heads up from @daring dock: https://feedback.bistudio.com/T123052#1570481
We've removed the CCIP (ground impact prediction) and TLI (target lead prediction) from cockpit and 3rd person view. For 1.68 it will be left only in actual in-game HUD and optics. Let's see if that works out. With release of Jets DLC we intend to make the CAS airplanes (Neophron, Wipeout) more specialized on their role. Eventually stripping them of TLI completely. If none of this balancing does any good we'll rethink the approach.
chilly oar
Dev branch trip report ( @daring dock please correct me if any of this data sounds incorrect):
- The Buzzard gun appeared to use a broken circle for an in-HUD gun PIP while I didn't see a corresponding pipper on the Neophron/Wipeout HUDs, curious as to why this is
- The previous CCIP/PIP -- that is to say the 'out of HUD' crosshair not subject to "Crosshair" difficulty option -- is seemingly only visible in TGP view for all three jets when pitched downward below the horizon
- The TLI remains available at least on the Wipeout but (still?) requires being able to locate the target precisely enough to point one's nose at it and thereby mark it in the first place... in my experience thusfar the sensor display at most gives one a rough azimuth, not a pitch, with which to orient the jet to look for said target
- The overall effect of the the second and third items seems to be that the TGP becomes much more important in locating targets, with the 'cost' being one's inability to precisely maneuver the jet (i.e. with kb/m mouse moves the TGP view and keyboard moves the jet/pipper) from this view
chilly oar
@zealous estuary @sour mango Also, from three days ago on the BIKI:
reportRemoteTargets = true; // Says if the vehicle is able to broadcast targets acquired by own sensors
reportOwnPosition = true; // Says if the vehicle is able to broadcast its own position```So AWACS-ish stuff?
chilly oar
@sour mango Support for something in that vein it looks like... as it stands you can already get "confirmed friendly" indicators for one's own group (i.e. put two Buzzards in the same group and pilot one of them)
zealous estuary
oh nice!
zealous estuary
this whole sensors/radar overhaul is working out to be a massive improvement
opens up a lot of potential for the core game, mod and mission makers
sour mango
indeed
@daring dock is there any possibility to change how the speed of the plane is controlled? i.e. can it be increase and lower engine RPM instead of directly controlling thrust? Right now it's kinda hard to control speed in planes, especially while landing.
sour mango
or taxiing
spare lagoon
ENGINE
Tweaked: Drivers are now able to manually mark / unmark targets
Tweaked: Manual lock now primarily locks laser targets
not sure if i like the first - but needs testing how it actually works (just info to gunner/commander or if driver can lock without weapon or with manualFire)
daring dock
it's mainly a bug fix...when you locked something as a gunner you still had a lock on other position, but as a driver you weren't able to unmark it.
IF you don't want the driver to be able to mark/unmark targets or use sensors in any way there's https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/A3_Targeting_config_reference#canUseScanners
spare lagoon
thanks. will take a look - back in OFP ppl used to be in driver position, click constantly at the horizon to mark target and then switch to gunner to engage the marked target - usually beyond VD
chilly oar
@daring dock I'm sorry about quoting you (even with an also-public comment in the feedback tracker) in the overhaul thread and thereby taking things way too off-topic, bad idea on my part 😦
chilly oar
@daring dock I'm rather interested in how Tweaked: Manual lock now primarily locks laser targets works exactly? Also, is "marking" a target (white bracket box) the "Reveal target" keybind?
zealous estuary
@daring dock will there be a new tutorial mission or updated showcase which explains all the new sensor stuff? It seems like there are sufficient changes that some walk-through would be good for both existing and new players
meager jetty
will there be any scripting commands for retrieving an assets sensor target information? Would be really cool for custom radar scripts for modders and mission makers
daring dock
Marking is selecting a target to be tracked - mainly when talking about vehicle cueing system.
Locking is abstraction of weapon's own target acquisition - be it uncaging, slewing seeker, passing the data, ... just some abstracted delay to evaluate that weapon can guide itself towards the marked target.
There will be definitely script control over radar switching and the datalinkds
sour mango
^this is good though, you can track a target with radar, but a weapon (like an IR missile) won't lock until the target is in its sensor range - or so i understood this to imply.
Re: Neophron being put in the same category as the A-10 (specialising in ground attack), I find it strange, as the Yak-131 seems to be more in the L-159 Alca's category than the A-10.
zealous estuary
that's true, but I guess they are 'making room' for the strictly air to air Jets in the DLC
though I can already foresee some vocal complaints about that. Limiting the anti-air role of existing jets and then introducing a DLC with air superiority jets might be seen by some as taking away a core game capability and then charging users extra to get it back again :/
If you've ever spent 5 minutes on the Arma 3 Steam forum, you know we can expect that sort of whinging and conspiracy theory
sour mango
to me it also kinda looks like "atrificially" limiting CSAT to keep them even with NATO
which is distinctly boring
chilly oar
@daring dock Any particular reason that the Neophron seems to currently have <IR/radar/visual>TargetSize values of the Wipeout (all 1) instead of the Buzzard's (0.7-0.8) or somewhere in between, especially considering that its dimensions are much more like the Buzzard than the Wipeout? Any sort of script control over affecting these coefficients?
chilly oar
@sour mango As previously mentioned/explained, the lock stats remain separate from both the launching vehicle's and any onboard sensor's detect/track stats -- so "won't lock until the target is in its sensor range" isn't quite accurate unless the lock stats deliberately resemble those of the launching vehicle's own sensors.
@zealous estuary (but also SuicideKing): As for the Neophron as "in the same category as the A-10"... although we can agree re: the seeming greater resemblance to the L-159 ALCA/A-143 Buzzard in dimensions at least, hence my question to oukej, I vaguely recall the Neophron combining better flight performance than either the Buzzard or the Wipeout other than maybe turning (or is that a KOTH specific disparity?) with an air-to-ground loadout in between the Buzzard and Wipeout (albeit almost triple the Wipeout's rocket count)... but all three airframes still have only two SRAAMs.
Please believe me when I say that it's not like they have to make room for strictly air-to-air jets... until the Buzzard (AA) they never had any, and all that did was stick four MRAAMs alongside the two SRAAMs!
daring dock
flight perf. of vanilla CAS airplanes in undergoing small overhaul
as for RCS - Buzzard is tiny, Wipeout is huge but stealthy (lol...but yeah), Neophron is just the mid size.
It's mainly trying out some differences to dd advantages / disadvantages where there are some cues leading to them. Or maybe there are none. Will se.
sour mango
Loadout selection on dev branch! Thanks oukej :D
chilly oar
@daring dock Hence why it sounds like the Neophron "should" be in between, but thanks for explaining re: the flight tweaks. Should we imagine that the Buzzard (AA) will inherit flight performance 1:1 from the Buzzard (CAS) or are they going to be rolled into one Editor-visible class?
meager jetty
I tried to add loadout selection to the EA-6B and it works fine for the UI stuff, e.g. I see the (Wipeout) UI and can equip the Shrike there. But I don't know how to add the proxy weapon to the model, e.g. no proxy weapon shows up. Sample config is up at http://tetet.de/arma/arma3/Download/unsung/EA6B/
hybrid dagger
in 1.69
b:OBJECT ammoonpylon SCALAR,STRING
b:OBJECT animatebay ARRAY
b:OBJECT animatepylon ARRAY
b:OBJECT setammoonpylon ARRAY
b:OBJECT setpylonloadout ARRAY
b:OBJECT setpylonspriority ARRAY
u:getpylonmagazines OBJECT
b:OBJECT setvehicleradar SCALAR
b:OBJECT setvehiclereceiveremotetargets BOOL
b:OBJECT setvehiclereportownposition BOOL
b:OBJECT setvehiclereportremotetargets BOOL
u:vehiclereceiveremotetargets OBJECT
u:vehiclereportownposition OBJECT
u:vehiclereportremotetargets OBJECT
chilly oar
@@meager jetty Best bet might be to modelSelections the dynamic-loadout Wipeout and see what appears
median ruin
You don't have uns_pylonRack_AGM45_sensorsx2 defined as a magazine for uns_AGM45_Sensors_Launcher
chilly oar
@sour mango Now I'm rather interested in what/how "in-mission loadout editing" should look like if we now have in-Editor loadout editing via Attributes, much less how this can become part of Garage... 😄
meager jetty
thx, @median ruin , but the missiles still not show. I now use the dynamic loadout article on the wiki as reference, but even the macer don't show up
they do fire when airborne, though
so somehow I guess I miss the way to tie the missiles launcher to a specific proxy
median ruin
So you changed the cfgNonAIVehicles simulation type from maverickWeapon to pylonpod and stuff too (I didn't notice there was a new biki page already)?
meager jetty
yes, Chortles posted it on another discord: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Dynamic_Loadouts
median ruin
yeah, was reading it just now
I asked since the config stuff you linked before didn't include the cfgNonAIVehicles stuff
meager jetty
yep, let me upload the latest configs, one minute
median ruin
I assume the classname needs changing from ProxyXXX to ProxyPylonPodXXX too
meager jetty
configs updated in http://tetet.de/arma/arma3/Download/unsung/EA6B/, but afk for a while
zealous estuary
Loadout selection!! I miss a couple of days and this happens 😄 Has anyone posted a video showing the feature (for those of us who can't use the dev branch?)
zealous estuary
ah, so editor loadout selection for now then? Jumped to the conclusions and thought it was in-game. Still, this is a leap forward, excited 😃
chilly oar
@zealous estuary Crucially though there's support for someone to build an "in-game" GUI for loadout editing, what you see is just the one for doing it from 3DEN
zealous estuary
right, shows that it's possible
and from the present UI, I'd even suggest that this was done very quickly as a proof of concept
sour mango
Arguably mods had already done some of the work as a proof of concept...
zealous estuary
@sour mango for specific vehicles, yes
median ruin
The biki page says they plan to have functions for in-game loadout selection and at mission start/briefing eventually
zealous estuary
yeah, I read through the biki page too quickly and missed that detail
ok, very positive development, made my day. Just can't wait for it to trickle down into a released linux port in a years time 😛
median ruin
I imagine it'll be like the Arsenal function where you add the action to an object. Obviously it's be kind of bad to add that as default behaviour for all rearm trucks and boxes since it would affect mission balance
zealous estuary
yeah, needs to be configurable, but I'm sure they've thought of that
and I assume it will be restricted by availability of various armaments in-game, i.e. you don't get an infinite supply of anything
median ruin
I noticed they added the laser weapon to the Dynamic Wipeout yesterday, so now it can self-lase again like the original
chilly oar
The 'best' route IMO is for the 3DEN interface to support setting per ammo truck whether or not that specific truck allows the loadout selection GUI
median ruin
though seems like you drop practically every GBU-12 at once now, so LGB bombing runs are pretty lethal right now
chilly oar
yeah that's probably a bug
median ruin
Yeah, I figure it's just that the weapon has too short a reloadtime
since you can drop single bombs or pairs if you're super fast with the mouse
zealous estuary
right, though it was a small detail, I always felt you should have the option to configure what that ammo truck actually carried generally - i.e. small arms, vehicle ammo etc. The current situation where ammo trucks can re-arm anything is OK but a little too 'magical'
median ruin
Patch soon will have Vehicle-in-Vehicle transport on objects. So theoretically you could make your resupply truck simply by stashing the vehicle ammo, small arms ammo etc. crates in the back
dunno if it's in this RC, but works on Dev
using the scripting commands for ViV
zealous estuary
didn't think of using the new object-in-vehicle stuff in that way, yes, that would be a nice way of handling it
so many significant changes in the pipeline, going to be a good year
chilly oar
@zealous estuary Gotta admit some of these solutions sound a lot more elegant than what VBS3 did (hehehe)...
