Jump to content
ivan keska

Why do so many have a problem with thermals?

Recommended Posts

A3 needs a Batteries mechanic, to apply to electronics (GPS, optics, etc).

Interesting idea to penalize the constant use of advanced equipment.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't like the enemy players using thermals just stand behind glass all round Â¯\_(ツ)_/¯

ArmA 3 magic TI can look trough glass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ArmA 3 magic TI can look trough glass.

Only slightly through windshields but building windows are completely opaque.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting idea to penalize the constant use of advanced equipment.

I support this one it would bring a lot more use to thermal optics :) that way also people won't be spamming laser designators I mean hell why is there a battery for the designatior if it won't wear out after much use anytime soon? (Correct me if I'm wrong)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long do the batteries on these devices typically last? I suspect that in most cases it would be so long as to be pointless to limit it.

 

And if battery lifetimes are artificially limited then people are going to be mad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long do the batteries on these devices typically last? I suspect that in most cases it would be so long as to be pointless to limit it.

 

And if battery lifetimes are artificially limited then people are going to be mad.

Today's devices can run hours if they are still on but those are very expensive ones
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's devices can run hours if they are still on but those are very expensive ones

The use of lithium batteries was a gamechanger years ago. I use an 20 year old CB Radio for various outdoor uses (because the old radios are often better then new ones made in east asia) It suffers from a high consumption at 4 Watts transmitter power but with AAlithium batteries I can use it for 3 days on standby with occasional minutes of radiotelephony.

 

Good NV and TI devices that do not run on cheap CCD or CMOS chip technology but amplifier tubes or cooled sensor arrays eat up batterie power very quick. Without cooling a TI sensor wll end up with low resolution and low detection range. Thats why the really usefull TI devices for long range survaillance are still large and rather stationary or vehicle mounted.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the part that always kills me. Arma is fun, especially when everything is at play in a single environment, it creates a great quantity of options. However, when you say for example, tanks are out right OP, it's not true, in a sense that you take thermals off a tanks, and you still have a Titan AT in play for example, or even a PCML, then th Tank instantly becomes simply target practice for Rockets, and thus the AT soldier becomes OP. Give both thermal, and it's a matter of who finds who first, and really, because infantry are so small, and mobile, it's easier to infantry to take out a tank before the Tank takes out the infantry. If you remove Thermals from tanks, and replace the Titan AT with the RPG-42, it makes the Tank Semi-OP, because while the RPG-42 is good at it's job, it requires skill to use, or for a inexperienced player to get close before use.

 

In short, No matter what you do, one side or the other will be over powered, but the best way to balance the gameplay, it's to simply have almost every option available. Take wasteland for example, you have servers who remove thermals on everything outright, but keep for example lock on rockets, thus making every vehicle even less capable. Then you have a server with "everything goes", and you get a mixture of win/lose situations. You will get a tank taking people out left and right, but here comes some random guy with a rocket to end the massacre of the Tank.

 

In the end, the thermals really aren't the problem. Thermals are like using a flashlight in a room full of pillars. You shine the light, but it only see's so much, not showing what's behind the pillars. Tactics dictate how useful they are, just like anything else. Change position, shine the light again, and you see a different angle in the room and maybe you notice the pillars are another texture. anyway, honestly, i think the only problem i have with this subject, is that Bohemia hasn't really put enough in the game to broaden the capabilities of offensive/defensive gameplay. We're only just seeing it now with thermal gear. At least, this is my opinion.

Depends fully on the gamemode or type of game you play. In a proper milsim situation, you should have infantry to support the tank (or rather, the other way around) where the infantry helps out scouting for potential dangers to the tank. In a situation like Wasteland, of course you are volunerable... But this must be up to the mission makers. As a different example, from a gameplay perspective: I am somewhat happy for the new light attack vehicles in Tanoa, even though I think the weaponry is a bit to strong, especially the mounted MG on the NATO one. But using Technicals or Hummers with M2 is alot more fun in a milsim situation, as it requres alot more skill from the gunner and it requires another player to range and guide the gunners fire. Further more, it requires supporting units to help out guarding the vehicle as it's still a hefty power multiplier, yet it comes with a cost. If you replace the M2 Hummer with a LMG Hunter, you have the ability to engage way further out with ease, resulting in the mission maker having to place alot more enemies to compensate. Low tech is often more fun, as it forces you to adopt to the situation.

