TAB lock issue ...

[dm 9]

you would need some sort of firing solution, requiring the sighting devices of the craft and/or the missile being aimed a the target and waiting for the computer fcs-systems to give some sort of confirmation for lock.

Again, not so with radar hellfire.

The way the tab system is presented in Arma is very close to how the longbow system works in reality. By the time it has presented you with the target square (which it does IRL) it has already worked out its firing solution for you.

Supposedly it will also tell the difference between t-72, shilka, abrams, challenger, etc etc (understandable, as it is a millimeter-wave or "imaging" radar) so assuming you operate different hardware to the enemy it will also do IFF for you. If you're all running around in the same (or very similar) vehicles, then some visual IFF would be needed.

I have heard stories from the Brits using Apache in Afghanistan that the radar is good enough to pick out an 80mm mortar tube or a DShK from the ground clutter...

So for systems that use this kind of radar (assuming we'll get the radar equipped Comanche in full), then the current representation is perfectly fine. (I'm sure many of you will disagree, but then it wouldn't be authentic otherwise...)

manual or semi active missiles would require the gunner to manually direct the misisile to target in some way.

Agreed, systems like laser hellfire, or optically guided TOW (or their funky A3 equivalents) require human in the loop, for sure.

[fraczek 4]

;2430552']The CCP introduced an option and its optional. However even that was not acceptable to extremists. So that side is the problem' date=' not the AI.[/quote']

Hey Kju, I quite like the CCP in retrospect, I think the "extremists" were just concerned with (then) lack of clear presentation/dialogue on the changes the autoGAT brought...of course then the debate got a little too heated up, I remember... but let's not derail this thread :)

Back on topic:

So far I quite like some proposed things:

Lesser frequency of the radar update

A2 old style radar with priority given to where the gunner/commander is looking (I rather liked the old one in A2)

AI - gunner needing to track the target to IFF it (unless Longbow style tech perhaps)

Kju's LockOnDelay proposed in the biki article (I am pretty sure even the Longbow needs some time to just arm for firing just by nature of most armies technology being, well, clunky and not designed by apple <g>), it's most probably not just "press button, missile away, press again, missile away, repeat 8 times"

SACLOS systems really being SACLOS

Arc of fire working for SACLOS (and probably even the L hellfires - I guess you can't just fire them backwards although perhaps yes) - the pilot would have to remain in hover (ACE has this even for Ch-29 like missiles in fixed wing where the aircraft's FLIR/TV pod has a very limited arc of view)

Edited July 1, 2013 by fraczek

[b00ce 160]

Not everyone uses mods ... ACE is good but few people play with it... why not fixing them both ? FM and TAB lock -.-

Even the l16 system ,it 's not a matter of pressing one button ... it's a whole team work behind it !

Man, why are you insisting on prioritizing fixing bugs and issues -.-

If you want realistic targeting systems, download ACE or Mando. To "fix" things requires time and manpower, something that is limited. A game breaking bug is something far more important than a feature that replaces something that isn't necessarily broken. What good is a kickass targeting system if the helicopters that use them fly like garbage?

[On_Sabbatical 11]

If you want realistic targeting systems, download ACE or Mando. To "fix" things requires time and manpower, something that is limited. A game breaking bug is something far more important than a feature that replaces something that isn't necessarily broken. What good is a kickass targeting system if the helicopters that use them fly like garbage?

I could say the same for the FM,what 's good in having a BANANArealistic flight model that will allow you great maneuvers knowing that the guy sitting in the AA tank will just tablock your flying toy and those maneuvers will most likely be useless !

I am not against fixing the flight model,i want that as much as you do too !

Getting people to use ACE or mando on public server ... good luck with that !

We don't ask for mega-ultra-realistic targetting system,just something that requires some kind of effort

---------- Post added at 12:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 AM ----------

Again, not so with radar hellfire.

The way the tab system is presented in Arma is very close to how the longbow system works in reality. By the time it has presented you with the target square (which it does IRL) it has already worked out its firing solution for you.

