Targeting improvements

[oukej 2910]

51 minutes ago, jerminhu said:

Is the lead indicator affected?

No or not yet. Atm we don't have a replacement.

[xxgetbuck123 945]

1 hour ago, Bamse said:

Only had the option to take a few screenshots. Visuals of CCIP are the same as before, its just that it's not visible outside the defined HMD-box.

Crappy screenshots taken from crappy work computer from within the A-164:

http://imgur.com/a/wYIC6

 

So it pretty much only appears within a pre-defined box that sits in the middle of the screen? Or as big as the HMD would be? 

[Bamse 223]

Purdy much, yep :)

 

Nicely done step in the right direction. <3

 

[jerminhu 25]

On 12/16/2016 at 5:58 PM, oukej said:

No or not yet. Atm we don't have a replacement.

I hope you will have a solution before the jet DLC is out. If the lead indicator and the sensors are not diegetic and there won't be AFM for jets, I don't think the jet DLC will be attractive enough for jet players like me.

[dragon01 902]

Mind that with the DLC, you'd be paying for the planes themselves, not for the features. The latter you'll get whether you care about them or not. So, it comes down to whether you'll want new planes to play with. You're already a jet player, so it comes down to whether the new birds will be of any use to you.

[five_seven5-7 56]

1- Cant find the CCIP bomb reticle for unguided bombs

2- Is it possible to make available some sort of orientation helper the for TGP in IRL we use peripheral vision. In the game almost every time lose the orientation where i am heading and where is/are the targets (know there is a point fixation Crtl+T)

3- laser designator in the TGP for GBU and artillery support if needed

[oukej 2910]

 

On 7. 1. 2017 at 5:19 AM, SLP said:

1. Can you add the CCIP calculated impact point as available Vector for the MFD class? Now it looks like a debugversion.

Already there:
impactpoint (position of CCIP (constantly computed impact point))
impactpointtoview (CCIP for HMD)

On 7. 1. 2017 at 5:19 AM, SLP said:

3. The engine calculates the stall-speed, wich is available as condition in the MFD class. Can a sqf-command be implemented for that condition? Maybe for scripters, who wants to implement a warning-sound or sth. like that.

So rather a property for a stall sound?

 

On 7. 1. 2017 at 5:19 AM, SLP said:

4. A lasermarker for the pods would be nice.

Confirmed, planned.

[HorribleGoat 1473]

49 minutes ago, oukej said:

 

Already there:
impactpoint (position of CCIP (constantly computed impact point))
impactpointtoview (CCIP for HMD)

 

Are these for currently selected weapon? Could there also be vector points for gunner manned turret weapons? (not really vanilla game needed feature but while you are at it ít would support modding)

[SLP 5]

4 hours ago, oukej said:

Already there:
impactpoint (position of CCIP (constantly computed impact point))
impactpointtoview (CCIP for HMD)

Sorry. I cant find those parameters in your reference. Neither in this section https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/HUD nor somewhere else. Are there more informations of the HUD-config, wich are not public?

 

5 hours ago, oukej said:

So rather a property for a stall sound?

For example. The twinkling warning in the HUD is very hard to identify because the HUD-elements are scaled to small. Especially in the daytime.

 

5 hours ago, oukej said:

Confirmed, planned.

Maybe with lasercodes?

 

Thanks. SLP

[reyhard 2082]

20 hours ago, oukej said:

Already there:
impactpoint (position of CCIP (constantly computed impact point))
impactpointtoview (CCIP for HMD)

thank you, much appreciated change!

[senseichen 20]

On 11/22/2016 at 4:25 AM, oukej said:

 

• ad scripting vs. config vs. difficulty control over disabling CCIP - I believe the proper and consistent way how to alter these elements is only via configuration - you create a vehicle and you set how it should behave. As a player you learn vehicle's behavior. If you download a mod you know what you're doing, you know you can expect different behavior.
  Which is not the case when scripting. I'm not dismissing more freedom in real time over what happens inside the game. However if we were to create a script function to disable the CCIP why not request a script to disable the range measuring in other optics? Or grid or target info? Or maybe have a scipt to change physx configuration of a vehicle? Even if we ignored the technical difficulties of implementing that and maintaining it - what would be the actual benefit? Total freedom in real time customization? Wouldn't it come at a cost of a completely unpredictable game? Same goes for difficulty. It can be communicated via difficulty menu. But still something as specific as one part of vehicle's targeting systems would be way too inconsistent as a difficulty option. More than a solution to a problem it feels like a patch stacked on top of an unsolved imbalance.

