General Discussion (dev branch)

[Guest]

Spotted : 3 Little bird skins are still useless :

air_f\Heli_Light_01\data\heli_light_01_ext_blue_co.paa

//Blue and civilian, not available with this setVariable ["color",X];

air_f\Heli_Light_01\data\heli_light_01_ext_ion_co.paa

// Black, maybe not available on purpose

air_f\Heli_Light_01\data\heli_light_01_ext_ion_co.paa

// AAF camo, certainly not available on purpose

The first one should be "this setVariable ["color",15];" on M-900 :bounce3:

[killzone_kid 1332]

Spotted : 3 Little bird skins are still useless :

air_f\Heli_Light_01\data\heli_light_01_ext_blue_co.paa

//Blue and civilian, not available with this setVariable ["color",X];

air_f\Heli_Light_01\data\heli_light_01_ext_ion_co.paa

// Black, maybe not available on purpose

air_f\Heli_Light_01\data\heli_light_01_ext_ion_co.paa

// AAF camo, certainly not available on purpose

The first one should be "this setVariable ["color",15];" on M-900 :bounce3:

2nd and 3rd are the same.

[DnA 5156]

Question (that might probably have been asked): Do you know if the Taru will stay as it is (with x variants, one for each pod) or will we be able to attach/detach pods on the go ?

It will stay like it is.

---------- Post added at 09:12 ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 ----------

Yes, noticed it was working on Saturday evening. As it was not apparently related to your releases, I assumed a steam update fixed this?

We've been able to work out a semi-released state for the DLC with Valve. They have applied this method in the back-end and so no game updates were needed.

[Redphoenix 1540]

It will stay like it is.

That's a big shame in my opinion....

[x3kj 1247]

Added: New properties for better damage handling

As you worked on damage handling recently, this might be the right time

Technical proposal for body armor improvement: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=21386

Instead of Modelling the real thickness of the armor plates, it might be sufficient to have very few additional components that are relatively large in the firegeometry. Combined with a small change in bullet ballistics and damage relationship. Let me demonstrate how the hit geometry would look first.

This is the regular hitbox model of a standard A3 character (from sample model).

And this is how the body armor hitbox model for chestarmor could look. 2 Boxes. Why 2? to conform to skeleton deformations. Depending on size it could also be just one.

Here is how a helmet could look.

The reason why the protruding armor is possible, is because if a bullet hits a volume of the fire geometry, it will ignore all other volumes until it left the first volume. There needs to be a minimum distance between 2 volumes for it to recognize both materials, i don't know that distance however (may depend on bulletspeed, no idea).

So if we imagine a plate carrier with front and back plate (like modelled here), and you hit the body from the side, the "meat" material of the body will be the only material considered. Hits from the front only consider the armor for penetration.

The problem why we cant do it like that currently is this: Model Fire geometry consists of simplified shapes of the model, and their ballistic materials. But it does only determine bullet flight through the model itself. It does not damage the model. For this you have to define hitpoints.

One hitpoint is a single point in the model and has a spherical radius around it (defined via config). For an object to receive damage, a projectile must hit the fire geometry of the model AND the point of impact has to be within at least one hitpoint-sphere.

And this is the problem with modelling bodyarmor currently. The hitpoint spheres are fairly large, so even with the protruding armor (like shown) version, the hitpoint spheres are above it.

If you hit the armor model, the character will get damaged just like if you would hit the unprotected bodypart. But the bullet will travel slower on exit (or not even enter).

Making the hitpoint spheres smaller won't help, as only the point of impact on the fire geometry counts. If you define a hitpoint sphere within a firegeometry volume, it does nothing, because only the point of impact counts.

What could be done to solve this?

An information link between the hitpoint system and the bullet penetration system could be established in the code.

If a bullet impacts on fire geometry within a hitpoints "detection sphere", the calculator doing the damage stuff needs to know on which material the impact occured on for that hitsphere. I can't imagine that this would be too performance costly, as the information is already there, the projectile has it to determine ballistic behaviour after all.

With this implemented, a body armor could have 2 different config settings. Softarmor and Hardarmor.

Softarmor works like the armor system does atm, it protects entire bodypart. This can be used for simulating kevlar layers and so on.

Hardarmor only has an effect if the armor material defined in the firegeometry model was struck.

Whether a more sophisticated solution with checking for penetration/not penetration can be easily done that way idk, might be something to consider. Even with just Soft and Hardarmor config values it would be a huge step forward.

[roberthammer 582]

@Fennek - exactly , this would been hell alot realistic and no more magical Face protection from the helmet etc

but i would like to see the protection directly from vests/helmets via firegeometry - http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=5377

fire geometry on vests. Colored areas should have their own rvmats and use native penetration, if the round penetrates the vest, fire geometry of soldier is below.

Vests should also have hitpoints so after a certain amount of hits, they will become totally ineffective. Damage textures for vests would be great too.