In the case of the ACAT ARH, creating new Editor-visible loadout 'variants' by dragging/dropping missiles/rockets into the vehicle inventory 😛
zealous estuary
I've never seen VBS loadout management in action
sour mango
so many significant changes in the pipeline, going to be a good year
Indeed!
chilly oar
@zealous estuary To the best of my knowledge this is all VBS3 has for loadout customization: https://manuals.bisimulations.com/vbs3/3-9/manuals/Content/Editor_Manual/arh_editor.htm#Customize_ARH
median ruin
Now the rugby's done; I can confirm that the object transport stuff does now seem to work on ViV-configured vehicles in the RC. So I guess it is likely to be included in 1.68 http://i.imgur.com/TQ35jwC.png
chilly oar
Just gotta get the crate to the vehicle huh?
chilly oar
so people still have to use some sort of scripted drag action to get the crate in proximity to the vehicle but once there a "load crate into vehicle" action can do the actual loading via setVehicleCargo?
median ruin
I can't script for shit but I'd imagine it'd be a case of creating some action trigger to the items you want to be able to transport, and using that to call a function that checks for the nearest vehicle within radius (maybe with a canVehicleCargo check) and then setVehicleCargo's it
chilly oar
cool... so the big shift is such objects being supported and not just (smaller) vehicles
median ruin
Yeah, seems to work the same way overall under the hood. I just don't think there's a native "load vehicle" action that pops up when your close, in the same way there is for vehicles so that action would need to be added to the object itself. And you can't drag objects in to the back in Eden either by the looks
chilly oar
it will be cool if BI make function -select to drop all bomb at the same time or one by one - sammael on the "all GBUs drop simultaneously" issue on the dynamic-loadout Wipeout
The bug has actually been caused by added salvo feature :) - oukej
Hmmmmmm...
chilly oar
Also, for anyone wondering: I'm pretty certain that the Wipeout's cockpit interior is actually using show-hide animations on the left 'MFD' for otherwise-static textures that were based on the default loadout that the Wipeout's had for over three years, hence why the weapons status displayed there does not reflect the Wipeout (Dynamic Loadout) default stores
sour mango
Re: loading objects
It's easy to script via add action or the newer hold action stuff.
In fact, some of our mission makers were already doing similar stuff with hold-action invoking attachTo
Of course the new function will be much better to use!
zealous estuary
Salvo drops have a secondary purpose, rapid weight-loss in the event that more speed or greater lift is required. It would be nice if that factored into the new damage model in some way, dumping munitions (and fuel?) giving you a greater chance of making a safe landing or reduced chance of a fiery explosion for a heavy landing
which reminds me that Harrier's famously couldn't VTOL land on ships with their full payload because they were too heavy, meaning unspent munitions would have to be dumped at sea before they landed - this was particularly an issue in warmer climates aka the Gulf because of lower lift performance from the engines in high temperatures and because during peacekeeping sorties it isn't unusual for aircraft to return without firing a shot.
The F35-B was supposed to eliminate this rather critical flaw, but last I heard there's increasingly doubt that it will achieve the billed engine performance so you'll still have to dump expensive ordinance in order to land on carriers
chilly oar
@zealous estuary I had thought it was an inability to take off vertically with a 'full' payload of max possible stores?
zealous estuary
worked both ways, but takeoffs with 'ski jump' ramps were possible with a full load, however with no cable on RN ships or tail hooks on Royal Navy Harriers, they could only land using VTOL or a rolling VTOL landing. No idea how the US Marines handled it with their Harriers
of course I'm relying on second hand info. Only Harrier pilots I ever spoke to were RAF, not Navy
OT fun fact, I still use an old titanium fan blade from a Harrier Pegasus engine as a paper weight which I was able to take home after 'helping' to service a GR7 as a cadet ( I'm pretty certain that the moment I left they redid all the work, not the sort of thing they'd really trust to a novice)
chilly oar
@zealous estuary I don't know about limiting VTOL depending on payload but at least the dynamic loadout system will allow limiting pylon compatibility by weight (magazine mass)
chilly oar
@daring dock Thanks for the heads up on the datalinks, I've posted my 'trip report' in the sensors thread...
P.S. Way to spring the scripting commands for datalinks (do the set commands grant those capabilities to vehicles even if they don't have them in their configs?) and active radar on us! 😄
spare lagoon
Something related to discuss:
- what else would you expect in minimap? (navigation, units)
- do you need something else for custom scripted display?
- something else you miss?```
https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/200468-jets-custom-info/?page=3#comment-3153306
zealous estuary
hmm, just the other day sometime was asking for the ability to use the hand compass while in vehicles, which got me thinking it might be nice if the radar etc showed the closest cardinal value e.g. NW, S, SE or maybe if more resolution is a good thing, NNW, ESE, alongside the bearing for those who haven't quite got exactly to grips with doing that conversion in their heads
e.g. NE 56
chilly oar
It may be temporary/dev branch only but for now "gun pods on pylons" is possible: https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/202173-dynamic-vehicle-loadouts-feedback/?do=findComment&comment=3153665
chilly oar
@zealous estuary @sour mango For what it's worth:
Kayler Renslow addressing Bohemia's Jakub 'BXBX' Horyna on the dynamic loadout system: Does this make the AA planes redundant then since you could set the loadout of a plane to be anti-air?
oukej's reply: In terms of loadout maybe but there will be differences in maneuverability, speed, durability and sensors (Radar...)
https://twitter.com/BXBX_BI/status/830093993488838657
sour mango
Yeah, that's what I thought, we were talking about this yesterday in community too haha
stiff crest
👀 at the occluders on the H-Barriers... at least tighten them up so it's not a blatant and easily used wall hack'ish type scenario. at a minimum it can look really terrible.
stiff crest
https://gyazo.com/78330fec56510ecbf01308722ef1e29d
for what it's worth, it only happens on one end of the barriers.
smoky wave
how you gonna word the fb tracker issue "Splendid sandbags need tighter stitching" ?
stiff crest
lmao i guess so..
sour mango
probably post that in #arma3_feedback_tracker ...
stiff crest
you say that, as if it will be noticed there. 😛
sour mango
spam the warden, it gets noticed 😃
chilly oar
@stiff crest @sour mango @zealous estuary Thanks to eriktrack (on forums, Erik Trak on YouTube) for this video take on what I previously discussed about datalinks (0:00-0:45), how sensors 'change the game' in both air-to-air (0:48-2:00) and in ground attack (4:10 onward) with a brief interlude in between (2:20-4:08) demonstrating how one's situational awareness can be influenced the combination of active/passive radar on both sides: https://youtu.be/ACYgPFB8G9Q
sour mango
i'm in half a mind to open a ticket regarding the raised HMG/GMG turrets being able to turn all the way around
it's really irritating when AI in a bunker have spun all the way around and shoot you
sour mango
another thing, you know how when you want to switch the VTOLs to vertical vectoring mode, it says "vectoring off" instead of "vectoring on"... 😄
chilly oar
Noticed the above too... seems counterintuitive
median ruin
Depends whether it's informing you of the current vectoring state, or describing what selecting the action will do
chilly oar
Which is something that annoys me about the action menu sometimes, the answer isn't always obvious
median ruin
indeed. It's always better when there are other visual indicators to go along with it
chilly oar
Hence why I tend to rely on the Vehicle Info indicator which explicitly represents "current state"
sour mango
well action menu is usually "what do you want to do"
a closed door shows "open door"
a vehicle with its engine off shows "engine on"
when flaps are up, it shows "flaps down"
so vectoring showing the current state seems like they inverted the strings by accident
chilly oar
There's an interesting dynamic to 'anti-air vs. air' under the current dev branch mechanics... without active radar you can't "Next target (in vehicle)" and you get no target lead indicator on the guns, but if you turn off active radar after having marked/selected a target, the TLI and the 'HUD overlay' brackets in the 3D world and the altitude ATL/distance-to-target/speed in the sensor display are immediately removed, but the name of target and brackets on the sensor display are maintained for a short period of time... so long as you don't unselect the target. Oh, and you can still mark/lock an air target with the Titan (AA) by pointing very close-to-directly-at-it (remember: narrow as hell missileLockCone) but without active radar having been turned on/the target being previously identified the sensor display just says "Helicopter" or "Plane"... and their symbol doesn't appear on the sensor display although the brackets do.
chilly oar
It's... interesting IMO
quartz swan
With arma, I always go back to "is it realistic"
chilly oar
Heh... the "is it realistic" part is interesting mainly because the current state of anti-air is seemingly limited compared to real-life hardware
quartz swan
Exactly
chilly oar
Then again from what I can tell the active radar seems to stand in for 'search/track radar' while fire control is represented by aides like the TLI
So the dynamic I seem to see right now is that mobile anti-air currently has to turn on active radar long enough to get a detected target symbol onto the sensor display, turn the turret accordingly before the symbol disappears, then elevate accordingly and either engage with any remaining Titan (AA)s or turn the active radar back on to get a TLI or 'go blind'/aim-by-guesstimate as people did before the TLI...? Whereas x3kj pointed out that a 2000 Polish upgrade of the ol' Shilka not only stuck four SAMs onto it but also a new digital optical targeting system, so I imagined "visual sensor?" That last part might allow a guns-based mobile anti-air to only have to enable the active radar between targets, using the visual sensor to keep a target track for the TLI...
glossy lantern
Wait, so you can be detected if you have the radar on, but if it's off, you are invisible?
