Targeting improvements

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Do I need to have a copilot to lase a target or can I do it in the A-10 just through the targeting pod? 

 

Thanks!

They've not yet added laser designator a to the aircraft yet just a targeting camera.

[nikiforos 450]

They've not yet added laser designator a to the aircraft yet just a targeting camera.

Ohh I see!! But are there any plans to add laser designator?

[en3x 209]

rev  135665

 

- "Lock UAV Turret" action (default LCtrl + T) now locks camera on position / target (if target is markable)

- Num1-9 now also controls camera (num5 will return it to default direction)

 

Very nice.

 

Is continuously locking camera feasible to implement?

 

 

Meaning camera tracks view when is not moved.No need to manually lock.

[twistking 204]

Good work on the locking to target / terrain.

 

Concerning the ability of the pods to lase for itself, i'm having mixed feelings. It sure would be realistic, but then it would further improve solo combat effectiveness of aircrafts, making jtac etc. unnecceesary again.

 

If the devs can somehow nerf the absurdly accurate friend/foe/neutral/disabled awareness of the sensors, i think it would decently balance the aircrafts abilities to lase for itself.

[ozdeadmeat 12]

When is 135665 due for release. 135661 is current dev build available. An ability to save targets into the TGP would also be useful, something that would allow you to drop multiple munitions on a single pass similar to how the real one works. Also Target Sharing between aircraft would also be pretty cool.

 

Having a twisting compass around the center cursor would also be handy for those who want to get rid of the radar one at the top of the screen. Making it look more like a real TPG could only help with immersion also.

 

Looking forward to checking out the ground / moving vehicle lock for TGP in 135665 when it drops. Thank you so much for looking into this and making this element of the game more realistic and less over powered.

[Pyronick 21]

Good work on the locking to target / terrain.

 

Concerning the ability of the pods to lase for itself, i'm having mixed feelings. It sure would be realistic, but then it would further improve solo combat effectiveness of aircrafts, making jtac etc. unnecceesary again.

 

If the devs can somehow nerf the absurdly accurate friend/foe/neutral/disabled awareness of the sensors, i think it would decently balance the aircrafts abilities to lase for itself.

I am also worried about the obsolescence of JTACs, UAVs, recce vehicles, etc. Even with a less accurate IFF system, I still have my doubts.

[twistking 204]

Hey, i just did some testing with the a164 / wipeout on vanilla stable branch to verify the current status of sensor awareness.

 

The problem

 

Immediatetely identified as hostile and lockable:

- Enemy vehicle with enemy crew
- Enemy vehicle with enemy crew, engine off, not moving
- Neutral or firendly vehicle with enemy crew
- Neutral or firendly vehicle with enemy crew, engine off, not moving

 

Identified neutral and not lockable:

- ALL vehicles without crew
- ALL destroyed vehicle
- ALL vehicle with neutral crew

 

Immediatetely identified friendly and not lockable:

- ALL vehicle with friendly crew

 

That means, that an enemy hiding in the back of an civilian car, without engine running, is immediately picked up as enemy, while the pilot is not able to lock on an abandoned or empty/parked enemy tank.

An enemy insurgent fighter riding in a civilian pickup is immadeitaly registered as hostile, while a civilian riding in an enemy (!) battle tank, is identified as neutral and not lockable.

 

Simple suggestion to improve the awareness issue

 

I think first of all, every vehicle should be lockable. But to make things easier there could be some kind of parameter like "threat possibilty". So when you cycle throgh targets it only cycles through targets that have a high threat possibility. With another key (for example shift+R) you could cycle also through targets that are not (yet) identified as a threat. Additionaly every vehicle would need a parameter if it is associated with a certain faction (for example the t-100 is only used by opfor so it would be associated with opfor, the armed pickup however is used by insurgents of all 3 sides, so would be associated as "neutral", while a civilian sedan would be associated as civilian. These associations would be one aspect of automatic threat evaluation. Other aspects could be, if vehicle is driving and/or engaging.

