Targeting improvements

[The Ferryman 1]

Is there a way to disable some of the current targeting system?

Just for more of a challenge.

[oukej 2911]

Is it me or what Auto lock for APC's removed against Air contacts? Or is there something i'm missing.

Yes, it has been. APC has no sensor to track the air assets. #gamebalance ;)

[oukej 2911]

Is there a way to disable some of the current targeting system?

Just for more of a challenge.

What would you exactly like to disable?

[.kju 3245]

I guess he means a difficulty option or script command.

People have been asking for this since OFP as the locking system is too powerful and simplistic, so most like to disable or restrict it in PvP play.

[x3kj 1247]

It's not the same as in A2 anymore though (no casually tab-locking vehicles 8km away and destroying them with vihkr missiles, or tab-lock infantry). And it can be all configured so that you can only target-lock by aiming at the target (LOS required) and not lock infantry.

[dragon01 902]

The new targeting system is really great, but I have a few remarks, mostly about the Blackfish:

 

1. I still can't hit a thing due to "tank" stabilization that causes my aimpoint to constantly move to the right. I have to fight the VTOL's motion to keep the cannon on target.

2. One can't target infantry, which means that without a "reference vehicle" the lead computation problem is still present for them. I suggest giving the copilot a laser sight which the gunners could lock onto. That would make teamwork important, with the copilot lasing the target and the gunners laying cannon fire on the marker.

3. It'd be a good idea to give the copilot option to manually control both gun systems. This is mostly to facilitate SP usage of the Blackfish (in combination with the above, it'd be downright essential).

4. The Blackfish cannon doesn't seem to fire when controlled by AI. As a pilot, I can command it to fire, but even then, it's really erratic.

5. AI seems somewhat inaccurate with the 40mm cannon HE rounds. With the AP rounds, this problem doesn't exist, oddly enough.

6. A severe bug is currently affecting the Blackfish and all tanks. It's impossible to manually switch ammo types. It might be related to the recent tweaks to vehicle weapon systems.

[.kju 3245]

It's not the same as in A2 anymore though (no casually tab-locking vehicles 8km away and destroying them with vihkr missiles, or tab-lock infantry).

And it can be all configured so that you can only target-lock by aiming at the target (LOS required) and not lock infantry.

I do appreciate the additional configuration possibilities a lot. Still there is some way to go too.

However public play is still non addons/mods as A3 still doesnt have mod sync (good enough). So the default configuration and system is what almost all people use.

PS: TAB target (T now) is still extremely powerful, so is the sensor system still too simplistic and too powerful.

PSS: Locking infantry was more of a bug/design flaw.. as bad as it was and the many years it took to get that addressed.

[dragon01 902]

Remember that some weapons will lock onto almost anything with a thermal signature (Javelin, for example, which ACE simulates), so infantry locking isn't as unrealistic as it seems. It wasn't done very well in the previous games, though. I think that most ATGMs have failsafes to prevent from locking on things that aren't hot enough.

 

TBH, I certainly wouldn't mind if the weapon lock was (at least in some cases) tied to the target's visibility in TI. That way, you could lock on heat signatures, as opposed to individual units. IR-guided missiles work like that IRL and that's what we're concerned with in ArmA, for most part. Radar guidance is only useful for AA weapons, which means ArmA missiles use either some sort of CLOS (SACLOS was done right as far as A2), Laser (already implemented pretty well, too) or IR guidance. It wouldn't probably make the targeting system much less powerful, but it could make it a bit more susceptible to countermeasures such as smoke.

 

Of course, to make it fair with AI, a system for checking whether the object is actually visible (without rendering a full thermal view for it) would be needed, too. Fortunately, thermal masks ArmA uses are particularly suited for that approach. I think this should be investigated.

 

BTW, is there any reason for laser-guided weapons actually needing to "lock on" to a laser now? IIRC, it used to be that you could just fire a laser-guided missile or bomb in the general vicinity of the target and it'd "see" the laser and guide to it. I'm not sure how realistic the current (or the previous for that matter) system is, but I think I preferred the old way.

[The Ferryman 1]

What would you exactly like to disable?