median ruin
You're invisible to the passive radar sensor if the radar is off. You're not invisible to other forms of detection that are available as sensors
ancient timber
Its how EMCON works
hybrid dagger
class CfgBrains
{
class DefaultSoldierBrain
{
class Components
{
class AIBrainAimingErrorComponent
{
};
class AIBrainCountermeasuresComponent
{
minReactionTime = 0.1;
maxReactionTime = 3;
randomReactionTimePercent = 0.3;
CMOnTargettedProbability = 0.5;
};```(this is new)
chilly oar
... CMOnTargettedProbability? Wow, I'm guessing that that was added for Jets
sour mango
from monday's dev branch log
Tweaked: AI skill - General now influences the reaction time for using countermeasures
BTW
yesterday
Added: support for launchers with more fire modes
😮
stiff crest
it works beautifully 😉
chilly oar
What does?
stiff crest
Added: support for launchers with more fire modes
hybrid dagger
b:OBJECT confirmsensortarget ARRAY
b:OBJECT issensortargetconfirmed SIDE
b:SIDE reportremotetarget ARRAY
chilly oar
Oh 😉 Hatchet were such fire modes added to the vanilla launchers?
stiff crest
lol, i honestly have no idea. i do know however, that it works for some non-vanilla launchers. 😁
chilly oar
Which already had alternate fire modes? 😉
sour mango
"alternate fire modes" means stuff like top down fire or what?
ancient timber
I saw "skirt" 🤦
stiff crest
yeah about that ... this is ArmA so you know.. umm... we don't have those. expect on every 3rd Sunday, of the 2nd month, when we do firefights in drag.
ancient timber
Lol. I'll use the excuse of "I miss the A2 civs"
stiff crest
^^ that also works.
ancient timber
Lol
sour mango
i still don't get what fire modes in launchers is supposed to mean
is it like different rates of fire
or different trajectories
or both
chilly oar
Could mean anything right now
stiff crest
Jav/SMAW ... etc.. applies to a couple/few things.
chilly oar
And remember after all that at one point UGLs were/are (?) themselves a fire mode of ARs in the old cycle-weapon
stiff crest
so basically, that functionality no longer has to be a scripted solution. which is pro. that is all.
chilly oar
It's one less thing SQF is needed for, which is all the better in light of the DayZ team's not too long ago announcement/elaboration on their full deprecation of SQF internally
sour mango
so apparently tank1 exploding next to tank2 can kill the occupants of tank2 even though the tank itself doesn't sustain significant damage
xtr3m3 realism or bug?
quartz swan
I'm leaning to bug
sour mango
So looking at the video, i see PiP HUD camera is coming for the new jets
- will it be possible to turn the camera on/off without having to turn PiP off? For example, for use with ATGMs, but to conserve FPS when using Air to Air
- will it be possible to control the camera without having to go into targetting pod mode?
@ oukej
chilly oar
Are we sure that that isn't a PiP and thus diegetic view of the TGP feed?
sour mango
hmm? i'm assuming it is, hence both questions...
sour mango
@daring dock thoughts on the above? 😄
sour mango
man AI in vehicles have to stop being able to determine who shot that one bullet at them from 500m away
before someone says "in future everyone has fancy super accurate directional sensors" - even the FIA off road gunners have this capability 😄
zealous estuary
@sour mango "in the present everyone has ..." 😛
however I grant that that ability shouldn't extend to factions like the FIA, Gendarmerie or vehicles on which such tech isn't likely to be fitted
sour mango
oukej - thanks, will check the link out!
@zealous estuary I managed to coherently describe the problem to myself - which is good, because I can now coherently describe it to you haha - the issue is that it's not a vehicle feature, it's an AI feature. That is to say, it's not something simulated in Arma because of some tech on the vehicle, it's just how the AI behave.
Heck I'd assume AI vehicles would behave this way even with WW2 vehicles.
Given what is visible to players, Arma vehicles don't have directional detectors.
Thus, the AI shouldn't have it either.
It is also absurd that an APC actively starts reacting to someone firing a single 5.56mm round at it...
thorny raft
What about, a pie menu. Rather than the action menu we have in arma now?
zealous estuary
I personally find mousewheel faster and pie menus to be disorientating - scanning the options takes longer than a straight list. However I guess they could try offering both
chilly oar
In addition one issue with pie menus is how one adds custom entries to it, i.e. for custom scenarios/scripts, whereas in the scroll wheel action menu they're simply 'yet another 'entry therein
dense glade
Pie menus are part of games catching consolitis. It was invented to bridge the limitation of the console controllers to allow more functions/features. They are sub optimal for mice
sour mango
tried the radial menus in insurgency, didn't like them much
i think even ACE3 has a radial menu option, doesn't it?
sour mango
Tweaked: Passive sensors now do not allow marking by default
what does this mean exactly, with respect to vanilla (base game or DLC) planes?
Will there be a class of Anti-radiaiton missiles added as well?
chilly oar
@sour mango I had originally thought that this meant that IR/visual sensor-detected targets could not be "locked onto" for target lead indicator purposes unless you also had a missile that would otherwise be able to begin a lock but that didn't seem to bear out, i.e. the vehicle can still be identified by the IR/visual sensor (I guess due to recognition software)...
sour mango
Yeah, was wondering about those as well...(visual/IR)
chilly oar
There is definitely something interesting in the differentiation of IR/visual sensors versus active radar
i.e. imagine if the Wipeout has no TLI and has to go first-person-targeting-view to move the IR/visual sensor around for target detection/acquisition but in turn is invisible to passive radar (no accidentally toggling active radar on) so opposing Buzzards or Neophrons must use their own TGPs -- and presumably have elevation over the Wipeout or be barely lower if not perfectly level -- in order to detect it, or in the Buzzard's case enable active radar and give themselves away
sour mango
I dunno, man, last i touched ACE3 was somewhere in July
😄
i remember it being an option then, since i switched it to the list view
dense glade
ACE3 you either have the option to have the medic system on the limbs which often means the actual point is 6 feet under ground and a pain to find or you can use its wheel selector which is pretty finnicky with a mouse. The wheel option is the only usable one really but its not the default. Both have consolitis elements and don't work very well with the mouse since you end up looking into the sky or ground or places you don't want to just to use the menu
past vault
or you can hit H to use the menu
chilly oar
@sour mango Thought you might be interested in knowing that as of 20 March there's an allowsMarking sensor parameter (values of 0 or 1) which determines whether a target with this sensor can be marked, "having track visualized in 3D and with possibility to use the info for various aiming aids or weapon guidance. This has specifically been made for RWR simulation via passive radar, so the active radars pop up on Sensor Display but they can't be marked unless also tracked by another sensor (vehicle or weapon)." The passive radar sensor template having allowsMarking = 0; which means that no longer can an aircraft without appropriate weapons (read: anti-radiation missiles) target the active radar emitter solely via passive radar, forcing the Neophron/Wipeout to resort to the TGP (IR/visual sensor) to target the emitter (or a laser spot) while the Buzzard has (air-to-air-oriented) active radar as an option, an asymmetrical 'balance' to its lighter possible loadout, but only 4 km range versus targets against a ground background versus the AA vehicles' 8 km range vs. targets against a sky background...
TL;DR: The AA vs. aircraft 'balance' isn't as lopsidedly for aircraft as it may have seemed.
sour mango
@chilly oar that is very interesting, thanks :D
sour mango
the gunner of the CSAT VTOL can take control of the aircraft via action menu, is that known and intended?
chilly oar
Errr, which CSAT vehicle?
chilly oar
Gotcha 😉 speaking of which, hella excited by how dynamic loadouts has changed-the-game for CSAT and AAF in particular
sour mango
can't wait to try it out once it's on stable 😃
chilly oar
Or try it now... remember, at one point AAF had only a guns-and-rockets utility helo and the Buzzard for attack... now the rockets can be swapped on the former and word-of-dev is that the guns will eventually be too
sour mango
Or try it now...
disk space 😐
yeah, even the littlebird has suddenly become much more interesting
once it gets DAGRs and stuff (unless it already does), it'll be cool
light ATGM helo
chilly oar
That's a yes for now because the Hellcat, Orca, and Pawnee currently lack a maxWeight config property/value in their pylons, seemingly making them compatible with all B_BOMB_PYLON stores, although the Orca's starboard (right-side) pylon also has the I_ORCA_RIGHT_PYLON which the Gatling 6.5 mm (LMG_Minigun_heli) is only compatible with
chilly oar
CSAT's Kajman, Neophron, and Xi'an in contrast use the O_BOMB_PYLON hardpoint with the Kajman and Xi'an also using the O_MI_48_PYLON on all of their pylons; O_MI_48_PYLON is a hardpoint for the Skyfire pod (hardpoints[]={"O_MI_48_PYLON","O_BOMB_PYLON"};) and the Skalpel ATGM quad-pack (hardpoints[]={"B_RAH_66_PYLON","B_SCALPEL","O_MI_48_PYLON"};)
chilly oar
Really hoping all the missiles get 're-balanced' with sensors by the time of Jets hitting stable...
ancient timber
So, radar vs IR?
chilly oar
@ancient timber What of it? And yes, I'd like to be seeing more missiles getting sensors but also defined missile lock limits
ancient timber
More along the lines of chaff works vs radar and flares for IR. Previously this was not the case.
chilly oar
Ohh that would be interesting but right now I imagine that the lore explanation would claim the use of both in each discharge no matter how unrealistic/inauthentic to real-world procedure
ancient timber
Yeah, I figured that would be the easiest explanation too.
chilly oar
To say nothing of the fact that a gameplay issue would be to determine a keybind for switching between them and the presumably new requirement that CMFlareLauncher be supplemented with a new, separate CMChaffLauncher and corresponding magazine and that CM effectiveness (and AI employment stats) would have to be done up for them
zealous estuary
and you'd need a clear, umambigious indicator of what missile type was incoming
though, if we're talking gameplay over realism, it then becomes an accidental QTE where you have to hit the right button in response to the right symbol in less than 2 seconds
isn't it more likely that in 2035, countermeasures are deployed automatically?
chilly oar
Which seems to be the case for AI... 😛
past vault
why wouldn't you dual mode CM anyway
there's literally no reason to only use chaff or only flares unless you're 50+km away in which case you probably don't even detect a launch unless it's old semi
sour mango
presumably to not waste countermeasures
past vault
"not waste CM"
yeah and if you pick wrong CM you're dead and wasted all of your CM, your life, and your plane
zealous estuary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_countermeasure#Directional_IRCM << At least for modern helicopters this is the preferred CM instead of flares, never runs out
zealous estuary
well exactly, which is probably why aircraft in 2035 won't use flares/chaff at all
sour mango
inb4 they will
i mean i'm sure in the '70s they thought that everyone would have laser rifles in 2020
they being people like you and me...
