FCS for helicopters.

[*LK1* 10]

i guess the current TAB+click system.... you know what i think. unrealistic and not funny at all. so i decide to propose( i clearly know im a dreamer)

3 alternative solutions.

1) when you shoot your missile you can guide it by moving your mouse(like in ACE if i dont remember wrong). well i guess is another unrealistic way to shoot an hellfire but at least it give you the opportunity to implement a bit of skill(not so much) in the procedure, so basically the result is more funny.it's also an easy way to shoot missiles; you dont need to be a genious.

2)you have to track the target by pressing a key then when you have locked the target and after a couple of sec.(5 or 10 i dont know...tell us guys which is the proper amount of time to lock a target),when a quadrate appears on the target, the missile is ready to shoot.

well, that's could be a realistic way to shoot a dildo on the enemy ass.

3) you should being able to shoot with both systems. so you can decide to use the second solution for a very far tank and you can use the first solution to kill a couple of soldiers(which they are not lockable) with the splash damage of the hellfire. sometimes these missiles, depends on the situation, are used instead of the chain-gun to deal with insurgents.

i would also to see 2 fire-modes to shoot the missiles, direct and indirect fire to cross obstacles between you and the enemy.

the only funny thing, at least for me but i feel that a lot of people think in this way, of using an apache/cobra or kamov is to fly and to use the cannon cuz the current missile's system is the worst avaible. is not realistic and funny neither...:o

so...is that just a personal paranoia or you gentlemen feel the problem as i do?

Edited July 9, 2011 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[Archosaurusrev 12]

Render to texture makes a real MFD available for use.

IMO it should be as hardcore as the engine can get it to be, it's not really hard.

No more hurr durr lock by looking at the target, MFDs are better/more realistic/better looking.

Anyways, I voted option 2, but that is in real life one way to lock AA missiles in an F16, not Hellfires in a helo.

[*LK1* 10]

can you pls explain to everyone with MFD means. so everyone can see the light without any doubt.

i said FCS on my thread, which means: fire control system.

dude, you have forgot to vote :rolleyes: do it please :mad::D

[dmarkwick 261]

I know the idea is not exactly popular - but I'd be happy to see a modular/plugin solution to this. So you can purchase a higher-fidelity helo/tank DLC which is more tailored to simulation. Servers that run it require pilots/commanders etc to own the module, but normal infantry players would be unaffected.

I'm pretty sure that most serious players here would buy such modules, particularly if they represent unique gameplay away from the vanilla game, but can still work across MP with those who do not have it. MP clients only need to know position and ordnance firing of the vehicles in any case and that can be farmed out by the server. Proxy default models can be used to display them.

This would give BIS a reason to develop such complex simulations, which they might not otherwise be inclined to do for gameplay purposes, not everyone wishes for complex authenticity. Also, some amount of work could be shared with the BISim company, who would surely have an interest in module-based simulation of vehicles.

[metalcraze 290]

What BIS needs to do apart from implementing MFD is to make that 'auto-hover' stuff more realistic. Many choppers don't have it and those that do have strict limits on when it can be used. Not the ridiculous "I'm flying 300 km/h and press auto-hover and voila"

[Archosaurusrev 12]

can you pls explain to everyone with MFD means. so everyone can see the light without any doubt.

i said FCS on my thread, which means: fire control system.

dude, you have forgot to vote :rolleyes: do it please :mad::D

Closest looking video I could find.

Really the MFD is in helicopters and planes, that is just a flightsim MFD.

It allows you to choose firemodes, your weapon, radar, bomb targeting, turret targeting, so on.

[roberthammer 582]

This is nice MFD at home :D

MFD = multi function display - all modern vehicles like APCs , tanks , boats , planes and helicopters got this

Edited July 8, 2011 by RobertHammer

[logandog1240 10]

This is nice MFD at home :D

MFD = multi function display - all modern vehicles like APCs , tanks , boats , planes and helicopters got this

with the camanche being their chosen aircraft, and having no analog gauges, they kind of have to employ read mfds, expecially after implementing render to tecture

[rksl-rock 1301]

Let me be perfectly clear at the start: I really dont like that Tab-Lock system. But to be honest the "Tab-lock" system is almost realistic for most modern systems.

