General Discussion (dev branch)

[Ex3B 266]

14 hours ago, darkChozo said:

You can get them to engage with a loiter waypoint, 1000m altitude and 1500m radius seems to work well. They only use the 40mm, though; they don't seem to be able to use the 105 or the gattling. I've gotten them to destroy trucks and kill infantry, though they don't seem able to spot infantry from the air without assistance.

I too have gotten the Blackfish to provide support with loiter waypoints of certain altitudes and distances. I also tested by making the blackfish gunner positions playable. I found that the blackfish gunner always selectes the 105mm, but doesn't seem to use it. I then used the removeWeaponTurret command so that the AI gunner only had the 20mm - the result was that the blackfish used the 20mm.

I've considered replacing the 105mm and the 20mm with the wipeout's 30mm (since the 20mm is rather weak), but I haven't tested if the AI will actually use it yet.

Otherwise, there is always the option of giving the 2nd turret gunner another 40mm, so that the blackfish is essentially just firing 2x 40mm cannons.

Its not ideal, but there are ways to make missions where it can provide some support... but allowing players to fill the gunner seats seems to be the best option if it can fit in your mission

[dragon01 902]

8 hours ago, x3kj said:

Steering wheel animation for tanks does not work when the mouse is used for steering - it does not move. Using keyboard works fine. Dont have a controller at hand to test, but i assume that works too.

Actually, tank steering doesn't seem to respond to a controller at all, at least in my setup where it's bound to "car (analog)" steering commands.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

RC

 

New vehicles still need their Simple Object configs, Z offsets are incorrect on the new Offroad AT variants

[SuicideKing 233]

18 hours ago, R3vo said:

Is it just me or have tanks become weaker in general? I mean with all the new AT weapons and their top down attack modes it seems like tanks are in desperate need of countermeasures. I understand that the smoke launcher are there for that but they work like 1 out of 9 times for me and there are only 2 rounds available. Seems silly.

Well, if you have good positioning and infantry screening you then you should be fine. Depending on how the final damage model works out, you may see more incapacitations than outright deaths. Further, ERA is now a feature too, so I think it's not really that bad. Further, AI won't engage if you have a smoke screen, and players won't use dumbfire. That said, last i checked (which was over a week ago), a lock could be attained through smoke which i hope they manage to fix. You will likely outrange AI anyway. Further, top attack weapons need to be able to lock on to things, and if you're in defilade they shouldn't be able to.

 

18 hours ago, scavenjer said:

Smokescreen will block missile guidance (lock-on) and also blocks visual so the enemy can't use SACLOS. 

Though from above it does pretty much nothing.

This is why I wanted proper APS ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I can't help but think that proper APS would be really annoying to play against to be honest. The AI is already very good at locating the source of the incoming missile, with APS we'd have to expend a platoon's worth of AT to take out a tank, assuming we don't all get shot in the process. I also don't find the prospect of infantry accidentally getting killed by the APS engaging the missile fun. But hey, you seem to have used a scripted APS system, so maybe it's not that bad?

 

EIther way, it seems the APS horse is dead, and I think it would be more useful to focus our efforts on figuring out how best to smooth out the kinks with the smoke and missile warning dynamic.

[Beagle 684]

6 hours ago, dragon01 said:

Actually, tank steering doesn't seem to respond to a controller at all, at least in my setup where it's bound to "car (analog)" steering commands.

Analog left right is obviously boound to car simulation. Worse is, when you assing other left/right options to the same axis its in conflict with each other. Thats currently one of the most serious control problems in ArmA III

[dragon01 902]

The proper solution would be to either introduce "tank left/right" binding, or make the option for cars do double duty (quite logical, TBH).

[Beagle 684]

7 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

The proper solution would be to either introduce "tank left/right" binding, or make the option for cars do double duty (quite logical, TBH).

Well, the Developers have heard that more then once, here and in private messages. Its obviously not that easy since wheeled and tracked use different physics.

[dragon01 902]

Well, they did it for wheeled, they should do it for tracked. I don't care of those are two different commands, but they should be there.

