General Discussion (dev branch)

[roberthammer 582]

15 hours ago, Night515 said:

Can we PLEASE get Proxy magazines? Just imagine all of the possibilities! Not only that but then we could have a long barrel SPAR-16 with a foregrip for example!

It will be only magazines since there is a proxy limit 

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

11 minutes ago, roberthammer said:

It will be only magazines since there is a proxy limit 

 

Still though. SPAR-16S with a 30 round magazine.

 

Just think about it. <3

[GBee2 68]

On 8/22/2018 at 12:26 AM, fn_Quiksilver said:

 

yes please! perfect candidate for SDBs

 

 

A US made weapon on a Chinese UAV? 

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

1 hour ago, GBee2 said:

 

A US made weapon on a Chinese UAV? 

 

a small bomb for a small drone.

 

BI is no stranger to re-naming a copy/pasted asset across factions, this seems like a good candidate for it

[Dedmen 2714]

21 hours ago, Night515 said:

Can we PLEASE get Proxy magazines?

We already got them though... Why should we get them again? :D

[the_one_and_only_Venator 163]

On 22.8.2018 at 4:31 PM, Night515 said:

Can we PLEASE get Proxy magazines? Just imagine all of the possibilities! Not only that but then we could have a long barrel SPAR-16 with a foregrip for example!

That would be awesome! I wouldn't complain about any clipping issues with larger magazines happening because of this feature (: 

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

4 hours ago, Dedmen said:

We already got them though... Why should we get them again? :D

 

The system isn't implemented for vanilla weapons though, afaik.

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

On 8/20/2018 at 5:57 PM, a_killer_wombat said:

Is there a reason why the KH-3A Fenghuang UAV (the Apex DLC drone for pacific CSAT) doesn't have customisable pylons? I'm guessing BI simply forgot to update it in the Jets DLC patch. Would be nice if this would be fixed.

 

The devs have mentioned that the current pylons' models don't work with the system. What this means exactly, I don't know.

[Electricleash 133]

Quote

Fixed: Incorrect camo selection of US Assault Pack (Kerry) in resolution LODs (https://feedback.bistudio.com/T131466)

Thanks for this but it appears to be only a partial fix, as the three small bags attached to the pack still have an incorrect 3rd LOD (15m) at distance. and appear bright in colour.

Best way to test is to view the effect on a black or darker re-texture of the pack.

[reyhard 2082]

6 minutes ago, Electricleash said:

Thanks for this but it appears to be only a partial fix, as the three small bags attached to the pack still have an incorrect 3rd LOD (15m) at distance. and appear bright in colour.

Best way to test is to view the effect on a black or darker re-texture of the pack.

Ooops, fixed it now

[Electricleash 133]

6 minutes ago, reyhard said:

Ooops, fixed it now

Ha ha! Cool thanks Reyhard!

[LarsAspra 13]

This is something on my mind I've been meaning to ask about for a while, but is there a possibility of adding the "MarkerLight" type light source property onlyInNVG to directional "reflector" type light sources in the future so we could have IR Illuminators? Or will it be too much of hassle for reasons beyond my simple understanding of code at this point of development for what is arguably an superfluous feature what with the quality of vanilla Arma 3's night vision? I just don't get why this seemingly simple feature that's already modeled on the game's NVGs and PEQs and was apparently perfectly doable in Arma 2 that sees ubiquitous use IRL hasn't yet been implemented so I'm assuming there are actually some significant hurdles involved in making it happen.

Really I ask this because ACE3 night vision in conditions like torrential rain inna Tanoa suck total ass (like near zero visibility) and it'd be nice if you threw us masochists of the Arma 3 community a bone and gave our NODs and PEQs full functionality.
 

[oukej 2911]

One special heads up about one important change we've done to the vanilla uniforms and heads recently

11 hours ago, oukej said:

04-09-2018
DATA

• Tweaked: Deleted head shadow from Character/uniform models. Added shadow LODs to proxy head models themselves.