safe zephyr
Radar-guided missiles don't care about IRCM
ancient timber
You dont have one yet @sour mango ? Even my shark has "frickin laserbeams".
sour mango
😄
zealous estuary
@safe zephyr That's why radar jammers also exist 😃
replacing chaff/flares with electronic countermeasures is not something way off in the future, it's a reality today
safe zephyr
Jammers function by creating a massive amount of radar noise
not a good idea to be blasting jammers in a peer-peer environment
limpid pulsar
well you can expect that missile like Python 5 (and beyond) with it's multispectrum optical seeker is hardened against simple 'blinding by laser'
past vault
blasting jammers is also a good way to attract modern missiles since you'll do the target painting for them
which is why jamming pod in F-35 is a towed decoy
and it hardly replaces chaff and flares because ECM supplements instead of replacing 'conventional' CM
limpid pulsar
ye something else will be hardkill defense systems, but those pointdefense pods are still too big for usual jet/copter ... bomber or heavy transport as first maybe
on other hand it might become new role of some the planes in wing, to be more defense oriented
safe zephyr
uav's with little missiles on them that shoot down big missiles
past vault
actually
@limpid pulsar does the CM in arma take into account the aspect of attack in missile to plane relation
zealous estuary
@limpid pulsar Well they aren't fooled so easily by flares either
limpid pulsar
CM in arma was always quite simplified, so i doubt it but there were some improvements for Jets
@zealous estuary afaik Python 5 and it's upgrades aren't fooled by anything publicly known yet
if it was , you can expect IAF to immediately run upgrade program to address that issue
past vault
i see
zealous estuary
yeah, interestingly it's the IAF that, IIRC, are not fitting traditional CM dispensers to their latest heli, preferring instead a fully electronic CM package
past vault
I guess we'll just have to wait for more Jets stuff
zealous estuary
can't remember where I read that :/
limpid pulsar
@zealous estuary well afaik IAF was the only airforce which tested (and more likely use) Trophy Light modification for heavy transport copters
because ... it's better to get hit by some shrapnels (after the hardkill defense did it's job) than ATGM or RPG warhead right 😉
past vault
conventional CM are probably not going to defend slow and heavy aircraft against more modern missiles anyway
since with increased computing power you can just default into calculated estimate path if you lose track
instead of just picking hottest
limpid pulsar
and that's why hardkill methods are needed too
past vault
and is also the reason hardkill is getting more popular now
need better defenses against better offenses
limpid pulsar
hardkill is nothing new ... it's just that the soft methods are easier to defeat
zealous estuary
@limpid pulsar which brings me to the CIWS on the Carrier ... will it target missiles? 😄
limpid pulsar
that's classified
zealous estuary
a CIWS that will target any projectile would be a fantastic addition. I remember the US army played with using a land based Phalanx to intercept mortar shells fired at their larger bases in Afghanisation or Iraq. Though I'm not sure whether it was successful.
@past vault no, the carrier isn't yet in the dev branch
limpid pulsar
@zealous estuary the tests were sucessful afaik same system is now tested in Israel too
zealous estuary
just a very bad day for anyone who happens to be standing at the point where those rounds fall to the ground
sour mango
one day I'll catch you off-guard and get some juicy info
😂
ancient timber
@zealous estuary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsVUISS8oHs they detonate before falling to the ground.
zealous estuary
thanks for the reminder, I'd forgotten that
chilly oar
@zealous estuary a CIWS that will target any projectile would be a fantastic addition. To the best of my knowledge this still requires 'bombs/missiles/rockets/shells are in-game objects-or-vehicles which can be detected/tracked/marked/targeted', whether by hacky workaround (i.e. an invisible target created/going wherever the projectile is) or engine-native
sour mango
#nolimitations2017
zealous estuary
@chilly oar well a missile defence system that doesn't actually defend against missiles would be pretty useless, so I have to believe that BI have a solution in place at least for the carrier
if there is a solution in place for missiles/rockets, then in theory it can be applied to shells too.
if shells become trackable, then that raises the possibility of counter-battery radar and other such interesting possibilities in-game
hmm, new sensors stuff raises the possibility of pure ELINT assets (vehicle or man-portable), tracking and mapping enemy radar positions for later attacks
sour mango
so I have to believe that BI have a solution in place at least for the carrier
while this is what i would like to believe too, going by the fact that they're calling the armaments AAA and SAM, to me it implies that they're anti-aircraft defences.
zealous estuary
hmm
sour mango
but yeah, if it could target missiles it would be really cool
although i wonder if they'll need to make the carrier itself targetable first (before the overall mechanic would make sense)
zealous estuary
I'd be disappointed if it doesn't, I was looking forward to recreating this scene - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY7v21Zy1yE
finite socket
Carrier landing and take off https://youtu.be/GEeufmrjXXI
mellow ruin
http://plays.tv/video/59037d338b0521b923/just-hold-still- Annoyed with my new players hijacking a training truck, I convince them to hold still for just long enough...
spare lagoon
how happy are you guys with the sensors and targeting update so far? anything major missing from your POV? how is the situation with AI? how about sqf cmds available to influence it? what in regards to configs?
chilly oar
Anyone you're asking in particular?
spare lagoon
mostly people active in recent weeks, but anyone can chip in of course
chilly oar
Personally I definitely was hoping for more expansion of Data Link tech, especially because I'm reading contradictory anecdotes about whether or not the AI recognizes it
Some of that is described here: https://forums.bistudio.com/forums/topic/203820-jets-dlc-official-feedback/?page=16 (EDIT: And here https://forums.bistudio.com/forums/topic/204374-aaat-titans-what-are-they-now/ )
As far as configs... would definitely have liked to see some of the new parameters/values be changeable in-mission via scripting (RCS and mass/flight dynamics are obvious candidates)
sour mango
Well i wrote some stuff here:
https://forums.bistudio.com/forums/topic/203820-jets-dlc-official-feedback/?do=findComment&comment=3183550
https://forums.bistudio.com/forums/topic/203820-jets-dlc-official-feedback/?do=findComment&comment=3183559
But i don't know how much has changed.
I don't like the CIWS engaging infantry for one (or even land vehicles for that matter), and last i checked UAV_AI wasn't using radars.
There was one command i was interested in seeing but it's been confirmed that it won't be there so...
(and HARM stuff, but devs have indicated they're aware of that)
oh yeah, and plane ATGMs not acquiring laser locks
The mine sensor thing was removed (thakfully) which i hope comes back as a feature of a separate mine detector class. I'd also rather that mine detectors make beeping noises than magic mine radar
makes minefields scarier
chilly oar
@sour mango From today's changelog:
Tweaked: Overall performance of the new IR and Radar missiles Fixed: Tank FCS did not compensate own vehicle movement reliably (https://forums.bistudio.com/forums/topic/202603-tanks-fire-control-system/?page=7#comment-3185331) Tweaked: VTOL flight models were adjusted Added: A new 'VTOL 4' flight model Fixed: AI gunners in gunships were not able to manually guide Scalpel missiles
sour mango
if only i knew what "performance" of missiles meant 😄
but good to see the VTOL stuff fixed
chilly oar
Could take a look tonight... emphasis on could
Also, re: the mine sensor: pettka: We are now focusing on the panels for vehicles, still, we would like to give even infantry panels some love after 1.70 is out. Our Top Men are already thinking about what to do next. https://forums.bistudio.com/forums/topic/143930-general-discussion-dev-branch/?do=findComment&comment=3186948
sour mango
thanks, posted things
sour mango
i was wondering, shouldn't Skyfires be pilot controlled and not gunner controlled?
chilly oar
You're hardly the first to believe that... I do too
thorny raft
Wait seriously? Cant you manual fire them from the pilot seat?
chilly oar
Manual fire = gunner-controlled by default...
thorny raft
Well yes, i understand that. But it is possible to manual fire it yes?
chilly oar
More the fact that it had to be to begin with...
thorny raft
Very true,
sour mango
well, luckily it's easy to change
this removeWeaponTurret ["rockets_Skyfire",[0]];
this addWeaponTurret ["rockets_Skyfire",[-1]];
this addMagazineTurret ["38Rnd_80mm_rockets",[-1]];```That it had to be done at all though...
dense glade
would you rather no solution? ¯_(ツ)_/¯
sour mango
^that's not the point
thorny raft
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
chilly oar
Posted a bunch of stuff over in #dev_rc_branch re: some vanilla helicopters/missiles
sour mango
@chilly oar fun fact, 1C doesn't kill ground infantry, although fixates upon them. still engages parachutes though 😦
chilly oar
groan
sour mango
but hey, at least it's not a tower defence turret now 😛
didn't test with ground vehicles
sour mango
@daring dock just some feedback on the countermeasures - vehicle smoke seems to behave like a flare now, the missiles seem to be guarenteed to go off course (rather than just continue straight or with slight deflection). Was firing Scalpels at tanks, they seemed to deploy smoke pretty soon too. Only case a tank didn't do that was when it was facing away, but may have been empty, i don't know. Smoke still doesn't defeat a lock, though, so it's kinda weird.
I'd assume that a smokescreen makes aquiring a heat signature (and thus lock) very hard to impossible, but I wouldn't expect it to throw the missile of course by much because it isn't a decoy heat signature.
still doesn't defeat a lock
it'll break the lock but it can be re-acquired through the smoke
Solid work overall, though! 🍻
daring dock
can confirm that, we're tracking the issue with the lock reacquisition through smoke
🙇
sour mango
more 🍺 for you, sir!
sour mango
hmm
another issue worth considering
the GPS is on the left by default, now
sensors on the right
might be worth switching the panels around, as it's probably triggering most of our OCDs 😄
bitter oak
☝
proven lagoon
Anyone can confirm that environment sounds are lounder now. I almost didnt hear anything besides chirping birds and the howling wind on altis while playing yesterday (didnt change any settings on my side)
spare lagoon
its mentioned in the changelog i think
proven lagoon
Added: Environment sounds update to Altis and Stratis. @spare lagoon question always is what update means xD
spare lagoon
@proven lagoon you can learn by comparing the configs between 1.68 and 1.70 (or easier the AIO of both these)
sour mango
@daring dock AI vehicles know when they're being lased and locked, and deploy smoke the moment you lock the lase...
sour mango
not sure if tanks DLC goal but would be great to let tracked vehicles move faster
they're way too slow
especially up hill
where hill could be a tiny gradient
sand canopy
hey could some one help me out with vtols
how exantly do they work after the jet dlc or are they glitched atm
chilly oar
@sand canopy Flight-wise if you turn auto-vectoring off you can manually adjust the tiltrotor angle with the flaps keys.
sand canopy
got it so is auto vector now the auto hovor for vtols and its best to manuel do it@chilly oar
sour mango
no, autovector doesn't work like autohover does for helis, but the thrusters are controlled automatically. The way it works has changed from before, and is not very good imo.
sour mango
i don't know if jet hitpoints have been tweaked further, but with the neophron, you can lose control despite all hit point lables being "white"
not sure if intended, as it seemed to be pretty severe given the apparent lack of sufficient damage
zealous estuary
hitpoints don't include avionics damage?