 

Well for instance, I love flying wipeouts and other jets in King of the hill. It would be very helpful if there were an option to disable the HUD aim assist in jets. Weather it be server side via the difficulty level, or some other method (not a coding genius).

 

Just to clarify, I'm talking about the circle that appears in front of an air target/ground target when you lock it with the cannon.

 

The reason is, despite this aim assist being great for lower difficulty levels for some players, I find for others (such as myself) It takes away from the experience, and tends to make it difficult to balance games such as KOTH.

 

Hitting a moving air target in a jet used to be a bit of an art. But now all you need to do is aim for the "magic circle".

 

So would it one day be possible to disable these elements from the game? The same way that raising the difficulty level removes the cross hair and other hud elements for infantry.

 

Thanks for the reply :)

[xxgetbuck123 945]

Well for instance, I love flying wipeouts and other jets in King of the hill. It would be very helpful if there were an option to disable the HUD aim assist in jets. Weather it be server side via the difficulty level, or some other method (not a coding genius).

 

Just to clarify, I'm talking about the circle that appears in front of an air target/ground target when you lock it with the cannon.

 

The reason is, despite this aim assist being great for lower difficulty levels for some players, I find for others (such as myself) It takes away from the experience, and tends to make it difficult to balance games such as KOTH.

 

Hitting a moving air target in a jet used to be a bit of an art. But now all you need to do is aim for the "magic circle".

 

So would it one day be possible to remove these elements from the game? The same way that raising the difficulty level removes the cross hair and other hud elements for infantry.

 

Thanks for the reply :)

 

Well to be fair, IRL jets have those features, CCIP and Target lead and being a military simulator.. it should be there. 

[The Ferryman 1]

Well to be fair, IRL jets have those features, CCIP and Target lead and being a military simulator.. it should be there. 

 

I get this, and I know your right. I know that In reality, Jets are even more powerful than they are perceived in arma (lock targets 10+km away). Its just that arma is such a versatile game that you can tweak and alter in so many ways so that you can play the game as you enjoy playing it. I'm not saying the aim assist is a bad thing, quite the contrary because it opens many doors for people who have never flown jets in arma before and adds more to the realistic mill sim experience.

 

All I'm asking is if one day we can have the option to disable it. So those who would like to play with it can, and those who want to try without it can do so.

 

I mean they have the option to remove stamina right? Hell you can even tweak it so you don't even take any damage if you want to do some testing. Why not just add an on/off option to the targeting system?

 

Everybody's happy.

[en3x 209]

I think this feature should be request for for mod maker not for vannila game.

Because I haven't heard anyone requesting such thing.Among others, is not

something that military sandbox needs like watering down.I know, I know about

options leaves everybody happy but still needs developer attention which he

could use to fix something more needed.

 

Ferryman you are very reasonable guy, don't let criticism get to you personal,

I only disagree with idea.And that's what makes us human.

[The Ferryman 1]

I think this feature should be request for for mod maker not for vannila game.

Because I haven't heard anyone requesting such thing.Among others, is not

something that military sandbox needs like watering down.I know, I know about

options leaves everybody happy but still needs developer attention which he

could use to fix something more needed.

 

Ferryman you are very reasonable guy, don't let criticism get to you personal,

I only disagree with idea.And that's what makes us human.

 

Thanks for the reply, but on the related note of a mod request (curious  if a Dev can answer this if nobody knows the answer) could a mod be introduced to a main mission file like King of the hill?

 

That is to say, is it anyway possible for a mod to be developed (by a third party) that would be implemented into a large mission like king of the hill that could give the option to disable the aim assist?

Because alot of people Iv asked have told me that KOTH devs can't disable this feature though modding, and that its hard coded through arma. Although, im yet to have a dev confirm this.

 

btw for clarification, I'm talking about the king of the hill mod developed by Sa-Matra

 

Cheers.

[dragon01 902]

I should probably note that similar (not identical) functionality is present in most real aircraft. For example in the F-16, the LCOS piper does pretty much what the current lead indicator does, though it actually works more like a CCIP reticle that compensates for target motion. I don't know if the A-10 has it (or indeed, if it has any air-to-air gunsight mode at all), but the Wipeout is a fictional aircraft anyway.

