Targeting improvements

[oukej 2911]

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

Yup, it does.

You can imagine some inheritance like man >> soldier >> rifleman >> rifleman_with_nibbled_nails

Man would have the lowest accuracy number - so it's easy to recognize him even far. The number should increase down the line. So you recognize man on 1km, soldier maybe 500m, rifleman 100m and the last one never, because he wears gloves and has accuracy = 1000.

More about it here: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/CfgVehicles_Config_Reference#accuracy

 

[vincen 18]

I think this would be coolest solution

 

The best solution that can be - not assimilate Arma with battlefield games series.

I didn't understand for what you've (BIS) added this nanomega locking borders with vehicle name, but I think that it doesn't add in game the spirit of simulator and hardcore.

I think that all players must have ability to make decisions on their own - to play with this nano borders with vehicle and infantry (yeah, T-lock greatly works on infantry in some kinds of vehicle too) names or not.

In Russia, we have about 3-4 large projects where we play TvT games about 180-210 players (Arma3.ru, Weekly Open Games, Tushino Serious Games and etc.). On these TvT games (depending from project) we have missions with a large numbers of vehicles (about 16-20, including light veh., tanks, helis and planes) + there are many ATs on both sides (1 AT/per squad minimum). So, just imagine now, that all players with battle vehicle and ATs will click on T-button every second and scan horizon for vehicle that they may not see -_-. All players come on these projects to simulate real hardcore battle action. I understand, that your new targeting system oriented on PvE (TvE) or Coops, but I think that not only in Russia there are hardcore projects... 

Lock-borders with vehicle/unit name must be optional and added in cfgDifficulties/in new difficulty presets system.

[twistking 204]

@chortles, oukej: ok. didn't know that. thx for the info.

 

@vincen:

Yeah, i was still mostly thinking of aircraft fcs / targeting. There of course you need some sort of radar which automatically picks up targets for the pilot to cycle through.

Land vehicles of course should not have automatic target finding, but they still need some sort of locking for the auto-range feature to work at the moment. I didn't test, but the current implementations needs you to point the gun directly at the target to lock it, doesn't it?

As long as your tank can not automatically cycle through targets like aircraft, i think that is not that big of a problem. Hopefully though we will get better ranging feature for tanks, which needs you to lase a target (without locking) and range is updated to ranging as long as you are on target with the laser. Then you would not need the "nanomega locking borders" to range your gun. But of yourse you would still need them for vehicles with guided missles, i guess. at least if they are not changed to beam riding, what i would approve btw. (moar manual guidance please!!!).

[xxgetbuck123 945]

What about radar that only picks up vehicles in like a 80 degree cone to the front? Or the ability for mod makers the give certain parameters on how many degrees the radar can track? Obviously most fast air don't pick up anything that's at their 3 o'clock, unless you're awacs of course. 

[EYEDOL 0]

Subject : Targeting POD

 

This is really awesome i tried it and got used to it really fast

 

I was disapointed on 3 things though :

 

1 - It is impossible to laze a random non hostile target or landscape for GBU drop for exemple : a house, or an infantry, or just a random landscape, you can lock on it in the tageting pod screen but it won't show as a target in the UI

 

A solution would be to be able to hit a separate key or hold the default lock T key to create a custom target no matter where the pod is lazing

 

2 - The camera is not a 360 one like the darter, since its a plane that "comes from the futur" i was expecting a better positionning of it

 

3 - This should be implemented for the Pawnee aswell, it will make it usefull and less vulnerable or relying on a copilot to be fully effective

 

 

Great work on this and thanks for reading :)

[nikiforos 450]

Subject : Targeting POD

 

This is really awesome i tried it and got used to it really fast

 

I was disapointed on 3 things though :

 

1 - It is impossible to laze a random non hostile target or landscape for GBU drop for exemple : a house, or an infantry, or just a random landscape, you can lock on it in the tageting pod screen but it won't show as a target in the UI

 

A solution would be to be able to hit a separate key or hold the default lock T key to create a custom target no matter where the pod is lazing

 

What? That should be possible because enemies might hide in a specific building and then the building becomes a target for the aircraft.. I don't see a reason of not implementing this feature which I call real basic.