This would result in -for example- an insurgent type vehicle, like an armed pickup or a civilian pickup loaded with hostiles never showing up as clearly hostile as long as it is not engaging the aircraft. (Pilot could still assess target visually and engage it). On the other hand a regular unit like t-100 battle tank with engines on will always show up as -at least- orange (medium-high threat) or even red (high threat, proven hostile). See below:

 

Colour coding would not directly refer to hostility but to threat/possibility of hostility:

Green - friendly vehicle and firendly crew (thanks to some sort of IFF friendly vehicle with friendly crew could "magically" appear as green)

Grey - unknown or friendly or civilian vehicle with unknown crew or disabled / empty / engine off / not engaging

Orange - potentially hostile (hostile type of vehicle, but could still be driven by civilian/neutral,firendly. Not engaging the aircraft)

Red - proven hostile (f.e. engaging aircraft with sensors / weapon systems, or proven hostile in another way), laser targets, nv targets

 

The normal target cycle would only cycle orange and red targets, with orange target bearing a very low change of friendly fire / colleteral damage.

The advanced cycle (shift+cycle) would also cycle grey targets but require some sort of further assessment by the pilot in order to avoid friendly fire / colleteral damage (good use for the new sensor pods - or of course jtac). Would also give insurgent type forces some benefit compared to regular forces.

[_Hawkeye_ 43]

Thanks for the feedback and references!

 

Actually you'd be able to find some inspiration in how direction of a sensor (TGP) is displayed on HUD of aircrafts today. But I'd say the main reason for these crew aim indicators was to know when the gunner is aimed at a target (and 'fire' command can be issued) or what has the commander given you as a target (i.e. over VON). IRL this information exchange would be very fast and precise - commander could slave the whole turret, look through gunner's optics or even fire (Steel Beasts have it, they are after all a dedicated simulation and a training tool.).

There are many things you'd naturally do in a tank to get that information. The performance gets much worse when there's a screen and a keyboard between you and the actual thing. Similarly to e.g. shacktac radar this is more of an abstraction of awareness that isn't carried over the medium but would (objectively) happen in real life. Ultimately the goal is to get a solid and believable tank crew experience.

 

Have you guys thought about implmeanting"commanders over ride"? Would be a nice feature for tanks to be as u say slave the gunners turret onto a target that the gunner can't find. maybe somthing tied with lock turrets etc.

 

[Vasily.B 529]

 

Thanks for the feedback and references!

 

Actually you'd be able to find some inspiration in how direction of a sensor (TGP) is displayed on HUD of aircrafts today. But I'd say the main reason for these crew aim indicators was to know when the gunner is aimed at a target (and 'fire' command can be issued) or what has the commander given you as a target (i.e. over VON). IRL this information exchange would be very fast and precise - commander could slave the whole turret, look through gunner's optics or even fire (Steel Beasts have it, they are after all a dedicated simulation and a training tool.).

There are many things you'd naturally do in a tank to get that information. The performance gets much worse when there's a screen and a keyboard between you and the actual thing. Similarly to e.g. shacktac radar this is more of an abstraction of awareness that isn't carried over the medium but would (objectively) happen in real life. Ultimately the goal is to get a solid and believable tank crew experience.

 

Have you guys thought about implmeanting"commanders over ride"? Would be a nice feature for tanks to be as u say slave the gunners turret onto a target that the gunner can't find. maybe somthing tied with lock turrets etc.

 

 

Yeah, so called "Dual mode". It would be great addition to tank warfare.

[DancZer 65]

If you are upgrading the A-10 main gun targeting with CCIP, then implement the target hold feature too. Please!

https://youtu.be/lOVJo1eldUs?t=3m44s

 

The AH-99 gunner view should be a gyroscopic stabilized view shouldn't it? As i remember it's not stabilized.

[oukej 2910]

Have you guys thought about implmeanting"commanders over ride"? Would be a nice feature for tanks to be as u say slave the gunners turret onto a target that the gunner can't find. maybe somthing tied with lock turrets etc.