I mean, the indicators don't include it, but the actual hitpoints exist. Unless it's folded in with the control surfaces indicator ...
sour mango
@zealous estuary yes i assumed it was control surfaces
since that would be logical...
zealous estuary
then it's also a question of what yellow/red indicates, i.e. if it's the average damage to all control hitpoints, well there are 6-7 of those, 90% damage to just one would only ~15% overall for that category
not really familiar with how vehicle damage is calculated for the indicators
sour mango
hmm that's a good point
i just assumed it was one abstracted box that was a general "control surface" indicator, and when it got damaged behond a point you'd lose some control.
zealous estuary
I would hope that it's smarter than just using a percentage of the overall category damage, for example checking whether any single hitpoint in each group exceeds a particular threshold, but I really don't know how it works and I'm merely suggesting that if it did work like that, it would explain why you had control issues even with a white indicator
HitAvionics
HitLAileron
HitRAileron
HitLCRudder
HitRRudder
HitLCElevator
HitRElevator
are the related hit points
making the CTRL indicator the biggest group overall, as others all map to just one or two hitpoints
HitHull
HitEngine
HitEngine2
HitFuel
HitFuel2
abstract prawn
yeah, on a PvP server infantry shouldn't be able to use third person because of the ability to abuse it. on PvE I couldn't care less.
zealous estuary
bothers me a little on PvE because of those who go running around like rambo, racking up kills by using their all seeing powers to avoid death and leaving little for those who are playing the game seriously. To me, and this is strictly a personal opinion, it's akin to wall hacking and while they might only be killing AI, that doesn't mean that it doesn't spoil the game for other people.
as Whale said in the other channel however, this topic has been discussed to death. Nothing is likely to change, no matter how much people try.
sour mango
i don't see what the fuss is about, i like using 3rd person when i'm messing around in the editor. it's perfectly fine if people want to use it. It can be turned off if the server admins/community doesn't want it. I can't see how it spoils anyone else's gameplay. why are you playing on servers where 3rd person is enabled? Why are you using it in single player? If you're not doing either, why does it bother you?
And it's not an "exploit" if it's intentionally accessible to all. I'm getting mildly bored with the whole 1st person elitism. If anything Arma gains from the sales to people who like 3rd person.
My teammate throws a grenade over a tall wall and blows up an entire compound of AI that were supposed to surprise us. Why? Because he peeked over it with his lil' personal UAV.
Turn it off on the server, we never have this problem in our sessions
zealous estuary
don't bring elitism into it, it has nothing to do with it, it's just the latest go-to for pigeonholing anyone who disagrees with you as some sort of arsehole who thinks they are better than everyone else so their opinion doesn't matter.
at least for me, there are a very limited number of linux/mac port compatible public servers, and while we do try to keep them 1st person you end up with a subsection of the community who spend the whole time lobbying for 3rd person to be enabled until the admin gives in just to shut them up.
hardly anyone talks of removing 3pp from the game, we just want it to be disabled by default which would at least mean more 1pp only servers would be out there
sour mango
it has nothing to do with it
while maybe not in your case, it definitely seems to be a sentiment that's present to some extent
And yeah, i didn't want to bring it up, but it's based on observing the discourse here over the past year or so
hardly anyone talks of removing 3pp from the game
a few lines above your post...but I don't think it should be in the game
we just want it to be disabled by default
people will still lobby for it to be turned on, so i'm not sure how this makes a difference.
And the question then is, will you lose the players that complain at present by both courses of action?
If yes, do you care?
zealous estuary
well arguably people get used to using it because it's available, and if you're on a server which allows it then you're at a serious disadvantage if you don't use it. If it was off by default there would at least be more choice for those who want to play without it.
playing 1PP when 3PP is available is like playing with one hand tied behind your back. Eventually it's understandable that people only play with 3PP because that's what they are used to, they can't fly/drive etc as well without it enabled because they haven't had the same amount of practice.
While 3PP is popular within the Arma community, you don't see large numbers of people lobbying for other FPS games to add a 3PP view, which to me suggests that it's not that people prefer 3PP in general but that it's just a matter of what they've become accustomed to.
which is kinda getting away from my core argument, more of an observation and analysis of why 3PP is as popular as it seems to be
sour mango
you don't see large numbers of people lobbying for other FPS games to add a 3PP view
well i mean you won't see people lobbying for arma features in other FPS games in general, so not sure that's a good correlation to make
of course Arma already has 3rd person so the debate exists at all
zealous estuary
I'm not sure I'd class 3PP along with other arma features. It's about as far removed from the rest of what arma tries to be as it's possible to get i.e. an authentic/realistic military sandbox.
sour mango
well, can we ban Arma Life then?
zealous estuary
don't be silly, that's a mod
sour mango
heck i'd bet the military would gladly take a magic 3rd person view for its soldiers 😄
zealous estuary
what mods do has nothing to do with core gameplay decisions, if mod authors want to enable certain less realistic features like 3PP then that should be entirely up to them
sour mango
but yeah, i mean i'm not going to pretend that 3pp has anthing to do with the "authentic military" part
but then again
- Other features in arma sometimes violate that rule
- it doesn't violate the sandbox part
- it's a game in the end
That said, i don't know if "off by default" on servers would help anything, but i guess i can't argue against it, per se
Heck, we once had a guest who said it was disorienting to play in first person. don't know if he turned up for a second session.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
zealous estuary
not just off by default on servers, but in the single player too - with the option in the settings to enable it of course. That IMHO would just mean players, especially newcomers wouldn't become so dependent on it
maybe it wouldn't work, but what harm would come from trying it?
sour mango
¯_(ツ)_/¯
could do, i suppose.
That said, if the new 3rd person camera is causing issues for people, it's worth looking at regardless of whether the default is left on or off
zealous estuary
it's Bohemia's game though, so ultimately up to the devs to decide what they want
sour mango
yup
dense glade
I think the game ought to default to FPP but its not hard to set it up if that is the game style you want. Some people play altis life and some play milsim, Arma caters for a lot of different folks and so long as we aren't forced into someone elses game style I am fine with it existing.
rich pecan
chilly oar
Wrong channel for requesting that
ancient timber
chilly oar
Assuming that today's dev branch changes to the carrier static defenses and anti-air vehicles make their way into v1.72 I can see the air-to-ground/surface-to-air game changing a noticeable bit
chilly oar
TL;DR: they can transmit/receive sensor contacts to/from one another and/or VTOLs, and even receive from UAVs, meaning that AI-operated carrier static defenses and anti-air vehicles can be aware of/react to said contacts, while the Praetorian/Centurion/anti-air vehicles' radars -- and the Centurion's missiles -- now outrange all air-to-ground missiles, (possibly?) the laser spot trackers on aircraft, and even the Buzzard's radar...
zealous estuary
Makes for a much more interesting gameplay, with recon providing an even more meaningful role. The idea of using a small number of radar equipped drones launched from the carrier in lieu of AWACS to extend the range of defences/sphere of influence is exciting as it means that attacking the carrier requires you pick off those assets at the perimeter first.
it's everything I asked for, but didn't actually expect to get 😃
chilly oar
Closing out the weekend real quiet w/ no such major changes for this Friday
zealous estuary
so, has anyone truck mounted any of the AA weapons yet? 😃
normal trout
Yeah, they're a bit big for the HEMTT unfortunately :/
zealous estuary
ah, hmm 😦
chilly oar
@zealous estuary Relevant, though credit goes to a Redditor: https://i.imgur.com/wk2GY7L.jpg ( https://www.reddit.com/r/arma/comments/68yilq/is_arma_missing_sams/dh2u3im/ )
chilly oar
Also, @zealous estuary, speaking of the AA weapons, I believe you've seen me mentioning their changes in dev branch? It would appear that the current hard counter in vanilla is UAVs...
zealous estuary
heh, that image does put their size into context
chilly oar
@zealous estuary @sour mango In theory a quadrotor can lase a ground-based radar or a launcher while a Sentinel performs the actual SEAD mission with GBU-12s.
At first glance it appears that the current counter is UAVs with laser-guided weapons, particularly the UCAV Sentinel with GBU-12s
sour mango
@GBee#5680 I had actually tried that while jets was still on dev branch :D
@chilly oar That's a very specific way of doing it...
chilly oar
@sour mango ?
alpine radish
whats best way to get someone to help here please
chilly oar
with what
sour mango
as in, it's not ideal
chilly oar
I mean tried what?
zealous estuary
I assumed he meant truck mounting the weapon systems
sour mango
^
The 1C just about fits on the open top hemmt
Or hemtt
Whatever
Should fit on top of the ammo or repair ones
zealous estuary
though it starts to look a bit silly balanced on top so high above the centre of gravity 😃
chilly oar
Can't one 'sink' the base thereof it a little into the truck bed? I've seen what a real-life C-RAM looks like in contrast
zealous estuary
suppose so ...
zealous estuary
are there any range limitations to Datalink ?
chilly oar
@zealous estuary The datalink sensor has the same 16 km range as the radar warning receiver, but I haven't messed around with what that means in practice
zealous estuary
interesting, then that raises the question of whether you can bridge gaps in the datalink with a third datalink vehicle in between the first two.
or is it purely a hub model, where a datalink sensor can only receive primary data from vehicles within range and not secondhand data relayed from other vehicles?
chilly oar
The BIKI text on datalink makes it sound like a hub model without daisy-chaining but I haven't tested it yet
zealous estuary
speed uphill is limited by physics, weight and engine power. The M1A2, which is powered by a jet engine no less has a top speed of just 40mph on level ground (and presumably a paved surface)
uphill that slows to a crawl - 17mph on a 10% grade, 4mph on a 60% grade - http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/M1.html
sour mango
road speed 67 kmph
not in arma
for the merkava
55 km/h (34 mph) off road```T-90 is similar and leopard 2 is slightly faster, 72 kmph on road
and the problem in arma is even a tiny little bump in the terrain makes it lose speed
sour mango
I just wish to note that for all the complaints about radar missiles being defeated by flares, it seems vanilla arma vehicles launch chaff and flares together
chilly oar
The above is true, that's why they're called countermeasures by Bohemia and not flares -- although I should add that it's possible to separate the two in a mod
zealous estuary
heh, messing with artillery in the editor, for every salvo of N rounds, only N-1 arrive
sour mango
so is it really impossible to render a bit of terrain-blended grass around units standing outside of the client's grass-render radius?