 

I'm not saying that there aren't situations where both the Hunter and stuff like FLIR can be fun and challanging, but as a general rule I tend to avoid such things in my missions as it requires me to crank up enemy numbers, resulting in a loss of FPS and no real bump in performance. In certain scenarios it can be used, but for the most part I prefer not to. Hell, at the moment we avoid using LAVs even.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't checked lately but having humidity, so rain and fog greatly decreasing the effectivity of thermal diveces (less range) might be a help for the mission makers. Also now with the new expansion there will be gear covering thermal sources (Infantry gear aswell as structural covers) that way I think correctly used thermals wont be so strong anymore. For vehicle level I prefer to use IED and Mines, 1 nice hidden SLAM placed at the site of a building is quickly overseen, after that you just need to send the enemys from the right direction, if possible using structures, terrain and forrests as cover.

 

Retch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If TI is a problem set the date and time to a winter time + day, in the winter time the maps on arma get so cold that thermal stops working correctly

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/06/2016 at 1:39 PM, kbbw123 said:

If TI is a problem set the date and time to a winter time + day, in the winter time the maps on arma get so cold that thermal stops working correctly

Now this is handy information :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's it in a nutshell. That's why 1985 was such a good setting; all you had was a rifle with iron sights. It's much more of a challenge. Personally, I don't even feel right about using any of the Marksman DLC weapons. Feels like cheating to me.

This may be a bit old-to reply. But when the US Army finally roles out XM-25's with the new 3X site. Are you going to say its cheating. In war you use anything to have an edge. The only reason they stopped with Phosphorous and Napalm was because the bleeding heart liberals complained it was a cruel way to kill someone in combat. You meant to kill off the enemy fast. If anything there should have been "smarter Weapons" in Arma 3. based on the 2035 setting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be a bit old-to reply. But when the US Army finally roles out XM-25's with the new 3X site. Are you going to say its cheating. In war you use anything to have an edge. The only reason they stopped with Phosphorous and Napalm was because the bleeding heart liberals complained it was a cruel way to kill someone in combat. You meant to kill off the enemy fast. If anything there should have been "smarter Weapons" in Arma 3. based on the 2035 setting.

I fully agree and if People have a Problem you can always restrict it so theres no Problem,@2nd ranger for the "Feels liek cheating" yeah there are of Course rifles in the game that are more powerfull over others already from caliber and Barrel length, but also here there are mods that can make it much harder, for example ACE 3 with the Advanced Balistics on full Simulation Level you'll take 3+min to calculate everything,

being a marksmen and a sniper makes much more fun and you have more Teamwork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be a bit old-to reply. But when the US Army finally roles out XM-25's with the new 3X site. Are you going to say its cheating. In war you use anything to have an edge. The only reason they stopped with Phosphorous and Napalm was because the bleeding heart liberals complained it was a cruel way to kill someone in combat. You meant to kill off the enemy fast. If anything there should have been "smarter Weapons" in Arma 3. based on the 2035 setting.

 

Of course it's not cheating, but where the real military actively seeks to get an advantage over the enemy in real life, in terms of gameplay this might result in less fun scenarios. As I said in my previous post, vehicles illustrates this quite well. The Hunter provides a weapon platfom that is well armored, and that can engage targets at ease out to 1000 meters without having another player supporting the gunner with optics. The only threats against the Hunter is larger caliber rifles and different kinds of AT. Given the Hunters wastly superiour range and it's optical capabilities, it becomes a very strong weapons platform. In a milsim scenario, this requires a mission maker to spawn a lot of enemies to compensate, and even then it's difficult to find a real threat to put it up against that is within reason in terms of power. A helicopter or another vehicle could easily pose a threat, sure... But that rules the vehicle out as a support asset for infantry in most cases.

Compare this to a Hummer with an H2 or even a technical. A Hummer is armored, sure. But the gunner is exposed, meaning that even small arms fire poses a threat. Further more, lmgs and other common weaponry might pose a risk to the vehicle itself. It's lack of optics also results in shorter engagement ranges, at least if you want to keep mobility. For longer engagements, it requires a seperate operative to guide the gunners fire with the use of binoculars or simular. This requires more finesse, training and coordination, but as a result provides a better sense of achievement.

Again, there are situations where deploying a Hunter could be feasable, at least in large communities, but it is a huge force multiplier. FLIR only makes it worse.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it's not cheating, but where the real military actively seeks to get an advantage over the enemy in real life, in terms of gameplay this might result in less fun scenarios. As I said in my previous post, vehicles illustrates this quite well. The Hunter provides a weapon platfom that is well armored, and that can engage targets at ease out to 1000 meters without having another player supporting the gunner with optics. The only threats against the Hunter is larger caliber rifles and different kinds of AT. Given the Hunters wastly superiour range and it's optical capabilities, it becomes a very strong weapons platform. In a milsim scenario, this requires a mission maker to spawn a lot of enemies to compensate, and even then it's difficult to find a real threat to put it up against that is within reason in terms of power. A helicopter or another vehicle could easily pose a threat, sure... But that rules the vehicle out as a support asset for infantry in most cases.