We wanted to avoid it because it could get complicated with MP (and on less organized session could lead to crew role redundancy or even trolling)

[en3x 209]

We wanted to avoid it because it could get complicated with MP (and on less organized session could lead to crew role redundancy or even trolling)

 

It could work if gunner would have option to unlock weapon slaving system to commander.

 

That way 2 people who work together can use this feature

 

and that way trolls have nothing to "troll".

[oukej 2910]

If you are upgrading the A-10 main gun targeting with CCIP, then implement the target hold feature too. Please!

https://youtu.be/lOVJo1eldUs?t=3m44s

Wouldn't it make it too easy? ;)

[twistking 204]

Simple suggestion to improve the awareness issue

 

I think first of all, every vehicle should be lockable. But to make things easier there could be some kind of parameter like "threat possibilty". So when you cycle throgh targets it only cycles through targets that have a high threat possibility. With another key (for example shift+R) you could cycle also through targets that are not (yet) identified as a threat.

 

Another slightly simpler solution - which would requires less config work and (hopefully) no new AI routines - would be as follows:

 

The states for the sensors would be:

Green - any military vehicle with firendly crew, or military vehicle that has been recently abandoned by friendly crew with engine still running (IFF on)

Grey - unknown contact (too far away) or active civilian vehicle (regardless of crew!) or any empty / abandoned vehicle (engine off), or any destroyed vehicle

Orange - active military vehicle (no friendly crew -> no IFF), military vehicle abandoned by hostile or neutral or civilian crew with engine still running

Red - military vehicle engaging aircraft with sensors or weapons, or any vehicle with crew reported hostile through visual assessment (pod), laser targets, nv targets

 

The normal target cycle would only cycle orange and red targets, with orange target bearing a super low change of friendly fire / colleteral damage. (could theoretically bei civilian in military vehicle)

The advanced cycle (shift+cycle) would also cycle grey and green targets and allow to target empty targets or targets that are still out of microwave-scanner range.

 

When targets appear in sensor range they should first be grey until sensor has picked up more details. Targets that are engaging the aircraft could change to red immadeitaley, others would take some time (one contact at a time, so more contacts meaning more time to assess them all).

The AI would of course only target red and orange targets, but could visually identify hostile crew in civilian vehicle with some delay dependend on naked eye visibility / sensor pod visibility, which would change it to red.

 

********************

I think this simple solution should be quite easy to implement, should not mess up AI in older missions and would not need new AI routine. (only "new" thing for AI would be to spot enemy crew in civilian vehicle by naked eye and not through sensor)

 

thanks for reading!

[oukej 2910]

...

Simple suggestion to improve the awareness issue

....

We're actually considering to make it so that by cycling targets you mark anything that your sensors can pick up as long as it's not occupied by a friendly unit. (Here comes the magical IFF ;))

What gets marked is already prioritized according to threat, proximity and facing.

Maybe the coloring isn't even necessary - for no-shoots we already have the crossed square. And there are new ways how to verify target (pilot camera).

The biggest problem is that this would be quite a big change to the mechanic and could lead to lot of confusion and accidents.

 

[nodunit 397]

We're actually considering to make it so that by cycling targets you mark anything that your sensors can pick up as long as it's not occupied by a friendly unit. (Here comes the magical IFF ;))

What gets marked is already prioritized according to threat, proximity and facing.

Maybe the coloring isn't even necessary - for no-shoots we already have the crossed square. And there are new ways how to verify target (pilot camera).

The biggest problem is that this would be quite a big change to the mechanic and could lead to lot of confusion and accidents.

Isn't part of the Arma 3 mantra to "Adapt"? ;)

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

I am also worried about the obsolescence of JTACs, UAVs, recce vehicles, etc. Even with a less accurate IFF system, I still have my doubts.

An interim solution is to just use the ShowHUD command to disable the all seeing all powerful vehicle radar. This means that even the godlike A164 still has to loiter the area and visually identify targets. A pilot would still be able to just cycle all targets with tab lock but they won't know what the target is only that its hostile. Unless you're playing on a difficulty that displays target names but at that point I'd ask why you would even bother with JTACs.