I hope most of the complains come from how the CCIP looks atm, how can get mistaken for a meta helper, how it's available in 3rd person and in full screen's range.

I think you're over-exaggerating here. Adding an option would allow servers to revert to the old system, and trust me, it's definitely preferable from a KotH perspective.

I've spoken to numerous HostileTakeover admins and they have all said that they would disable CCIP on all of their servers as soon as an option is available.

Sure this feature is welcome from a realism perspective, but you also need to cater for other game modes that it is negatively affecting. After all, King of the Hill is without a doubt, one of the most popular gamemodes Arma 3 has to offer.

 

[.kju 3244]

@oukej I agree with the other people here. Your argument is not really fair and meaningful as you make pointless generalization.

It is about important gameplay and player experience - especially to non hardcore players.

 

Also despite the somewhat change of philosophy with TKOH and A3, due to leadership and team member changes, the series has always

been about adjusting the game to what people like and find beneficial for the player experience. This is the one key difference to many other games:

 

Not (only) the developer dedicates it, yet due to the ability to mod(ify) the game, very dedicated and often with more expertise in specific areas,

like competitive play or realism or cooperative play or large scale or persistence or social experience, can either improve the experience big time

and even offer a totally different one.

 

As such I think its narrow-minded to argue "we know it better" - which is if you call for "things are to be set by configuration".

Even if its not meant as such, it is always implicit and in effect the case - until the series has true and simply mod sync to server/mission.

But until then configuration means nothing for public play, nothing for the average user, nothing for the hobbies, often not even to competitive

or organized play as mod use is still way too much hassle and non practical.

 

Please be open minded here and revise your thinking about the consequences of your arguments. 

 

 

That aside Ondrej and Marek (hladas not or to lesser extent) were almost ready to go with mergeConfig for the public version - which is effect "full" dynamic adjustment

per server/mission.

The main reason why it was not done as they didnt feel confident to make it secure against abuse/cheating.

[oukej 2910]

18 hours ago, .kju said:

It is about important gameplay and player experience - especially to non hardcore players.

 

Also despite the somewhat change of philosophy with TKOH and A3, due to leadership and team member changes, the series has always

been about adjusting the game to what people like and find beneficial for the player experience. This is the one key difference to many other games:

And that's exactly what we've just tried to do :)
There was a specific issue. There were some proposed solutions. We didn't think that adding a script control is a good way to solve it. Not because of some script vs. config dogma...dogmas are for puppies ;) I don't think we'd hesitate to add script command whenever it can add convincingly good and useful option to scenario creation and whenever we can. Add meaningful options. Not solve (patch-around) issues.

[.kju 3244]

@oukej fair enough

 

with the current ongoing changes as part of the Jets DLC (and potentially linked to some extent also to the latter Tanks DLC),

i think one has to reevaluate the system comprehensively by play testing anyway and in any case.

with human creativity and competition is hard to predict the outcome.

 

It is just very unfortunate that very little is done with the dev branch by the the community in regards to MP/large scale/PvP/COOP testing.

I think BI needs to rethink the approach for future titles.This just doesn't work well as test bed for MP and mods.

 

That said it will be very interesting to see what EUTW, BECTI, large PvP events, KotH, AAS and other PvP game modes with combat vehicles 

will make of the new system in terms of gameplay change and (lower end) player experience. 

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

On 1/22/2017 at 0:20 PM, senseichen said:

I think you're over-exaggerating here. Adding an option would allow servers to revert to the old system, and trust me, it's definitely preferable from a KotH perspective.

I've spoken to numerous HostileTakeover admins and they have all said that they would disable CCIP on all of their servers as soon as an option is available.

Sure this feature is welcome from a realism perspective, but you also need to cater for other game modes that it is negatively affecting. After all, King of the Hill is without a doubt, one of the most popular gamemodes Arma 3 has to offer.