Like, you already know which units are supposed to sink into the ground
why not just do the blending stuff
surreal vigil
That would make spotting units too easy - just look out for a patch of oddly placed grass in the distance
zealous estuary
I mean we've all seen the issue, but the video at the very end of the thread encapsulates the entire problem
I really liked the alpha suggestion, it's a shame it went nowhere
though as others have said, better still if they could just come up with a way to render grass at greater distances without the performance hit
or, at least render grass at range when viewed through the narrow FOV of a scope or binoculars would be a start
it's sad that most PvP servers just disable grass as a result of this
sour mango
vehicle horns need to be more audible inside the vehicle
sound inside vehicles needs a revision in general
getting into exposed gun turrets attenuates sound too for some reason...
chilly oar
Does anyone here remember if the fatigue system gave a clear upside to light loadouts?
ancient timber
Other than taking longer to fatigue? No.
chilly oar
That might still be a distinct advantage considering what else there as to be affected besides sprint duration.
ancient timber
True. I always preferred a slower pace and took my time to reconnoiter
chilly oar
Uh huh -- and in turn vehicles conferred a (further) advantage in that those who had vehicles that could go more places could in turn go more places not only faster in theory but as crucially rested
ancient timber
I prefer to go places on foot rather than use vehicles. A lot of situational awareness is lost inside vehicles.
chilly oar
I guess then trading SA (w/ speed affected by rest breaks) vs. speed (affected by recon)/no fatigue?
ancient timber
IMO, a well composed scenario requires a great deal of observation on the part of the player. Ground/Air transport may be necessary to transit to the AO, but not necessarily required nor recommended when in the AO. Too many people don't understand that. Taking a lightly armed vehicle directly into hostile territory before even sizing up the enemy is piss poor planning.
Recon -> Strategic planning (in terms of the entire mission) -> Tactical planning -> repeat. Like with medicine, its an ongoing assessment.
chilly oar
Hence how I'm trying to think of the above trade-off
ancient timber
One tactic that few employ is an "ammo carrier". If youre going to take a vehicle (prefereably a small one), load it up with essentials like medical supplies, grenades and any other heavy gear that you dont "need" to carry. Much like how we employed MHQs back in A1.
chilly oar
Admittedly I'm unfamiliar with MHQ use in A1 but that makes sense and indeed that thinking was involved in the ULCV/GMV proposals/thinking, hence my recent... disappointment (I haven't been that subtle about this) with the LSVs emphasizing "strike" over "light" to the point that arguably the M2-less Offroad and MB 4WD do the latter better
ancient timber
I think RHS's MRZR 4 ATV fills that gap nicely. Personally, I find the M2 of little use on a moving vehicle.
zealous estuary
isn't the point of it just to be an easily manoeuvrable HMG? It's not meant to be fired while moving, but something you move into a firing position then use
ancient timber
Yes, but unfortunately many think "I have a big gun, now we can roll 'all guns blazing' into an enemy force"
chilly oar
Which is why one officer involved with the ULCV/GMV program was throwing around 'I'm thinking of just leaving the thing unarmed entirely elsewise someone might get the wrong idea about what they can do with it'
ancient timber
a wise man indeed
sour mango
I find the M2 of little use on a moving vehicle.
Try giving it to the AI 😛
problems with the new current stamina system are:
- You can jog forever as long as you're under the weight limit
- Everything is solely determined by weight and is linearly proportional
- If you're carrying full weight (easy with MMGs or launchers) then you're instantly out of stamina and walk very slowly
- uphills and downhills are treated the same with regards to stamina drain
- Combat pace doesn't affect stamina or aim stability anymore
- gun raised vs gun lowered doesn't affect stamina or aim stability anymore
zealous estuary
new stamina system?
zealous estuary
right, just clarifying that they hadn't completely changed the system sometime in the last few weeks 😉
sour mango
haha yeah, my mistake 😅
chilly oar
@ancient timber a wise man indeed Admittedly that's what I had thought was going on with regards to Apex's LSVs, but it feels like Bohemia seemingly emphasized the "strike" over the "light" by making them come in at ~3.4 and ~3.9 tons even without mounted guns, thereby making them too heavy for the Hellcat and the Orca despite having only four to six seats plus the gunner's ring -- for perspective, the MB 4WD can carry three FFV passengers and the Offroad four -- whereas the ULCV/GMV requirement was for a full squad of nine including the driver and a max curb weight of ~2.041 metric tons. I definitely thought of the fatigue/stamina systems in the context of those requirements...
zealous estuary
It's hard to see where all that weight comes from. The Dagor (off which the Prowler is based) has a curb weight of 2.041 MT, a max weight including all passengers and cargo of 3.5 MT
the LSV Mk 2 which is the basis for the Qilin has a curb weight of 1.8 MT and a payload capacity of of 1 MT, giving a max weight of 2.8 MT ...
so clearly the BI figures are high
chilly oar
Hence speculation that the in-game mass is artificially high because that was needed to achieve a certain driving performance within the game engine
spare lagoon
@daring dock is there a way to make a weapon/magazine/ammo not used against infantry these days? in the past irLock=1 was a way but no longer works it seems. nor does high cost in cfgAmmo. aiAmmoUsageFlags doesnt help either 😦
daring dock
spare lagoon
@daring dock we have set it to 0 too but tanks still use sabot vs infantry. also from your own words:
"Along with adding a new parameter, we took the opportunity to clean up some older ones. allowAgainstInfantry will still be read, but internally the engine converts it to the corresponding new flag. The airLock param will not be used for AI decisions anymore, but it still is used to define whether the player has the ability to lock the ammo onto a given type of target (ground or air)."
https://dev.arma3.com/post/sitrep-00110
irLock = 0;
allowAgainstInfantry = 1;
aiAmmoUsageFlags = "64 + 128";
class LIB_Shell_base: ShellBase
irLock = 1;
allowAgainstInfantry = 0;
aiAmmoUsageFlags = "128 + 512";
class LIB_ShellAPCR_base: ShellBase
irLock = 1;
allowAgainstInfantry = 0;
aiAmmoUsageFlags = "128 + 512";```strange... does the position have any other weapon?
spare lagoon
position?
median ruin
turret id I guess
sour mango
Serious suggestion for Tac ops - Decent radio cosplay pls
I wish BI could contract TFAR devs or absorb TFAR as is but that's of course up to BI and said devs...
I can only wish
sour mango
In my mind it requires these main things:
2. at least 2D radio models to turn buttons and stuff (again like ACRE2/TFAR). Buttons for radio volume, changing channels;
3a. [negotiable] use of existing radio inventory slot, and option to carry mutliple radios (at least 2). in this case radios should be items that can be carried in inventory. OR (3b)
3b. [optionally] use inventory like TFAR/ACRE2;
4. Bettter dedicated Direct VON with an independent controlable in-game volume slider (like ACRE2 and i think TFAR as well?);
5. Short range, long range, vehicle radios + vehicle intercom. Might be interesting with Tanks DLC and vehicle interiors, where vehicle radios and intercom can be integrated into vehicle and accessible via interiors. Latter is stretch goal though :P
6. Range and destruction/interference don't have to be simulated like ACRE2. Could just be a set limit for each type (like sensor range), with some fade off buffer where there's some static linear destruction of the signal (independent of terrain etc).;
7. keybinds could be a limited set of ACRE2 keybinds.;
8. should be able to assign different radios to different ears, again like ACRE2 (TFAR?);
9. People should be able to hear someone talking on a radio over direct VON;
10. Radio loudspeakers are optional;
Don't think i forgot anything 🤔
I did!
11b. Some sort of integration with the slot screen and lobby (i.e. everyone can hear each other on slot screen, admin has mute ability, auto assignment of channels post briefing or depending on side). Should be able to handle spectators. And to be honest, should be able to mute teamspeak. i think this is the trickiest part of this whole thing.
12. The ability to disable the whole system such that people who want to use ACRE2/TFAR/etc can continue to do so.```F3 radio systems support: http://ferstaberinde.com/f3/en//index.php?title=Radio_Systems_Support
F3 github: https://github.com/ferstaberinde/F3
TMF ACRE2 integration: http://teamonetactical.com/wiki/doku.php?id=tmf:acre2
TMF github: https://github.com/tmf3/tmf
chilly oar
I wish BI could contract TFAR devs or absorb TFAR as is but that's of course up to BI and said devs... The dirty little secret of all "this mod should be vanilla" talk, unless you want the devs to be accused of ripping off someone in the community (oh I remember this)... Jets happened because John_Spartan and Saul and the rest of Bravo Zero One were able to come to an agreement with Bohemia...
pallid river
hello
chilly oar
@pallid river Hello?
thick abyss
Hey all, I'm looking for a workshop map, it had a feature that showed you where your shot landed on the pop-up targets, and if you went up to it and fired with your gun inside the target it showed the velocity of the bullet
I saw it recently and now I want to mess around on it but for the life of me can't remember where I saw it or what it was called
fair lake
@chilly oar Something like TFAR or ACRE has not been built into vanilla Arma not because the devs don't know how or haven't figured out some secret. It depends on another software that isn't theirs (Teamspeak). They also know how to create an ingame VOIP already, it is in the game. They just choose not to expand on it for whatever reason. Maybe if we cause enough commotion it will be an Arma 4 feature? haha
sour mango
We've been causing commotion for a very long time now 😛
The teamspeak dependency is kinda irrelevant - since TS only offers the medium afaik
The actual radio simulation happens via mod
And they could implement that if they wanted to
I'm assuming the problem is more of creating a lobby etc, and then making spectator work with it, etc
But yeah, Arma 4 if we're lucky
chilly oar
@fair lake @sour mango I half-wonder if it's because they couldn't find a DLC to tie it into 😛 seeing as after Karts and Zeus (free) and Malden (ditto), Apex and Tac-Ops are the only ones not built around a specific 'aspect of warfare' theme which would seem to exclude radio comms simulation... though I suppose we'll have to wait for Arma 4 and maybe then the pressure of "something is always higher priority" (i.e. actually shipping the game by a chronological deadline) won't be so superseding as it was with A3
sour mango
Tac ops sounded perfect...apart from the single player only focus 😛
chilly oar
Ehhhhh, it was from the start always announced as just that though?
sour mango
oh yeah
i just meant the name
"tactical operations"
what's more tacticool than radios? 😛
chilly oar
lol well Bohemia delivered what they advertised... 😉
Hardly their fault that they didn't deliver on what they didn't advertise 😄 /not-quite-facetiousness
zealous estuary
It would have been nice if BI had met the TFAR/ACRE devs halfway and provided the hooks to allow the built-in VON to be used
thorny raft
If you ask me. Hey skip coffee for one morning (very dangerous, nevermind forget that). Say you were going to buy Sally a coffee one day. Then you're like "but ughhh....tac ops just released today and it looks prettty kewl". Then bam you have (3?) new sp missions with studio level work.