By taking away the radar you force the aircraft to either repeatedly loiter and thus expose themselves to possible enemy fire (MANPADS in particular are great for this as they cannot be tab locked) or rely on a JTAC to call in targets and vector the aircraft into the area using laser designators or via verbal directions and that the aircraft can then use its pod to self designate.

As always with the more powerful assets it almost entirely comes down to mission design and balance. A good mission designer will understand the power of each vehicle and work to its strengths and weaknesses.

Of course in players-have-all-the-toys scenarios these aircraft will definitely be death dealing gods in the hands of even a remotely competent pilot.

[nodunit 397]

Slight tooting of the own horn (well Franze technicly) but speaking from experience on my helicopter addon, I an attest to some of the results of a system that uses class only with no IFF.
You go from this "all powerful" attack helicopter that can break targets from above 8-10 kilo's away to needing more information such as guys on the ground or someone who can see what is going on. 

This encourages teamwork and the need for either prior information such as a briefing or some form of communication with someone who can see where the friendlies are and direct you away from them, or to the enemy. 
That in essence should encourage the use of UAV's as well, keeping players out of harms way but filling a need for more recon (art imitates reality).

Removing infantry from the radar also encourages more teamwork between crewman and adds consequence to flying aimlessly, one moment everything is fine, the next moment you buzz someone and get a manpads warning because some boots on the ground weren't showing up on radar and now you have a missile trailing you, or your get peppered by heavy machine gun fire, fun times for all.

[xxgetbuck123 945]

Slight tooting of the own horn (well Franze technicly) but speaking from experience on my helicopter addon, I an attest to some of the results of a system that uses class only with no IFF.

You go from this "all powerful" attack helicopter that can break targets from above 8-10 kilo's away to needing more information such as guys on the ground or someone who can see what is going on. 

This encourages teamwork and the need for either prior information such as a briefing or some form of communication with someone who can see where the friendlies are and direct you away from them, or to the enemy. 

That in essence should encourage the use of UAV's as well, keeping players out of harms way but filling a need for more recon (art imitates reality).

Removing infantry from the radar also encourages more teamwork between crewman and adds consequence to flying aimlessly, one moment everything is fine, the next moment you buzz someone and get a manpads warning because some boots on the ground weren't showing up on radar and now you have a missile trailing you, or your get peppered by heavy machine gun fire, fun times for all.

 

What he said.

 

Aviation in Arma is usually accused of being the gods of war simply because we can just click something 10km away and it dies... to be fair that is kind of what it is designed for however teamwork orientated additions would definitely be much loved by everyone, whether that be Milsim or Semi-Solo (i.e a few mates or invade and annex etc..). If you make the game too one man armyish than you're breaking away from what the game was originally intended for. 

 

 

----------------------------- Suggestion 1 -----------------------------

 

Out of curiosity would it be possible the change the ranges of the vehicle radar? Currently I believe it maxes out at - 5km / 2.5km / 1km. These ranges seem fair for helicopters however fast air could possibly benefit from 10km / 5km / 2km. Would give the mod makers the ability to give vehicles somewhat realistic radar. For example, SAM sites and AAA could benefit with higher Radar as the pilot then knows they could be getting tracked further out, thus need to approach the situation differently or utilize some combined arms tactics. So instead of being able to lock that Tigris before I'm even in its radar range, I'd actually have to be a bit more careful. 

 

----------------------------- Suggestion 2 -----------------------------

 

Which then in turn leads me to the suggestion of possibly allowing custom changing of ranges at which SAMs / AAA engage enemy vehicles. As similar to above, I can lock the Tigris way before he even wants to shoot at me or track me for that matter. 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Hopefully that makes sense, kinda in a hurry to type it all. 