[Vasily.B 529]

In tanks it should be just like ACE FCS - after pressing T it lase the tager and calculating lead, range and all fixes for gun, so you can shoot. No need for some squares, triangles, circles anymore, it should be OPTIONAL. Off course no need (PLEASE DISABLE IT!) For such things like NAME OF TARGETED VEHICLE - it breaks realism like nothing else in simulator game.

[R0adki11 3949]

In tanks it should be just like ACE FCS - after pressing T it lase the tager and calculating lead, range and all fixes for gun, so you can shoot. NO NEED FOR SOME SQUARES, TRIANGLES, CIRCLES, ANYMORE, IT SHOULD BE OPTIONAL. OFF COURSE NO NEED (PLEASE DISABLE IT!) FOR SUCH STUPID THINGS LIKE NAME OF TARGETED VEHICLE - IT BREAKS REALISM LIKE NOTHING ELSE IN THE SIMULATOR GAME.

Can you stop capitalising words in your posts. Its bad etiquette as its like shouting/demanding. 

[teabagginpeople 398]

Bad etiquette. Is a nice way of saying annoying as fuck.

Maybe you can post in the difficulty settings thread about the target reticle being switchable off on hard mode or something.

I don't like it myself. But for me it would be selfish to seek its removal for everyone just to suit my play style.

[204 Kallisto 14]

Another important thing of the targeting system is the radar

the currently radar system in ArmA III is verry  frustrating, for everybody using groundvehicles or transport helicopters.

 

so here are my suggestions, to change this really annoying thing, that still exist since OFP.

 

- it should possible to underfly the radar

- only airvehicles flying higher than 60 meters are visible on Radars

- No Groundvehicles visible on Radars except groundvehicles with Radar like Tunguska 

and so on and only then, if they activate their fire control radar by pressing TAB or RMB

- only anti-aircraft vehicle should have a 360° radar

- Planes should only have a radar with a scanrange between 30 and  60 degrees

[CaptainObvious 95]

- only airvehicles flying higher than 60 meters are visible on Radars

- No Groundvehicles visible on Radars except groundvehicles with Radar like Tunguska 

and so on and only then, if they activate their fire control radar by pressing TAB or RMB

 

These I do not necessarily agree on, arbitrary limits like the proposed 60 meters are bad for a game like Arma, flying under the radar should only be simulated along similar principles as it is in real life or not at all, i.e "raycasting" between the radar and the aerial vehicle.

 

The second part I'm not sure about, but afaik a big bulky metal object tends to show up on radar like a sore thumb, is military hardware somehow different? I know there are radiation-absorbent materials intended to counter radar detection but how good are they really? Interesting topic and I'll be glad to be proven wrong

[Vasily.B 529]

Bad etiquette. Is a nice way of saying annoying as fuck.

Maybe you can post in the difficulty settings thread about the target reticle being switchable off on hard mode or something.

I don't like it myself. But for me it would be selfish to seek its removal for everyone just to suit my play style.

Sorry if it was taken in that way, i wanted to mark it clearly, something that players want for years, but as allways it was taken as attack - so sorry again. I'm not selfich - Writing opinion with big letters isnt enough as i see - read once again, search for workd OPTIONAL.

[john111 76]

A Moving Map Display is a handy tool where the jet is very small compared to the objects in the world around it:  It will be very small,seen from above,and it would be updated in such a way/speed that we could see what is in front of the plane before we get there.

 

To be useful it has to be able to place WP on the map inside there.

It would help us a great deal to be able to see a large portion of the map/whole map zoomed out and if we could get a feature that could tell us minimum height necessery from memory with a auto re-lock if we get very low.

[ozdeadmeat 12]

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)

 

The camera motion seems to take into effect the direction of the aircraft too much. The Camera should have the vector and speed of aircraft subtracted from camera motion. When you move the camera slightly with ground lock on the camera does not go where you expect it too due to the velocity of the camera. I hope this something you can fix cause it the camera is almost useless for fine tuning camera position when flying parallel to a target at speed. The NumPad change does not move the camera gradually, they are like snap positions. The Numpad keys also don't work when the ground lock is enabled.(where as mouse control does).

 

If you would like a video of what I am trying to describe please let me know and I will provide one as well as a comparison to the DCS TGP.

[john111 76]

Here is something that is always overlooked : We need a sort of a "auto-pilot" feature that will keep the plane strait-and-leveled while we are in TGP-mode.Sometimes there is very little time you have got to do all things required to do.

