ARMA 2: Community Configuration Project (A2CCP)

[Vipera 10]

If we want to remove the Tab feature completely then can we instead of red dots on radar for tanks use something similar as AA incoming missile warning for planes? If AI crew spotted a target then radar shows approximate direction to the target by red sector on radar circle.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

Such a "helpful" and mature reply. Perhaps you would like to enlighten us - if you can't lock laser guided bombs, how are they to be used? With default Arma HUD not even having a CCIP display ? After all, the magic word is GUIDED bomb... And when an aircraft has GBU fitted, we can safely assume it also has got a LANTIRN or another targetting pod fitted or built-in.

That shows how small is your knowledge on how TAB lock feature is destroying PVP on MP and making people go for non military missions instead of playing the real stuff !

TAB lock makes an Apache like a Mi24D ...

Maybe you should go cry to BIS devs instead of flaming me and spamming BETA threads with "Good Work Guys",they had 4 years to do something for this ...oh wait ... 11 years actually !

I prefer that players throw Bombs like WW2 planes instead of sending them from 5 km high because they just press TAB !

-.-

[-=seany=- 5]

Where is KJU? ignoring legitimate questions once more...what a surprise.

That shows how small is your knowledge on how TAB lock feature is destroying PVP on MP and making people go for non military missions instead of playing the real stuff !

TAB lock makes an Apache like a Mi24D ...

Maybe you should go cry to BIS devs instead of flaming me and spamming BETA threads with "Good Work Guys",they had 4 years to do something for this ...oh wait ... 11 years actually !

I prefer that players throw Bombs like WW2 planes instead of sending them from 5 km high because they just press TAB !

-.-

The guy (fraczek) has possibly found another valid problem with the Autoguide AT change that concerns him, and wants some feed back. And all he gets is some drivel about how you think everyone should play the game....

Qazdar...grow up mate.

I prefer that players throw Bombs like WW2 planes instead of sending them from 5 km high because they just press TAB !

That statement right there pretty much sums up why you probably avoid giving "advice/counter arguments" in this thread. It's so ironic, you are so convinced these type of changes will make PVP so much more popular and make Arma more realistic, you don't even realize you actually seem to want to play a Battle Field type game.

You go from one extreme to the other...Sure Tab has some negatives and can be unrealistic with some weapon systems, but your really willing to get rid of FCS/get rid of GBUs/ ignore things that modern aircraft have like CCIP CCRP etc and make FLIR less clear...Just so you can have balanced PVP game mode...Guess what? War is not balanced. And modern military tech makes real war like guess what?? A video game no less!

Maybe it's Invasion44 (great mod btw) you should be playing, if you don't like the modern battle field.

Oh...and can I mention again how this CCP is not supposed to be for game play changing additions?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That shows how small is your knowledge on how TAB lock feature is destroying PVP on MP and making people go for non military missions instead of playing the real stuff !

PS, I let you in on a little secret...Arma's PVP scene is not popular because it requires proper organization/Comms/Team Work to result in a enjoyable game that is not complete frustration for either one or both sides. It will never be as popular as public pickup and play games like Domination/Evolution/Insurgency etc. No amount of "Fixes" to TAB lock are going to change that fact.

The only thing that could make PVP more popular is some one coming up with a clever mission design or feature that no one else has thought of..Like the way DayZ used the persistent server feature. Clever ideas like this have the potential to make Arma PVP very popular. Some one just has to come up with it and implement it.

Edited January 6, 2013 by -=seany=-

[On_Sabbatical 11]

Qazdar...grow up mate.

No thanks !

AutoGuideAt on/off was not working properly before ... Kju fixed it finally ! end of story !

If you want to go in the sky and start painting the map with hitboxes,set autoguideAt to ON.

For me,i see no difference between on/off,

OFF will, maybe, help me making good use of some skills i have instead of doing it the way a BF3boywhoboughtarma would do it !

[Die neunte Seele 10]

You go from one extreme to the other...Sure Tab has some negatives and can be unrealistic with some weapon systems, but your really willing to get rid of FCS/get rid of GBUs/ ignore things that modern aircraft have like CCIP CCRP etc and make FLIR less clear...Just so you can have balanced PVP game mode...Guess what? War is not balanced. And modern military tech makes real war like guess what?? A video game no less!

Guys, be happy we finally got the posibility to disable the (tab-) locking.

