Targeting improvements

[x3kj 1247]

 

1. ??? no fail gun destroyed, what do you mean with that comment???

destroy gun of any vehicle, jump in gunner seat, look what happens.

 

2. This was done to show that tigris AA missiles are a piece of shit

It is realistic. A-10 does not die from a single missile that is that small. Particulary not when fired at very poor angle and during flare dump. The plane would have been shredded if cannons would have been used. Use the right tool at the right time.

 

I take it you fly wipeouts?...

Oh yeah the typical "angry gamer" response. If he is not with me, he must be doing the thing i don't like. No i dont fly CAS, in fact i don't even play KOTH or Exile and certainly not Life

[revolt-decoy 0]

xD.. In that vid, I was in gunners seat to start with.
I was aware an Air target was there, and i was trying to Identify it, but i could not sight or lock onto it "AT ALL"!

destroy gun of any vehicle, jump in gunner seat, look what happens.

 

xD, It is realistic, I love it when people who have no clue, pull this card..
then when supported with real life facts, rebutt it with but its a futuristic simulator so current facts are irrelevant and we can make up what we want..  

It is realistic. 

But lets go with some real life facts.. 

The a-10 Warthog uses a 30mm GAU-8 gatling gun, although the round has an effective range over 6000m, once inside a flying plane the effective range is reduced to under 1500m due to platform stability and dispersion.

Just like the Warthog the tigress/cheetah are not fictional vehicle's, based on the English "Marksman SPAAG" or the Finnish ItPsv 90 or BMPT-72, they are equipped with the Oerlikon 35mm twin cannon.

 

                                            round mm     velocity      range        effective

GAU-8  A10 warthog       30x173          3250ft/s     6000m+    1500m

Oerlikon 35mm Tigris      35x228          3850ft/s     6500m+    4000m

 

The Titan AA is a fictional missile but most modern Surface to Air Missiles utilise proximity detonated continuous rod and or directed blast warheads, a single missile is 80%+ fatal even to the Warthog.

Tigris Radar:

The radar used with the system is the Marconi 400 series combined surveillance and tracking radar which utilises a single antenna. The decision to fit just one radar was taken for various reasons, including quicker reaction time, reliability, cost and weight. The radar is therefore smaller and lighter than previous short range air defence radars and the radar equipment, mounted in the turret hull, is of modular design. The radar rotates at 60 rpm, operates in the X/J-band and has a range of 12 km in the surveillance mode. Tracking range is 10 km. It provides fully automatic operation, has a particularly good ECCM capability because of its very wide bandwidth and frequency agility and has been designed to minimise the effects of rain attenuation and to overcome the problem of secondary ground reflection (multi-path) effects.The radar is mounted on the turret roof and is stabilised to enable it to operate in surveillance on the move. If required, the director can be swung backwards by 180° for stowage in a travelling position reducing the overall height of the vehicle.

 

Thermal imaging/targeting:
Here is product brochure for a small compact M7 thermal targeting camera advertising a working range 35km, and detection ranges of up to 45km..

https://www.x20.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/SPI_M7_DATASHEET_REV3_2_VEHICLE.pdf

So do we work with current stats or futuristic stats? 
  

xD, you state you dont even play the game so why respond?
Perhaps you enjoy trolling.

Oh yeah the typical "angry gamer" response. If he is not with me, he must be doing the thing i don't like. No i dont fly CAS, in fact i don't even play KOTH or Exile and certainly not Life

[dragon01 902]

No, he said he doesn't play the casual game modes. There's much more to the game than KOTH and Exile. I don't play multiplayer at all, yet I've got a pretty good grasp of ArmA. Indeed, ArmA was not made for these modes and thus devs shouldn't be expected to change the game to "balance" them. 

 

What I know is that when placed with an AI gunner, AA guns have no problems with shooting down jets. I did notice that they tend to fire their missiles at a short-ish range, but I suppose that's intended, Titan AA is a MANPADS, after all. Perhaps the locking range for players could be increased, but keep in mind that it might be tied to the view distance, as well. Part of the problem might be that the current balance seems focused on helicopters ("gunship showcase" would be really hard if AA had 4km+ range, after all), which might make planes a bit overpowered. IRL, there are larger, more powerful SAMs meant for dealing with planes, but we don't have those in ArmA3 (not without mods, anyway).