 

If you use the airbrakes and such ,you`re already headed downwards anyway,we will need to be able to fly  "hands off" ,that it keeps the altitude.

 

A more refined camera motion is also needed. 

[CANADAVE 14]

Here is something that is always overlooked : We need a sort of a "auto-pilot" feature that will keep the plane strait-and-leveled while we are in TGP-mode.Sometimes there is very little time you have got to do all things required to do.

 

If you use the airbrakes and such ,you`re already headed downwards anyway,we will need to be able to fly  "hands off" ,that it keeps the altitude.

 

A more refined camera motion is also needed. 

 

Could be made easier by adding aircraft pitch ladder and roll angle overlay on the tgp camera view.   simpler to add vs an autopilot function  maybe

[twistking 204]

Could be made easier by adding aircraft pitch ladder and roll angle overlay on the tgp camera view.   simpler to add vs an autopilot function  maybe

 

the uav-terminal and aerial drone functionality, would make a good autopilot and it is already in the game, working fine. i think the same code could be reused for the aircrafts, so it wouldn't be much effort, i guess...

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Would be even better if it made use of the new flyinheightASL command that was added in 1.58.

 

I'd love for that to be added as an option for the UAV's too as it would help immensely with jittery camera.

[oukej 2911]

Could be made easier by adding aircraft pitch ladder and roll angle overlay on the tgp camera view.   simpler to add vs an autopilot function  maybe

The pitch ladder can be added instead of the attitude indicator, which is currently there together with airspeed and altitude.

We actually had the ladder in an early internal iteration and it didn't work that well - I'd say it cluttered the display a bit more and maybe was worse to relate to when you were looking with the camera elsewhere than in the flight direction.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

Would be even better if it made use of the new flyinheightASL command that was added in 1.58.

 

I'd love for that to be added as an option for the UAV's too as it would help immensely with jittery camera.

 

indeed

 

I was going to apply that manually on our server to the UAVs, but doesn't look like its functional yet.

[twistking 204]

The pitch ladder can be added instead of the attitude indicator, which is currently there together with airspeed and altitude.

 

I didn't realise you already impemented attitude indicator. Just saw the video, you posted: I think this is even better than ladder for the reasons you posted.

[xxgetbuck123 945]

Could be made easier by adding aircraft pitch ladder and roll angle overlay on the tgp camera view.   simpler to add vs an autopilot function  maybe

 

Agree. Trying to use Firewills F16 Flir pod going at 400km/h means that I pretty much have to fly the aircraft while using the camera all without looking where I'm going. Doesn't make it a very smooth ride. 

 

An ability to say, scroll, set altitude, would be good so I flies only at that alt. 

[twistking 204]

Well, and in the long run, it would be nice to have the targeting pods modelled on the aircrafts. All the planes are pretty heavily armed, so it could occupy one hardpoint in lieu of one missile rack without significantly harming combat effectivness.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Agree. Trying to use Firewills F16 Flir pod going at 400km/h means that I pretty much have to fly the aircraft while using the camera all without looking where I'm going. Doesn't make it a very smooth ride. 

 

An ability to say, scroll, set altitude, would be good so I flies only at that alt. 

Hmmm, reminds of how i said two seaters would be good idea long time ago. I agree with this though, except i don't really want a scroll option to fly the plane like a drone. However, Autopilot anyone?

[ruff 102]

You know what I would like?? I wish you would freaken put back the right click targeting designation when using a squad like in OFP. That worked better than the stupid attack function. When your Ai has a perfect position with a sniper rifle and still has to move for some stupid position so it can fire is beyond me.

That option of the Ai just acquiring the target without having to move was awesome. It was like syncing the shot of your squad all at the same time. Now it's that attack function, it makes them get out of formation even though they have a clear shot and engages them. Really grinds my gears. Why couldn't you have a target function where the Ai just targets it if it has a clear shot like OFP. In OFP you had attack and you had target with the right mouse button. I only play single player so it would be really great if you added hat again. It's like you can't make Ai do anything you want anymore.

I feel the infantry side if specific target assignment without repositioning should be an option. So you will have the attack and have the target option again. I swear the right click target assignment was more effective than the attack.

Please give us the option of both