Even with the best military technology you still have to get intel about your target before you are able to shoot at it. You don't find out about an enemy by tab+fire. Untill there is some playable and realsistic way to lock guided weapons on detected enemies, it is absolutely right to disable our arcarde aimbot called Tab-lock.

From what we have now, the right mouse button lock is the only way to use the locking system while still respecting the flow of information. You use it to lock on a target you already know about (you see it!) - by selecting it via visual. All the others - Tab-, 2-, AT-auto-lock are used to gather information you cannot have without them.

This only is the logical bug. Ofc armas pvp modes will become enjoyable when hiding is possible, people dont kill others they couldn't even see because they were outside their object view distance (THX KYU! ) or people cannot tab-spam the whole map with missiles or bombs anymore (those bombs have a linar path from the plane to the target atm :j: )

Seeing forward to some great pvp games! :D

If we want to remove the Tab feature completely then can we instead of red dots on radar for tanks use something similar as AA incoming missile warning for planes? If AI crew spotted a target then radar shows approximate direction to the target by red sector on radar circle.

this is some very good idea for the case that you still want to have some radar ingame! Only when Ai spotted the target it shows up - and only its direction!

Furthermore you should not expect a bugfix to not change the game. If it wouldn't change anything you wouldn't do it. In addition all this important stuff we talk about here is optional.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Die neunte Seele

[[frl]myke 14]

Just let Kju make all changes as he likes, we will spam the CIT afterwards with all it broke. Maybe then BI will realize where it did go wrong.

[Muecke 114]

What about declaration ?

We can discuss about it instead of two sides weeping all the time.

Iam not a military expert with all the weaponsystems and technics, me is just a player.

Can you declare in examples when the TAB function ist realistic and with wich weapons.

Like a T90 comes around and 2km far gets two Strykers TOW as red dots on the radar.

I would press TAB as driver then ctrl+lmb and thos strykers were gone.

I know that i can do it but i dont know why is that realistic or not. To me its just a bit boring this way.

Please give some examples and declare it to us.

[[frl]myke 14]

What buggers me a bit is that everyone clearly states that ArmA 2 is not a lone wolf run & gun Rambo style game but as soon you board a tank as gunner, everything that counts are lone wolf run & gun rambo behaviour. It's not like that modern era tanks only have gunsights and a trigger. Believe it or not, modern era tanks do have computers, they have data links and a pretty advanced FCS. They also don't rely on their own sensors only but thanks to the LINK 16 data link, they can share and use sensor data from other units like JSTARS, AWACS and other combat vehicles with sensors (which inlcudes AH-64 Longbow, F series Fighters (F-35)). So actually main battle tanks are much closer to TABLOCK & FIRE than many of you think.

And when i read things like "GBU-12 can't lock on laser desgnators anymore", i clearly see that this project goes completely the wrong way.

If you can't introduce a proper FCS, then just keep your hands off the TAB lock. It might be flawed, granted, but i prefer flawed over broken on purpose anytime.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

Guys,if there is someone that can fix this,it would be BIS ... we may ask for some FCS alternative,but honestly i don't think that it would happen !

I would be more than happy with something like this :(sorry for the bad quality ,there is a RED circle in the middle of the HUD,that i use to aim with)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGjcqwVAHF0

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGUjfAm2mts

[mr_centipede 31]

The point here is, removing the TAB Lock that everyone would love to be remove is BREAKING other features.... which I dont think what CCP is all about. So for now we should live with the TAB Lock and let BIS remove it from the Engine side (not config side) as that would be more eficient/preferable....

[[frl]myke 14]

@Qazdar

please note that no one disagrees that TAB lock might be flawed. But always prefer flawed upon broken.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

Myke;2274614']@Qazdar

please note that no one disagrees that TAB lock might be flawed. But always prefer flawed upon broken.

I've come to a conclusion : CCP is not the right way to solve this TABlock issue,something should be done by BIS ! the scope of this project is too narrow ...

After rethinking,the tank problematic with autoguide OFF cannot be fixed without introducing new FCS (haven't checked the laser target issue yet).