 

Another thing, Wipeout's cannon is 20mm, not 30mm. So it's not GAU-8. Though I'm not fond of that change (the 20mm is wimpy compared to the Avenger), it could very well be more accurate, in particular because of lower recoil increasing platform stability during firing. In-universe, that's probably the rationale for the change.

[oukej 2910]

Skip them personal comments pls ;)

To fix the JET/Wipeout fix the tigris/cheetah AA, thermal, radar and armament.

Will try to quickly respond.

•     Radar issues - we're aware that the current implementation is not ideal. What you're describing sounds like bugs. Can you pls do simple repros and tickets on FT?
•     Visibility - we need to scale everything to fit the game viewdistance and environment. Both tanks and AAA have the same zoom levels, CAS airplanes have weaker magnification via their TGPs. Can you please share some pictures showing the detection range discrepancy?
•     Armament - this is a matter of damage and HP tweaking. Here a bit of off topic. More info/details via FT would be welcome.

 

 

One this you could possibly add is some info about what dictates the camera zoom level? I'd like to have more than 8.2x zoom on my TGT camera however I'm not sure what I need to change in the config to achieve that? 

That's goverened by the OpticsIn class. You can either have discrete zoom levels by adding several classes with the same values on init/min/maxFov or you can just add one class with continous zoom (different min and max values).
Example:

Discrete

class OpticsIn
{
    class Wide
    {
        opticsDisplayName = "WFOV";
        initAngleX=0; minAngleX=0; maxAngleX=0;
        initAngleY=0; minAngleY=0; maxAngleY=0;
        initFov = 0.25;
        minFov = 0.25;
        maxFov = 0.25;
        directionStabilized = 1;
        visionMode[] = {"Normal","Ti"};
        thermalMode[] = {0,1};
        gunnerOpticsModel = "\A3\Drones_F\Weapons_F_Gamma\Reticle\UAV_Optics_Gunner_wide_F.p3d";
        opticsPPEffects[]=
        {
            "OpticsCHAbera2",
            "OpticsBlur2"
        };
    };
    class Medium : Wide
    {
        opticsDisplayName = "MFOV";
        initFov = 0.125;
        minFov = 0.125;
        maxFov = 0.125;
        gunnerOpticsModel = "\A3\Drones_F\Weapons_F_Gamma\Reticle\UAV_Optics_Gunner_medium_F.p3d";

    };
    class Narrow : Wide
    {
        opticsDisplayName = "NFOV";
        initFov = 0.03125;
        minFov = 0.03125;
        maxFov = 0.03125;
        gunnerOpticsModel = "\A3\Drones_F\Weapons_F_Gamma\Reticle\UAV_Optics_Gunner_narrow_F.p3d";
    };

    showMiniMapInOptics = true;
    showUAVViewInOptics= false;
    showSlingLoadManagerInOptics= false;

};

Continuous

class OpticsIn
{
    class Continuous
    {
        opticsDisplayName = "";
        initAngleX=0; minAngleX=0; maxAngleX=0;
        initAngleY=0; minAngleY=0; maxAngleY=0;
        initFov = 0.25;
        minFov = 0.03125;
        maxFov = 0.25;
        directionStabilized = 1;
        visionMode[] = {"Normal","Ti"};
        thermalMode[] = {0,1};
        gunnerOpticsModel = "\A3\Drones_F\Weapons_F_Gamma\Reticle\UAV_Optics_Gunner_wide_F.p3d";
        opticsPPEffects[]=
        {
            "OpticsCHAbera2",
            "OpticsBlur2"
        };
    };

    showMiniMapInOptics = true;
    showUAVViewInOptics= false;
    showSlingLoadManagerInOptics= false;

};

[.kju 3244]

@ oukej

As mentioned a couple of times - locking works beyond drawing distance. As planes have 4x modifier (eyeToScan) they have even more of this massive abuse power.

