"Tab" targeting issues

[Beagle 684]

@ DM I have learned in thre years I did work for the defense industries that thise numbers are catalogue numeber sdaone under best lab conditions...theses values have nothing to do with reality.

Also notice that MK-82 bombs targeted via tab wil hit the trqagets always even when releases completely out of release parameters...like 20° off the nose and at 100km/h...you wil see the bomb poit its nose towards the targets and speed up liek a missile...why? Because the Mk-82 has as missile logic in arma. So much about a balanced and realitic A2G behaviour...it's plain bullshit. To defebnd this seems a bit arkward when in the same turn talking abou the simulation attitude of this arcade game and claiming the Apache is right and spot on. Even the speeds and manouverability of missiles are all wrong in this game making every evasion impossible.

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/28705

And how can someone dare to poitn out the goodies of airborne milimeter wave radar whiekl neglecting that even the iraqis already used radar jammers and ECM on their tanks.

Radar and radio jammers are standard right now on Tanks and APCs as well as active missile defenses...all or nothing, just rendering one system without the other is clearly a spoiled approach. its a bit cheap to move the Apache and Kamov well into 21 centrury but dwarf the Ground units by restricting them to the early 1990's.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Beagle

[[frl]myke 14]

@Beagle

agree with your points but let me add this anyway...

@all who duscuss about a single vehicles sensor capacities:

you do know that Pilots aren't any lone wolf John "Chuck" Rambo-Norris dudes, fighting for themselfs and glory? Some words you should google for:

Joint STARS

AWACS

Link 16

Network-centric warfare

So please stop this BS discussion about what a single vehicles sensors can and can't do. They do not rely on their own sensors only. And for the upcoming argument "there isn't a AWACS/JSTARS around", well, it is not rendered and it doesn't take a AI slot (or several AI slots) but it is simulated...thats what you see on your HUD.

[dm 9]

@ DM I have learned in thre years I did work for the defense industries that thise numbers are catalogue numeber sdaone under best lab conditions...theses values have nothing to do with reality.

Well yes, but just trying to point out that what we've got here is pretty representative of the system, and I'd rather it wasnt nerfed in the name of "PvP balance".

Also notice that MK-82 bombs targeted via tab wil hit the trqagets always even when releases completely out of release parameters...like 20° off the nose and at 100km/h...you wil see the bomb poit its nose towards the targets and speed up liek a missile...why? Because the Mk-82 has as missile logic in arma. So much about a balanced and realitic A2G behaviour...it's plain bullshit.

Well this is quite simply a config "bug". The iron bombs have irLock and laserLock set to true, when it should be false. On top of that the maneuvrability is set too high (allowing for such off-boresight engagements). This may or may not be a design decision to make up for the lack of FCS feedback to the pilot.

To defebnd this seems a bit arkward when in the same turn talking abou the simulation attitude of this arcade game and claiming the Apache is right and spot on. Even the speeds and manouverability of missiles are all wrong in this game making every evasion impossible.

My point isnt that its spot on, its more that I dont want to see the Apache nerfed to optically guided missiles (a-la Battlefield) in the name of "balance"

And how can someone dare to poitn out the goodies of airborne milimeter wave radar whiekl neglecting that even the iraqis already used radar jammers and ECM on their tanks.

Radar and radio jammers are standard right now on Tanks and APCs as well as active missile defenses...all or nothing, just rendering one system without the other is clearly a spoiled approach. its a bit cheap to move the Apache and Kamov well into 21 centrury but dwarf the Ground units by restricting them to the early 1990's.

And we all know how well the jamming systems the Iraqi's deployed worked.... :j:

Yes, the MBT's/ground units need love. Just dont nerf the Apache as a cheap "workaround"

[Beagle 684]

Hello DM. once again you're ignoring that ArmA takes place in the October 2009 -July 2012 timeframe, not in Iraq of 1991...but even then they had crude but working ECM on republican guard Assad Babyls, so you're free to believe that the definately more advanced russians (who still thinks russian technologie is inferior still lives in the 80's) with their Shtora are more up to date today as well as Trophy and Arena systems. And now another shockign news...Soviet Union and technology Embargo does not exist anymore, so you can find the most equisite western Electronics (ELTA, THALES) in russians tanks today.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Beagle

[dm 9]

I was thinking more Iraq 2006, but whatevs.

Yes, the Russian equipment should be better, thats why I said:

Yes, the MBT's/ground units need love. Just dont nerf the Apache as a cheap "workaround"

[kotov12345 10]

The aircraft is able to detect and classify more than 128 targets, prioritize the 16 most dangerous targets, transmit the information to other aircraft and initiate a precision attack, all this in fewer than 30 seconds.