 

 

Is that because you've bothered to explain how all these up coming changes are part of an overall package of changes and not just the introduction of CCIP to jets by itself?  The jet hit points, sensor changes and targeting changes coupled with CCIP are going to completely change the way aircraft work and I for one and beyond excited for the potential this brings.

 

Are KOTH/Wasteland/whateverlameassgamemode admins too lazy to bother trying to actually balance their missions instead of just making all assets available and then moaning when they've not fully investigated these changes and how to Adapt. :)

[das attorney 858]

idk, these forums are full of people asking for more realistic systems and gameplay etc.  Then they get it and because some douche exploits it on some game-mode, they ask to have it rolled back or be optional.  Like Arma-Lite or something.

 

It's a jet; that kills people with it's bombs.  If you don't like it, then talk to KOTH designers and get them to ban it or make it so you can only have it if someone achieves a super-mega-killer streak or something.

 

 

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

im still holding out for a command to return the CCIP :)

 

 

 

 

 

simple solution to OP aircraft ...

 

on pilots machine:

 

1 create local vehicle IR masking tent

2 attach it to potential target vehicle

3 apply to any target vehicles you want hidden from pilot

4 win

[dragon01 902]

There's no need for disabling CCIP. KoTH devs should adapt their gamemode, not ask BIS to change something in the way aircraft work. Especially not in the middle of an ongoing overhaul which may make this a non-issue. Or it can break aircraft even further, at which point it could be easier to just ban them from KoTH. Either way, there's no need to bother with that until the sensor overhaul is finalized or close to it, because the overhaul takes priority.

[mjolnir66 48]

Is there any chance of the Gunship Blackfish getting CCIPs for the gunners, because as is, you have to fly frustrating low and slow for the gunners to have any chance of hitting anything.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

On 1/25/2017 at 7:06 AM, mjolnir66 said:

Is there any chance of the Gunship Blackfish getting CCIPs for the gunners, because as is, you have to fly frustrating low and slow for the gunners to have any chance of hitting anything.

 

I'd love to see the gunner turrets for Blackfish, Blackfoot, Kajman all get some improvements for their UI.  Would be nice to see some of the UI elements (target grid reference, aircraft bank/angle etc) from the new targeting pod turrets be applied to the gunner turrets.

And at a long stretch, the ability to lock the turret to a terrain target similar to the UAVs.

[chortles 263]

 

59 minutes ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

wooowww easy there mate i hate koth just as much as the next guy but.... The changes mentioned are only about changing TLI and CCIP to proper vehicle HUDs and the targetting pods instead of being visible as an overall game UI element.

 

You can still use the lead pip and the bomb/rocket crosshairs its just that now you have to see them on your airplanes HUD rather or targeting pod then at any time. So if anything its MORE realistic mate.

As of right now on dev branch the CCIP/PIP for the Wipeout or Neophron only appeared when resorting to the TGP while the Buzzard currently also has a 'broken circle' shape within its HUD when selecting the Twin Cannon 20mm -- incidentally, this circle "jumps" to encircle the non-HUD TLI circle when/if you mark a target -- because only the Buzzard has the corresponding stuff in class MFD... with the GBU-12 though I had no luck finding what to use on the HUD as my point of aim and had to rely on the in-TGP crosshair with the same disadvantage as in the Neophron/Wipeout of attempting to line up the crosshair via keyboard WSAD.

[chortles 263]

Rather interested in what these three CfgVehicles parameters will mean for future target detection/marking, i.e. max range? Within-group-only? Can a reporting vehicle "confirm these contacts as hostile" and have that propagated in the course of the report/receive?...

[M1ke_SK 230]

NLAW is no longer targeting vehicles? Sorry for question, but I noticed just now.

[twistking 204]

On 9.9.2017 at 11:09 PM, M1ke_SK said:

NLAW is no longer targeting vehicles? Sorry for question, but I noticed just now.

 

is still still the case? this would be great, as it would point towards bis reworking the NLAW to implement realistic inertia-based fcs for the NLAW.

[M1ke_SK 230]

4 hours ago, twistking said:

 

is still still the case? this would be great, as it would point towards bis reworking the NLAW to implement realistic inertia-based fcs for the NLAW.

 

Yeah, NLAW is not locking to target anymore. I am just confused as I did not notice change, but now.