 

[Electricleash 133]

On 04/09/2018 at 9:15 AM, oukej said:

One special heads up about one important change we've done to the vanilla uniforms and heads recently

 

'Heads up'... nice!  

Thanks. Would you be able to elaborate as to what the change is for and to how this might manifest/affect custom content, if at all.

Just out of interest.

[kllrt 154]

Sure, here you go.

This is variant is for people with both their own head models and uniforms in mod

In head model

• Create empty View Pilot (you should also add "LODNoShadow=1" property).
• Create ShadowVolume 0.000 LOD and leave Object Builder open.

In character model

• In first Shadow LOD (ShadowVolume 0.000), you can cut and paste whole head mesh and put it head model. "Head" mesh in character model looks usually like this. Head shadow mesh in head model should look like this then.
• Then you can take "bysta" proxy from e.g. first visual LOD and paste it into View Pilot. Result should look like this.

 

And this is variant for people with just uniforms in mod

In character model

• In first Shadow LOD (ShadowVolume 0.000), you have to delete "head" mesh - usually it's even with neck, you should delete that too. Make sure that your geometry is closed. "Head" mesh in character model looks usually like this.
• Then you can take "bysta" proxy from e.g. first visual LOD and paste it into View Pilot. Result should look like this.

 

You are now done. 

[Electricleash 133]

Many thanks for the info kllrt!

[SuicideKing 233]

Macer (and equivalents) need an update

 

Problem: 

The Macer, Macer II, Kh25, Sharur, and other variants of plane launched ATGMs are currently the most inferior ATGMs in the game. This means that they aren't really usable in scenarios. This is for a number of reasons.

 

From the table it is apparent that they only have IR seekers and no manual guidance (not that manual guidance would help, or be desirable). They have about the same range as Scalpels, and less range than the Jian missiles. Now, from a gameplay point of view, it's important to consider how planes are mostly used in Arma.

1. Primarily they are used as CAS and in conjunction with infantry. i.e. a FAC will call out or designate targets.
2. Less frequently, you end up working without ground support. For example, you may spot some tanks approaching a friendly location, or there's a SPAAG to be dealt with at range. 

In both cases, planes, unlike helicopters, are moving fairly fast over small maps. Additionally, view distances in Arma are limited by performance constraints. This isn't DCS after all. Consequently, the time spent within lock range is very low, and usually at a distance which is very risky for the aircraft. Further, IR sensors on vanilla aircraft do *not* detect targets beyond object view distance. This means that, if the pilot doesn't have a really high end computer (8700K + DDR4 + NVMe SSD + GTX 1060 or better GPU) then having a pleasant experience while flying CAS with an object view distance of 6km+ is hard. So for most people, the lock distance for a missile is going to be capped by their computer's performance, which in my mind is a very questionable design decision.

 

Then of course there's the fact that the sensor range of the missiles outrange the plane sensors.

 

So the Wipeout and Neophron can see warm ground targets up to 4km away, and the Buzzard can only see 3km away - while their missiles can lock up until 6km away. Now, this makes sense for helicopters, as it forces gunners to look for the heat signature in their optics if they want to engage from a safe range. For planes, this is not good design at all. They're simply moving too fast, and juggling the target camera with other controls is very clunky. It's easier once you find the target and lock the camera, but still, given the short sensor range and view distance limitations, it's a hard one to pull off solo. Moreover, if you're moving at 400kmph, those 3 seconds it takes for the missiles to lock cover a lot of ground.

 

As a result, the question becomes - why wouldn't I use a Scalpel instead of a Macer? Infantry can support the aircraft by designating targets, which the plane can pick up at full range (6km laser sensor), without fiddling around with the camera. Scalpels are as effective as Macers are. So what's the point of the aircraft ATGMs?

 

Suggested solutions:

1. Increase the IR sensor range of the CAS jets to match the ATGM's seeker range (i.e. 6km)
2. Allow detection beyond object view distance.
3. Give (at least some) of the Macer variants the ability to lock on to laser targets.