As a fire control system the current "Tab-lock" fails because you have no real control over the weapon targeting. Its needs an active IR or laser target before you can fire effectively. Part of the issue is the simulation of the weapons. And I don't mean adding obscene levels of complexity. I mean the targeting system is identical no matter what the weapons is. You always tab-lock onto either an IR or Laser target. In the real world the FCS is dependant on the weapons. Its not very flexible or practical ingame. EG:

• Hellfire - Radar/Laser/IIR all the same the avionics in the real aircraft presents you threats and targets and you really do "tab-lock" on to the options. But you also have the ability to "self designate" which we don't have currently which limits the use of helicopter weapons in game.
  
• TOW - Wire guided. Well this is a manual guided system. This should fly to where ever you leave the cursor. Even if the cursor is moving but only out to a certain range.
  

There are other performance constraints issues but in reality modern helicopter FCS/weapon interfaces really are this simple and have been for a long time.

I think upgrading/adding both the "Tab-Lock" and an option to "manually" lock/designate a target dependant on the weapon system would be better upgrade.

I know the idea is not exactly popular - but I'd be happy to see a modular/plugin solution to this. So you can purchase a higher-fidelity helo/tank DLC which is more tailored to simulation. Servers that run it require pilots/commanders etc to own the module, but normal infantry players would be unaffected.

I'm pretty sure that most serious players here would buy such modules, particularly if they represent unique gameplay away from the vanilla game, but can still work across MP with those who do not have it. MP clients only need to know position and ordnance firing of the vehicles in any case and that can be farmed out by the server. Proxy default models can be used to display them.

This would give BIS a reason to develop such complex simulations, which they might not otherwise be inclined to do for gameplay purposes, not everyone wishes for complex authenticity. Also, some amount of work could be shared with the BISim company, who would surely have an interest in module-based simulation of vehicles.

Why would BIS do that? It just adds an obscene amount of complexity to the development and future support.

And I strongly disagree that making any of these options available as a DLC would be a good idea. For many games DLCs prove divisive for the community. BIS has previously chosen to soften the blow by providing cut down versions of the DLC for compatibility purposes but I cant see them being able to do that for engine enhancements. It would just be a waste of resources for them.

But again it boils down to what market BIS want to go for. I'd suggest there are 3 simple types of ArmA gamer:

• "Kiddie-gamer" -the 'just play'/run and gun group. that want to jump in game and be able to do everything with minimal learning curve.
  
• "Sim-gamer" - Happy with more complex game play and systems. They want more realism but not at the cost of game play.
  
• "Sim-addict" - want to flip all the right switches and learn all the real world systems.
  

Personally I think BIS should be aiming at the "Sim-Gamer" group. There is a niche in the market for a thinking man's tactical shooter. in my own opinion ArmA has always sat in the slot. A slot that's slightly above BF2 and its clones. I'd be happy to see an improved FCS system but I'd be reluctant to go too far with the simulation aspects.

Edited July 8, 2011 by RKSL-Rock
typos grammar and mistakes.

[dmarkwick 261]

Why would BIS do that? It just adds an obscene amount of complexity to the development and future support.

They might do it if it were possible, and if it were profitable.

And I strongly disagree that making any of these options available as a DLC would be a good idea. For many games DLCs prove divisive for the community. BIS has previously chosen to soften the blow by providing cut down versions of the DLC for compatibility purposes but I cant see them being able to do that for engine enhancements. It would just be a waste of resources for them.

I believe I mentioned that non-DLC owners would not be impacted, so no division aside from the need to own it for piloting purposes. DLCs have not proven divisive for ArmA, only 3rd party mod mixes do that.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Think its good to have working helmet displays + voice commands to assign/attack multiple targets simultaneouslyin Arma3. Just some features that are new+unique and make a difference to other games/sims. :)

[rksl-rock 1301]

They might do it if it were possible, and if it were profitable.

I can't see it ever being as simple as you apparently seem to think it will be. And as a result I doubt it would be profitable. The cost to develop these "optional" plugins would be prohibitive. Especially when they have to be supported in the (non paying/non DLC) main engine anyway which given the nature of this community would probably "reverse engineer/mod" it back in for the free user base just like some have done/tried to do with the DLCs. I would suggest that BIS's time would be better spent working on the common ground.

