General Discussion (dev branch)

[dragon01 902]

5 hours ago, The Man Without Qualities said:

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.

Do note that this only applies to the RV engine, which is on the way out, this being one of the reasons. If the new ArmA was to use RV, I'd advocate a return to Cold War, because that's what the engine was originally designed to do and that setting is pretty cool. With the new engine, however, I'd like to see them do a setting where it could be fully utilized. Future settings also can be pretty cool, as well, and allow for sidestepping trademarks to be somewhat more believable (IIRC, this became an issue sometime between ArmA2 and 3).

[TheMasterofBlubb 10]

9 hours ago, oukej said:

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.

I think a good start would be the SPAA, they need some love since the jets DLC.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

A couple "high priority" script command requests:

 

1. 

"attackTarget" command to return AI unit current target

 

 

2. 

A "nearSimpleObjects" or "nearestSimpleObjects" command to compliment "allSimpleObjects" and "isSimpleObject", so we dont have to iterate in SQF like this:   

 

_nearSimpleObjects = (allSimpleObjects []) select {((_x distance2D _position) <= _radius)};

 

3. 

And a fix for this 10+ year old bug (should be easy fix!)

 

"serverTime" command reports wrong value until time > 300

 

 

 

---

 

^ regarding the AI "attackTarget" command, note this information is available already in-engine, visible in diagnostics:

 

 

[SuicideKing 233]

22 hours ago, TheMasterofBlubb said:

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.

Would be interesting to have the guns' fire control system slaved to the radar...

 

21 hours ago, oukej said:

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.

Thanks for the response oukej! And yes, I do understand the need for balance in MP. But I feel the balance should come from the systems themselves... so in this case, aircraft can be seen up until overall view distance, maybe plane IR sensors should be able to see that far too? Vehicles can still hide in forests, behind buildings etc, after all, or turn their engines off. Visual sensors could perhaps remain limited to object view distance.

 

Re: server enforced distance... by default it's 1600m, which is completely inadequate for flying, but good for infantry. Heck, in urban or jungle areas we sometimes reduce it to 1200m or 1000m. So if we need air support, we need to rely on scripts to ensure only helicopter or plane crew can see until 6500m, and then have to remind them to turn their object view distance up (since forcing the latter setting isn't something we want to do). Of course, i'm talking about co-op scenarios here, but a large portion of the Arma community does play co-op! To that end, I would again suggest having MP-specific variants of missiles or aircraft sensors, since in my experience the needs of public PvP and community PvE players are not always compatible, and often divergent. I know that would be a lot of work, but at least it would help tailor assets to both sides of the playerbase.

 

20 hours ago, General Kong said:

I rather we stick to 2035-2040 personally

14 hours ago, dragon01 said:

With the new engine, however, I'd like to see them do a setting where it could be fully utilized.

While I don't mean to beat a dead horse (and this is anyway the Arma 3 dev branch thread, not the Arma 4 dev branch thread...) but there is as much simulation to do in older conflicts as there is in newer ones - with the exception of things like computer vision, APS, computer networks and the proliferation of thermal optics. Radar and analog IR seekers have been around for quite a while, and even these are only approximated in Arma. The future setting turns many of us off (see: popularity of CUP and RHS), and while we've worked around or just gotten used to Arma 3's assets, we would really like to see a return to older stuff, as that is easier to integrate with the core infantry gameplay. A3's problem has largely been certainty in tactical information but uncertainty in systems, instead of the other way around. This is made worse by a general power creep in gear and vehicles, among other issues.The core infantry stuff is still pretty good, but the combined arms stuff has been hit-and-miss, albeit improved significantly with Helicopters and Tanks, not to mention Jets platform updates and some of the Apex assets.

[Ivanoff.N 61]

Something is wrong with AI after the last update.

I played alot of single player. In default Arma3 showcases the difference is visible, showcase combined arms and armed assault for me at least friendly units are getting wiped out pretty quick.

In both of these scenarios there are some vehicles present like Marshall or Bobcat but they don`t fire at enemies (dont see them or something).

It seems overall visibility of infantry by vehicles has fallen or something is definetly wrong. Anyone else getting these problems with AI ?

(I test vanilla with no mods)

[x3kj 1247]

@kllrt

please dont forget to update A3 sample models with the head changes

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Is it at all possible to have the minimum height for parachute deployment adjusted when using the "Unload Vehicle" function from Vehicle-in-vehicle transports please?

 

Currently if you attempt to unload a vehicle from one of these transports on the deck of the USS Freedom the vehicle will either spawn to the left/right of the deck with a parachute or just won't unload at all.