[Beagle 684]

8 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

Well, they did it for wheeled, they should do it for tracked. I don't care of those are two different commands, but they should be there.

Yes, that would solve a lot of the current control problem for Joystick/Wheel users. Add to that a real "brake" Axis not just "reverse".

Currently the "reverse" action disrupts steering in all vehicle classes and is much to abrupt when used as a brake function.

I said numerous times that the actual feel of the vehicles in game is not bad because of config or physix, but by lack of good control options.

 

Separation for all classes would be the least. right now there are too much control conflicts, mostly tracked vs. wheeled vs. boats.

 

[scavenjer 112]

3 hours ago, SuicideKing said:

Well, if you have good positioning and infantry screening you then you should be fine. Depending on how the final damage model works out, you may see more incapacitations than outright deaths. Further, ERA is now a feature too, so I think it's not really that bad. Further, AI won't engage if you have a smoke screen, and players won't use dumbfire. That said, last i checked (which was over a week ago), a lock could be attained through smoke which i hope they manage to fix. You will likely outrange AI anyway. Further, top attack weapons need to be able to lock on to things, and if you're in defilade they shouldn't be able to.

 

I can't help but think that proper APS would be really annoying to play against to be honest. The AI is already very good at locating the source of the incoming missile, with APS we'd have to expend a platoon's worth of AT to take out a tank, assuming we don't all get shot in the process. I also don't find the prospect of infantry accidentally getting killed by the APS engaging the missile fun. But hey, you seem to have used a scripted APS system, so maybe it's not that bad?

 

EIther way, it seems the APS horse is dead, and I think it would be more useful to focus our efforts on figuring out how best to smooth out the kinks with the smoke and missile warning dynamic.

Hm, APS isn't a be all end all, it can only intercept missiles it can detect and depending on the specific solution it has limited detection and intercept angles.

Some can't detect or intercept top attack missiles for example.

There's also the issue of most APS types being "consumables" and having a limited amount of charges/time between charges.

Unlike what Russia for example claims with their "Afghanit" etc. APS cannot intercept APFSDS fired from MBTs and certainly doesn't have 100% reliability.

 

Another example: Rheinmetall makes an APS that just bolts onto the top of vehicles and only protects the vehicles from direct fire RPGs/ATGMs. It can't intercept top attack munitions.

 

But yeah, APS is not coming so might as well drop the topic and focus on what is coming! :)

[teabagginpeople 398]

I'm using the UAV to laze for the rinos lock on capability. 

 

This is all good for hitting regular vehicles. It seems the laze lock for the UAV when locked at the tank. Does so not the same as most other vehicles. Unlike most other vehicles it does not lock the vehicle centre. On the tank it locks off to the front. I was getting some misses only when hitting the static tank and was wondering could this be the case. ( Can someone else confirm) 

 

That brings me to the UAV turret . Is there a reason it defaults back to pointing at the sky when you leave uav turret, without locking it to a fixed position or target?  

[lexx 1391]

That brings me to the UAV turret . Is there a reason it defaults back to pointing at the sky when you leave uav turret, without locking it to a fixed position or target?  

The UAV has an ai gunner, just as any other vehicle. If you don't lock on to something, the ai does what every vehicle ai does- return "back to normal".

 

Much worse is that you can't issue driver commands while being connected to a UAV. It's really annoying.

[HaseDesTodes 62]

24 minutes ago, teabagginpeople said:

I'm using the UAV to laze for the rinos lock on capability. 

 

This is all good for hitting regular vehicles. It seems the laze lock for the UAV when locked at the tank. Does so not the same as most other vehicles. Unlike most other vehicles it does not lock the vehicle centre. On the tank it locks off to the front. I was getting some misses only when hitting the static tank and was wondering could this be the case. ( Can someone else confirm) 

 

the points uavs aim at when locked are stupid for many vehicles (especially stupid for some armored ones)

 

ever tried lasing a Tigris from the side?

[darkChozo 133]

23 minutes ago, lexx said:

The UAV has an ai gunner, just as any other vehicle. If you don't lock on to something, the ai does what every vehicle ai does- return "back to normal".