[DomZ 15]

Vehicles maximum speed on different surfaces

Currently tracked vehicles maximum speed on flat ground is the same as on a good tarmac road. Wheeled vehicles have about half their maximum road speed on flat ground. I would expect a tracked vehicle to loose some proportion of its maximum speed travelling off road, but considerably less than a wheeled vehicle. A rough example for relative maximum speed could be:

Vehicle Type Tracked Cross Country Wheeled

Tarmac Road 100% 100%

Mud Track 80% 60%

Grassland 65% 40%

Ideally different sorts of surface would slow vehicles down different amounts like woodland, grassland or sand.

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/70185

[DomZ 15]

The weather conditions should affect the terrain.

When it is wet the terrain should be slower to move over. Infantry, wheeled vehicles and tracked vehicles should all be affected different amounts. Dry conditions should make it faster to move cross country. In a simple way overcast or sunny weather could be used for this for immediate effects, but over more longer periods of time average whether conditions in the future.

This would make roads and towns more strategically valuable in the game, as bases and parts of the map to take and hold.

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/70211

[andersson 285]

That is not in the scope of this project. Its only about bug fixing, no game changing features.

[DomZ 15]

I agree its a game improvement idea not a config thing. It's been moved to a different section in the dev-heaven issues already!

[Janez 534]

If this is viable to implement in this project, I made a list of Arma 2 weapons that need to be updated. If it is needed I can probably make one for vehicles as well.

So, here it is

Arma 2 West Weapons

DMR: Add Two-Stage Zoom, Zeroing and Remove NV Goggles compatibility

G36A: Add Secondary Sight and Remove NV Goggles compatibility

G36K: Add Secondary Sight and Remove NV Goggles compatibility

G36C-SD: Replace Reticle with OA Holo Reticle

MG36: Replace Reticle with OA Holo Reticle

M107: Add Two-Stage Zoom

Optional - M16A2 M203: Lower GL Sight

M16A4 AIM: Add Laser Sight

M16A4 ACOG: Add Laser Sight, ACOG Secondary Sight and Remove NV Goggles compatibility

M16A4 M203: Add Laser Sight

M16A4 ACOG M203: Add Laser Sight, ACOG Secondary Sight and Remove NV Goggles compatibility

M4A1 Holo M203: Add Flashlight and Replace Reticle with OA Holo Reticle

M4A1 Holo M203 (Camo): Add Flashlight and Replace Reticle with OA Holo Reticle

M4A1 Holo M203 SD (Camo): Add Flashlight, Replace Reticle with OA Holo Reticle and Fix GL Sight

M4A1 ACOG M203: Add Laser Sight, ACOG Secondary Sight and Remove NV Goggles compatibility

MK12 SPR: Add Two-Stage Zoom, Zeroing and Remove NV Goggles compatibility

M1911: Fix Misaligned Iron Sights

Arma 2 East Weapons

AK107 PSO: Add illuminated reticle to match VSS and Remove NV Goggles compatibility to match AKS74s PSO

AK107 PSO GL: Add illuminated reticle to match VSS and Remove NV Goggles compatibility to match AKS74s PSO

AKS74 PSO: Add illuminated reticle to match VSS

PKP: Remove NV Goggles compatibility to match AKS74s PSO

SVD: Add illuminated reticle to match VSS

SVD Camo: Add illuminated reticle to match VSS

VSS: Remove NV Goggles compatibility to match AKS74s PSO

Operation Arrowhead East Weapons to upgrade

AKS74 PSO: Add illuminated reticle to match VSS

SVD (Camo): Add illuminated reticle to match VSS

Edited January 13, 2013 by Janez

[galzohar 31]

I really hope that despite the controversy, we will at least see stuff like the Metis, Dragon and NLAW fixed with autoguideAT off. I don't think anyone would disagree that those shouldn't have a locking ability.

[Beagle 684]

I really hope that despite the controversy, we will at least see stuff like the Metis, Dragon and NLAW fixed with autoguideAT off. I don't think anyone would disagree that those shouldn't have a locking ability.

I disagree, just out of principle. I onyl hope in here was fixed MWS since most planes lost it in 1.57 patch and countermeasures für UH1Y and MV22.

[andersson 285]

I really hope that despite the controversy, we will at least see stuff like the Metis, Dragon and NLAW fixed with autoguideAT off. I don't think anyone would disagree that those shouldn't have a locking ability.

I agree, then whoever who would like to use tab and or range computer enable autoguide AT without making launchers "unrealistic".

Then one could argue that it is a change to the game design...

[Jastreb 69]

The time has come to Fix All the MI24s. Please and thank you!