Supposedly it will also tell the difference between t-72, shilka, abrams, challenger, etc etc (understandable, as it is a millimeter-wave or "imaging" radar) so assuming you operate different hardware to the enemy it will also do IFF for you. If you're all running around in the same (or very similar) vehicles, then some visual IFF would be needed.

I have heard stories from the Brits using Apache in Afghanistan that the radar is good enough to pick out an 80mm mortar tube or a DShK from the ground clutter...

Still,it's not as easy as TAB lock ... research the numerous friendly fires by apache during gulf wars and in Iraq

But,let's admit that apache has this ability (which i doubt to be as easy as a simple press on a button) ... the problem is that also other vehicles have access to the same targetting system ! whether it's a littlebird,Uhey,mi24 ,kamov ,T34 .. it's always the same system ,TAB + click ...

And,let's be honest ,arma 2 is far from being a milsim ... so better do something that will improve the gaming experience on MP than keeping this system which is unrealistic for most of vehicles !

Edited July 1, 2013 by On_Sabbatical

[Beagle 684]

And what is often left out when talking about longbow radar...it is quite useless against stationary targets in urban or even just village environments...thats why you dont saw it fitted in Iraq or A-stan...its FLIR all the way in that case...well not in arma where you can lock a red square in a town with tab. Radar is nice on open vast grounds but the problems start when you have hills all around and cant stay higher than treetop level due to AA.

[dm 9]

And what is often left out when talking about longbow radar...it is quite useless against stationary targets in urban or even just village environments...thats why you dont saw it fitted in Iraq or A-stan...its FLIR all the way in that case...

Not true at ALL.

The Americans removed the Longbow from their Apaches deployed in Afghanistan in order to save weight (since the hot & high conditions reduce performance).

The Brits, with their more powerful Rolls Royce engines were able to leave the Longbow installed, since they have vastly more power available. There have been many many reports from British Army Air Corps pilots that the longbow has been invaluable at locating mortars and even heavy machineguns inamongst the ground clutter. The system is integrated into the Apache in such a way that they can automatically slew the visual sensors onto the target to confirm what it is (with the strict RoE this is a procedural requirement, not a targeting one - once the radar is locked onto something, you can plop a hellfire onto it without any further input).

[.kju 3239]

the longbow has been invaluable at locating mortars and even heavy machineguns inamongst the ground clutter

With tab lock, right? ;)

[dm 9]

;2431177']With tab lock' date=' right? ;)[/quote']

Without wanting to focus exclusively on longbow (tho it is the most representative of the current tablock system)

Actually, sort of, yes.

Once its prioritised the targets, it will present the gunner with a list of ~20 targets.

You can either pick each target by using its corresponding MFD button, or you can cycle through the targets using a switch on the joystick...

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

You can either pick each target by using its corresponding MFD button, or you can cycle through the targets using a switch on the joystick...

Should be illegal! Don't they realise having a tab-lock on aircraft makes war unfair!? Worse than that it totally screws up balanced gameplay in battlefield sims! ;)

(Tip - to get around this in Project Reality I used to hide the vehicle behind a building - apache couldn't tab lock and you nail it with the DShK when it gets close enough.)

Edited July 2, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[.kju 3239]

In the end the easy target identification and IFF system is the core problem.

If one sees tab as merely assigning of known targets, it is just fine for those weapon systems with such capabilities.

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

;2431255']In the end the easy target identification and IFF system is the core problem.

If one sees tab as merely assigning of known targets' date=' it is just fine for those weapon systems with such capabilities.[/quote']

Do you know about BTID transponders? Aircraft, vehicles and ground troops have them now - it's an iff system to avoid fratricide and returns instantly if the target is friendly:

http://www.thalesgroup.com/Portfolio/Defence/Defence_products_CombatIdentification_BISfamily/

http://www.defensedaily.com/articles/dt/2004/dt06140402.htm

They have a ground based transmitter that collates the data and transmits it via link16:

http://www.doncio.navy.mil/CHIPS/ArticleDetails.aspx?ID=2756

Edited July 2, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[Scorlhov 1]

