General Discussion (dev branch)

[Alwarren 2767]

5 hours ago, winse said:

Guys, have you ever had a thought tanks in game are underprotected against guided missiles?

 

Not really. From working on the CUP armor models, one thing I learned is that the only real protection a tank has is its frontal hull and turret armor. Everything else is alarmingly thing. The T-72, for example, has a frontal hull armor of (IIRC) 560 mm. That is big enough to withstand e.g. a PG-7V rocket, but certainly not the RPG-32 (which has almost 600 mm penetration). Hellfire missiles have around 800 or so mm of penetration, so they will literally penetrate the T-72 everywhere.

 

5 hours ago, winse said:

-Tank has 2 rounds of smoke launcher.

-Smoke launcher covers about 180 deg area in front of tank (or tank turret) leaving other 180 deg unprotected, read - defenseless.  Thus if missile comes from unprotected side - then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

 

Really depends on the tank. 

 

5 hours ago, winse said:

-Tank crew has no Idea (except T-140K) from which direction missile incoming. They can only deploy smokes and prey. If missile comes from another side - then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

 

Situational awareness is always a requirement. 

 

5 hours ago, winse said:

-Missiles have around 50% (plus or minus) chance of ignoring smokes.

 

That depends on the guidance system. Unguided rocket and missiles obviously are unaffected by smoke. Longbow Hellfire and every other radar-guided missile as well. Only IR and Laser guidance would in any way be affected by smoke.

 

5 hours ago, winse said:

-Some AT missiles can be manually guided. Tank crew has NO warning on that. From a crew perspective - tank just explodes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

As it should be. Again, situational awareness is a requirement.

 

5 hours ago, winse said:

-AT Missile soldier has inventory of 3 missiles. If first 2 missiles didn't kill a tank because of smokes - the third will be launched when tank has no smokes left. Thus a single AT soldier is guaranteed to take out a tank. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I actually agree with this. The default loadouts are ridiculous. The Titan launcher, comparable in effectiveness to the real-world Javelin, has missiles that are way too small. Also, reloading any launcher in Arma is way too fast. For a Javelin you would normally have to detach the CLU from one tube, get a new one (which weights around 22 kg) , reattach the CLU... the only game that this decently modeled was (shudder) Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising, where each of the launcher had a more or less realistically long reload animation - for the SMAW, for example, you put it on the ground, remove the tube, put in a new one, and shoulder it again. 

 

For something like the MAAWS, it usually requires two people in reality, one shooter and one loader. Loading the MAAWS even with two guys requires a few seconds.  In Arma, you just take the new rocket out of thin air and stuff it into the tube. Some rifles take longer to reload than launchers.

 

It also doesn't help that systems like the NLAW which are disposable (i.e. you cannot reload them) in reality are equally fast to reload and fire again in Arma. That is the single point where infantry is overpowered, more so since a lot of groups contain anti-tank capabilities that are unrealistic at best. 

Overall, yes I agree that infantry has way too much firepower against tanks, also because almost all of the groups have at least an NLAW gunner in them.

 

 

5 hours ago, winse said:

-Aircrafts are maneuverable, read - can launch missiles from tank unprotected directions.

 

That's why they are aircraft.

 

 

5 hours ago, winse said:

-Aircrafts carry a dozen of AT missiles. Each missile has a chance to ignore smokes. With such setup tank can't survive an aircraft attack even in theory. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Well that's how it works in reality too. 

 

5 hours ago, winse said:

I put down all that, because the last days, I've been playing an MP game mode with a lot of tanks, aircrafts and missiles. No any gameplay-changing scripts or mods - plain A3 vanilla. 

And in my notice - tanks are nothing more than a food for planes/heli`s/AT-Soldiers. Regardless of how a cool tanker you are - the 1st incoming enemy aircraft would send you to respawn.

 

That would be an issue of the MP game mode. The problem with a lot of games is that the ratio of equipment is skewed. Just look at the average amount of snipers running around in public matches; snipers are a very specialized group of infantry, usually work only in a team, and are rare. Same with planes. 

 

Tanks, just like anything on a modern battlefield, cannot exist in isolation (that's one of the beauties of the Wargame series - it clearly shows that a tank without close air protection and recon only works in a very few selected places). Tank crews are usually pretty confined and have difficulty spotting things in their close proximity. They are also mostly defenseless against air attacks. In order to make things work, they require an infrastructure of troops working together.