Yeah people are pleading for script cmds to tweak radar and locking since OFP,
yet harsh truth is BI has no idea how their actual game works in practice in regards to these mechanics (except for Dwarden most likely).

This has been the major issue for PvP vehicle combat always after people learnt how to abuse it roughly one year into OFP release.
CTI/Warfare player have eventually given up, accepted the situation and adapted their play style. At the same time mission designer
had to resort to remove guided missiles, reduce loadout, script fake radar targets to confuse the system or block the radar UI in the interface.

High level players have adapted to it, or has removed (air) vehicles, or has moved on to other game.
However the biggest drawback was that is has driven away many new players or average guys who dont grasp the system,

how to abuse it and the limited way you can adapt to it, because they became eventually too frustrated being killed constantly by vehicles

or air units not being able to see them (or even hear).

 

As far as I can tell one of the main reason why OFP from over 50% PvP play turned to mostly COOP with Arma (and now survival & Life).

[xxgetbuck123 945]

 

That's goverened by the OpticsIn class. You can either have discrete zoom levels by adding several classes with the same values on init/min/maxFov or you can just add one class with continous zoom (different min and max values).

Example:

Discrete

class OpticsIn
{
    class Wide
    {
        opticsDisplayName = "WFOV";
        initAngleX=0; minAngleX=0; maxAngleX=0;
        initAngleY=0; minAngleY=0; maxAngleY=0;
        initFov = 0.25;
        minFov = 0.25;
        maxFov = 0.25;
        directionStabilized = 1;
        visionMode[] = {"Normal","Ti"};
        thermalMode[] = {0,1};
        gunnerOpticsModel = "\A3\Drones_F\Weapons_F_Gamma\Reticle\UAV_Optics_Gunner_wide_F.p3d";
        opticsPPEffects[]=
        {
            "OpticsCHAbera2",
            "OpticsBlur2"
        };
    };
    class Medium : Wide
    {
        opticsDisplayName = "MFOV";
        initFov = 0.125;
        minFov = 0.125;
        maxFov = 0.125;
        gunnerOpticsModel = "\A3\Drones_F\Weapons_F_Gamma\Reticle\UAV_Optics_Gunner_medium_F.p3d";

    };
    class Narrow : Wide
    {
        opticsDisplayName = "NFOV";
        initFov = 0.03125;
        minFov = 0.03125;
        maxFov = 0.03125;
        gunnerOpticsModel = "\A3\Drones_F\Weapons_F_Gamma\Reticle\UAV_Optics_Gunner_narrow_F.p3d";
    };

    showMiniMapInOptics = true;
    showUAVViewInOptics= false;
    showSlingLoadManagerInOptics= false;

};

Continuous

class OpticsIn
{
    class Continuous
    {
        opticsDisplayName = "";
        initAngleX=0; minAngleX=0; maxAngleX=0;
        initAngleY=0; minAngleY=0; maxAngleY=0;
        initFov = 0.25;
        minFov = 0.03125;
        maxFov = 0.25;
        directionStabilized = 1;
        visionMode[] = {"Normal","Ti"};
        thermalMode[] = {0,1};
        gunnerOpticsModel = "\A3\Drones_F\Weapons_F_Gamma\Reticle\UAV_Optics_Gunner_wide_F.p3d";
        opticsPPEffects[]=
        {
            "OpticsCHAbera2",
            "OpticsBlur2"
        };
    };

    showMiniMapInOptics = true;
    showUAVViewInOptics= false;
    showSlingLoadManagerInOptics= false;

};

 

Cheers for info again mate, I never knew you could do continuous so that's new :) Thanks again mate! 

[revolt-decoy 0]

 

Will try to quickly respond.