Instead of modifying damage to the soldier config wise, this appears to me as a more simple method. 
Why overcomplicate things by modifying the configuration with the vest, rather than using the penetration system the engine already provides?
Legend:
RED: Ballistic plate inserts (Rifle grade plate)
Blue: Ballistic soft inserts (shrapnel/pistol grade kevlar)
Green: Vest-mounted equipment, radios, magazines, etc

Edited October 27, 2014 by RobertHammer

[x3kj 1247]

but i would like to see the protection directly from vests/helmets via firegeometry

that's what i imagined... Vests with fire geometry LOD. The only thing i think you would need to add is a proxy marker for the vests/helmet/uniform in the firegeometry p3d of each character. To have it as a predetermined shape in case you wear a helmet/ armor would be wasting almost all of the potential.

Doing it so detailed as in your picture might be too much however (and maybe why BIS kept away from it so far?) If you look at the base character fire geometry, how simple that is - and then adding the same amount of boxes for just chest armor? Doesn't make sense to me.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Fennek

[roberthammer 582]

that's what i imagined... Vests with fire geometry LOD. The only thing i think you would need to add is a proxy marker for the vests/helmet/uniform in the firegeometry p3d of each character. To have it as a predetermined shape in case you wear a helmet/ armor would be wasting almost all of the potential.

Doing it so detailed as in your picture might be too much however (and maybe why BIS kept away from it so far?) If you look at the base character fire geometry, how simple that is - and then adding the same amount of boxes for just chest armor? Doesn't make sense to me.

Well it is not that detailed , A3 tanks fire geometry is far more detailed heh - btw original pic and idea is InstaGoat's

the point is the vest fire geometry should have 3 types squares or boxes - that each set the proper protection just like in tanks - front/torso plate strong protection , sides less etc

This will bring realistic working body armor and no magical whole body protection

Edited October 27, 2014 by RobertHammer

[x3kj 1247]

A3 tanks fire geometry is far more detailed

except they are also way larger as well... if you aproximate round turrets on a tank by a cube you will get hits where there should be none, and it would be very noticeable. For Characters this is alot less noticable because they are smaller. Or have you noticed that the fire geometry of characters in case they wear large vest is a fair amount smaller then what the visuals suggest?

Edited October 27, 2014 by Fennek

[roberthammer 582]

sample:

In the vest you got 2 front armor plates , lets say 2 simple squares in fire geometry

for a example like this vest > http://www.ar500armor.com/images/detailed/2/AR500_armor_defender_plates.jpg

those 2 squares that represent these black plates will be only in fire geometry of that vest , which means that those 2 squares will protect you but nothing else

Edited October 27, 2014 by RobertHammer

[x3kj 1247]

I only suggested a possible technical way of solving the issue in a (hopefully) easy and performance friendly way. The details how far they want to go with it is up to them to decide. My examples are just for illustration purposes.

[arziben 23]

It will stay like it is.

Well, first of all thanks for the answer.

Now I also think it's a shame as it will kind of breaks mission flow, the fact that you wouldn't be able to attach/detach cargo pods on the fly without having them on the end of a rope under such a beautiful craft kind of makes me sad. And while we're at it, why stop at pods, why not set some kind of specific attchto script to the Taru which would require the helicopter to be lower but would attach everything it can cary right on the Claw thingy, its "air crane" design would be perfect for that...

Well I guess we'll have to hope for modders to do that :/.

On an unrelated note:

28-10-2014

Also no update this day because of a Czech nation holiday (Independent Czechoslovak State Day).

Happy state day ! (in advance) And we're still waiting on the shooting range pictures :D

Edited October 27, 2014 by arziben

[jcae2798 132]

And we're still waiting on the shooting range pictures :D

Haha that we are :)

[Sterlingarcherz101 15]

It will stay like it is.

---------- Post added at 09:12 ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 ----------

We've been able to work out a semi-released state for the DLC with Valve. They have applied this method in the back-end and so no game updates were needed.

The game has been plagued by a lack of "new" asset content. . Then we found out it was only actually going to be 2 new helis. A bitter pill to swallow for some.

Can I ask you something DNA. Was it even discussed about the new aircraft being able to attach and detach the different pods. A technical difficulty to do such a feature I can accept.

But Considering the heli dlc(aside from the new features), consists of just 2 new assets with different variants. If it was a lack of ambition to have such an "obvious" feature with the taru. Then that just plain sucks balls.

[Alwarren 2767]

But Considering the heli dlc(aside from the new features), consists of just 2 new assets with different variants.

This has been discussed to lengths elsewhere, and the answer is basically the same: if you don't want to spend the money, don't do it. No need to start the discussion again.

[SaOk 112]

The advanced hints work badly with the current official build. The H-key to open more info stop working after few times and stays broken even after reseting the mission in editor. Have had the same advanced hints for nearly a year and no problems before.

EDIT: Sorry nevermind. Found out why it happens. Made some changes recently it didnt like.

Edited October 27, 2014 by SaOk

[metralla 19]

It might be helpful to incorporate a special type of flare that signaled the location to drop the charge, and the same system that helps the driver to pick up the cargo helicopter do the same. in this case would mark the location to drop the load.