I believe I mentioned that non-DLC owners would not be impacted, so no division aside from the need to own it for piloting purposes. DLCs have not proven divisive for ArmA, only 3rd party mod mixes do that.

I don't see how that would be possible given you are suggesting that DLC and non-DLC owners could still play together. It just adds yet another layer of technical issues to the software trying to support and translate network code between the various builds of the game.

Oh the current crop of BIS DLCs are not particularly divisive. But previous ones were. And DLC in other games have proven to be quite divisive. But as i said BIS chose to give the non-DLC owner access to the - albeit diminished - content as well. I doubt that would be sustainable or an advisable business model to continue with when it comes to core engine enhancements via payware-DLC.

[dmarkwick 261]

I can't see it ever being as simple as you apparently seem to think it will be.

Simple isn't a word I used.

which given the nature of this community would probably "reverse engineer/mod" it back in for the free user base just like some have done/tried to do with the DLCs.

The sim stuff would be in the DLC, not part of the main user data.

I don't see how that would be possible given you are suggesting that DLC and non-DLC owners could still play together. It just adds yet another layer of technical issues to the software trying to support and translate network code between the various builds of the game.

I see it as working like this: currently any vehicle that is driven by a player is local to that player's machine. The client then uploads positional & behavioral info (ordnance firing for example) and the server then farms it out. So the simulation side of it is only done on the client's machine. I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at without me going further.

Oh the current crop of BIS DLCs are not particularly divisive. But previous ones were. And DLC in other games have proven to be quite divisive. But as i said BIS chose to give the non-DLC owner access to the - albeit diminished - content as well. I doubt that would be sustainable or an advisable business model to continue with when it comes to core engine enhancements via payware-DLC.

Other games' problems with DLC do not concern us. And BIS have a working model of non-divisive DLC so that's no problem. Only the simulation side of the DLC needs to be client-specific, as discussed only the positional & behavioral info is broadcast.

Plus, I did mention that BISim would also surely be interested in such a concept.

The more I think about it the more perfectly brilliant this incredible idea becomes. :)

Edited July 8, 2011 by DMarkwick

[daikan 1]

BIS should make the current Mando Missiles Mod an integral part of Arma 3 and drop those unrealistic 360° radar/rwr displays with magic IFF capabilities from aircraft altogether. That would make me quite happy.

[Steakslim 1]

It was kinda of a letdown in OA when even though the UAV Littlebird could paint targets for the Apache, they didn't give the apache an option to use it's own laser for such tasks which would have been a rather huge leap in the right direction compared to the previous installments and would of softened the griping over the Tab+Fire system we've been stuck with. It's been something that's been re-implemented by Mando, ACE, and other mods since ArmA1 (and sooner but I never played the original OFP with mods).

I'm probably overstepping my bounds here but I'll say that probably everyone here would want the TAB locking system abolished for an actual laser targeting system that has already been put to use in the game by the UAV's and other methods of target acquisition more realistic to true life (even if it's dumbed down a bit to save for complexity)

Edit: Oh shoot, and the avoid sounding slightly offtopic, all of this some way being done with MFD's would be super. I'm looking forward to the RTT possibilities and am anxious to see the first presentations of it in ArmA3 (yeah I know TakeOn already has it, but still).

Edited July 8, 2011 by Steakslim

[nodunit 397]

Think its good to have working helmet displays + voice commands to assign/attack multiple targets simultaneouslyin Arma3. Just some features that are new+unique and make a difference to other games/sims. :)

Helmet displays wouldn't make much sense being in every one since not all helmets have them, if it can be done a headgear basis then sure! But if you would see the HUD while wearing say a baseball cap then nu since that would clash with the sim aspect you speak of.

Edited July 9, 2011 by NodUnit

[metalcraze 290]

So basically what DMarkwick says is that the simmers will always have to be at a disadvantage against people playing it in an arcade way?

What's the point?

And no I don't want DLC with something that should be there in the first place.

I don't consider myself a described "sim-addict" by far but I want choppers to feel more real on harder difficulties if you know what I mean.

[rangerpl 13]

I certainly wouldn't want to operate MFDs and push buttons in the cockpit when I want to engage with a helicopter. Sure, some more sophistication would be nice but operating a virtual cockpit while using both of your hands to maneuver the helicopter is a difficult task (there is a reason attack helicopters use two crewmembers).