[Vasily.B 529]

Well let me join my opinion to this idea. I like if introduced features work 100%, but we all know they arent. Predicted impact point for bombs is one of those features that made my bombing run hm...... not perfect ;) First i tough it was beacuse my miscalculation, then it was beacuse 3rd person view, and after all i know, the indicator show wrong impact point for bombs, they allways land further. So to the point - option for disabling it optionally (via unit spawning in editor) is bad idea. Better and easier would be applying to turn this UI element in game options (still Optionally ). I would use that option till this would be fixed.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

Well to be fair, IRL jets have those features, CCIP and Target lead and being a military simulator.. it should be there. 

 

This is ArmA 3 not VBS, military game not military simulator. Simulators dont have gamemodes and 100 player sessions.

 

 

I too would like ability to turn off the fire control systems, or at least hide the UI elements without hiding the other ingame ui elements (like scroll menu and normal crosshair).

 

 

vehicle disableFCSystem true

 

yes please!

[vincen 18]

The most annoying features are: player nickname and vehicle name when targeting -____-

Very..,VERY ANNOYING

I know how to disable them, but after that getting some inconvenience. Don't understand, why it is not already customizable in game overhaul. Disabling enemy name tags there just disable these tags when you see on something with ur crosshair, but not when you targeting via T-button

[The Ferryman 1]

The most annoying features are: player nickname and vehicle name when targeting -____-

Very..,VERY ANNOYING

I know how to disable them, but after that getting some inconvenience. Don't understand, why it is not already customizable in game overhaul. Disabling enemy name tags there just disable these tags when you see on something with ur crosshair, but not when you targeting via T-button

Yea, I also don't think locking a target should tell you who's in the vehicle. Should just say; enemy slammer etc.

[dragon01 902]

Realistically, it shouldn't even say that. It should just lock. I suppose IFF on target lock would be useful on lower difficulties, but it should be an option. It should be up to player to figure out whether what they're shooting at is actually hostile. IFF, especially when using a thermal sight, is a nontrivial problem. US forces had so many blue on blue incidents in Iraq that they installed these "Venetian blind" panels on their vehicles. They're very distinctive in IR, which made IDing US vehicles much easier. From the air its even worse, you pretty much just drop your bombs and hope intel didn't mix it up, because you're usually too high up and going way too fast to even make out the blinds. CAS sometimes gets the benefit of a smoke signal, but it's not always the case, either. IMO, proper target identification should be part of the challenge.

This is ArmA 3 not VBS, military game not military simulator. Simulators dont have gamemodes and 100 player sessions.

They do, at least if they're supposed to be useful as training tools. "Gamemodes" are just another word for a scenario type. IIRC, VBS in particular supports just as many players as ArmA. I dunno how well it supports company-scale exercises, but it seems like it should be a possibility.

[The Ferryman 1]

Realistically, it shouldn't even say that. It should just lock. I suppose IFF on target lock would be useful on lower difficulties, but it should be an option. It should be up to player to figure out whether what they're shooting at is actually hostile. IFF, especially when using a thermal sight, is a nontrivial problem. US forces had so many blue on blue incidents in Iraq that they installed these "Venetian blind" panels on their vehicles. They're very distinctive in IR, which made IDing US vehicles much easier. From the air its even worse, you pretty much just drop your bombs and hope intel didn't mix it up, because you're usually too high up and going way too fast to even make out the blinds. CAS sometimes gets the benefit of a smoke signal, but it's not always the case, either. IMO, proper target identification should be part of the challenge.

I agree with all of this.

[reyhard 2082]

any info how new mfd sources works or what their function is?
 

Added: New "targettoview", "weapontoview" and "radartoview" MFD sources (used for HUD and HMD configuration)

[x3kj 1247]

sorry wrong thread - can be deleted

[oukej 2911]

Many good points here! Affecting game balance and economy of some of the competitive game modes has definitely been a concern since we started working on this. Let me put it into some perspective first.