[oukej 2910]

20-04-2016

EXE rev. 135661 (game)

Tweaked: The weaponInfoType now accepts the driverWeaponsInfoType parameter

21-04-2016

EXE rev. 135661 (game)

(data)Tweaked: The targeting pods now indicate an attitude and a target distance

Tweaked: The pilot camera now supports a turret locking (default by CTRL + T keys)

- "Lock UAV Turret" action (default LCtrl + T) now locks camera on position / target (if target is markable)

- Num1-9 now also controls camera (num5 will return it to default direction)

[DancZer 65]

Wouldn't it make it too easy? ;)

 

That's the case, that's why they did it. To make it precise and deadly.

[twistking 204]

We're actually considering to make it so that by cycling targets you mark anything that your sensors can pick up as long as it's not occupied by a friendly unit. (Here comes the magical IFF ;))

[...]

The biggest problem is that this would be quite a big change to the mechanic and could lead to lot of confusion and accidents.

 

 

I think when you changed grenade throw to G instead of inventory, it resulted in more confusion and accidents. Even worse: Awkward accidents! ;)

 

You shouldn't be too concerned about that matter. Of course players would need to "adapt" (thanks nodunit!!!), but it still would not be a complicated systems and would still be pretty intuitive.

I think making everything lockable but friendly would be huge improvment for gameplay / balancing (and authentity) and you are probably right that the colour coding and alternative target cycle is not an absolute necessity. However in larger scenarios targeting might get cluttered, with many destroyed vehicles still being lockable, so perhaps targets that are completely destroyed (not abandoned but exploded) could somehow grey out or vanish from radar (i think that would just need some gamepaly testing to find what works best).

 

However i thought of the colour coding not only as visual aid, but also as kind of AI awareness states, if you would want to make the AI perform in a smiliar manner to human players. Let's take the example of a civilian vehicle loaded with hsotile issurgents fighters. A blufor AI pilot is approaching in his aircraft and the sensor picks up the vehicle. Ideally the AI would not fire, but would use naked eye spotting to reveal vehicle crew. So for the AI there should be at least three states: "friendly" -> don't engage, "unknown" -> don't engage and after naked eye assesment (and for laser target, nv target without assessment): "definitely hostile" -> engage.

If you implement such states, you could as well colour code them for human players, so that when human player zooms in on vehicle and visually reveals vehicle crew, the vehicle might as well appear as hostile on his radar.

 

If this is deemed to complex at the moment, i'll happily take the approach without the colour coding and secondary target cycle (Even if this means AI targeting routines (seperation of sensor vs naked eye assessment) won't change with it).

keep up the good work. i'm really excited to see this all come together in 1.6 (hopefully?!). :)

 

ps: i know this is not the general aircraft suggestions-thread, but if you could just rip the uav-terminal-feature, rename it to "autopilot" and somehow shove it into the aircrafts, that would be great as well! Should ony make few lines of code, would it not?

[nodunit 397]

Just wanted to say that adding this targetting pod function to jets is awesome!  Loving the ability to fly and track targets and the ground, is there any chance that this tracking function could possibly make its way to helicopter gunnery and armor sights?

[twistking 204]

...

Is it possible to turn off vehicle name when locking through tablock?

...

 

Hey! I'm sorry, it's currently not possible. It's a part of the targeting mechanic. However we're currently changing some aspects of the targeting and we're also thinking about how to change these labels. If you want to join the discussion please visit https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/189734-targeting-improvements/. Thanks!

 

If making it toggable through difficulty is not an option, i would suggest:

- First off all the UI guys should make the text font better fit the Hud. It's hard to judge from the pictures, but i think it doesn't really match (transparency and line thickness i guess).

- Consider pulling only the vehicle class instead of actual unit type (don't know how vehicles are sorted internally - would only make sense, if - for example - an AA vehicle could be different from tank or apc.

- If possible; make it, that it take some time for name to show up to simulate microwave-scanning and matching with fcs database. I think this would be coolest solution. So when you target vehicle, there is some sort of scanning progress for example a flashing "/" and "\" to smybolize the working of the scanner. After some seconds the name appears.  Would be authenitic and would improve gameplay while still being very accesible!

[chortles 263]

I could have sworn that the accuracy parameter played a role in that stuff, twistking...