 

You can uncheck "autonomous" in the UAV terminal to disable this behavior. You have to recheck it if you want it to track a target, though.

[teabagginpeople 398]

27 minutes ago, darkChozo said:

 

You can uncheck "autonomous" in the UAV terminal to disable this behavior. You have to recheck it if you want it to track a target, though.

 

58 minutes ago, teabagginpeople said:

That brings me to the UAV turret . Is there a reason it defaults back to pointing at the sky when you leave uav turret, without locking it to a fixed position or target?  

 

Thank you darkChozo. unchecked autonomous in the open uav terminal  does indeed stop the turret from moving when you exit the uav,.

[Dancorg 1]

Optics of the SPG-9 of the MB 4WD are broken, it has a different rate of elevation than the gun, both are aligned at 0 elevation but the optics go way up when aiming high (and way low when aiming low)

 

Optics, aiming at the top of the palm tree:

 

But the gun is actually aiming at the middle of the tree:

 

[dragon01 902]

Could we have ripple fire added to the larger rocket pods? Now that dispersion is a thing you need to fire several to get a good hit in, especially from planes. It'd improve their usefulness a bit, IMO.

[Electricleash 133]

Something I'd like to see resolved at some point. I am unsure if it's been reported already or not:

 

Commander vehicle steering - Car left/Car Right controls conflict with freelook/turret turning, mouse assignment.

 

Ongoing issue with mouse steering controls (Car left/Car Right) when a player is playing as the commander of a vehicle that has an AI as driver, this using the relatively recently implemented (Tanks DLC) commander vehicle steering).

 

Observed:
If you have Mouse Left/Mouse Right bound to both the Aim Left/Aim Right and the Car left/Car Right controls, then when as commander you move the mouse to look around in free-look or indeed to move the commander turret left or right, it will cause the vehicle (through the AI Driver) to steer in the direction of view.

 

Expected:
Moving the mouse left or right, when playing as a vehicle commander with an AI driver, should only rotate the players commander turret/weapon) or the free-look view. The vehicle should not turn left or right.

 

Issue Reported below:

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T127985

 

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

9 hours ago, HaseDesTodes said:

 

the points uavs aim at when locked are stupid for many vehicles (especially stupid for some armored ones)

 

ever tried lasing a Tigris from the side?

 

that looks like the center of the bounding box or model position [0,0,0]

 

might be more useful if "aimPos" was used.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

Quote

Tweaked: AI is now behaving more properly when driving in vehicles 

 

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

Can these direction indicators be tweaked to work like this:

 

 

Instead of this?

 

 

IE, the hull should turn instead of the turret, which'll make vehicles easier to drive from the gunner / commander's position. Please, I'm begging. This'll make things WAY easier.

[rübe 127]

2 hours ago, fn_Quiksilver said:

that looks like the center of the bounding box or model position [0,0,0]

 

it sure does, but shhhhh...

 

might be more useful if "aimPos" was used.

 

Let's think a bit outside the box for a second here: how about the bounding box (i.e. boundingBoxReal) gets finally fixed after all these years?

How about that? Too radical?

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

2 hours ago, rübe said:

 

it sure does, but shhhhh...

 

 

Let's think a bit outside the box for a second here: how about the bounding box (i.e. boundingBoxReal) gets finally fixed after all these years?

How about that? Too radical?

 

fixing the bounding box sounds like a big job, switching to “aimpos” from model [0,0,0] sounds like a small one :)

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

RC 1.82.144545

 

Two small bugs:

 

Gendarme Offroad  (  b_gen_offroad_01_gen_f  ) does not have its "Beacons On/Off" user actions.

 

Civilian offroad repair (  c_offroad_01_repair_f  ) has an incorrect model center. something is wrong with the model, all my model offsets are now too low. Cargo position offset for the back is now underground, for instance. The issue does not affect the other offroads (  example:  b_g_offroad_01_repair_f  )

[Bobrus 29]

The new CSAT helmet and AAF crew suit should by new crew standard. For example old CSAT crew helmet is the same like NATO one and it's free addition anyway.