•     Radar issues - we're aware that the current implementation is not ideal. What you're describing sounds like bugs. Can you pls do simple repros and tickets on FT?
•     Visibility - we need to scale everything to fit the game viewdistance and environment. Both tanks and AAA have the same zoom levels, CAS airplanes have weaker magnification via their TGPs. Can you please share some pictures showing the detection range discrepancy?
•     Armament - this is a matter of damage and HP tweaking. Here a bit of off topic. More info/details via FT would be welcome.

 

 

Here is a vid showing incorrect target identification, Gray triangle, this is a common occurrence, I turned to identify target that was spotted from our spawn direction, behind me.

I immediately from 0:01 panned up/down, while spamming T to try and get a lock on, but the target was not visible until about 1000-1500m still showing gray triangle well after becoming visible.

If I could get a lock on or see the jet, I could put shots down range forcing the jet to break off.

 

https://youtu.be/mSRigSLWo0w

 

I believe the damage issue might be ok as this vid, 

 was prior to the fuel leak patch.

The biggest issue ATM is the targeting draw and lock on distance, not being able to see/target and fire a shot at oncoming jets.  

[oukej 2910]

Yeah people are pleading for script cmds to tweak radar and locking since OFP,

yet harsh truth is BI has no idea how their actual game works in practice in regards to these mechanics (except for Dwarden most likely).

Edita and Mrs.Hlavac know the game better than you think :P

This has been the major issue...

Radar issues - we're aware that the current implementation is not ideal.

;)

We've been well aware that the system needs some rethinking - not just small changes and adding commands on top of the system.

We can challenge the balance, interactions, details like nametags, but why should locking beyond vis. be a problem? Why not have BVR combat in Arma?

[x3kj 1247]

 

We've been well aware that the system needs some rethinking

CCIP is pretty strong right now, you can shoot at very long ranges with it. How about one could set a CCIP-Authorisation range in cfgWeapons. Something like in DCS... When the plane is inside the authorisation range it displays the standard icon we have now. If there is no LA, the pipper would grow larger so as to not provide accurate targeting solution? (or be replaced by tex with some offset "No LA" ,"NLA", "beyond range" or something like that).  

[revolt-decoy 0]

Locking beyond vis under normal circumstances would not be an issue, but mod devs like Sa-matra King of the Hill, should have the option to toggle what is suitable for their mod, particularly if new options are added. 

[snoops_213 75]

Nothing wrong at all with bvr, but that is more a game for air to air and SAMs. Air to ground with the systems in game need LOS. None of the aircraft seem to have air to ground radar so BVR locking shouldnt happen. The SAM/AAA systems on the other hand should be able to BVR lock and engage. Problem with this would be everyone complaining that they are being shot out of the sky! So a type of ecm that would be needed to make it easier for aircraft to get close enough to engage. I think when turned on it should show multiple contacts on the SAM radar and lessen as it gets closer the the radar simulating the radar burning through the jamming

[dragon01 902]

Wipeout certainly looks like something that'd have an ATG radar. In general, it seems that a large part of the problem stems from not really differentiating between "radar lock" and "missile lock". Radar guidance is a crapshoot with ATG weapons, they use either IR or laser guidance (at least as far as the weapons featured in ArmA go), so they're definitely VVR weapons. However, bear in mind that "true" BVR is a bit of a problem in ArmA, which:

1. Doesn't simulate curvature of Earth.

2. Has maps which are about half the range of a real BVR missile. Most big ones are around 40km across, while AMRAAM has 100km+ range (bigger than TOH maps, even).

Add to it that since Titan missile is clearly IR-guided (much Rafael Spike, on which it's based), it's a VVR missile. The only BVR missiles we have are aircraft mounted. In short, the only "BVR" engagements would be due to view distance being usually set to 4 clicks or so. Perhaps a better idea would be some sort of "dynamic visual settings" allowing to rendering stuff on the ground with less detail and at higher range as the plane climbs higher and goes faster. Consequently, planes in the air should be exempt from the VD settings and always render at least their lowest LOD. This shouldn't be too much of a performance hog, seeing as there are never many planes flying around.

