Verisimilitude of Arma 3

[eddo36 16]

Dslyecxi said in his introduction vid-

"Arma's not a hardcore simulation of every platform involving modern and future combat like you see in a focused sim. Instead, it's a combined arms games, which provides the opportunity to participate at all levels of combat with accessibility and authenticity as a guiding principle."

I'm wondering what exactly does he mean by that? Is he talking just about Arma 3's unrealistic damage model, or are there other aspects on the game? Just want to know what that means specifically if anyone can clarify. Thanks.

[miketim 20]

Well first of all, most stuff in arma 3 is non existent, non standard, prototype or a pretty obscure real life equipment piece,

Also even if they are real, it's mostly not stuff any normal army would use.

So overall, gear isn't too realistic.

Then yes, damage model is pretty shit as we all know..

Dyslexci works for BI, so he is probably trying not to say anything too bad about it, wouldn't exactly be the best thing for pr.

Also frankly, I don't want to sound like a dick, but I'm sure 100s of people bought arma 3 because he played it on his vids, so... It would do him well to indirectly advertise it, ie: not say a ton of negative shit about it.

He is pretty much making a disclaimer, that more or less means it isn't as realistic as arma 2

Not being like "omg,he is part of bi illuminati selling u arma 3 conspiracy" but you can imagine he might not want to make it blatantly look bad.

Arma 3s style of gameplay is obviously going to be more realistic then just about every other game, (besides other arma games) because no other game does anything really similar.

It's just that it's not authentic, it's not related to real life as much anymore.

For instance, us has conflicts in the Middle East like in arma 2 oa IRL to some extent, but when was the last time you saw NATO invade Greece?

Overall, it's because of the timeline and rule of cool gear they out in, that they can no longer truly claim it's a millitary sim in many peoples opinions.. Which is fine for some people, clearly dyslexci is fine with "combined arms ..blah blah" versus what arma 2 is, and a lot of people similarly are fine with that.

Obviously not everybody is, so dyslexci doesn't want to make some semi false claims and such

Edited August 26, 2014 by MikeTim

[cozza 24]

i think what his trying to say is its not a true simulator in terms like DCS for planes/Helicopter or Steel Beasts for Tanks but a simpler version is added for combined arms gameplay.

[eddo36 16]

i think what his trying to say is its not a true simulator in terms like DCS for planes/Helicopter or Steel Beasts for Tanks but a simpler version is added for combined arms gameplay.

Hm that can make sense but aren't they about to release the new helicopter model?

[zimms 22]

@MikeTim

That's absolutely NOT what he meant by that.

OT (damn, Cozza was faster)

"[...] Instead, it's a combined arms games, which provides the opportunity to participate at all levels of combat with accessibility and authenticity as a guiding principle."

This means you can play everything you want on the battlefield. You like infantry, or rather being a tank commander, maybe you like flying an attack helicopter or just driving a squad around in the back of your truck? You name it, you can do everything you want.

"Arma's not a hardcore simulation of every platform involving modern and future combat like you see in a focused sim."

The level of detail of all those aspects Arma offers isn't as high as in designated simulations. You don't have complex start up procedures for helicopters, you simply press 'Engine on'. Your tank won't get stuck in mud and your cars radiator won't die.

Arma offers a lot of different stuff and of course not every aspect is as detailed as in a sim that only focuses on one of those. As far as I know unfortunately not one of the BI developers is capable of time travel. So somewhere a line has to be drawn.

[das attorney 858]

You can play as everything on the battlefield, but not with the same level of fidelity as a dedicated sim for the thing you're using.

That's what I got from it.

[mistyronin 1181]

i think what his trying to say is its not a true simulator in terms like DCS for planes/Helicopter or Steel Beasts for Tanks but a simpler version is added for combined arms gameplay.

Well the vanilla version is not, but neither was the A2, and so on. But with the appropriate mods, it can become really close to a "simulator" ( understood as a game-simulator like DCS ).

Also we can't deny that BI has put some effort lately to improve certain things, like the introduction of the ToH flying model.

[miketim 20]

I don't think dyslexci literally meant what I wrote, I think dyslexci was making a blanket statement anyway.

Obviously arma isn't perfect and can't have everything, I do think ONE of the things he was doing was that dyslexci is making a disclaimer in a sense so he isn't spammed and hated on by people that are too serious about realism stuff.