Do you know about BTID transponders? Aircraft, vehicles and ground troops have them now - it's an iff system to avoid fratricide and returns instantly if the target is friendly:

http://www.thalesgroup.com/Portfolio/Defence/Defence_products_CombatIdentification_BISfamily/

http://www.defensedaily.com/articles/dt/2004/dt06140402.htm

They have a ground based transmitter that collates the data and transmits it via link16:

http://www.doncio.navy.mil/CHIPS/ArticleDetails.aspx?ID=2756

But.....how do you know if the non friendly is ..civil(people, car, truck,...) or an ennemy :)

[twistking 204]

have a look here:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?158384-The-community-s-definite-suggestion-for-better-heli-immersion-and-guided-weapon-FCS

but please read carefully and give feedback in the way descibed. i don't want that to become an argument about possible future tech, but practical suggestion on how to improve gameplay and realism!

be nice!

Edited July 3, 2013 by twistking

[Masharra 10]

But.....how do you know if the non friendly is ..civil(people, car, truck,...) or an ennemy :)

Doesnt stop them from shooting each other down still :D see BAF campaign and the news.

In arma well pfft there is no downside to killing civs in the average arma 3 mission.

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

But.....how do you know if the non friendly is ..civil(people, car, truck,...) or an ennemy :)

You don't until you look with the optics (sometimes you can tell with the radar) - so maybe that is the way forward - identify all friendly vehicles on the display and leave the gunner to identify enemy vehicles with the optics as KJU said? Some enemy can be identified with knows about - simulating link16?

Edited July 3, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[Ulanthorn 10]

a modern Radar need processing time and focus to identify a target...that's not a instant thing and a Radar can't scan 360° while it locks something the same time. While I never worked the Longbow Radar I have some time with the PARA-RASIT System and I still tend to say Radar is no Magic thing that lets you see all...it is especially troublesome in build up area with lots of buildings made from dense material like concrete or bricks like it is common in europe. A tank platoon in Position near a small village of 2 Story brick buildings is basically hidden the Radar clutter so you need FLIR.

Edited July 13, 2013 by Ulanthorn

[Antigoon 10]

Myke;2334557']Fairchild Republic A-10 was produced from 1975 to 1986' date=' not what i would call "state-of-the-art" technology. No doubt, a powerful and deadly plane but we're speaking about technology.[/quote']

The A10C, as is represented in DCS, is nicely upgraded with all sorts of nifty gizmo's and gadgets. "Technology" pur sang! The original A10 you find in lomac, yes, that's the eighties plane you're probably talking about.

[SissiSaatana 1]

a modern Radar need processing time and focus to identify a target...that's not a instant thing and a Radar can't scan 360° while it locks something the same time. While I never worked the Longbow Radar I have some time with the PARA-RASIT System and I still tend to say Radar is no Magic thing that lets you see all...it is especially troublesome in build up area with lots of buildings made from dense material like concrete or bricks like it is common in europe. A tank platoon in Position near a small village of 2 Story brick buildings is basically hidden the Radar clutter so you need FLIR.

this x100. Arma's radar seems more like gods all seeing eye atm than a radar ... I get nice red dot from a ifrit in a dense forest on which I can immediately lock and fire man the radar technology has improved in 20 years ...not to sound like douche but sometimes I get the feeling that the futuristic approach is taken to avoid the need to simulate how thing really work ...

But anyways BIS still loving your game and the great job u do keep it up :cool:

[spanishsurfer 58]

a modern Radar need processing time and focus to identify a target...that's not a instant thing and a Radar can't scan 360° while it locks something the same time. While I never worked the Longbow Radar I have some time with the PARA-RASIT System and I still tend to say Radar is no Magic thing that lets you see all...it is especially troublesome in build up area with lots of buildings made from dense material like concrete or bricks like it is common in europe. A tank platoon in Position near a small village of 2 Story brick buildings is basically hidden the Radar clutter so you need FLIR.

It's funny how the guys who have actually USED/WORKED with this radar know just how limited it is. Like Ulanthorn says and as did I (I am a military pilot)...radar is not magical, ground targets ALWAYS have to be identified visually whether it be via troops (SOFLAM), FLIR, another aircraft/uav, satellites, etc. IFF is a great tool but no one with a right mind would trust it to the point where they would drop bombs on targets with no one confirming what we are targeting. Sure, some computers can recognize radar signature that match things like armor, vehicles, etc...but it can always be wrong, no one wants to be the guy that kills innocent people, that's why confirming targets is crucial.