Sally can go buy her own damn coffee.
chilly oar
It would have been nice if BI had met the TFAR/ACRE devs halfway and provided the hooks to allow the built-in VON to be used How far back would this have been? Because if you remember the infamous quote from pettka about ACRE...
thorny raft
@chilly oar refresh? What did pettka say about ACRE?
chilly oar
@thorny raft Found it: https://forums.bistudio.com/forums/topic/149830-discussion-on-axed-features/?do=findComment&comment=2379988
pettka: That means we won't take current favourite modifications (I hear the screams of ACE and ACRE a lot) and implement them to core gameplay. Let the players, who like those splendid mods, use them and give credits to their developers, who rightfully deserve that. We simply don't want to take credits for work of others :icon_twisted:
gossamersolid: I see what you're trying to say, but what basically ends up happening is that BIS seems to just simply say "Oh you want X feature? Well we'll just let mods fix it". DayZ has an advanced radio system. You guys work for the same company, share the code? People can always still use ACRE if they want.
pettka: You got it a bit wrong - Arma 3 is a sandbox platform. We provide the core and features we are able to finish in certain quality. I believe that our improved radio protocol is more than enough for most of players, why would we even bother to spend our resources on something if we could just say "Hey, use ACRE for that"? If the community is able to provide anything better, we would like to promote the content and make it as accessible as possible within our resources (missions on Steam Workshop anyone?) :icon_twisted:
For perspective this was in mid-July 2013 once it had become clear that Arma 3 was not going to be "Arma 2 but better" by launch, hence people's complaints about medical and 'why is stuff from A2 missing' and the nature of some of Dwarden's responses (https://forums.bistudio.com/forums/topic/149830-discussion-on-axed-features/?do=findComment&comment=2380046)... trying to give that perspective/context seeing what did make it in eventually 😉
thorny raft
@chilly oar Yeah this is more than fair. Even before reading this, that was my perspective with arma
They give you the base sandbox, and you build the sand castle
Others might like your sandcastle and build around it
chilly oar
And in short the argument then became how much of "the sand castle" should have been in the sandbox/Bohemia's sand castle already assembled because it was in their prior sand castle (A2)
Although of course a bunch of it was added in to Bohemia's sand castle after all, but years down the line
chilly oar
And then there may be the possibility that at any given point Bohemia leadership may have simply decided that even after the pressure of release (be it game launch or a particular DLC) was off, it simply was too late to make such a big change (at least when not tied to a DLC), that the engine just couldn't pull a native implementation to a certain quality level*, or they may have just legitimately disgreed with the idea of ACRE2/TFAR as vanilla.
- Re: "a certain quality level": by this I mean 'can we get things done close-to-authentic yet clear to those without training -- or at least easily intuitable -- what's going on when things don't work as it's believed that they should?'
And regarding "close to authentic yet clear to those without training -- or at least easily intuitable -- what's going on", just look at the DLC strategy rationale compared to A2's Lite DLCs...
@thorny raft And of course, when it came to "you guys work for the same company, share the code?" this exchange was before DayZ was even publicly playable, much less went off in a very different direction, even if there was tech exchange years later.
thorny raft
@chilly oar Yep,sums it up correctly.
chilly oar
Same go for the rest of what I said here?
thorny raft
Indeed.
zealous estuary
yeah, personally I never had a problem with Arma being a sandbox and I freely acknowledge not all content can come from BI themselves. However there are certain core features for which you don't want to install and maintain two dozens different (and sometimes clashing) mods to get. What disappoints me most about ACRE/TFAR though is that they require a separate, standalone VON system when there is already one in the game and it would have been nice if, in the spirit of Arma being a Sandbox, they had exposed in a way that modders could play with it.
chilly oar
In hindsight that may be an "it would have to be Enfusion", even if that team and DayZ's may still be mulling over the question of just how much to expose (supposedly more than RV4)
zealous estuary
The idea of incorporating modders ideas and work did happen anyway - Weapon resting, sling loading and firing from vehicles were in mods before both were added in DLCs and with Jets they actually hired the modders to port their assets.
granted, these came later, after that 2013 discussion when they may have had a small change of heart.
chilly oar
@zealous estuary Those were new assets, however much the modelers/texturers may have chosen to reuse... and emphasis on ideas
But it seems to me that pettka was addressing features and not just content
zealous estuary
@chilly oar umm, resting, sling loading, firing from vehicles were features not content
little kestrel
Does anybody here use FFV effectively? I'm legitimately curious.
zealous estuary
While moving, just for suppression
which is pretty much all it's good for in real life too
but while the vehicle is stationary/hovering it has advantages over getting out of the vehicle - increased protection (crew spots in armour) or greater elevation, plus the ability to move rapidly in and out of the area of engagement
@chilly oar As for Jets, Freedom was in development before B2 were signed up, and I highly doubt 100% of the other content was from scratch. Just because it hadn't been released, doesn't mean it was entirely new either. My point wasn't really about the content though, like you said I'm sure Pettka was talking about features and yet those first two major DLCs did end up taking ideas/features which had already been implemented by the community and integrated them into the core engine.
sour mango
wasn't some stuff "donated", though?
zealous estuary
I know they worked with Dslyecxi on the weapon resting. The thing is that at release Petkka was effectively saying that they wouldn't implement anything in the game which the community was already providing, then the following year they had a change of heart. The fact that they may have worked with the community to do it is great, but the takeaway is that they did change their minds and they did do it. Therefore the door is no longer firmly shut on other such community provided features making their way in.**
** Well, if they hadn't already said that post Tanks, all development will likely cease. Maybe they'll be willing to consider some changes along with the community DLC stuff, but that's doubtful, sadly.
chilly oar
Ehhhh, but then consider that them pulling people out of A3 is why the community DLC is a thing
"You don't like all your mods being broken by us changing things? Fine, you're no longer getting (big) changes at all" - essentially said more than once in describing how the third-party DLC pitch program would work
chilly oar
An interesting point on the BIF forums regarding TI: counter-TI has already been here in our timeline, and in addition to the Apex special purpose suits for CTRG & Viper apparently Laws of War added tarps that do the same? https://forums.bistudio.com/forums/topic/143930-general-discussion-dev-branch/?do=findComment&comment=3252614
zealous estuary
yes, I remember seeing something about that when going through the assets.
Moreover, I wonder if the 'thermal blankets' block IR, as they should
crisp valley
Thermal cameras are basically op because they don't suffer from any of the irl draw backs. So they're just magic. I usually disable them all together.
chilly oar
@crisp valley One thing to hope for in A4 modding would be greater configurability thereof in mods -- even if vanilla is '2045' and its thermal is just as OP, allow modders to create earlier TI with authentic drawbacks for their own projects.
zealous estuary
having briefly played with a FLIR video camera (high end, non-military), I have to say that it seems fairly reasonably implemented to me, if anything, things like resolution are lower than the real life gear
median ruin
there's way too much contrast in Arma's thermal imaging
between heat sources and the environment I mean
sour mango
And a lot of things in the environment seem to just be cold
Not enough noise
I remember Call of duty doing it well, in Modern Warfare 1&2
Might just be rose tinted glasses though
zealous estuary
well, I guess my experience was on a cooler night, so year, I guess the contrast was high as a result
this was for wildlife spotting
little kestrel
Huh? Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but what is this in relation to? @spare lagoon
spare lagoon
Twitter
little kestrel
Oh, neat.
pallid pasture
You know, BIS could solve one of the biggest gripes people have with the inventory: the fact weight and volume is a combined value. "All" that would need to be done is to split it and have the volume fill the vest/uniform/backpack while the weight of the items fills the total gear weight at the bottom. This way you could have small but heavy items, or big but light ones. C-mags could weight the same as the MX 100rnd mag, but take more volume.
Also the compatibility could be solved like this: keep the old mass config value and use it in case item has no weight or volume defined, if it does then use that instead, you can still use mass if say weight was defined, but not volume, in that case you use the mass in place of whatever was not defined. This would ensure compatibility with mods.
https://i.imgur.com/xjJTtch.jpg
zealous estuary
I'd rather BI fix that, since a fix for VBS isn't going to be translated to Arma
odd osprey
I mean, while the inventory system isn't perfect, it's far from being high on any priority list. It works well the way it is, and having volume values and weight values is just one extra thing. I rarely ever find myself needing to carry more than I can fit - unless you're on a PVP server and want to carry dozens of RPG's in your bag 🤣
little kestrel
Pff, carrying several OG-40s is always useful!
thorny raft
@little kestrel lies
little kestrel
Find me one scenario when OG-40s can't be used. Protip you can't @thorny raft
odd osprey
super special snowflake suppressor op
unless you have suppressed OG-40's that I don't know about 😃
little kestrel
Why do you need a suppressor when you can take out a entire squad without anyone being left?
Checkmate.
normal trout
I just use the good ole 3GL he shells for that purpose
Nothing makes you duck quite like a pair of guys alternating 3GL rounds at you
dense glade
Okay so i'm playing liberation right now and i'm trying to get AI to join my group so i can command them. How do i get them to join my group? Right now i only seem to join their group and take command from there but how do i add new ones in?
dense glade
In other words, i want units to join my squad
uncut wadi
Just buy single units, they will join your squad. @dense glade
dense glade
@uncut wadi Yeah i figured, would be a shame to buy more when there were some already there tho ^^
prime arrow
Taro, as a developer of Advanced Armor Plate Mod I have been begging for a split between mass and size for a long, long time.
crisp valley
I just checked out the aapm mod, it's pretty cool. Haven't had a lot of time to play with it, but does it have any cool interactions with Ace? Like causing bruising when you get hit in the plate even if it didn't go through?
little kestrel
Doesn't ACE advanced wounding do that automatically? @latent star
latent star
it depends on the projectile type, and some other factors, no, hitting the plate don't cause bruising
arma doesn't have "no passthrough" armor, all projectile even pistols go through.
crisp valley
The AAPM mod adds realistic armor, so it'll block a couple rounds then break the ballistic plates. It's cool, because you can balance your plate size/weight against the rounds you think you'll face up to .50 resistant rounds.