Obviously there are many other reasons and facets to this, but remember he is just another person stating his thoughts and opinions, it's not the word of god like some people treat it.

Anyway his statements are open to interpretation to some extent, you can think of it however you want but at the end of the day arma 3 is the same game.

Also BIs changes are very important and welcomed by most members of the community.

Edited August 26, 2014 by MikeTim

[-Coulum- 35]

Its because every weapon platform is not simulated. You don't have to change gears when your driving a vehicle. flying a helicopter, even with the new flight model, is still much harder to do in reality. Operating a tank takes tonnes of training to do in real life. Body armour has much different coverage and limitations in real life. In real life you bleed and there is much more to stabilizing a casualty then waving you medkit over him. In real life there is not only muscle fatigue but also long term exhaustion. In real life bullets are effected by wind. etc. etc.

Arma 3 is the most realistic infantry game I know of. But Dslyecxi is basically saying that doesn't mean its a simulator. It simply doesn't delve into enough detail for that. And more importantly, I think what BI is saying, is that they don't even have a goal of making it a simulator. I do think they want the gameplay to be realistic and "authentic", but they don't aim to simulate every detail of ever piece of equipment and real world phenomana.

The only simulation in arma is the bullet ballistics and penetration, and even that is an extremely simplistic/shallow simulation. The rest is pretty much a gathering of abstract and simplified features that add up to make fairly realistic gameplay.

[miketim 20]

^ pretty much that.

[the_demongod 31]

Hm that can make sense but aren't they about to release the new helicopter model?

Even after we have the "advanced" FM, the game will still be nowhere near sim-level fidelity. Real sims like DCS, Falcon BMS, etc are a whole league above anything arma will/can ever become (which is okay, Arma would lose much of its playerbase if it became that level of fidelity because the time commitment of such a game is massive, requiring more time and energy than most Arma players probably have or are willing to offer).

[miketim 20]

Yeah Demongod I agree that I don't want dcs level stuff

[the_demongod 31]

Yeah, see the thing is while yes, Arma tries to follow reality more closely than say, Battlefield, it still needs to be accessible to a lot of people. There's a reason flight sims aren't popular - they take a helluva lot of time and money and effort, and not many people have enough of these things to play sims. This is why Arma shines, because it is in a good place between realism and accessibility (imo it could be a little more realistic in the aircraft systems department, but that's because I'm a jet freak :P), allowing people with all sorts of interests to enjoy the game.

[gibonez 18]

Yeah Demongod I agree that I don't want dcs level stuff

I would.

The added complexity has the added benefit of more depth.

If they adopted a new flight model for the jets just like the helicopters it would make for a better more balanced game.

Complicated powerful things such as Artillery, jets and helicopters should require a large time requirement to maximize their potential this is how they would be balanced , balance them with their true to life drawbacks and not artificial restrictions.

Make a all powerful CAS helicopter pilot have to know the limits of his helicopter, force artillery to learn to read a map , calculate distance and adjust for elevation changes, force a jet pilot to know the maximum speed of his jet and how to safely fly.

All these things lead to a better more realistic experience that is at the same time far more balanced.

[quadrono 10]

I would.

The added complexity has the added benefit of more depth.

If they adopted a new flight model for the jets just like the helicopters it would make for a better more balanced game.

Complicated powerful things such as Artillery, jets and helicopters should require a large time requirement to maximize their potential this is how they would be balanced , balance them with their true to life drawbacks and not artificial restrictions.

Make a all powerful CAS helicopter pilot have to know the limits of his helicopter, force artillery to learn to read a map , calculate distance and adjust for elevation changes, force a jet pilot to know the maximum speed of his jet and how to safely fly.

All these things lead to a better more realistic experience that is at the same time far more balanced.

So you want Arma 3 to be Everquest circa 2001 where you have no chance of getting good gear and being "powerful" unless you play 6 to 8 hours a day? No thanks. If a plane or a tank is too powerful to let everyone use it's too powerful to let anyone use. This is not an MMO, time investment should gain you nothing but fun during the time investment.

[-Coulum- 35]

You shouldn't have to read through a manual to drive a tank or fly a helicopter. But at the same time you shouldn't be able to perform tasks any easier than an actual pilot or driver can. For example you should be able to take off and land with a helicopter with just a bit of practice. A pilot can do that easily, if they are focusing on the task at at hand. But you shouldn't be able to tab lock and click to kill like you currently can. Because even an experienced pilot doesn't have it that easy. I think that is what BI is aiming for. It doesn't have to be a simulation, but the results and abilities of the players should be within the realm of realism.