 

Bottom line, tanks are very much vulnerable. Their use requires more skill than a lot of people realize, and they greatly depend on other troops. 

[heavygunner 179]

Is a staging of Encore content into Dev-branch this month realistic?

[snoops_213 75]

Awesome update guys! Off to go test some stuff out! 

[Beagle 684]

I'm surprised by the detail of the interior of the USS Liberty.

[M. Glade 524]

IT COMES WITH A BOAT RACK?

 

Jesus christ, i'm done. 

 

Edit: Great to see the ability to change flag/name/number. 

[snoops_213 75]

Great addons. Love the way you can change the ships numbers! That is a cool feature. One small question, could you make a working Radar for the ship itself? I see the VLS uses the same hack as a MLRS so i take it we wont be seeing mixed AA AG loads any time soon? 

Can the static radars be turned off? And I've noticed that if the radar dies the Sam will still find a target and fire so what is its back up system, ir and visual?

[R3vo 2654]

The new content looks splendid. Only one error so far:

 

15:57:28 Error in expression <c getvariable ["owner",""];
_ownerUID = parsenumber _ownerVar;
if (cheatsenabled>
15:57:28   Error position: <parsenumber _ownerVar;
if (cheatsenabled>
15:57:28   Error parsenumber: Type Object, expected Bool,String
15:57:28 File a3\modules_f_curator\curator\functions\fn_moduleCurator.sqf [BIS_fnc_moduleCurator], line 15

 

Once Land_Destroyer_01_Boat_Rack_01_F is present in the mission, the error shows up shortly after the mission started.

[HaseDesTodes 62]

i really like the interior of the USS Liberty, BUT

you can't trow grenades through the open space at the handrails. i fear this might cause some confusion and trouble, if someone decides to have some  combat there.

especially this position might need some improvement

 

so i guess, if it's technically possible to fix the collision geometry, that should be made for all handrails, is not, you should at least add some metal sheets, so that it's clearly impossible.

 

edit:

on a sidenote.

the radar sidepannel of the AN/MPQ-105 Radar only show a red (usually IR) 120° sensor cone to me.

does anybody know if that's supposed to be the radar sensor cone, or is that an actual IR sensor, and the Radar sensor range is so big, it doesn't draw on 16km panel setting?

[Alwarren 2767]

Okay, maybe I am doing something wrong, but here goes. I tried the new Radar/SAM combination in conjunction with a SEAD missile. The emission control of the SAM is set to off, so that it should (in theory at least) depend on the Chronus RADAR exclusively for targetting. My plane fires a HARM at the radar and destroys it, but the SAM still engages me even though it should not have its radar on. 

What am I doing wrong?

 

EDIT: it seems like the SAM itself appears as a yellow circle on the map, and the RADAR as an active radar site (half-circle). I guess that the SAM's missiles have active radar tracking and do not rely on the ground station for tracking, so I guess that the missile itself is tracking, not the SAM site. Still, even with an active lock the HARM does not seem to want to target the SAM itself.

[Nichols 243]

Well @Alwarren a HARM does stand for High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile so I can only guess that the reason is some SAM missiles themselves have a small tracking radar once they pointed in the right direction they can acquire and track so if they are launched optically (which is a real thing as well) then they can lock on independently and track to kill.

 

[lexx 1364]

The ship looks great. What would make it even better (including the USS Freedom) would be a macro / short function that fully equips the ships with the turrets, etc. so that I don't need to be bothered with it. :>

[M. Glade 524]

Even when the Radar is destroyed the SAM can still locate and fire soon after (CSAT Rhea). 

 

Small diameter bomb can't be selected on the Buzzard/Gryphon? Not sure if intended.

 

And the hangar on the Destroyer is very small so you can't really properly fit a Ghosthawk (let alone AWACS :D), so maybe add a fold rotors option? Chemlight looking colour leaks on the ships fore. 

[nodunit 397]

59 minutes ago, HaseDesTodes said:

i really like the interior of the USS Liberty, BUT

you can't trow grenades through the open space at the handrails. i fear this might cause some confusion and trouble, if someone decides to have some  combat there.

especially this position might need some improvement

 

 

so i guess, if it's technically possible to fix the collision geometry, that should be made for all handrails, is not, you should at least add some metal sheets, so that it's clearly impossible.