Compare this to a Hummer with an H2 or even a technical. A Hummer is armored, sure. But the gunner is exposed, meaning that even small arms fire poses a threat. Further more, lmgs and other common weaponry might pose a risk to the vehicle itself. It's lack of optics also results in shorter engagement ranges, at least if you want to keep mobility. For longer engagements, it requires a seperate operative to guide the gunners fire with the use of binoculars or simular. This requires more finesse, training and coordination, but as a result provides a better sense of achievement.

Again, there are situations where deploying a Hunter could be feasable, at least in large communities, but it is a huge force multiplier. FLIR only makes it worse.

Hey almanzo,

first off again its all up to the Mission makers to find the Balance.

But small arms are also a threat to a Hunter or similar vehicles, you can disable the RCWS really fast, tires and Windows can be destoryed by small arms aswell as grenades and GLs.

For a Mission maker it's all about correct Placement of enemy Units and the correct time when to attack that type of vehicle. Example Hunter HMG sitting somewhere (most People put it on a hill, so they can expose themselves) killing a couple of the enemys, get a mortart Team let them set up and get them to fire towards the Hunter, really Thermals and Heavy Weapons aren't OP you just Need to know how to Counter them.

 

Retch

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey almanzo,

first off again its all up to the Mission makers to find the Balance.

But small arms are also a threat to a Hunter or similar vehicles, you can disable the RCWS really fast, tires and Windows can be destoryed by small arms aswell as grenades and GLs.

For a Mission maker it's all about correct Placement of enemy Units and the correct time when to attack that type of vehicle. Example Hunter HMG sitting somewhere (most People put it on a hill, so they can expose themselves) killing a couple of the enemys, get a mortart Team let them set up and get them to fire towards the Hunter, really Thermals and Heavy Weapons aren't OP you just Need to know how to Counter them.

 

Retch

 

I agree that mission makers are responsible for balance. And yes, there are ways to take out a Hunter, but small arms fire is rarely a threat to any experienced team using a Hunter, as your optics and thermal capabilities allow you to engage at superior ranges, where infantry with regular weapons can't effectively engage you.

But that is half my point, the other half is how much more interesting and challanging it is to use an iron sighted vehicle such as an M2 Hummer. That requires cooperation and coordination engaging on long ranges, with one person designating and guiding fire and the other one operating the weapon. The advanced optics are simply booring to use, any "idiot" can use the Hunter GMG effectively, to effectively deploy a Hummer or a Technical requires skill. In general, force multipliers are risky to use for a mission maker and should be used with cation.

That being said, I do not have any issue with people using Hunters and such in their missions. But the thread is asking why people have an issue with thermals or other forms of technical equipment, and this is some of the reasons. Personally, I find the Hunters really booring and my group uses mods so that we can use Hummers. Even when using vehicles, we usually only use one or at the most two armed variants for this exact reason.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it has to do with different peoples idea of balance. Thermals can be considered OP, because they give whoevers using them a massive advantage. In MP (TvT, Exile, Wasteland, Life, etc) whoever gets them turns into a basically all seeing God. The thing is though, Arma strives for realism. It tries to be to infantry what Microsoft Flight Simulator is for planes. The US Gov has even contracted BI to provide training simulators. In war, it's not supposed to be fair. One side has a advantage, one side is "OP". Otherwise, all war would end up being WW1 trench warfare and a continuous grind until one side runs out of people. There isn't balance in war. Arma tries to compensate for this by making the main factions near-peer. The three main factions, NATO, CSAT, and AAF, have some type of thermal optics.

 

If players want balance, the mission maker needs to take that into account and try to make their mission to how their players want. In verses MP, if the group decides that thermals are okay, then throw them in. I have no problem with thermals, because war isn't fair. But then again, I play mostly SP, and my group plays co-op MP, where no one will gripe if they get killed by a player using thermals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US Gov has even contracted BI to provide training simulators.

 

For BI simulation (VBS series) they did.Not for BI interactive.2 (creators of arma3) different companies with different locations, programmers, engine,

costumers who shares similar name, but couldn't be more different ; )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the addition of head mounted thermal optics is a great idea. But, I think it may be a bit OP in pvp. Like in a wasteland server or a life server. In situations like those you probably do not have stealth uniforms therefore you can be easily spotted. So it is much easier to chase someone through the jungle with the thermals on than if they weren't. Knowing where the enemy is is extremely important, that is why they use drones so much on I&A servers. You can respond to what you see but not what you don't. Thermals make heated objects stick out like  a sore thumb. But I think it isn't as OP when fighting AI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Necroing this because it is still relevant and I don't want to start a new post. The problem with thermals is that their is not a good way to hide from them, especially on alitis. If you jump into a jet, and turn up your view distance you can see everything, clear as anything. This is realistic, what isn't realistic is that their is no heat dissipation. For example of this, if you are laying down for a long time, your body in a thermal sight, your clothing would not be as obvious, as some one in motion. Because of body heat, and friction. Also, Vehicle game play is terrible. If you are in a vehicle it is glowing white even if the engine is off and never turned on. Once you get out however it turns off and goes dark.