Of course I personally would love for full on simulation. I wouldn't mind having to learn how to fly for months on end. But it is definitely unfair to expect BI to produce that. Not only would it take alot of effort, but it would make the game alot less accessible, meaning less sales.

[gibonez 18]

So you want Arma 3 to be Everquest circa 2001 where you have no chance of getting good gear and being "powerful" unless you play 6 to 8 hours a day? No thanks. If a plane or a tank is too powerful to let everyone use it's too powerful to let anyone use. This is not an MMO, time investment should gain you nothing but fun during the time investment.

No I want arma 3 to have complex and indepth gameplay elements that are further in the spectrum of realism.

elements and modules that are easy to pick up and play while taking a long time to master. Meaning a person could just pick up and play and fly a jet around but would require practice and hours before he can fully use the vehicle to its full potential they can do this by making targeting systems far more complex and in depth.

They could easily do this by adding real life gameplay elements to the jets such as CCIP, weapon pods, and a more realistic flight model.

Just like real life infantry should be easy to get into and relatively user friendly while specialized infantry roles such as artillery should require some homework and practice.

At the end of the day Vanilla arma needs more depth right off the bat they could add a considerable amount of it with simple things like making the core shooting more realistic, weapon resting, wind, spin drift, mil/moa elevation adjustments etc.

These tiny yet doable things add depth , complexity and a more rewarding experience.

[chortles 263]

... but why would they when they already got your money?

[the_demongod 31]

I would.

The added complexity has the added benefit of more depth.

If they adopted a new flight model for the jets just like the helicopters it would make for a better more balanced game.

Complicated powerful things such as Artillery, jets and helicopters should require a large time requirement to maximize their potential this is how they would be balanced , balance them with their true to life drawbacks and not artificial restrictions.

Make a all powerful CAS helicopter pilot have to know the limits of his helicopter, force artillery to learn to read a map , calculate distance and adjust for elevation changes, force a jet pilot to know the maximum speed of his jet and how to safely fly.

All these things lead to a better more realistic experience that is at the same time far more balanced.

Don't get me wrong. I would love if DCS level complexity was brought into arma. As Quadrono mentioned, I am the kind of person who plays 6-8 hours a day (of sims), and I definitely have time to learn all these things. For me, cockpit interaction is lower priority, I would much rather see radar and weapon systems brought up to their existing complexity in real life. Flight model is a must too. I want to have trouble landing my jet on a stormy night, risking being blown off the runway.

One thing I really dislike is the fact that BI has tried to make (especially CAS) vehicles "fairer" by doing things like giving the A-164 an extremely weak cannon, and yet keep the incredibly easy and unfair tab-lock system. This is really confusing to me, because the Tab-lock system is something that requires absolutely no skill to use. However, the gun does. Like -Coulum- said, BI should be focusing on ways to make skill more of a factor in the game, and yet they keep the cannon of the Blackfoot extremely weak (the explosions are effectively aesthetic. The newly-boosted firerate is the only thing that makes it useable), but keep the DAGRs extremely maneuverable and overpowered. The DAGRs (in real life) are Hydras with SALH seeker heads attached, meaning they should be effective only against soft targets and infantry. While I suppose HEAT DAGRs exist, the distinction should be made far more clear (HEAT rounds should be very ineffective against groups of infantry, because all the energy goes directly into the ground and does not spread much at all).

Let us imagine for a second that the FixedWingLib (brother to RotorLib) was brought to Arma as a Jets DLC that added more advanced flight model. If people are having a hard time controlling the jet and the canon sucks, are they going to use the cannon? No. They'll spam their Macers and RTB Winchester.

Don't get me wrong: The canon is not that weak, the main issue with it is that is doesn't do enough damage to be effective at slightly longer range. I feel like 80% of the damage I do in a gun run is done extremely close to the target as I am about to pull up, because I have to make every single shot count to kill an IFV or Ifrit in one run. And I know exactly why this happens. BI has made the canon weak that range because it is safe to fly at that range from the target. Fifty caliber/12.7mm rounds are effectively useless against aircraft, meaning a pilot can fly very close and even over the target without fear of being killed. And there is a specific reason behind this: The jets act like one solid chunk of metal. Any of you who have played DCS A-10 can concur: bullet hits in anywhere but the tail fins and wings result in very noticeable damage. Just a few rounds into an engine cause significant damage, knocking out the AC power generator and/or damaging the engine to the point where you only get about 1/2 or less thrust out of it. A shot through the fuselage often results in other system damage (loss of an MFCD screen, loss of the CDU/EGI [navigation] system, leaking hydraulic pressure). These are significant damages. Losing an MFCD is a significant issue, resulting in impossible and/or extremely difficult operation. This is often a ticket straight back home to the airbase. Loss of partial engine power makes all flying very hard, because the limited thrust makes the maneuvering very sluggish. Losing an entire engine often results in such lower power that a total stall is imminent, resulting in an ejection shortly after.