[The Man Without Qualities 110]

"Unload" works with automatic utilization of parachute if height >=xxx ?

That is odd. What if I want to bomb by using fuel trucks dropped from a plane?

Isn't it better to redesign the function in a way that the user can select the method (just drop or chute or any other method (rockets)).

[TheMasterofBlubb 10]

@SuicideKing when radar is activate1d you get a lead marker for the cannon. So kinda a dynamic target indicator

[SuicideKing 233]

Seems to be a small bug with how the RWR senses radar contacts, and/or the position of the sensor on the Cheetah/Tigris.

 

I put a Cheetah on a hill. If i put a few H-barriers in front of it, it seems to block the radar "signal" to the RWR of aircraft, even though the radar dish is above the barriers w.r.t LOS to the aircraft. So my guess is that the RWR is checking LOS between the center of the SPAAG and the aircraft (which is blocked until you're sufficiently elevated w.r.t. the SPAAG). Probably should check the LOS between the radar dish and the aircraft?

Illustration:

 

 

On 9/15/2018 at 5:51 AM, TheMasterofBlubb said:

@SuicideKing when radar is activate1d you get a lead marker for the cannon. So kinda a dynamic target indicator

Hmm interesting, the AI seems to be happy to use the cannon without radar lock. Although i think the above issue could be making it such that the Cheetah's radar has visibility but the RWR doesn't think it has. Will have to test...

[TheMasterofBlubb 10]

@SuicideKing its not a lock you just need radar to be active. Im not even sure if AI deactivates radar at all.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

wow thanks for the serverTime fix lads, helps a lot for MP mission scripting

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

script command

 

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/isLaserOn

 

appears to not work for ground-vehicle lasers, tested with rhino

 

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/951839189543428459/B7B3CB2999872AB34A0645C69E223571523A9D31/

[kllrt 154]

On 13. 9. 2018 at 2:19 AM, x3kj said:

@kllrt

please dont forget to update A3 sample models with the head changes

 

Thanks for reminder, consider it done ;)

[Grumpy Old Man 3546]

On 9/12/2018 at 11:13 PM, Ivanoff.N said:

Something is wrong with AI after the last update.

I played alot of single player. In default Arma3 showcases the difference is visible, showcase combined arms and armed assault for me at least friendly units are getting wiped out pretty quick.

In both of these scenarios there are some vehicles present like Marshall or Bobcat but they don`t fire at enemies (dont see them or something).

It seems overall visibility of infantry by vehicles has fallen or something is definetly wrong. Anyone else getting these problems with AI ?

(I test vanilla with no mods)

Combined Arms Showcase is almost unplayable with default Veteran difficulty.

 

If you're anywhere near the marshal you'll get your rear handed to you from the 40mms impacting 3-5 times every 0.3 seconds until the tires pop.

If you stay at distance and make it past that point (has never been an issue in the past) your entire team gets wiped out by opfor units that seem to take way more hits than default editor placed units, heavily subjective though.

Opfor seems not to have any issues advancing, while blufor seem to be heavily fatigued having to sprint for 1 minute (looks like speedMode "FULL" to me).

The fact that enemy spotting still remains broken and your teammates report contacts to your rear when, in fact, they're in front of you doesn't really help either.

 

Cheers

[oukej 2911]

On 9/16/2018 at 3:12 PM, SuicideKing said:

I put a Cheetah on a hill. If i put a few H-barriers in front of it, it seems to block the radar "signal" to the RWR of aircraft, even though the radar dish is above the barriers w.r.t LOS to the aircraft. So my guess is that the RWR is checking LOS between the center of the SPAAG and the aircraft (which is blocked until you're sufficiently elevated w.r.t. the SPAAG). Probably should check the LOS between the radar dish and the aircraft?

The check is between aimpoint of the target and gunnerview (sensorPosition) mem. point of the Cheetah which is quite close to the radar dish. It may also be that the SPAAG radars are only able to cover the hemisphere above them - in such way that their radar can be avoided if you fly "under them".

[The Man Without Qualities 110]

On 20.9.2018 at 4:34 PM, oukej said:

The check is between aimpoint of the target and gunnerview (sensorPosition) mem. point of the Cheetah which is quite close to the radar dish. It may also be that the SPAAG radars are only able to cover the hemisphere above them - in such way that their radar can be avoided if you fly "under them".

 

 

In RL, the radiation of such systems (Panzir, Tungushka) are not along one single and narrow beam. Even best engineering cannot avoid that totally. Hence, head on direction of dish to be able to detect is not necessary in RL.

Even to other directions, even rear, there is radiation, just less.

Even old HARM AGM-88 were able to home on selected patterns of AA Radar. Later versions were able to "remember" the location from where a contact was detected. Pattern to home on were AA radar as well as jamming patterns. So basically almost any kind of radiation from 500MHz to 2GHz.

At the moment it seems that such a behavior cannot be simulated in A3 - which is supposed to simulate systems in 2035. AGM-88 is 1980s design, taken into use before 1990 and further developed in later years.

[Ivanoff.N 61]

There is a problem with the second mission of Steel Pegasus mini campaign.

Spoiler

If you choose to transport wounded, and arrive to the site, they never get inside the marshall, they just stand next to it, and when you are attacked with 40mm grenades, all the wounded get killed by explosions. This has been the case for me for a few updates now. It only worked initially when tanks DLC came out.

 

 

[a_killer_wombat 120]

11 hours ago, Ivanoff.N said:

There is a problem with the second mission of Steel Pegasus mini campaign.

  Hide contents

 

If you choose to transport wounded, and arrive to the site, they never get inside the marshall, they just stand next to it, and when you are attacked with 40mm grenades, all the wounded get killed by explosions. This has been the case for me for a few updates now. It only worked initially when tanks DLC came out.

 

 

 

Have you tried ordering "stop" command to your driver? Example:

 

Select driver "tilde/F2/F3" -> "1" -> "6"

 

I find that AI infantry sometimes won't enter a vehicle unless the AI driver of said vehicle has been given "stop" command by the player, even if the vehicle is already stationary. 

[Antilochos 106]

On ‎12‎-‎9‎-‎2018 at 11:13 PM, Ivanoff.N said:

Something is wrong with AI after the last update.

I played alot of single player. In default Arma3 showcases the difference is visible, showcase combined arms and armed assault for me at least friendly units are getting wiped out pretty quick.

In both of these scenarios there are some vehicles present like Marshall or Bobcat but they don`t fire at enemies (dont see them or something).

It seems overall visibility of infantry by vehicles has fallen or something is definetly wrong. Anyone else getting these problems with AI ?

(I test vanilla with no mods)

 

I have the same problem. Suddenly the armored vehicles do not notice infantry units, sometimes even not after the infantry starts shooting at the vehicles.

[Ivanoff.N 61]

On 29/09/2018 at 2:05 PM, a_killer_wombat said:

 

Have you tried ordering "stop" command to your driver? Example:

 

Select driver "tilde/F2/F3" -> "1" -> "6"

 

I find that AI infantry sometimes won't enter a vehicle unless the AI driver of said vehicle has been given "stop" command by the player, even if the vehicle is already stationary. 

Ah yes this worked, thanks.

 

Now I play these game series for 16 years now, I have 5000+ hours in Arma 3 and most of it single player. I did not know that thing. Maybe @oukej or anyone form the team could add a hint there somwhere ???

[soldier2390@hotmail.com 7]

@oukej I have a few questions In regards to this: 

Quote

Tweaked: Adjusted colors for "Assault Pack (Coyote Brown), Assault Pack (Khaki), Assault Pack (Sage), Kitbag (Coyote Brown) and Kitbag (Sage) backpacks. Old Kitbag (Coyote) variant has been kept as Kitbag (Tan).

 

First question is, will there be any a possibility of doing the same with other gear? Including a lot of content from the early Alpha release. Specially the MultiCam gear and uniform stuff that looks like it's made from different camo swatches/colors! For example a lot of the MultiCam stuff is too bright and looks bleached and faded.

 

Second question, would it be possible to get a proper MultCam textured Helmet and Light Vest for the NATO Mediterranean units? Since the NATO Pacific units have proper Tropical MultCam patterns for their Helmets and Vests!

 

Last question, can we get the extra textures in the game files to be usable in game without mods or setObjecttexture? Especially since Vests and Helmets can't use setObjecttexture. Plus I'd love to have NATO Vests in the Tan Colors that exists within the games files!

 

[lexx 1364]

Not sure if it's a new one, but there's one more bug related to drones. Take the darter, fly a bit, switch between pilot and gunner, then release the drone, open up the uav terminal and try to give it some waypoint... won't work. No matter what, it's not possible to assign a new waypoint.

[stanhope 411]

21 minutes ago, lexx said:

Not sure if it's a new one, but there's one more bug related to drones. Take the darter, fly a bit, switch between pilot and gunner, then release the drone, open up the uav terminal and try to give it some waypoint... won't work. No matter what, it's not possible to assign a new waypoint.

I've noticed that it does this whenever it's given a set height with the waypoint.  If I don't it usually does what I want it to.

[lexx 1364]

Seems to be enough to just manually fly around a little bit, as I've experienced right now. Really sucks that drones are broken in so many ways.