Woops, thank you, it will be changed later on.


Having some trouble with the quoting (haven't used this since an update somewhere...)  but you should be able to fit a ghosthawk down the center, the hangar was designed to accomodate its rotors span.

[Yoshi_E 179]

The Sam lock range is kinda weak with just 5km. Centurion works a lot better.

It can see targets via data link, but cant fire until they are super close.

[M. Glade 524]

17 minutes ago, nodunit said:

Having some trouble with the quoting (haven't used this since an update somewhere...)  but you should be able to fit a ghosthawk down the center, the hangar was designed to accomodate its rotors span.

 

Alright thanks, i'll play in Eden some more just thought it went into the back a bit much. 

 

And there is this bug. 

 

[HaseDesTodes 62]

3 minutes ago, M. Glade said:

...

 

hmm, all doors were fine for me... did you maybe accidentally place 2 ships at the same pos?

[nodunit 397]

1 minute ago, M. Glade said:

 

Alright thanks, i'll play in Eden some more just thought it went into the back a bit much. 

 

And there is this bug. 

 

 

Ah this beauty, sometimes parts of the ship will spawn x2, this is being looked into however in most cases the spawned duplicate contains no geometry, so you should be able to walk through the door at least.

[oukej 2911]

Targeting, missiles and sensors are still a bit WIP ;)

[darkChozo 133]

1 hour ago, HaseDesTodes said:

edit:

on a sidenote.

the radar sidepannel of the AN/MPQ-105 Radar only show a red (usually IR) 120° sensor cone to me.

does anybody know if that's supposed to be the radar sensor cone, or is that an actual IR sensor, and the Radar sensor range is so big, it doesn't draw on 16km panel setting?

 

Looking at the config, it looks like it's set up as radar but the color is set wrong for some reason. In terms of sensors, the radar has both active and passive radar in a 120 degree 16km cone.

 

15 minutes ago, Yoshi_E said:

The Sam lock range is kinda weak with just 5km. Centurion works a lot better.

 

You mean on the statics? The NATO one at least has a 16km range, I just managed to hit a Taru using the radar+SAM combo.

 

Also, the ship is quite nice, but I'm curious if there's any way to use the little launching bays on the sides for anything. The SITREP mentioned that you can use the ship to launch boats, but that might just be referring to the ladders on the back.

[heavygunner 179]

On 6/25/2018 at 4:32 PM, heavygunner said:

Is a staging of Encore content into Dev-branch this month realistic?

My prayers were heard, I guess. Thanks B01 and BIS!

[nodunit 397]

32 minutes ago, darkChozo said:

 

Looking at the config, it looks like it's set up as radar but the color is set wrong for some reason. In terms of sensors, the radar has both active and passive radar in a 120 degree 16km cone.

 

 

You mean on the statics? The NATO one at least has a 16km range, I just managed to hit a Taru using the radar+SAM combo.

 

Also, the ship is quite nice, but I'm curious if there's any way to use the little launching bays on the sides for anything. The SITREP mentioned that you can use the ship to launch boats, but that might just be referring to the ladders on the back.

The launching/recovery mechanism itself is the boat rack object, it was decided to split all functional components into their own subcategory for ease and utility, rather than using it on only the ship you can use it anywhere.

[Yoshi_E 179]

16 minutes ago, darkChozo said:

You mean on the statics? The NATO one at least has a 16km range, I just managed to hit a Taru using the radar+SAM combo.

 

It seems this is time depended, in the first min im 100% unable to get a lock, only after around 60s I can lock and fire. Maybe its waiting for the vehicle to heat up first? Does not make any sense for a target thats detected by radar though....

[tuskin38 25]

Very cool, you can change the name, flag and hull number in the object properties

 

https://i.imgur.com/S8Vzfcj.png

 

 

 

[Beagle 684]

Reminder: the Tanoa small dirt road LOD properties are still not fixed: https://feedback.bistudio.com/T128144

[Rhyder_Morra 74]

Checked new update 

 

Does the new radar have to look strictly in the direction of enemy aircraft? isn't they have to spin? (ye ye, still wip)

Spoiler