Despite most of the new targeting aids being an UI element we consider them to exist in the game's world and to be part of the vehicle systems (making them fully diegetic is still something we may pursue later). Because of that we also removed the old "AT auto guide" difficulty option that allowed players to "lock" more targets on lower difficulties. The problem is that changing the actual ingame systems by difficulty options may lead to more confusion rather than to a better and more flexible game. While stamina is a general simulation concept that applies to all infantry, targeting is a mixture of several features and it would be hard to decide which should be affected by the difficulty and how. It would be even harder to clearly communicate the effects to the players. Moreover, difficulty options usually allow players to increase the difficulty by making the game more authentic. Inconsistently the opposite would be the case in this case.

Anyway, the lack of challenge is a valid problem. I belive that competitive Arma modes don't necessarily need a different game balance or less authentic sandbox than the rest. Actually they are probably the best balance benchmarks for us. We'll be facing similar problem once we add the TGP lasers and "self-designation capabilities".

Maybe I'm too optimistic but I think the problem can be solved by improving the game balance. And perhaps even authenticity at the same time. (Reality can often be the best "game balance inspiration" after all).

Lot's of words...let's give some examples (no offers, no promises...just thinking out loud ;))
- remove air-tracking sensors from CAS airplanes (but hey... then we don't have any interceptors...is it a problem?)

- make the air target acquisition more difficulty (ranges, angles) so you can still get a pipper but you need to work harder for it

- adjust the flight-model so we relay the challenge more into flying and energy management

- ...I'm sure you've got some ideas too ;)
Preemptively about the laser :P: TGPs aren't 360deg, you have gimball limits, which makes it difficult too keep the target lased and succesfully bombed. You fly fast so you don't have the time and resolution to find, ID and paint a target with ease. Not to mention you have to go full screen and loose flight awareness... In the end we hope you'd still always prefer to have a JTAC on the ground. #teamwerk

As for the IFF and nametags on lock markers - we currently don't have any other system to represent IFF so we can't just remove it. I think I've already mentioned in this thread that we're not purrfectly happy about it but it's all we've got atm.

[x3kj 1247]

 

- adjust the flight-model so we relay the challenge more into flying and energy management

deal ! :D

 

 

 

And preemptively about the laser ;): TGPs aren't 360deg, you have gimball limits, which makes it difficult too keep the target lased and succesfully bombed. You fly fast so you don't have the time and resolution to find, ID and paint a target with ease. Not to mention you have to go full screen and loose flight awareness... In the end we hope you'd still always prefer to have a JTAC on the ground. #teamwerk

Have you thought about adding 2 version for each CAS aircraft? 1 with TGP and one without (preferably with a little change in the model that represents the targetingpod)? The targeting pod could be mounted on a launchrail - that way the visual differentiation could easily be incorporated into all the models (for custom aircraft as well). Also takes one rail -> less ammo. Differentiation would allow missioncreators/ serverowners to specify what to allow, or have players "pay" more for the advanced version in CTI or similar gamemodes.

[dragon01 902]

Regarding aircraft, I'm all for making dogfighting more difficult. We don't have interceptors and the CAS aircraft are certainly not a pilot's first choice for air combat. It should be a bit awkward affair, still definitely possible, but something you'd only do in a pinch. An improved, more realistic flight model (consider fixedwinglib, please...) would go a long way towards making it so.

As for the IFF and nametags on lock markers - we currently don't have any other system to represent IFF so we can't just remove it. I think I've already mentioned in this thread that we're not purrfectly happy about it but it's all we've got atm.

Oh, but you do. Some vehicles have two, even! First one is obviously the radar. IMO, this is all an airplane ever needs for IFF purposes. In a real aircraft it's a bit more complicated, you have to query your target's IFF transponder, but I think having that happen automatically works just fine, as well. We even get the luxury of having IFF transponders on ground targets, something that's generally not the case IRL. About the only thing I'd ask for is indicating vehicles equipped with AA radar with a different, distinctive icon (also done IRL, the F-16 can even tell radar types apart to a degree) in order to facilitate picking off SAMs from long range.

 

The other system? Your very own Mk.1 eyeball. :) When you're on the ground, you can see (in most cases) whether you're shooting a Merkava or a T-100. You can't lock on without a direct LOS anyway, so for most applications, good ol' eyeball should do for IFF. I don't think infantry launchers in particular should have any additional IFF aids.