#3 is especially important for the DLC jets, as their CAS capabilities are pretty inferior, and the above mentioned problems are exacerbated as they fly even faster. So something like the Macer II should absolutely have a laser seeker, imo. But as such the CAS jets will benefit immensely from any one (or more) of the above proposed changes, in my experience.

[TheMasterofBlubb 10]

@SuicideKing Addition when changing the lock-on range to 6km a change on the AA Tanks would be good. They have 6KM lockon range but the Missiles are IR, as my knowledge, from PVP its very hard to lock on a BlackWasp or Shikra with Manpad AA even when good vision compared to a Gryphon/A-164/a-143, where you cal lock on technically at viewdistance. So maybe change the AA tank on having 1 IR and 1 Radar type missile or a Combo missile, to actively be able to fight jets.

Leave the radar on the range it has now but the missiles on maybe 8KM max lockon range. We have HARMs now we have RWR. A plane knows when its getting locked vanilla shoud now make use of that. Since all those changes i mentioned are actually only config changes it should not even be as much work.

That would make Planes more viable, but not break the current mechanics to hard.

And make AAs more viable since they are now a real threat to a jet, leading to more teambased gameplay.

 

As for info:

Im playing mostly EUTW. The Cheetah and Tigris are used almost for Infatry-mawing. Using radar only gives out your position, but doesnt give you any real advantage vs planes, only a bit against helis. The missiles have problems locking on the jets, especially the DLC jets. So at all a AA will leave the radar off and kill some Small helis that are unaware and just kill infantry. As addition the AA has the infantry and other tanks as enemies, but can not hunt down its prey due to simple limitations of weaponary

Edited September 11, 2018 by TheMasterofBlubb
Added info

[oukej 2911]

3 hours ago, SuicideKing said:

From the table it is apparent that they only have IR seekers and no manual guidance (not that manual guidance would help, or be desirable). They have about the same range as Scalpels, and less range than the Jian missiles. Now, from a gameplay point of view, it's important to consider how planes are mostly used in Arma

Atm the table is outdated. Sorry about that. I.e. Macers have 8km range now.

 

3 hours ago, SuicideKing said:

IR sensors on vanilla aircraft do *not* detect targets beyond object view distance. This means that, if the pilot doesn't have a really high end computer (8700K + DDR4 + NVMe SSD + GTX 1060 or better GPU) then having a pleasant experience while flying CAS with an object view distance of 6km+ is hard. So for most people, the lock distance for a missile is going to be capped by their computer's performance, which in my mind is a very questionable design decision.

We've been well aware of this questionable connection between game rules and an option which relates to performance and visual settings.
The main reason was to reduce unfair advantage that one could have with "silent" passively guided weapons if those could be locked beyond what the target can see (aerial vehicles can be seen and tracked up to the terrain view distance). Also in MP environment the server can enforce view distance, so the rules can be fair for everyone in MP.
This way we also tried to create room for radar guided and LOAL munitions so they have a role in Arma's scaled down combat range (especially when it comes to long and mid range weapons).

So - the current solution is not ideal, it has its pros (weapon balance, fair MP, a bit of authenticity) and cons (game rules according to PC performance).

Thanks a lot for the write-up. Hopefully we'll have a chance to make some adjustments and improve the balance of the (vanilla) weapons or make it more interesting.

[The Man Without Qualities 110]

If you cannot simulate weapons as they would work in RL, turn back time until you can.

Back to 1985 for A4! Or better 1960! Seriously!

[General Kong 148]

I rather we stick to 2035-2040 personally

[POLPOX 778]

I never knew they simulate weapons properly for at least once.

[The Man Without Qualities 110]

if you take the time to read the previous 5-10 Posts you will find out that there are technical (and hence performance) limitations to simulate weapons of 2035 properly. Despite that you want to have high tech weapons? The permanent issue is visial range and radar range.

 

@ POLPOX: They did/do quite good for simple ballistics etc.

[danny96 80]

2 hours ago, General Kong said:

I rather we stick to 2035-2040 personally

How about 2077 though?

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

1 hour ago, danny96 said:

How about 2077 though?

Arma 2142 or go home.