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/26427

LOWmwc5DKfM

Edited January 13, 2013 by _MaSSive

[Groove_C 267]

Guy, please help to get these tickets fixed for 1.63

T-90 and BMP3 ATGM are fired from cannon and not from external platform like BMP-2 or BTR-90, that needs somebody to get out to reload it manually.

That's why reloading time for Arkan and Reflex shouldn't exceed those for HEAT or APFSDS

Arkan and Reflex should be available via mouse wheel like HEAT or APFSDS and not via "F".

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/70351

GSh gun used on Su-25 is GSh-30-1 with only 180 rounds, which is a mistake.

Su-25 should have the GSh-30-2 with 250 rounds and about twice the firing rate of the GSh-30-1 (~3000 rpm).

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/70342

Edited January 15, 2013 by Groove_C

[wattywatts 76]

Ok, so I did some research for AT rockets and missiles to make them more similar to their real-life brothers and sisters, mostly in terms of damage and min/max distance. As kju said, rebalancing the whole system is out of scope, yet some of these really need to be changed, for example AT-3 Malyutka is way too powerful and AGM-65 Maverick is way too weak. I didn't find values for most hand-held AT weapons, so any info will help.

I sorted them from the weakest to the most powerful - depending on penetration and also considering warhead weight.

< 150: OG-7, OG-9

150: MAAWS DP, SMAW DP

cca 250: AT-3 Sagger, PG-7V

300: PG-9

375: RPG-18

400: M-136, MAAWS HEAT (single HEAT)

cca 450: M47 Dragon, TOW-1A

500: AT-2 Swatter, PG-7VL, MAAWS tandem HEAT

550: NLAW

600: PG-7VR, SMAW HEAA, AT-5 Spandrel,

600-700: AT-6 Spiral

700: AT-10 Stabber

800: AT-11 Sniper

800-900: AT-9 Spiral 2

800+ ERA: FGM-148 Javelin

900-1000: AT-13 Saxhorn-2

900+ ERA: TOW-2B

1000+ ERA: AT-16 Scallion, AGM-114L Hellfire - 9 kg warhead

...

AGM-65 Maverick - 135kg warhead

...

Kh-29L - 320kg warhead

Details for each rocket/missile:

SPG-9 (source)

PG-9 HEAT

Warhead: 3kg HEAT

Penetration: 300mm RHA

Ingame damage: ?

OG-9 HE-Frag

Warhead: 5.35kg HE-Frag

Penetration: N/A

Ingame damage: ?

RPG-7V2 (source)

PG-7V

Warhead: 2.2kg HEAT

Penetration: 260+mm RHA

Ingame damage: ?

PG-7VL

Warhead: 2.6kg HEAT

Penetration: 500mm RHA

Ingame damage: ?

OG-7

Warhead: 2kg

Penetration: N/A, 7 m kill radius

Ingame damage: ?

PG-7VR

Warhead: 4.5kg tandem HEAT

Penetration: 600mm behind ERA

Ingame damage: ?

RPG-18 (source)

Warhead: ?kg HEAT

Penetration: 375mm RHA

Ingame damage: ?

AT-4 (M136) (source)

Warhead: ?kg HEAT

Penetration: 400mm RHA

Ingame damage: ?

Mk 153 Mod 0 (SMAW) (source)

HEAA

Warhead: ?kg

Penetration: 600mm RHA

Ingame damage: ?

HEDP

Warhead: ?kg

Penetration: N/A, ? m kill radius

Ingame damage: ?

M3 Carl Gustaw (MAAWS) (source)

As both DP and HE have same models ingame, I can't tell which of the HEAT round is used.

HEAT FFV551

Warhead: 3.2kg HEAT

Penetration: 400mm RHA

Ingame damage: ?

HEAT FFV751 tandem HEAT

Warhead: 4kg

Penetration: 500mm RHA

Ingame damage: ?

HEDP FV502

Warhead: 3.3kg

Penetration: 150mm RHA, ? m kill radius

Ingame damage: ?