Now, if this happened in Arma, suddenly the cannon is useless. You can't get close enough to armed vehicles to use it, so people will use nothing but missiles.

Now I don't expect that level of detail for the CAS Jet damage models, but we absolutely need better Jet damage models. We need at least HULL, L-ENG, R-ENG, FUEL, R-ALR (aileron), L-ALR, and perhaps SYS.

HULL isn't really that important as it isn't in real life. The important parts are *inside* it, not it itself.

L/R-ENG - losing an engine would result in very sluggish acceleration and handling (oh wait, it already feels slow, they'd need to fix that first).

FUEL works the same as it does in Helicopters. It can leak.

and SYS would be the most important of all. It would be a hit sector someplace in the fuselage (most likely directly behind or in front of pilot) which, when hit enough causes all electronic systems to fail, including weapons. This means certain RTB to repair.

Just my 2 cents. Cheers

[gibonez 18]

... but why would they when they already got your money?

Future proofing ? keeping their loyal fan base happy ? developing systems for future products ?

There are lots of reasons why something like that would be worth while especially when looking forward.

Don't get me wrong. I would love if DCS level complexity was brought into arma. As Quadrono mentioned, I am the kind of person who plays 6-8 hours a day (of sims), and I definitely have time to learn all these things. For me, cockpit interaction is lower priority, I would much rather see radar and weapon systems brought up to their existing complexity in real life. Flight model is a must too. I want to have trouble landing my jet on a stormy night, risking being blown off the runway.

One thing I really dislike is the fact that BI has tried to make (especially CAS) vehicles "fairer" by doing things like giving the A-164 an extremely weak cannon, and yet keep the incredibly easy and unfair tab-lock system. This is really confusing to me, because the Tab-lock system is something that requires absolutely no skill to use. However, the gun does. Like -Coulum- said, BI should be focusing on ways to make skill more of a factor in the game, and yet they keep the cannon of the Blackfoot extremely weak (the explosions are effectively aesthetic. The newly-boosted firerate is the only thing that makes it useable), but keep the DAGRs extremely maneuverable and overpowered. The DAGRs (in real life) are Hydras with SALH seeker heads attached, meaning they should be effective only against soft targets and infantry. While I suppose HEAT DAGRs exist, the distinction should be made far more clear (HEAT rounds should be very ineffective against groups of infantry, because all the energy goes directly into the ground and does not spread much at all).

Let us imagine for a second that the FixedWingLib (brother to RotorLib) was brought to Arma as a Jets DLC that added more advanced flight model. If people are having a hard time controlling the jet and the canon sucks, are they going to use the cannon? No. They'll spam their Macers and RTB Winchester.

Don't get me wrong: The canon is not that weak, the main issue with it is that is doesn't do enough damage to be effective at slightly longer range. I feel like 80% of the damage I do in a gun run is done extremely close to the target as I am about to pull up, because I have to make every single shot count to kill an IFV or Ifrit in one run. And I know exactly why this happens. BI has made the canon weak that range because it is safe to fly at that range from the target. Fifty caliber/12.7mm rounds are effectively useless against aircraft, meaning a pilot can fly very close and even over the target without fear of being killed. And there is a specific reason behind this: The jets act like one solid chunk of metal. Any of you who have played DCS A-10 can concur: bullet hits in anywhere but the tail fins and wings result in very noticeable damage. Just a few rounds into an engine cause significant damage, knocking out the AC power generator and/or damaging the engine to the point where you only get about 1/2 or less thrust out of it. A shot through the fuselage often results in other system damage (loss of an MFCD screen, loss of the CDU/EGI [navigation] system, leaking hydraulic pressure). These are significant damages. Losing an MFCD is a significant issue, resulting in impossible and/or extremely difficult operation. This is often a ticket straight back home to the airbase. Loss of partial engine power makes all flying very hard, because the limited thrust makes the maneuvering very sluggish. Losing an entire engine often results in such lower power that a total stall is imminent, resulting in an ejection shortly after.

