Targeting improvements

[dr. hladik 231]

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

 

Valid, but off-topic :)

[oukej 2910]

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

Actually it should still be like that. The key you have assigned to "Reveal" action (default "T" instead of RMB now) should do the trick :)

Also - even if there's "Attack" written in the quick commanding (contextual) menu, it still means only "Target" (Not "Target" and "Engage" as it may seem. You still have to command your AI to "Engage" or "Engage at will" if you want it to seek a good firing position).

If there's a case where this behaves differently please send us steps how to reproduce it. Thanks!

[dr. hladik 231]

ok, so to summarize current state

 

Camera controls - improvements are in progress 

CCIP - should be out soon

CCRP - not planned

Laser designator - considered for second iteration*

Manually controlled missiles for pilots - good idea, might happen in reasonable time frame

Autopilot - not being considered

Radar improvements - considered for second iteration*

Locked target name indicator - some changes are being considered, but mostly need to wait for second iteration

Functionality unification with normal turret - should happen in reasonable time frame

 

*second iteration will not happen before APEX is released

 

edit:

FCS, tanks  - acknowledged, would be nice...

[ruff 102]

Actually it should still be like that. The key you have assigned to "Reveal" action (default "T" instead of RMB now) should do the trick :)

Also - even if there's "Attack" written in the quick commanding (contextual) menu, it still means only "Target" (Not "Target" and "Engage" as it may seem. You still have to command your AI to "Engage" or "Engage at will" if you want it to seek a good firing position).

If there's a case where this behaves differently please send us steps how to reproduce it. Thanks!

they engage if you do a quick test they will engage. Their icons has engage. I put them on hold fire, on combat then i assign them "T" or "Attack" and their icons have engage. They somehow want to move totally away from the enemy without a clear line of sight and postion themselves till they have a fire position that is not realistic.

[twistking 204]

[...] Manually controlled missiles for pilots - good idea, might happen in reasonable time frame [...]

 

 

Could you explain that a bit more? If you plan to add self lazing to the pods, pilots could manually guide their missles anyway, by locking them on their self-lazed target. Or do you mean something else?

[dr. hladik 231]

Could you explain that a bit more? If you plan to add self lazing to the pods, pilots could manually guide their missles anyway, by locking them on their self-lazed target. Or do you mean something else?

 

Well, the result might be almost identical and laser designation is much nicer solution, however manually guided missiles are  much easier to implement...

[x3kj 1247]

Speaking about turrets - idk if that falls in the same "area of development" - but it would be extremely helpfull if script controlls (animateSource) would be made to also work with manned turrets. Currently they only work if they are remote turrets, or are not configured as turrets in the config (only model animations present). If they are configged as regular turrets, animateSource script command does not work.

 

It would be usefull if functionality could be implemented that "takes controll from a player" once an animateSource script command has been issued. Once it is completed (since they have limited time), controll for the player or AI is enabled back. Just to prevent conflicting controll inputs.

[twistking 204]

Well, the result might be almost identical and laser designation is much nicer solution, however manually guided missiles are  much easier to implement...

 

I understand. Thx for the info.

 

You should however think about which real life guidance your implementation should mimic and then consider making beam-riding missiles seperate from self-seeking missiles. (two differetn types of missiles, for two different guidance systems) If you give the missiles the ability to lock on to targets and additionaly be manually controllable, there is no reason, why guided bombs shouldn't be manually controllable either. But that could possibly make them overpowered from a gameplay / balance perspective. (and also might be more complex to implement).

 

This is not just about realism, but also about making functionality of weapon systems coherent and logical. Specific type of weapon -> specific type of targeting -> specific mechanics / tactics used to effectively engage with the weapon.

Hope you understand what i'm trying to say. English is not my first language...

[x3kj 1247]

We already have manually guided missiles... how often do i have to repeat this?

Fire&Forget vs. requiring lock until impact. Thats a difference that is worth modelling.

[oukej 2910]

26-04-2016

EXE rev. 135707(game)

Added: A Constantly Computed Impact Point (CCIP) for guns, rockets and bombs

Added: A new canUseScanners vehicle / turret parameter

[HorribleGoat 1473]

 

26-04-2016

EXE rev. 135707(game)

Added: A Constantly Computed Impact Point (CCIP) for guns, rockets and bombs

Added: A new canUseScanners vehicle / turret parameter

 

Excellent news, now one question though because I think I read on this thread something along the lines that CCIP and the most of the other new features will be aircrafts only and while nothing as such is needed/excisting in modern tanks/other ground vehicles it would greatly benefit modding to be able to use the same features in ground vehicles.