It's a little complicated to figure out, but the idea is really cool.
prime arrow
why thanks for the praise
it is fully compatible with ACE3's medical system. Numerous reports from groups such as ArmaIdiots and Ahoy MSO reveal that bruising does occur with plates of lower energy absorption, such as AR500 steels, Polyethylenes, or lower-end Ceramics.
Generally, putting a trauma pad behind a good steel plate will massively improve shot survivability
actually, putting a trauma pad behind any plate will heavily improve survivability
backface deformation upon impact can still shove your ribs into your lungs and all kinds of nasty things, even if the plate "stops" the shot. Trauma Pads redistribute force over a wider area, lessening BFD and the impact of the shot.
the 'Heavy Trauma Pad' and the Climatic-Amortization pad are both rated for assisting the big boss plates like the Ceradyne .50 BMG Protective and the GOST BP6, rated for up to three rounds of 12.7x108mm B32 API
spare lagoon
zealous estuary
👍
sour mango
nice
prime arrow
We've got ERA? Fantastic!
I'm looking forward to people actually having to use AT Mines if we get competent APS systems as well.
sour mango
there's no APS
prime arrow
that's a shame.
just when I thought tanks were actually going to be depicted at their full realistic strength
sour mango
Well, they've said that they're not doing APS for a long time now
zealous estuary
It's a shame, but they were upfront and honest about the work involved and the resources they had available. It would also have had a significantly negative impact on gameplay for casuals - tanks are already a very serious threat, making them nearly indestructible would have been unpopular.
those of us who love realism want to see it added, and who knows, maybe they will at least put in some of the engine hooks necessary for RHS and others to implement APS
chilly oar
@zealous estuary They've been less subtle lately about being up against a deadline... especially since last year was the first time they had to push back their DLC schedule after consistently delivering on time, for better or worse (at the opportunity cost of certain features not implemented)
finite socket
Does anyone know of an existing mod that does wall/door breaching somewhat like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L03q5mMiAOg
zealous estuary
@chilly oar right, I'm not even expecting any further tweaks/minor changess before the DLC release, but post-release maybe
pine pier
@finite socket the various ka/key specialist packs have door breaching charges. wall charges would be great but i haven't seen any mods able to pull that off yet.
finite socket
Oh, neat. I'll publish it then.
little kestrel
Cool stuff. Is it possible to attach to doors?
finite socket
I want it to be sticky as well, just haven't gotten around to it.
little kestrel
In any case, looking forward to release.
finite socket
@little kestrel @pine pier Breaching Charge up on Steam!
pine pier
nice job, can it work without ace?
open nimbus
😄
finite socket
@pine pier looks like this guy is doing a vanilla one https://youtu.be/Qn4-n700-9M
native coral
Is there a way to combine UAV laser markers with the artillery computer?
zealous estuary
if you mean, show where lasers are designating on the artillery computer map? Then no, there isn't some magical way for artillery to know where a laser is pointed kms away. However if you know the general position (e.g. grid square) because the UAV operator has given that, then the laser will help to guide any laser guided shells onto the target, without having to know the precise location
sour mango
Map markers appear on the artillery computer map, though, iirc
zealous estuary
did they fix laser artillery at some point? I recall that early on, it would strike where the laser was pointed when the round was fired, not where it was pointed at impact?
seems like something they would have addressed when improving the laser guidance for Jets, if not before then, but I don't recall hearing about it
plush tree
is there a script and/or mod/addon that allows players to hold another players shoulder and shoot over his shoulder for buddy systems ?
zealous estuary
hopefully combined with an earplug mod, or a realistic permanent tinnitus/deafness effect
pine pier
@plush tree u can attach a remote designator to your buddy's shoulder and use that as bipod surface
_supportRig = "DW_B_Static_Designator_01_F" createVehicle position player;
createVehicleCrew _supportRig;
_supportRig attachto [player, [-0.03, 0.03, 0.28], "RightShoulder"];
@zealous estuary laser guided artillery rounds will auto track active laser if its within the autoseek radius in ammo cfg. (if autoseek doesnt find a valid laser it will just act as typical dumb arty shell)
sturdy meadow
tanks are already a very serious threat
yeah until the point someone grabs a titan, tanks are rather deathtrap pwnboxes that last very short in vanilla setting
any vehicle that is
and APS basically, attach a script to the tank, which will delete incoming missiles or whatever with some failure rate probability and spawn some explosion effect after you delete incoming missile to make it looks like APS intercepted and destroyed something
apply some hull damage after each hit to make it more realistic
sour mango
yeah until the point someone grabs a titan
so don't put titans in the mission 😄
dense glade
@Jastreb#8971 Have you got a script like that?
sturdy meadow
no
indigo sparrow
thorn dew
@indigo sparrow → #looking_for_game #looking_for_unit are the places to be 😉
mental bane
@dense glade APS script can be found somewhere on biforums. I remember downloading and using it, worked like a charm but it was about a year ago
open nimbus
@daring pewter
Do not crosspost, keep it to one channel
You're playing with fire there my friend
narrow canyon
@daring pewter Another rule. Post in the right channel. This is not it.
open nimbus
@ancient timber
@daring pewter
Bye
👌
Kids these days... they never learn
I love making them, yes.
ancient timber
@daring pewter I'll give you credit, you know how to get yourself banned.
open nimbus
Thx FM. He even tried it via PM. Poor kid...
ancient timber
open nimbus
😂
hard ledge
I'm so confused about snipping. I keep zeroing in and the shots continue to land at the same spot
ancient timber
Zooming does not mean that you will hit your target. You will just be able to see how short/long your shot is. The biggest factor is bullet drop (due to gravity and ever reducing forward momentum).
chilly oar
@hard ledge Also note that if your zeroing doesn't match your actual distance to the target (i.e. you're at 650 m and the zeroing is set at 600 m or 700 m) then there's still going to be some guesstimating... at least unless you're using one of the sniper scopes with 'mildot' reticles (there were a bunch of guides on this years ago thanks to DayZ mod) or one of the rifle scopes with a fixed zero (i.e. the 'scope zeroed to 300 m, dot sight zeroed to 200 m' optics) but with rangefinding marks to help.
mellow ruin
What even is the point of the MK17 Holosight? a 20% larger view area than the ACO for like 2000% more screen blocking? Is there any reason to choose it over the ACO?
sterile kite
also, the MK17 has huge smudges on it that make it really hard to see through
having more options is never a bad thing, though
mellow ruin
No, it isn't, it adds a nice touch of variety, but the huge side posts feel so restrictive on my field of view that I just take the thing off and go with iron sights whenever I get one :/
sterile kite
I definitely prefer the ACO for exactly the reasons you've listed
mellow ruin
I guess I was concerned if there was a special purpose to it - like alt-scope brings up a x2 zoom or something.
sterile kite
no, I think there's nothing in particular special about it
chilly oar
I guess it's for those whose mental 'ability to relate to what I'm seeing' mainly extends to EOTech sights...?
zealous estuary
MK17 is really for HMG, where you need a wider magnified FOV
most people seem to prefer it for the AR type role, if you're going to have a sight
i.e. mid-long range engagement only
crisp hound
eotech shouldn't block your view so much... ironsights should appear much more closer to the eye than right now, but it would look a little silly
jade crow
For an AR role it's usually better to go RCO(and variants) or ACO tbh
lavish quarry
What's with only the Van (Transport) Being able to have doors that can be opened by passengers?
tame crest
Does that include the driver and front passenger door?
wanton gyro
@tame crest (I am going to take a wild guess and say he does not have LoW)
fossil berry
so i'm having trouble keeping players engaged during the mission, they feel like there not being challenged any ideas
?
sour mango
i'm sure we have loads of ideas
you'll have to elaborate a bit though, if you want something useful from us 😛
outer cargo
just keeping having small enemy teams pop-up around them, keep them on their toes
you basically have to push up the levels until they say it's too much
as until you know their max level, you can't fully accommodate them
sonic grove
so is there ANY servers or mods that alow theviery as in like picking pocketing or anything like that
sour mango
didn't someone already answer you in another chat? also you can open other's backpacks in the vanilla game itself
scarlet wigeon
@Julie 2.0 Anual steady version#4630 any and all servers
you can open other's backpacks
zealous estuary
but you can't take from their vest or clothing
sour mango
@patent canyon no advertising here, take that to #communities_arma3 #multiplayer_events #looking_for_unit or #looking_for_game
ancient timber
@white ether there IS a delete button.
white ether
haha didnt know that thanks
strange spire
Has there been a serious discussion on how realistic/authentic the ARMA 3 (attack) helicopter meta is/can be? (Hope this is the right channel 😁 it's a bit of a broad subject)
sour mango
You'll have to elaborate on that a bit
Do you want a comparison to something else or what?
It's hard to compare to real life since neither of the two attack helos are in service
And the Mi-48 is completely fictitious
Plus the sensors in Arma are approximated
strange spire
One question is what would be the best compare targets (DCS World?). Do you see different attack helicopters filling very different roles, not being just one well defined and solid concept?
For example there's different design goals for Ka-50 than Mi-28 or Ka-52. I guess Blackfoot could have some real world counterparts but Kajman is a bit of an odd bird (mix between Mi-24/35 and Mi-28?).
And what is/should be the main tactical model for attack helicopters - NAP of the earth flight, pop-up attacks only? Depends on threat environment too much to say?
sour mango
erm... yes 😄
it's a bit... there are "engine limitations" aspects to it as well
so let me try starting from the top
DCS is probably a better comparison for the flight model (specifically, Advanced Flight Model) than anything else. DCS focuses on aircraft and associated systems first, with a secondary combined arms focus
Arma is an infantry focused game with a secondary focus on combined arms, and tertiary focus on aircraft systems
So how a missile behaves in DCS is way different compared to Arma, for example. Same for sensors.
Then, in Arma the primary attack helicopter role is to support infantry and armour. The arcade nature of the systems however mean that either they get shot down quickly, or they know where everything is and can obliterate it
So depending on what a mission maker does, you either have a situation where the AH has to stay out of contact, high above and away from the AO, or fly low and fast, or make pop up attacks
in that sense it's situational
But almost any armed ground vehicle is capable of taking out a slow moving helo flying low
Blackfoot is based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing–Sikorsky_RAH-66_Comanche
The Mi-48 is a bit of a weird one, as it has passenger space + is quite heavily armed
dense glade
Mi-48 is based off mi-24
notice how 24*2 is 48
basically not!future mi-24
sour mango
not sure if you're serious, but it's literally a mix of the 24, 28 and the Ka-50