Now, if this happened in Arma, suddenly the cannon is useless. You can't get close enough to armed vehicles to use it, so people will use nothing but missiles.

Now I don't expect that level of detail for the CAS Jet damage models, but we absolutely need better Jet damage models. We need at least HULL, L-ENG, R-ENG, FUEL, R-ALR (aileron), L-ALR, and perhaps SYS.

HULL isn't really that important as it isn't in real life. The important parts are *inside* it, not it itself.

L/R-ENG - losing an engine would result in very sluggish acceleration and handling (oh wait, it already feels slow, they'd need to fix that first).

FUEL works the same as it does in Helicopters. It can leak.

and SYS would be the most important of all. It would be a hit sector someplace in the fuselage (most likely directly behind or in front of pilot) which, when hit enough causes all electronic systems to fail, including weapons. This means certain RTB to repair.

Just my 2 cents. Cheers

I agree especially on the simplicity and over powered missile and missile lock on system.

If I had to pick the one area of Jets that would need a overhaul it would be the targeting system.

[chortles 263]

One thing I really dislike is the fact that BI has tried to make (especially CAS) vehicles "fairer" by doing things like giving the A-164 an extremely weak cannon, and yet keep the incredibly easy and unfair tab-lock system.

Hey, it's not like they could get away with the probably-preferred option of making CAS just automated airstrikes (i.e. as in the Zeus module) in regular play where the user interaction is solely from the FAC/JTAC. :p

Future proofing ? keeping their loyal fan base happy ? developing systems for future products ?

... if they'd wanted to future proof, you'd think that they'd have gotten onto something else besides Real Virtuality by now. Although the funny thing is, BI is doing so -- a company brochure revealed that they're merging RV and Enforce... into a single multi-platform engine.

"keeping their loyal fan base happy"? *cough* (Although I suspect that this has no small part to do with why Arma 3 has consistently remained at US$60 post-launch and only once post-launch reached US$30, while Arma 2 nowadays is treated the way that it is...) Hell, that was the same thing lobbed at BI over their handling of Arma 3 from Steamworks to the launch date to the paid DLC model, yet lo and behold BI kept truckin' on, complete with pettka declaring simply 'no more Lite'...

[the_demongod 31]

I agree especially on the simplicity and over powered missile and missile lock on system.

If I had to pick the one area of Jets that would need a overhaul it would be the targeting system.

If we could get a proper radar targeting system (a screen that shows aircraft in front of you which you can select targets on) and a proper TGP (literally all we need is a Darter quadrotor drone turret attached to the wing that the pilot can look through like the Hellcat's camera), I would be happy. It wouldn't even be that hard (okay maybe the radar would, but not the TGP. Missionmakers have already done this by using attachto to put a darter on the wing).

[chortles 263]

If we could get a proper radar targeting system (a screen that shows aircraft in front of you which you can select targets on) and a proper TGP (literally all we need is a Darter quadrotor drone turret attached to the wing that the pilot can look through like the Hellcat's camera), I would be happy. It wouldn't even be that hard (okay maybe the radar would, but not the TGP. Missionmakers have already done this by using attachto to put a darter on the wing).

The issue here is how to propose a mouse-and-keyboard-only implementation where a pilot can do it in a single-seat aircraft, yet simple, quickly-implemented and engine-supported enough that the devs wouldn't run away from the idea*. And I say this for both​ suggestions... albeit with emphasis on the "mouse-and-keyboard-only" part when it comes to the TGP (since, as said, there is look at the Hellcat's FLIR camera -- the problem is how to create appropriate pilot support for that).

* This is a dev team where Dr. Hladik said that they'd rather leave out a clickable cockpit/complex start-up helos for consistency's sake (implying that it was never in consideration for ground vehicles, for example) and that "it would be too much time" in his opinion to even just implement enough of such tech for the community to do the rest... I also say "engine-supported" due to the devs' public aversion to simply SQF'ing up stuff like modders do in favor of stuff like the planned sling-loading (not least because one of the claimed benefits is MP compatibility). As for mouse-and-keyboard... you do remember what you said about money (for peripherals) right?

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Well first of all, most stuff in arma 3 is non existent, non standard, prototype or a pretty obscure real life equipment piece,

Also even if they are real, it's mostly not stuff any normal army would use.