 

Also, a big problem with BVR (glossed over in ArmA) is IFF. IRL, you can't identify the target you lock onto unless it talks to you ("buddy spike" brevity code), you query its IFF or you get some sort of visual confirmation. Against aircraft, the IFF system usually does it. Against ground targets you pretty much have to see them. The only exception is with radars, which can be identified by the plane's RWR. On the other hand, this only tells you what type of radar is painting you, not who it belongs to. During Cold War, this did the trick, but now a few nations have changed sides and this isn't a sure-fire way of figuring this out if you happen to fight alongside one of them. In particular, since both sides in ArmA use pretty much the same AA weapons, identifying the radar type wouldn't be of much help. If proper target identification was an issue, ATG weapons would be much less powerful.

[.kju 3244]

@ oukej

 

You can see two main problems of the topic:

 

1. The realism geeks always argue for more complexity - which is neither helpful nor will happen.

2. Many people argue from the human vs AI perspective; as AI works very differently and humans are way more flexible and creative these are obviously not comparable.

 

In regards to my previous comment - this is why I said in practice. It is likely that Ondrej and hladas understand the coding better, yet they had/have not the experience

of both the diverse gameplay and the various skill level players demonstrate in OFP/Arma.

I wouldn't expect it either; the disappointing part is that the various project leadership have ignored or downplayed the importance of the issue. As said I am glad to the

improvements Ondrej and especially hladas have added over time - still its by far not enough and again just shows that the problem is not understood.

 

A new system won't happen with A3 either, so any grandios plans don't help the situation. Many simple and practical tweaks and suggestions have been

provided several times in the past, but very little came of it.

 

[...] but why should locking beyond vis. be a problem?

 

This once again demonstrates the problem. This attitude and lack of understanding of the whole system in its practical implications is required to make any meaningful adjustments.

[dragon01 902]

1. The realism geeks always argue for more complexity - which is neither helpful nor will happen.

Do you realize this is a very stupid thing to post? Of course it will happen, in some form, if the players want it. ArmA has been getting more and more complex and detailed since OFP. Or really, just check the dev branch history. Things are getting fixed and implemented, even if it sometimes takes a lot of time. It'd definitely sensible to ask for a more detailed radar simulation, as the current one is simply inadequate. 

 

Ultimately, there's no need for a "grand overhaul" of any sort, but for a smart adaptation of the existing mechanics. The simplest way of improving things would be remove IFF information from the radar (that could probably be a difficulty option) and expand on the targeting pod system, so that you need to confirm that the target you're tracking is an enemy. Maybe you could still get "instant IFF" on AA vehicles and airplanes (though without identifying the exact type), since they both broadcast radar waves and the latter have an IFF system. 

 

Additionally, since all of the ArmA3's missiles seem to be IR-guided (some have a dual-mode seeker that can track a laser as well, but that's already working quite well), it could be worth investigating a concept of turning every one of them into a "targeting pod" capable of observation and locking targets in TI. This is basically how real missiles of that type are used (well, you get the view on an MFD, but same goes for a TGP) when they are not slaved to ATG radar, which is usually an option as well. ACE even introduced locking onto heat signature for its Javelin, so it's definitely possible to make IR-guided missiles 100% realistic with a similar feature. 

 

Now, an overhaul of the view distance system I proposed would be a big thing, but honestly, it could improve the experience so much it'd be worth it. It would synergize with the IFF overhaul, but the very fact that you could fly out to a high altitude without the island disappearing in the inexplicable fog, or see an airplane flying high overhead (just like you can IRL) would improve immersion by a far margin.

[revolt-decoy 0]

to start in battle situations IFF is one sided, battle zones are no fly zones, friendly targets identify themselves while all unidentified contacts should be represented as hostile. 

[dragon01 902]

Yes, that's why I'm saying that for aircraft, auto IFF is acceptable. You should get the info only after locking onto a target, though. In effect, all it does is save you having to press "IFF interrogate" button, which does this IRL. IFF transponders are not transmitting all the time, merely respond to request from radars. It should also be taken into account that an aircraft may not have an IFF transponder. Especially the likes of An-2 or DC-3. I know they're not present in ArmA3, but the IFF system should make an accommodation for such a situation (dunno about Caesar BTT, but it looks new enough that it could have a transponder). It'd usually not be much of a concern with aircraft, though, in most cases it's indeed not friendly=hostile. Thus the only change I'd want is for this info not to be immediately available when the contact appears, but only when you ping him (or he pings you).