..

oh yes - may be 128 in 30 seconds :) - tell me how much time need to identify and destroy 1 target - e.g.tank

Weapons you try to imaging (like in game now) never exist and not will be in next 100 years at least.

Attack chopper or plane not able to fire 2 missiles in 2 different targets without any other devices or additional units and without direct view.In game now you can kill 8 targets as fast as you can click tab and fire and this fact is kills game play.

I can accept 1 target at time with realistic time to lock ,within realistic angle much lower probability to hit and only big objects like tanks or bmps not uaz or bikes :)

[dm 9]

oh yes - may be 128 in 30 seconds :) - tell me how much time need to identify and destroy 1 target - e.g.tank

Uh, less than 30 seconds... :j:

Weapons you try to imaging (like in game now) never exist and not will be in next 100 years at least.

Attack chopper or plane not able to fire 2 missiles in 2 different targets without any other devices or additional units and without direct view.

Yes, they really are. Thats the entire point of the Longbow system.

In game now you can kill 8 targets as fast as you can click tab and fire and this fact is kills game play.

I can accept 1 target at time with realistic time to lock ,within realistic angle much lower probability to hit and only big objects like tanks or bmps not uaz or bikes :)

Tell that to the British Army, who are (were) regularly using the Longbow radar to lock on to 60 and 81mm mortars, or sedans or even mopeds, and drop a hellfire onto it.

There are also several reported incidents of British Apache crews using the radar return from said targets to slew the gun and optics onto the target (the Apache can do that, so that would need to be added ingame too I guess...) in order to engage with cannon (where hellfire is either already expended, or inappropriate)

But, much as it "kills" gameplay, you have to adapt (like the Taliban do)...

[Beagle 684]

Hello again, and stil you dotn get the point...it works that way for ALL units with "radar", BRDMs, BMP,s, T-72, M1A1, Su-25, AH-1Z, AH-11...do th4ey all feature the marvelous longbow system??? dis I miss something recently?

[dm 9]

Maybe you dont get the point.

I dont want the Apache nerfed because "its not fair"

If you read any of the tenty-billion other threads on this matter, all my posts have the same principal: each system should be realistically represented.

So, like the PvP'ers are championing the "nerf all the things because its not fair otherwise", I'm for the opposite.

Also, kotov is clearly suggesting that the Longbow doesnt exist/work, and I am countering that.

Quote from one of the other threads:

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.

Edited February 20, 2012 by DM

[.kju 3245]

So kotov speaks for the whole PvP player base?

DM please get down to real arguments.

Arma vehicles with appropriate systems should keep TAB lock,

while for arma weapon systems where it is unrealistic, TAB lock should go (aka locking altogether).

Hard to disagree, right?

[Serclaes 0]

So, like the PvP'ers are championing the "nerf all the things because its not fair otherwise", I'm for the opposite.

+1

Asymmetric balance ftw!

[On_Sabbatical 11]

You really love this TAB lock ... and not ready to let it down :D

TAB lock is one of the main reasons that are killing fun in multiplayer.

[sickboy 13]

You really love this TAB lock ... and not ready to let it down :D

TAB lock is one of the main reasons that are killing fun in multiplayer.

No, they're saying; AH64 longbow should have it (on the 114-L hellfire only, not 114-K), because it exists.

However, TAB lock is currently implemented for vehicles that shouldn't have it, and should be removed from these vehicles. This is IMO the main concern.

But Perhaps even for the vehicles it belongs on, it has been done too simplistic. This is IMO just a minor concern / required improvement.

Arma vehicles with appropriate systems should keep TAB lock, while for arma weapon systems where it is unrealistic, TAB lock should go (aka locking altogether).

Hard to disagree, right?

And basically what DM is saying: There should be no artificial balance out of the box, but systems should rather perform in-game how they perform in-reallife.

And again, the AH64D Longbow, 114-L Hellfires, has this in reality...

However, no SANE pilot, would BLINDLY engage unidentified targets, at ANY range.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Sickboy

[dm 9]

So kotov speaks for the whole PvP player base?

DM please get down to real arguments.

Arma vehicles with appropriate systems should keep TAB lock,

while for arma weapon systems where it is unrealistic, TAB lock should go (aka locking altogether).

Hard to disagree, right?

No, they're saying; AH64 longbow should have it (on the 114-L hellfire only, not 114-K), because it exists.

However, TAB lock is currently implemented for vehicles that shouldn't have it, and should be removed from these vehicles. This is IMO the main concern.

But Perhaps even for the vehicles it belongs on, it has been done too simplistic. This is IMO just a minor concern / required improvement.

And basically what DM is saying: There should be no artificial balance out of the box, but systems should rather perform in-game how they perform in-reallife.