AT-2 Swatter (3M11 Falanga) (source)

Warhead: 5.4kg HEAT

Penetration: 500mm RHA

Ingame damage: 400

Min/Max range: 500-2500m

AT-3 Sagger (9K11 Malyutka) (source)

Warhead: 2.6kg HEAT

Penetration: 200mm RHA at 60deg

Ingame damage: 600

Min/Max range: 500-3000m

AT-5 Spandrel (9M113 Konkurs) (source)

Warhead: Tandem HEAT ?kg

Penetration: 600mm RHA

Ingame damage: 480

Min/Max range: 75-4000 m

AT-6 Spiral (9K114 Shturm) (source)

Warhead: 6 kg HEAT

Penetration: 600-700mm RHA

Ingame damage: 400

Min/Max range: 400-5000 m

AT-9 Spiral-2 (9M120 Ataka-V) (source)

Warhead: 6-8? Shaped charge tandem HEAT

Penetration: 800-900mm RHA

Ingame damage: 640

Min/Max range: 400-6000 m

AT-10 Stabber (9M117M1 Arkan) (source)

Warhead: ? kg

Penetration: 750mm RHA

Ingame damage: 600

Min/Max range: 100-5500 m

AT-11 Sniper (9M119M Reflex) (source)

Warhead: 4.5kg (?) Hollow charge HEAT

Penetration: 700-800 mm

Ingame damage: 760

Min/Max range: 75-5000 m

AT-13 Saxhorn-2 (9M115-2 Metis-M) (source)

Warhead: Tandem HEAT

Penetration: 900-1000 mm behind ERA

Ingame damage: 670

Min/Max range: 80-2000 m

AT-16 Scallion (9K121 Vikhr) (source)

Warhead: 8-12kg tandem HEAT

Penetration: 1000mm behind ERA

Ingame damage: 800

Min/Max range: ?-8000/10000 m

M47 Dragon (source)

Warhead: 11.5kg HEAT

Penetration: 400-500mm

Ingame damage: 360

Min/Max range: 75-1000 m

BGM-71 TOW (source)

TOW-1A

Warhead: 3.9kg HEAT

Penetration: 430mm RHA

Ingame damage: 480

Min/Max range: 65-3000 m

TOW-2B

Warhead: 5.9 tandem HEAT, top-attack

Penetration: 900mm behind ERA

Ingame damage: 850

Min/Max range: 65-3750 m

MBT LAW (NLAW) (source)

Warhead: ? kg, top-attack, 3 second locking time

Penetration: Sources say to be similar to Bill-2, which has 550mm of RHA

Ingame damage: 550

Min/Max range: 20-600+ m

FGM-148 Javelin (source)

Warhead: 8.4 kg tandem HEAT, top-attack

Penetration: 800mm behind ERA

Ingame damage: 800

Min/Max range: 75-2500 m

AGM-114L Hellfire (source)

Warhead: 9Kg tandem HEAT

Penetration: ? compared to Javelin about 900-1000mm behind ERA

Ingame damage: 800

Min/Max range: ?-8000 m

AGM-65 Maverick (D-L variants) (source)

Warhead: 135 kg

Penetration: ?

Ingame damage: 850

Min/Max range: ?-22000 m

Kh-29L (source)

Warhead: 320kg HE-AP

Penetration: ?

Ingame damage: 4000

Min/Max range: ?-10000 m

[orcinus 121]

Ok, so I did some research for AT rockets and missiles to make them more similar to their real-life brothers and sisters, mostly in terms of damage and min/max distance. As kju said, rebalancing the whole system is out of scope, yet some of these really need to be changed, for example AT-3 Malyutka is way too powerful and AGM-65 Maverick is way too weak. I didn't find values for most hand-held AT weapons, so any info will help.

I agree, they really do need changing.

Not sure how much information there is on damage but a generally useful site is FAS - searchable by name or category. Some of the data is in PDF or DOC format from the US DoD so presumably accurate. I'm using it to get weights for various primary magazines, starting here for US weapons:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/

BR

Orc

[orcinus 121]

Small (I think :)) request re magazine configs:

Could the M249 (and variants) magazine configs be changed so that mags appear in decreasing order of size? - really irritating to see an MG unit coming back from rearming with 3 or 4 30-round STANAG mags. Also, the standard listing does not include the 100-round 5.56 box.

Lastly, AIUI from a bit of web research, aren't the UK 200-round 5.56 mags interchangeable with the US version - NATO policy for mags to be as interchangeable as possible, though I couldn't find anything specific (though I did learn that real-life MGers avoid using 30-round STANAG mags as far as possible because the jamming rate soars). Does anyone have better information re UK/US versions? If so please CMIIW.

TIA

Orc