Oh and PS I already know about the HALO Spartan armor added in the apex DLC. It looks stupid, and is only available for fanboys like me who dish out money on it.

Bohemia needs to add in the following.

- Heat Dissipation
- Cover Blanket [for infantry that is prone]
- Thermal Netting [for tanks that are stationary]
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have already said, I have to agree that the main reason behind people disliking thermals is simply a result of POOR MISSION MAKING.

 

In fact, I'd say that a lot of hate towards the future setting in general is a result of the same.  It's odd to me how some people will completely lose their minds when you talk about balanced game play but then complain and call for the removal of an item, or weapon, and see it as something different than balancing.

 

Mission makers have to decide on the type of gameplay they want to encourage and then really pay attention to the assets they implement as well as the terrain, boundaries, and rules. 

 

King of the Hill is a great example of this... In the beginning, it was basically a free for all fight over one small town with practically everything available for those who played enough to buy the vehicles and weapons they wanted to use. While it was fun for a breif moment, there quickly became a noticeable gap between veteran players and new players that resulted in a lack of fun for newcomers or anyone who enjoys infantry combat (myself included).... When the whole point of the game is to occupy the limits of a single town, it becomes less fun to play when someone in a tank can sit 5km outside the AO and blast anyone or any building they're hiding in, into dust. Even worse was the players in attack helicopters who would (and still do on some servers) hover beyond visual range and kill anything leaving spawn with guided missiles... This is what led to the creation of infantry only servers, spawn limits, and weapons perks which fixed some things but still have their problems.

Some might argue that tanks and helicopters can still be countered which is true but, with the poor team structure in KotH (3 teams) and the fact that most players flocked to the CSAT team resulting in a gross lack of man power for one or both of the other teams, it made it near impossible to win without joining the biggest team.

 

These lessons can and should be applied by all mission makers or at least taken into account depending on what their goals are. Just look at how Shacktac does it's missions. Yes they use iron or red dot sights only in most missions because it adds more of a challenge. They also don't give their attack helicopters free reign to hunt and kill anything they see, instead, they may have specific targets or only attack on request.

 

As for the future setting, I'd just have to say that I love it! I don't want to go too far though! (PLEASE NO force fields, lasers, or cloaking devices. Haha)

But in response to thermals being "Too good" I simply look at it as an advancement in technology. As time passes, images get clearer and thermals get more sensitive.

 

With all that being said, I admit there are a lot of things I would have liked to have seen done differently.

 

I can only imagine the storm of complaints that might have come about if Thermal Night Vision was implemented for NATO forces the way I wanted it.... For anyone curious to know, there is actually prototype tech being developed that pairs a night vision image with a thermal image overlay, resulting in a night vision picture where hot objects are either highlighted or outlined...  https://www.wired.com/2011/09/night-vision/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, the problem with thermals is that they're not realistically portrayed. ArmA3 is set in the Mediterranean, which is hot... but you wouldn't guess it on TI. Even in Europe, you can get 30-40 degrees of heat in shade, in the summer. Human body temperature is about 36 degrees. TI should be of limited utility in conditions where everything exposed to the sun glows brighter than a human body. Tanoa is in tropics, where it'd be even worse. This might be a limitation of RV engine, but air temperature and environmental conditions really don't appear to be nearly as big a deal as they should be. IRL, TI is at its most useful at night or in cold climates, where you can get good contrast with the environment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fine with vehicle thermals, but I really don't see the infantry thermals being realistic. As stated in this thread, they require active cooling to form a good image, otherwise the IR emitted from the thermal goggles themselves will blind the sensor itself. I could see this being used in a very short duration tactical mission, like raiding a compound, where you get in and out fast (Bin Laden compound raid, for example). Walking around with these goggles on the whole night should not be possible.

Also, the personal thermal camo I think is probably pretty unrealistic.... fine if you're laying still, but it will probably seriously limit your ability to exert yourself without overheating (the fabric would have the be highly breathable, with a lot of air flow, I suppose some sort of cooling system with fans and stuff could work, but again, it would be limited duration).

I prefer the Ghillie suits which are "directional", and basically conceal you from thermals when you are lying down.

So on Scenarios I make, infantry vs infantry combat is without TI. Vehicles have TI, but a ghillie sniper with a large caliber rifle is still a major threat to MRAPs and some APC, and a moderate threat to other APCs (which have turrets that are a bit harder to disable). Tanks....are threatened by Titan AT missiles and laser designation for CAS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×