I've already suggested a simple and bullet proof idea, keep tab lock but make all the targets neutral in color. Force a player to identify their targets visually via the above mentioned ways. Radar could show different shapes for what it thinks it's tracking (Square= car, triangle= plane, circle=tank/apc, etc) but you wouldn't know if it was friend/foe until it was identified visually by the above mentioned ways. Of course, you could also analyze the map, figure out where the friends are and make a best guess of who the enemy are this way as well, which is also a strategy used in the real world.

[twistking 204]

i have written a little article and a ticket at the feedback tracker incorporating the feedback by spanishsurfer and other experts.

have a look here: article, ticket

@SpanishSurfer: How long is the range of FLIR for effective target identification approximately? more like 5km or 20km? and is it dependent on weather conditions?

Edited July 17, 2013 by twistking

[dm 9]

ground targets ALWAYS have to be identified visually whether it be via troops (SOFLAM), FLIR, another aircraft/uav, satellites, etc. IFF is a great tool but no one with a right mind would trust it to the point where they would drop bombs on targets with no one confirming what we are targeting.

Well, I for one, would not like to rely on satellite info in order to identify targets, the data is even less reliable than real-time radar (because it is not real time).

And yes, anyone who is engaging targets without knowing what they are, is insane. It is not* that uncommon tho.

However, typically, there are well defined areas of operation, areas where anything inside is is considered enemy, or friendly, or neutral, or a mix of the three. Anything in the first area is free pickings. This is why so many blue-on-blue incidents happen - people go places they arent supposed to be, either through ignorance of the areas, or lack of skills (typically, map reading skills). The current war in Afghanistan is very unorthodox in terms of this, in that 90% of the map is "mixed region", which is why current RoE requires visual identification before target engagement. (Tho typically this is to avoid non-combatant casualties). It has also seen more and more use of FACs (or JTACs as they are called now) to talk aviation onto target.

The longbow system (which I have some experience with) was designed for the first area type - all known enemy - and is very good at picking targets out. Not as good as the Arma radar, yes, but still pretty good, especially on the sort of flat terrain that the Arma series has). Bear in mind that the Arma radar DOES work on line-of-sight, so it will only show the box if the target is actually in line of sight.

How long is the range of FLIR for effective target identification approximately? more like 5km or 20km? and is it dependent on weather conditions?

It is highly dependent on the sensor in use and the weather conditions. Typically a few km is the operable range for FLIR.

[Ulanthorn 10]

Thermal imaging is not as crisp and clear as you see it in games, thge further away and the more humidity or fog the more the picture gets blurry. at 2000m you might be already unable to get a clear identification of the object simply vecause you only see a heat splotch that only shows the class of the vehicle...not the type. It might be hard to tell a BMP from a Bradley. the less distortion and particles in the air the better the image. http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4104/4842823915_37e4c57271.jpg (117 kB)

[Masharra 10]

Thermal imaging is not as crisp and clear as you see it in games, thge further away and the more humidity or fog the more the picture gets blurry. at 2000m you might be already unable to get a clear identification of the object simply vecause you only see a heat splotch that only shows the class of the vehicle...not the type. It might be hard to tell a BMP from a Bradley. the less distortion and particles in the air the better the image. http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4104/4842823915_37e4c57271.jpg (117 kB)

Its the future. All is excused.

[twistking 204]

o.k. thanks for the info.

i always suspected that FLIR is far less clear in real life. especially in arma FLIR even on infantry-scopes is super crisp and it feel "too easy". perhaps a strong DOF-blur would help making it more immersive and less easy to spot and identify targets.

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Thermal imaging is not as crisp and clear as you see it in games,

When's that from the 1980s? Latest AH-64E M-TADS/PNVS:

Daylight camera

FLIR 2nd Generation

http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/content/dam/lockheed/data/mfc/video/arrowhead/mfc-arrowhead-video-01.mpeg

Edited July 17, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari