Imagine What Next Gen In Arma Would Look Like

[subs17 9]

What is your suggerstion for allowing players without a HOTAS to operate a targeting pod while flying an aircraft? Or with just a mouse and keyboard?

Autopilot plus mouse.:cool:is one way but ideally if you want to fly an aircraft you really should use at least a joystick a hotas is ideal. The advantages are that the pilot can fly the aircraft more effectively so you can get the most out of the aircraft. As a minimum a simplified yet effective cockpit with Hotas functions would strike a good balance allowing the players to get the most out of the aircraft. A good example is try flying Falcon4 BMS 4 or F4AF while using a Hotas Cougar with properly mapped buttons(based on real F-16 Hotas) or DCS A-10C using a Hotas Warthog and you'll see they are the ultimate, you do a lot with them. For those without though autopilot plus mouse keyboard would allow the player to control the targeting pod while flying.(so long as the devs model ground stabilisation for the pod)

---------- Post added at 11:33 ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 ----------

Yes and that is exactly why I gave up on ArmA and went to DCS...just to find out that stuff does not work as well as in FC2 and BS anymore because DCS is even more buggy then ArmA and suffering from slow netcode and still single CPU use. Obviously it's not all that easy.

DCS is getting EDGE which is a new graphics engine, ED is like BI a lot, both companys are striving for perfection in their sim and so the devs continue to make their sims better and better. I use DCS everyday and find most bugs are not show stoppers.(I rarely find bugs in the missions I fly now) I like the direction BIs aircraft in A3 are going its very good to see some features getting implemented that make the aircraft fly and fight more effectively.

[roshnak 41]

Arrow Keys, you know? That, or you can put it in an autopilot of sorts, where it just keeps your pitch and roll and speed, and use your mouse.

It really would not be that hard.

I doubt it would be as usable in Arma as you think it would. First of all, if you want it displayed in an MFD, you have to account for people who don't have head tracking devices and need to manually pan their view down to the MFD and potentially zoom in to it. Second, you can't use the mouse in that case, because people are probably going to need it to look around, if not control the airplane. I guess you could use the arrow keys to control the TPG, but then you also need keys for point and area lock, unlocking, switching zoom levels, and switching view types.

Arma doesn't need targeting pods. Seriously, TGPs aren't going to drastically improve or alter gameplay, unless you really like delivering LGBs. It's just getting into hardcore flight sim territory The only things fixed wing aircraft really need are usable HUDs and a way to employ weapons accurately (CCIP). Targeting pods would be nice, I guess, but they are in no way necessary for engaging targets or providing CAS in Arma.

How hard it would be to tie MFD controls to arrows or the numpad?

There are 20+ buttons on one MFD. Most aircraft have two or more MFDs. It's not really feasible to have those functions bound to the keyboard.

I guess you could have a button to cycle MFD pages or something, but what good are the MFDs in Arma, anyway? In a real airplane they are used for various radar modes, the targeting pod, a moving map or HSD, and stores management. Arma doesn't simulate radar, doesn't have a TGP (and I don't really see an urgent need for one), you can pull up a moving map with the GPS, and cycling weapons is already bound to a key and doesn't really need to be more complicated than it already is.

Autopilot plus mouse.:cool:is one way but ideally if you want to fly an aircraft you really should use at least a joystick a hotas is ideal.

See, the thing is, while it makes sense for a flight sim to require users to buy hardware specifically to play them, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people who play Arma to purchase $150 joysticks to fly airplanes.

Edit: So as to not completely derail this into airplane talk: On the topic of what a "next-gen Arma" would be like, let's be honest, it's going to be basically the same game with better graphics.

Edited June 30, 2014 by roshnak

[Bee8190 10]

"next-gen Arma" would be like, let's be honest, it's going to be basically the same game with better graphics

I agree this is highly likely and at which point I'd remain seriously sceptical we would see masses of green new faces coming in...

[sanguinius51 11]

I doubt it would be as usable in Arma as you think it would. First of all, if you want it displayed in an MFD, you have to account for people who don't have head tracking devices and need to manually pan their view down to the MFD and potentially zoom in to it. Second, you can't use the mouse in that case, because people are probably going to need it to look around, if not control the airplane. I guess you could use the arrow keys to control the TPG, but then you also need keys for point and area lock, unlocking, switching zoom levels, and switching view types.

Arma doesn't need targeting pods. Seriously, TGPs aren't going to drastically improve or alter gameplay, unless you really like delivering LGBs. It's just getting into hardcore flight sim territory The only things fixed wing aircraft really need are usable HUDs and a way to employ weapons accurately (CCIP). Targeting pods would be nice, I guess, but they are in no way necessary for engaging targets or providing CAS in Arma.

But we're not taking it into complete flight sim territory - we're talking about adding an extremely useful feature that would be fairly simple to implement, considering Mando Missiles already has it in Arma 2, and that is just ONE person.

I don't believe we should have a fully interactive cockpit will fully interactive MFDs that display radar, map, stores management etcetera - that would simply be too hard to implement. The controls would be simple enough to use - simply overlay it on top of existing controls. By that I mean remove almost all control over the airplane, except for the necessary things - pitch, yaw, roll, flaps, eject, etcetera. When the player switches into MFD mode, in my mind a small representation of an MFD will appear in the bottom left corner, reminiscent of ACE's MFDs, and this will display the camera. Then, obviously, you use the arrow keys to look around, and use the fire button, mouse wheel, night vision button, and the optics button for all you said. Fire - Point lock. Mouse Wheel - Zoom in, Out. Night Vision - View Type. Optics Button - Laser Designate.

The possibilities for this are endless. If you have two A-164s flying a sortie together, they can designate targets for each other, meaning they can stay well out of harms way when taking out a target. A lone A-164 can provide aerial surveillance for ground forces, and inform them of enemy movement. They can lase targets for artillery, they can take out a target from 2 kilometres in the air by themselves, by using their laser designator - while you say it would be a redundant feature, and something that is not needed, you seem to think only in terms of bombing targets. They can do so much more then that.

[roshnak 41]

I'm not just looking at it from a bombing perspective. I'm well aware of all the things you can use a TGP for. Buddy lasing (although I don't know why anyone would bother), target identification, aerial reconnaissance, BDAs. I just don't think those things are critical or even necessarily good for this combined arms game. I think that in many cases it's better to force aircraft to work in tandem with ground units for things like lasing targets and BDAs. I think that, from a gameplay perspective, it's probably better to force airplanes to fly around and look out their windows at stuff. I think that, in the absense of proper air defense units, the ability to target, identify, and engage targets from 3-5 km could be potentially game breakingly powerful. I'm skeptical of the game's ability to run acceptably at the view distances required for TGPs to be worth using.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of the game having TGPs, either. For all of problems they create, they could also open up new gameplay opportunities. I do, however, think that the system you described sounds like a mod. It sounds like it would be as awkward to use as Mando Missiles was. And I don't think that BIS will ever implement a TGP the way you have described it.

[nodunit 397]

On the topic of MFD screens, yes they would be useless if the HUD was always present (not talking aircraft HUD or helmet display devices but the literal game HUD),

if you're going to have a source of constant information then its a waste of time to bother going into all the intricate detailing necessary to set up display pages.

The aircraft aren't so complex that they more individual pages that require switching out, we don't even have a map for crying out loud.

If RTT didn't have some issues I'd opt for 0 key locking the playershead in place unless in freelook. mouse would then control a camera feed inside the display without moving the aircraft. It keeps the immersion factor at its peak as you're always locked in the cockpit, and it doesn't put you in a full screen sensor mode that would deprive you of situational awareness.

The fault of all vehicles is that all seeing radar.

The ability to distinguish friend from foe is alone a great boon, but then you get further such as constant tracking despite not having a line of sight.

Radar no matter the type should NOT track infantry, at best you should get a representation of direction rather than location, and vehicles should not be able to distinguish friend from foe save for ones with trackers.

Edited July 1, 2014 by NodUnit

[subs17 9]

MFDs could be modelled but more importantly is the targeting pod which you would only require a button to switch to that displays view and that would just need the ability to ground stabilise and move left right up/down and zoom lock/unlock and lase. So its not something we have not already seen in Arma(AH64 gunner seat) but its something that would greatly enhance the pilots ability to use weapons. Further expansion could involve laser codes, buddy lasing etc. But more importantly is the pod view not, it does not have to be a MFD view either although ideally MFD could have a moving map and tgt pod pages. Also because of the future setting if there was an equivalent to a JSTARs aircraft then these aircraft would have a data link which would provide real time location of both troop and vehicle friendly/enemy locations and type. And replacing the screen HUD data with a JHCMs helmet data would fit the futuristic theme.

---------- Post added at 14:48 ---------- Previous post was at 14:41 ----------

IArma doesn't need targeting pods. Seriously, TGPs aren't going to drastically improve or alter gameplay, unless you really like delivering LGBs. It's just getting into hardcore flight sim territory The only things fixed wing aircraft really need are usable HUDs and a way to employ weapons accurately (CCIP). Targeting pods would be nice, I guess, but they are in no way necessary for engaging targets or providing CAS in Arma. BTW there is already a CCIP sight.

There are 20+ buttons on one MFD. Most aircraft have two or more MFDs. It's not really feasible to have those functions bound to the keyboard.

I guess you could have a button to cycle MFD pages or something, but what good are the MFDs in Arma, anyway? In a real airplane they are used for various radar modes, the targeting pod, a moving map or HSD, and stores management. Arma doesn't simulate radar, doesn't have a TGP (and I don't really see an urgent need for one), you can pull up a moving map with the GPS, and cycling weapons is already bound to a key and doesn't really need to be more complicated than it already is.

See, the thing is, while it makes sense for a flight sim to require users to buy hardware specifically to play them, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people who play Arma to purchase $150 joysticks to fly airplanes.

Edit: So as to not completely derail this into airplane talk: On the topic of what a "next-gen Arma" would be like, let's be honest, it's going to be basically the same game with better graphics.

Contrary to your own beliefs Arma3 already supports HOTAS and multi-controller devices such as trackir. The targeting pod is not a new idea for the aircraft since the AH64 had a similar ability in Arma2, all that's required is to place a similar view on the jet. It doesn't need to be an MFD page as such it could be just a tgtpod view like in Arma2s AH64.(similar to the drones in A3) And these support zoom, pan left/right and white hot /black hot. Whats needed though is ground stabilisation. All these combined make for a very powerful CAS/Strike capability, without tgtpod the job of CAS is a lot more difficult(and cold war 80s style).

---------- Post added at 14:50 ---------- Previous post was at 14:48 ----------

BTW there is already a CCIP sight.

[sanguinius51 11]

I'm not just looking at it from a bombing perspective. I'm well aware of all the things you can use a TGP for. Buddy lasing (although I don't know why anyone would bother), target identification, aerial reconnaissance, BDAs. I just don't think those things are critical or even necessarily good for this combined arms game. I think that in many cases it's better to force aircraft to work in tandem with ground units for things like lasing targets and BDAs. I think that, from a gameplay perspective, it's probably better to force airplanes to fly around and look out their windows at stuff. I think that, in the absense of proper air defense units, the ability to target, identify, and engage targets from 3-5 km could be potentially game breakingly powerful. I'm skeptical of the game's ability to run acceptably at the view distances required for TGPs to be worth using.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of the game having TGPs, either. For all of problems they create, they could also open up new gameplay opportunities. I do, however, think that the system you described sounds like a mod. It sounds like it would be as awkward to use as Mando Missiles was. And I don't think that BIS will ever implement a TGP the way you have described it.

All your points are valid. Well, except for the Mando Missiles point - imo, Mando Missiles was easy to use and made it a hell of a lot more fun. The targeting pods were in no way overly complicated.

The more you speak, the more I actually begin to agree with you. Having seen the epic strength of John Spartans F/A18 E/F hornet, with the buddy refuelling, lasing, jdams and so on and so forth, you actually begin to see that the issue is nigh on unsolvable for making jets somewhat reminiscent of their real life capabilities.

Let us take a look at the Super Hornet, created by John Spartan and Saul. Two players, who possess incredible hardware that gives them maximum view distance and object view distance, can dominate ANY situation you throw them in. The TGP on the F, with an extremely long view distance, means that you can have a Super Hornet fly 5 kilometres plus above the ground, never be seen, and drop their bomb directly on the target. JDAM is even worse - just fly over a target, have all your targets marked, and proceed to set target, drop, set target again, drop, and so on and so forth. With the absence of any decent SAMs or air-to-air missiles, it is invincible - high speed, high manoeuvrability - nothing can stop a good pilot.

So what if we added in these systems? SAM, radar guided air-to-air missiles? Well, that's good. But then, we would have to improve the radar simulation, so THESE are not god awfully overpowered. Alright, so 3 fairly large things to add in - new mechanics, new actions, new vehicles. But wait! Then, we have to make everything that is stealth-focused (Ghosthawk, Blackfoot, Wipeout) work against radar - we have to figure out some way to make their stealth work. Then, since we now have radar guided missiles, we'll need chaff and ECM. Then we'll need a service menu or Exchangeable Armament System to allow us to customise our aircraft for the job.

So SIX fairly big components to work on, just to allow us to use TGPs without it being too overpowered. Not to mention all the work that goes into making a new Arma.

So yeah, we likely won't see anything like that. A person can dream, though.

[subs17 9]

The basic TGP feature does not involve stealth or radar modelling so why are you adding that to the list of features when stealth and decent radar could wait with a TGP at least the CAS side would be working more realistically.

[sanguinius51 11]

The basic TGP feature does not involve stealth or radar modelling so why are you adding that to the list of features when stealth and decent radar could wait with a TGP at least the CAS side would be working more realistically.

But I'm saying how to appropriately introduce the feature by balancing it. It is overpowered by itself - thus, to improve gameplay, we would need to make air combat more realistic. I personally do not want a TGP on its lonesome - it will destroy the game, because a single jet with good object view distance can see the entire battlefield, all of the enemy forces, and then proceed to drop bombs within five metres of them, and still have guns and missiles left to use.

[subs17 9]

But the helicopters already have that feature so adding a TGP would not effect gameplay that much for balance they could have longer range SAMs. BTW its not as easy as it sounds with a TGP to just see and hit everything they do not work that way. Zoom is limited on drones and helicopters, you do not have unlimited zoom on TGPs.

[roshnak 41]

What? Since when? Are you talking about the gunner view?

[subs17 9]

Yep all we need is a modification of that for the TGP(TGP view), ground stabilisation(maybe lock once for ground stab and then a 2nd time to lock). And slew/zoom buttons and a CCRP mode in the Hud and it'll do the job.

[fareast 20]

realtime water reflection like in VBS3?

[Xalteva 10]

you can't have a milsim and outstanding graphics at the same time ! the computer to run it doesn't exist yet ... it's like having Assetto Corsa with Project Cars graphics !

Edited July 3, 2014 by Xalteva

[Fushko 59]

you can't have a milsim and outstanding at the same time ! the computer to run it doesn't exist yet ... it's like having Assetto Corsa with Project Cars graphics !

That's wrong.

[Xalteva 10]

Well good luck with that then :D

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

realtime water reflection like in VBS3?

http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/n-zfvgw8/nadajha/products/180/images/485/VBS3_Diag64_2014_03_24_17_52_33_53__61157.1401368641.700.468.jpg?c=2 http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/n-zfvgw8/nadajha/products/180/images/491/bscap0039__09780.1401368650.700.468.jpg?c=2

That... is amaze balls. Especially in the pond theme. That fits so perfectly. I guarantee that RV4 has these capabilities, though, for BI to enable them... what kind of frame rates would be get... i wonder... VBS does it well, and their maps tend to be decently big, with alot more engine intensive things going on at the same time. Very nice feature. Battlefield 4 does reflections great as well.

---------- Post added at 14:05 ---------- Previous post was at 14:03 ----------

you can't have a milsim and outstanding graphics at the same time ! the computer to run it doesn't exist yet ... it's like having Assetto Corsa with Project Cars graphics !

VBS3 pulls this off. And sometimes i wonder how. Could you Imagine if EA pulled off a sim with Frostbite? Well, i still wouldn't buy it (Lol, cus EA) but i recon it would be amazing to see.

[PuFu 4600]

this is from OFP era....

kegetys DXDLL

[nodunit 397]

this is from OFP era....

http://img75.photobucket.com/albums/v228/blanco2/DXDLL/Ardennes01.jpg

kegetys DXDLL

*sigh* loved that mod....

Funny thing is that I don't recall it impacting the frame rate much at all so surely its not a performance thing.

It does seem a bit odd that BI placed such an emphasis on water, being able to dive and all that but didn't add more reflective properties.

Edited July 3, 2014 by NodUnit

[PuFu 4600]

shitty shaders all around ;)

Edited July 4, 2014 by PuFu

[subs17 9]

Maybe they could have different weather states and sea states eg. stormy, calm

[mordeaniischaos 3]

It'd be pretty amazing to see the engine rehashed so it supported 64bit and took proper advantage of multi-core CPUs.

Another thing that probably will sound like a small thing on paper but could add a lot would be better support for animated particle effects. Take a look at games like Battlefield 4 when you shoot the ground (especially with larger rounds) and the effects are really, really awesome. It's not just a few dust textures tumbling out, it's an actual animated dust plume. And they cast proper shadows based on alpha, which is pretty impressive looking.

Performance issues are the really big thing though.

Honestly I'd be stoked if all they did was give support for modern hardware and redid the night vision to be really realistic.

There are a lot of VBS features I'd be stoked to get. Walking on moving vehicles, dynamic destruction, underground buildings, actual lightrays (I am pretty sure it's not POV based shit like ArmA3), in fact pretty much everything shown in this video:

I always thought it was odd that Arma lags behind VBS in terms of visual fidelity, despite Arma being consumer facing. I get not having like, super detailed vehicles with tons of functionality, but give us the engine features at least! :(

Edited July 3, 2014 by MordeaniisChaos

[chortles 263]

@ MordeanisChaos: The thing about these VBS feature requests for Arma is that it's not exactly public knowledge just how much of those features -- I recall a BI dev outright saying that the underground implementation was (although apparently improved beyond what the video showed) one such example -- were in fact "engine-integral" (engine-supported) as opposed to "scripted, hacky workaround that was delivered in time to satisfy <insert military customer here>". ;)

[sorophx 25]

turns out DayZ is being remade in a completely new engine, which is being worked on by the Arma 3 dev team? that's why Arma 3 gets no serious updates to the engine, Arma 3 is already in the past it would seem :D