So overall, gear isn't too realistic.

Then yes, damage model is pretty shit as we all know..

Dyslexci works for BI, so he is probably trying not to say anything too bad about it, wouldn't exactly be the best thing for pr.

Also frankly, I don't want to sound like a dick, but I'm sure 100s of people bought arma 3 because he played it on his vids, so... It would do him well to indirectly advertise it, ie: not say a ton of negative shit about it.

He is pretty much making a disclaimer, that more or less means it isn't as realistic as arma 2

Not being like "omg,he is part of bi illuminati selling u arma 3 conspiracy" but you can imagine he might not want to make it blatantly look bad.

Arma 3s style of gameplay is obviously going to be more realistic then just about every other game, (besides other arma games) because no other game does anything really similar.

It's just that it's not authentic, it's not related to real life as much anymore.

For instance, us has conflicts in the Middle East like in arma 2 oa IRL to some extent, but when was the last time you saw NATO invade Greece?

Overall, it's because of the timeline and rule of cool gear they out in, that they can no longer truly claim it's a millitary sim in many peoples opinions.. Which is fine for some people, clearly dyslexci is fine with "combined arms ..blah blah" versus what arma 2 is, and a lot of people similarly are fine with that.

Obviously not everybody is, so dyslexci doesn't want to make some semi false claims and such

What an utter load of tripe. This post reeks of self entitlement and naievity.

There is a post on this very forum as well as an entire page at the Game and Movie Firearms database that goes through each and every vehicle/weapon featured in Arma 3 and points out it's real-to-life counterpart. Just because the previous game used THE SAME MODELS that were used in Arma 1's release (some of which looked terrible by the time Arma 2 was released) and just because the game doesn't seem to feature the exact equipment used by the United States circa 2003 doesn't mean the game isn't authentic or un-realistic.

As for the game not being set in dusty desert Bumfuckistan I can understand peoples frustration at not being able to play yet another game set in almost complete desert brown/tan colours but hey, let's just forget all the other conflicts that have occured around the world over the last 25+ years and the multitude of locations they have occured in. I relate Altis to something like the Panama or Grenada conflicts; trouble in paradise style scenarios.

People just need to open their eyes and minds, do a bit of research on the equipment provided in game and then use a bit of imagination to adapt the situation that occurs on Altis to a previous similar event in our own history while remembering that the Armaverse does not run parralel to our own.

[the_demongod 31]

The issue here is how to propose a mouse-and-keyboard-only implementation where a pilot can do it in a single-seat aircraft, yet simple, quickly-implemented and engine-supported enough that the devs wouldn't run away from the idea*. And I say this for both​ suggestions... albeit with emphasis on the "mouse-and-keyboard-only" part when it comes to the TGP (since, as said, there is look at the Hellcat's FLIR camera -- the problem is how to create appropriate pilot support for that).

* This is a dev team where Dr. Hladik said that they'd rather leave out a clickable cockpit/complex start-up helos for consistency's sake (implying that it was never in consideration for ground vehicles, for example) and that "it would be too much time" in his opinion to even just implement enough of such tech for the community to do the rest... I also say "engine-supported" due to the devs' public aversion to simply SQF'ing up stuff like modders do in favor of stuff like the planned sling-loading (not least because one of the claimed benefits is MP compatibility). As for mouse-and-keyboard... you do remember what you said about money (for peripherals) right?

Imagine if the pilot of the jet was essentially granted access to the camera that is currently available for the Hellcat's copilot, UAV turrets, Blackfoot gunner, etc. They would press a "TGP" keybind, and would see through the camera. They could have a control to center it to Boresight (or even an action menu item) which would disable ground tracking, and moving it to a target would re-enable ground tracking. While in the TGP, the aircraft controls are still active, meaning that it will be important for those without controllers to have both keyboard and mouse controls for the jets. An additional weapon would be available while in the TGP, the laser designator [side note: it would be great if they added in a separate laser designator keybind as in real life, which would prevent the player from having to switch through all their weapons to find the designator]. The player would still be able to fire his normal weapons while in the TGP. Additionally, as in the A-10C, the TGP would have an IR pointer weapon which could be turned on and off. This would allow the pilot to visually designate targets for both friendly aircraft and ground units.

This would be a pretty simple addition, and the impact it would have on the way CAS aircraft are used would be absolutely massive.