There's also no need to add complexity to a game just because "that's how it's done in real life". The game also doesn't require you to salute superior officers, clean your rifle or take a piss.

It's important to remember what kind of simulator ArmA is; it's not a "professional" simulation meant to mimic real life precisely (we have VBS for that). ArmA is still a GAME and gameplay is important. Operating a cockpit while also trying to control your aircraft with the joystick + throttle would require you to do some acrobatics, and if you have a Saitek x52 or similar (like I do), you'll need a third arm.

I don't mind simulating real systems more precisely, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Having to select fire modes and go through FCS menus will quickly get tedious and annoying.

It's like if MS Flight Simulator required you to eat shitty airline food while playing the game.

Let me be clear: I don't want helicopters to be the way they are, some expanded options would be great, but I am not interested in doing things just because they're done in real life. Realism is fun but I don't want the flight computer up my ass for selecting the wrong radar mode.

Edited July 9, 2011 by RangerPL

[Archosaurusrev 12]

I certainly wouldn't want to operate MFDs and push buttons in the cockpit when I want to engage with a helicopter. Sure, some more sophistication would be nice but operating a virtual cockpit while using both of your hands to maneuver the helicopter is a difficult task (there is a reason attack helicopters use two crewmembers).

There's also no need to add complexity to a game just because "that's how it's done in real life". The game also doesn't require you to salute superior officers, clean your rifle or take a piss.

It's important to remember what kind of simulator ArmA is; it's not a "professional" simulation meant to mimic real life precisely (we have VBS for that). ArmA is still a GAME and gameplay is important. Operating a cockpit while also trying to control your aircraft with the joystick + throttle would require you to do some acrobatics, and if you have a Saitek x52 or similar (like I do), you'll need a third arm.

I don't mind simulating real systems more precisely, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Having to select fire modes and go through FCS menus will quickly get tedious and annoying.

It's like if MS Flight Simulator required you to eat shitty airline food while playing the game.

Let me be clear: I don't want helicopters to be the way they are, some expanded options would be great, but I am not interested in doing things just because they're done in real life. Realism is fun but I don't want the flight computer up my ass for selecting the wrong radar mode.

You know operating MFDs and the radar is easy as hell?

Also, there's a reason why helos don't engage till they get a lock, moving in to shoot the main turret at <2km is dumb.

[subs17 9]

i guess the current TAB+click system.... you know what i think. unrealistic and not funny at all. so i decide to propose( i clearly know im a dreamer)

3 alternative solutions.

1) when you shoot your missile you can guide it by moving your mouse(like in ACE if i dont remember wrong). well i guess is another unrealistic way to shoot an hellfire but at least it give you the opportunity to implement a bit of skill(not so much) in the procedure, so basically the result is more funny.it's also an easy way to shoot missiles; you dont need to be a genious.

2)you have to track the target by pressing a key then when you have locked the target and after a couple of sec.(5 or 10 i dont know...tell us guys which is the proper amount of time to lock a target),when a quadrate appears on the target, the missile is ready to shoot.

well, that's could be a realistic way to shoot a dildo on the enemy ass.

3) you should being able to shoot with both systems. so you can decide to use the second solution for a very far tank and you can use the first solution to kill a couple of soldiers(which they are not lockable) with the splash damage of the hellfire. sometimes these missiles, depends on the situation, are used instead of the chain-gun to deal with insurgents.

i would also to see 2 fire-modes to shoot the missiles, direct and indirect fire to cross obstacles between you and the enemy.

the only funny thing, at least for me but i feel that a lot of people think in this way, of using an apache/cobra or kamov is to fly and to use the cannon cuz the current missile's system is the worst avaible. is not realistic and funny neither...:o

so...is that just a personal paranoia or you gentlemen feel the problem as i do?

I will abstain from voting on the above options as they are simply unrealistic. The best would be option 4/

4/ Targetting view mode with zoom TDC slew, ground stabilise/lock/lase.

We already have these features sort of with the little bird whats missing is this view in the Apache/Cobra and ground stabilise/moving target mode. You could also add LOAL and LOBL modes but the above option 4 is the basics and is whats needed for precise CAS for A2/3. Look at A2s JSF mission absolutely useless having LGBs and targetting view. This is also probably possible in A2 OA as a mod but the devs should consider it for A3 as it makes more realsitic use in game and simplifys the combat because you are no longer limited to the Tab auto lock function.