 

The IFF concerns really begin when talking about air to ground situations. This is mostly what I've been talking about. There, it's a real problem. Either you're flying behind enemy lines and trust there are no friendlies in the area (so anything that looks like a tank on the ATG radar is a hostile tank), or you're providing CAS over the frontline and need to check your targets carefully.

[x3kj 1247]

I dont see locking BVR as a problem as long as it is limited to engagements between AA and Air assets (AA can see Air by using radar, Air can see AA due to receiving radarwaves from AA), or if it is with help of a dedicated guy/vehicle on the ground lasing targets. Locking groundtargets like cars,trucks etc on your own at BVR as pilot is too powerfull for vanilla "toys" - and A-10 doesn't even have a radar. If serverowners don't limit visual range via serversetting/ if playerPC can't handle that range then that's not directly fault of the game though

This attitude and lack of understanding of the whole system in its practical implications is required to make any meaningful adjustments

generalisations and sweeping statements are not helpfull. let's stay constructive and actually say what needs to be improved, how and why. There's a world of difference between A3 and A2 tab-lock-warfare

So my preferred change would be:

1) remove radar from CAS, but retain radar-warning-system

2) make radarusers (AA, modded dedicated fighter planes with radar) always show up as blips on warning-screen for vehicles with radar warning system, not just when they get locked.

3) allow radarusers to turn off their search radar with a hotkey/action to remain undetected.

[dragon01 902]

Remember that removing radar from CAS without modifying the way guided missiles are employed (for example, in the way I suggested) will simply make the missiles unusable. Unless you mean just the radar display, but then it won't really solve the problem. The locking mechanism itself is also quite inadequate.

[oukej 2910]

More work on the targeting is planned and it may include some re-balancing of the vanilla assets.

[jone_kone 158]

More work on the targeting is planned and it may include some re-balancing of the vanilla assets.

 

Sorry not targeting related directly, but while you´re at it. Maybe some thrust/handling increase for the A-143 so that it could actually play a role on the battlefield? Being the only vanilla fighter having different loadouts available would make it more versatile for mission makers if it only handled half decently. :)

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

I feel like modeling some components of futuristic warfare, "point in general direction of enemy and click LMB to win", makes combat less interesting.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

I feel like modeling some components of futuristic warfare, "point in general direction of enemy and click LMB to win", makes combat less interesting.

 

I feel these steps could move us in the direction of making it a more difficult task to kill targets with aircraft than it is at the moment (and that's a good thing!)

 

With the new targeting pods and possible re-balancing of assets you might see less tab-lock-kill,tab-lock-kill,tab-lock-kill,tab-lock-kill and more circling the area trying to find targets to self-lase and bomb which in turn increases vulnerability to AA.  This in turn makes JTAC's/UAVs/Striders with laser designators more valuable as it means less time over target for the aircraft.

[twistking 204]

make JTACs great again!!!

[x3kj 1247]

I feel like modeling some components of futuristic warfare, "point in general direction of enemy and click LMB to win", makes combat less interesting.

Isn't that a fact already? Many communities don't use such assetts or disable it because "the future" (or even todays stuff) are too powerfull for regular games. Which is why i hope BI will do fictive events from 1950-1970 in future...

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

Isn't that a fact already? Many communities don't use such assetts or disable it because "the future" (or even todays stuff) are too powerfull for regular games. Which is why i hope BI will do fictive events from 1950-1970 in future...

 

I removed the first part of my post shortly after writing because I thought it came off as a bit snarky :)

 

Basically was saying that the result of making combat less interesting is that people look for other games to play, and stop telling their friends to buy the game with less interesting combat.

 

I hope Imp is right and the changes will make CAS more interesting.