I mean this: but here's the point to release the load

[10t 12]

Was it even discussed about the new aircraft being able to attach and detach the different pods. A technical difficulty to do such a feature I can accept.

Considering how many hours changing from Medivac to Cargo would probably take (supporting the pod; disconnecting it; disconnecting electrical, pneumatic, and aircon supplies; lowering and removing the pod; blanking off the electrical, pneumatic and aircon supplies; moving the Cargo pod into place; aligning and lifting it; and connecting the pod), I'm not bothered at all by the inability to insta-switch the pods. It's probably only one or two hours, which is pretty quick in a strategic sense and a great selling point from a logistics point of view, but not the sort of thing a pilot would do on a whim by hitting a button.

I base my estimate on experience changing RB211 and CF6 engines on A330s, 767s and 747s. It's only 8 bolts and a couple of fuel, electrical, pneumatic and hydraulic lines, but it's a solid 12 hours work for 10 blokes.

If it really bothers you, write a script that switches between Taru models and creates/destroys the separate pods as required.

[Alwarren 2767]

Considering how many hours changing from Medivac to Cargo would probably take (supporting the pod; disconnecting it; disconnecting electrical, pneumatic, and aircon supplies; lowering and removing the pod; blanking off the electrical, pneumatic and aircon supplies; moving the Cargo pod into place; aligning and lifting it; and connecting the pod), I'm not bothered at all by the inability to insta-switch the pods. It's probably only one or two hours, which is pretty quick in a strategic sense and a great selling point from a logistics point of view, but not the sort of thing a pilot would do on a whim by hitting a button.

Well, in Arma you can repair a vehicle or refuel it within seconds, and don't even need to get off the driver's seat, so I don't really consider this an argument. The only argument against the changing pods is technical limitations of the engine, or the effort required to change it to make that possible.

[Tankbuster 1747]

Considering how many hours changing from Medivac to Cargo would probably take (supporting the pod; disconnecting it; disconnecting electrical, pneumatic, and aircon supplies; lowering and removing the pod; blanking off the electrical, pneumatic and aircon supplies; moving the Cargo pod into place; aligning and lifting it; and connecting the pod), I'm not bothered at all by the inability to insta-switch the pods. It's probably only one or two hours, which is pretty quick in a strategic sense and a great selling point from a logistics point of view, but not the sort of thing a pilot would do on a whim by hitting a button.

I'm not convinced. I always assumed these pods are supposed to be self contained and could be delivered by the aircraft and set up in a conflict zone (and then the helo would fly off on another mission). If that is the case, then the only connection between the pod and the aircraft would a twistlock, and TBH, there's a nicely modelled one on the aircraft. If, on the other hand, these are supposed to represent a multirole aircraft that is not designed to deliver, for example, a self contained medical station, but instead, take the role of a medical helicopter when it has the med pod, then yes, you'd expect the pod and the aircraft system to be more intertwined.

I hoped that his was something of a Thunderbird 2, it's a single role aircraft, it's role is to deliver standalone battlefield systems.

[Sterlingarcherz101 15]

This has been discussed to lengths elsewhere, and the answer is basically the same: if you don't want to spend the money, don't do it. No need to start the discussion again.

Al, can you do me a solid and link me this long discussion on why the "taru does not have a pod attach and detach option". From the design of the heli it looks like it should have.

That is the question I asked. Didn't mention anything about spending money or price of the dlc. I'm happy with the features.

Then ..To the argument about having to decouple hydraulics and hours of detaching, health and safety procedures forms being filled out, being a possible factor In the decision making at bis. Yeah I really don'tsee what this has to do with a game feature. you completely lost me.

"write my own script " well that solves everything now doesn't it. Bis you hear that cease working on arma 3. We are just going to write our own scripts from now on.

As I said if it was a technical hurdle then its understandable.

[Alwarren 2767]

Al, can you do me a solid and link me this long discussion on why the "taru does not have a pod attach and detach option".

The discussion was about your complaint of only having two helicopters in the DLC.

[chortles 263]

@ Sterlingarcherz101: I can't answer re: the Taru or there being specifically two airframes, but as far as the new airframes being only heavy transports, RiE elaborated on that (the exclusive focus) during one of the livestreams.

[Alwarren 2767]

@ Sterlingarcherz101: I can't answer re: the Taru or there being specifically two airframes

Cargo positions, Cargo views, and all associated config entries are hard-coded for a specific vehicle. You can use attachTo for attaching these pods, but that will cause a few weird issues, like, you will not be able to "just" point at a chopper and command your AI to enter, you will have to "hit" the pods.

[Sterlingarcherz101 15]

The discussion was about your complaint of only having two helicopters in the DLC.

Again al, my complaint was the lack of detach attach. I don't care that there is only 2 helis. Like I said. I'd rather features, the new flight model. Ffv, and slingload... than more models.

But if you are going to only put 2 in. At least make them top quality. Maybe I'm on my own thinking the taru would have greatly benefit from the attach/ detach pods.

I asked a question. was it a technical reason, or were they not bothered. Maybe they didn't see it as a good feature.