Im asking for selfish reasons obviously because we got all kinds of scifi vehicles in production for our mod and what Im seeing here is pretty much what we've just started to work on for our ground vehicles, So If these new features will be available for all vehicles via engine features we could better concentrate our efforts to other aspects of our mod and if not its good to know in advance.

 

[oukej 2910]

Excellent news, now one question though because I think I read on this thread something along the lines that CCIP and the most of the other new features will be aircrafts only and while nothing as such is needed/excisting in modern tanks/other ground vehicles it would greatly benefit modding to be able to use the same features in ground vehicles.

You will be able to use these on any weapon  :635:

See https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/A3_Locking_Review#ballisticsComputer for more info

[HorribleGoat 1473]

You will be able to use these on any weapon  :635:

See https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/A3_Locking_Review#ballisticsComputer for more info

Awesome! I misunderstood earlier then that they tied to vehicle type.  :coop:   

[dunedain 48]

Tested it quick, very nice and useful. Similar to the Xendance CCIP addon, rather than good old NouberNou's ACE HUD system but close enough. The icing on the cake would be to have target boxes for possible targets picked by the radar, the process of getting a lock is still pretty tedious imo when all the radar tells you is bearing and very rough distance estimations, especially while going high speed toward said targets and smashing TAB just won't give you a lock.

[james2464 176]

The good old WW1/2 diving technique is gone! yay :)

[kremator 1065]

Finally inbuilt CCIP !!  Good job BIS !

[en3x 209]

Tested it quick, very nice and useful. Similar to the Xendance CCIP addon, rather than good old NouberNou's ACE HUD system but close enough. The icing on the cake would be to have target boxes for possible targets picked by the radar, the process of getting a lock is still pretty tedious imo when all the radar tells you is bearing and very rough distance estimations, especially while going high speed toward said targets and smashing TAB just won't give you a lock.

 

It helped me understand how ccrp and ccip works.

 

Here is link.

 

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Thank you so much for this. I'm done with WW2 style bombing! It feels so much better to fly airplanes again.

[gibonez 18]

Kinda related to the FCS comment for tanks but any chance that in the future Indirect Fire is looked at ?

 

As in perhaps alternatives to the Artillery computer that currently exists.

[Bamse 223]

Has someone made a video testing the new CCIP out perhaps? Super anxious to see it in action but im not home so can't test it out myself :(

[Greenfist 1863]

Has someone made a video testing the new CCIP out perhaps? Super anxious to see it in action but im not home so can't test it out myself :(

[Bamse 223]

:wub:

Even tho I hoped deep down it would be a HUD implementation (like the Nou hud improvement clip above) I'm happy for whatever improvements being made :)

[KeyCat 131]

Haven't read the whole thread so this maybe are covered already...

 

I noticed that the way.point marker is new and wonder if the large target marker (the big square and diamond) could get some love as well?

 

A much smaller square with the diamond or maybe brackets to indicate the lock would be nice :)

 

/KC

[oukej 2910]

Even tho I hoped deep down it would be a HUD implementation

We'd like it too. It would have also been more costly so we primarily went for getting as much info vital to the vehicle crews into the game.

 

I noticed that the way.point marker is new and wonder if the large target marker (the big square and diamond) could get some love as well?

A much smaller square with the diamond or maybe brackets to indicate the lock would be nice :)

The icons are actually "new" - brackets are for marked targets, locking symbol is split until it reaches the locked state, etc. On the other hand it's definitely not a big visual change.

They could be smaller but we need to keep users with "very small" UI in mind. A benefit is also that keeping the same style - as player know it - allows us to skip some of the "explain/teach/communicate" part of the design process.

Anyway, if you have any suggestions, own concepts or sketches, share them with us.

[xxgetbuck123 945]

:wub:

Even tho I hoped deep down it would be a HUD implementation (like the Nou hud improvement clip above) I'm happy for whatever improvements being made :)

 

I guess you could say its a HMD CCIP? I'd love a HUD one too but can only do so much.