And again, the AH64D Longbow, 114-L Hellfires, has this in reality...

BUT NO SANE PILOT WOULD BLINDLY ENGAGE UNIDENTIFIED TARGETS, AT ANY RANGE!

Yes!

Most sense!

As for the blindly engaging. Well there ARE cases where you would - in open warfare, anything within certain zones is often considered a valid target. We just havent been in real open warfare (think Cold War zerg rush style) since the 70's

[NoRailgunner 0]

This discussion only started because the thread got ressurected from kotov12345 and his statement about modern air combat/weapon systems. :icon_rolleyes:

We probably will see a better system in A3 but I guess for A2OA there is no chance to convince BIS doing this work for all vehicles and weapon systems.

Hope for the best, plan for the worst....

[-=seany=- 5]

I think it should be pointed out that the whole reason Tab lock exists to help control the AI. The fact that it behaves like some modern radar targeting systems is just a coincidence. With an AI gunner in a vehicle, TAB lock makes perfect sense, as it emulates the communication ( and technical ability of a trained Army gunner) that humans would use.

If your in a vehicle that has no AI, only humans, then TAB lock should not be possible I guess. You could leave it on the LB until a more realistic FCS is implemented.

BUT, you can't get rid of TAB lock altogether.

Edited February 20, 2012 by -=seany=-

[.kju 3245]

Sorry to say but this is total nonsense.

Have you ever played two-three man vehicles with humans?

If you would, you may realize there is no magic pinpointing by humans either.

In fact you can command AI very well even without locking at all.

There is a command cursor, target menu etc for a reason.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Voice commanding AI would be the best solution (if done right)! ;)

"Tabbing" is faster (+ visual feedback) than searching for the right target in a menu. Which one to select from a list of 7 "tanks at ten o'clock" + other targets? AI don't give you any more and/or precise information like a human player can do.

[kotov12345 10]

another problem in game:

Currently amount of players inside of vehicles decrease power of vehicles.In other words gunner and pilot in chopper or plane is less effective than only pilot with another magic manual fire.Most players prefer fly alone as well as tankers.2 1 player tanks can do more job than 1 with driver and gunner.It also relayed to TAB issue.

Should be absolutely opposite.

I understand that most tab fans are have serious knowledge in weapons.But I'm talking about game and weapons implemented and mp game aspect only.But I should say I play 11 years since ofp and I saw real war in Moldova 1992 and have opto-electronic and laser devices bachilor equivalent technical degree. Most your knowledge takes from brain-washed sources. 128 targets for 30 seconds :) why USA need anything else than ah64d ?I still remember story how Iraq farmer shot down such chopper in the middle of war.

Been show on all channels.

[-=seany=- 5]

Sorry to say but this is total nonsense.

Have you ever played two-three man vehicles with humans?

If you would, you may realize there is no magic pinpointing by humans either.

In fact you can command AI very well even without locking at all.

There is a command cursor, target menu etc for a reason.

Call it a legacy option if you like but that is why it was implemented in OFP. The tab key is basically a more intuitive way to use the target menu. If you use the target menu your essentially doing the same thing only pressing more than 1 key. Anything that appears in the target menu is the exact same as what the TAB key can "see". It's just there to control the AI.

I see no reason to get rid of it for AI crewed vehicles.

Also, how would you get the AI to emulate the lack of quickness or hesitation or lack of understanding of a human gunner? It would pointless to do so. Obviously the AI is going to be quicker at targeting than a human.

[dm 9]

I understand that most tab fans are have serious knowledge in weapons.But I'm talking about game and weapons implemented and mp game aspect only.But I should say I play 11 years since ofp and I saw real war in Moldova 1992 and have opto-electronic and laser devices bachilor equivalent technical degree. Most your knowledge takes from brain-washed sources. 128 targets for 30 seconds :) why USA need anything else than ah64d ?I still remember story how Iraq farmer shot down such chopper in the middle of war.

Been show on all channels.

Annnd there it is...

All I have to say about that.

[Beagle 684]

@ DM

Your abuse of Sir Patrick Steward is becoming really annoying!

:p

[dm 9]

*Stewart

Yeah, I should tuck him away for "special" occasions, but this thread has had my face in my palms on many occasion...

[Serclaes 0]

If DM wasn't such a ninja, I'd use it. :P

Funny thing in this thread is, everybody is talking about different stuff. Always in favor of their own way they want to have the game.

But while we're comparing apples and pears: Every modern tank has a hunter/killer principle where the commander can pinpoint the gunner to a target. Within a second. This isn't implemented in ArmA either.

[max power 21]

Well, with tab targeting and an ai gunner, it sort of is. In OFP, I was sort of surprised that a human gunner couldn't see what the commander was targeting.