---------- Post added at 09:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:57 PM ----------

Closest looking video I could find.

Really the MFD is in helicopters and planes, that is just a flightsim MFD.

It allows you to choose firemodes, your weapon, radar, bomb targeting, turret targeting, so on.

You can buy Thrustmaster MFDs which will work with A2OA if it has the ability to map those functions. BTW all the modes/functions in that video are IRL done with the HOTAS which F4AF/OF supports. For TM MFDs you still have to buy LCD monitors for MFD display.

---------- Post added at 09:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 PM ----------

So basically what DMarkwick says is that the simmers will always have to be at a disadvantage against people playing it in an arcade way?

What's the point?

And no I don't want DLC with something that should be there in the first place.

I don't consider myself a described "sim-addict" by far but I want choppers to feel more real on harder difficulties if you know what I mean.

No they have a big advantage as they can lock the tgt they intend to hit and take it out. On a server you won't have both it would be either one or the other.

Advantages of realistic weapon employment:

LOBL (Lock on before launch)AH64/Cobra[precise targetting]

LOAL (Lock On After launch)[Already modeled in OA but does not feature LOFT mode]

Ground stabilised image

Engage moving targets

Buddy lasing

Faster threat engagment

Engage tgts from further away, less exposure to AAA/SAMs

Less likely to hit friendlys because you will know exactly where they are and where the bad guys are.

Faster A/A engagement with helmet mounted sights KA50/52/AH64/Cobra(KA50/52 auto-turn to tgt if modeled)

Realistic use of A/A weapons instead of using them to blow up tanks.

Realsitic is actually simpler and easier than arcade mode(and faster with HOTAS and trakir).

[5LEvEN 11]

I will not vote on those... There are ALL unrealistic...

I would like MFD's to be implemented and proper FCS... Not this arcade crap...

[wamingo 1]

I know everyone wants a full on simulation thing, but I'm not sure BIS does. So to be realistic I think you'll have to compromise.

The lock-tone was a request from the community and I think that, in principle, it was a good step forward to remove the tab-fire problem. Unfortunately the vehicle lock tone is so fast that it almost doesn't matter (the javelin one is quite long by comparison, and with obstacles can be quite hard to use, at times). Increasing it, and perhaps adding in some factors like distance and speed wouldn't hurt - eg flying faster means longer lock time.

If that isn't enough however, one could dabble in adding a "semi-mini-game" to complement the lock tone. This could be done in a variety of ways, some more arcady than others. But it could remove the "automaticness" of tab-lock.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Helmet displays wouldn't make much sense being in every one since not all helmets have them, if it can be done a headgear basis then sure! But if you would see the HUD while wearing say a baseball cap then nu since that would clash with the sim aspect you speak of.

Yes, I thought more of pilot helmets that can be used with a cockpit link/switch in those modern/futuristic A3 aircrafts. So the player will get his data/info only if he is connected to those specific cockpit devices. Players without the proper helmet maybe can't pass through preflight checks or will have some real disadvantages flying those planes/choppers. Additionaly the pilot helmets will have an unique ID so its not possible to cross-link them eg BLUFOR helmet will not be able to "activate" OPFOR aircraft and vice versa.

Just something that people have to take care of and not just some eyecandy stuff. :)

[*LK1* 10]

I will not vote on those... There are ALL unrealistic...

I would like MFD's to be implemented and proper FCS... Not this arcade crap...

cool. so instead to have something more similar to real life (which was option 2 and even 3) you prefer the current system. well is your choice...:rolleyes:

[dm 9]

cool. so instead to have something more similar to real life (which was option 2 and even 3) you prefer the current system. well is your choice...:rolleyes:

Hahahaha, none of your options have much to do with real life.

He says he doesnt want to vote on your options, and that he would prefer a 4th, more realistic option, and somehow you come to the conclusion that he likes the current system. You are deluded.

For what its worth, the tracking systems vary so massively from vehicle/system to vehicle/system that implementing one across all would be just as unrealistic (afterall, thats why you want it, right?) as the current tab-lock system.

To make these changes in the name of "realism" (tv-guiding a hellfire... WHAT) would be ridiculous.

Where is the 5th poll option "none of the above"?

Edited July 9, 2011 by DM