Jets - Sensor overhaul (Radars, IRs, Lazors, PGMs)

[darkChozo 133]

I understand that it can be changed, I just don't understand why you'd ever want a view distance cap. It doesn't make sense from a simulation standpoint, nor from a gameplay standpoint, and it doesn't sound like there's a technical reason behind it. Is it purely for performance?

[x3kj 1247]

7 hours ago, oukej said:

Semi-active radar guidance has sadly been cut due to complexity. Sorry about that.

Damn. Is it really that complex? I would have imagined using a standard guided Missile, it knows its target. It should also know its "shooter", then checks periodically in 0.5s intervalls if shooter is still locking the target of the missile. If not, then it selfdestructs or turns "dumb" by activating its "dumb" version submunition, since missiles can now have submun.

57 minutes ago, darkChozo said:

I understand that it can be changed, I just don't understand why you'd ever want a view distance cap. It doesn't make sense from a simulation standpoint, nor from a gameplay standpoint, and it doesn't sound like there's a technical reason behind it. Is it purely for performance?

Visual sensors should (for balance reasons) not be able to see further than server max viewdistance. It leads to people or vehicles beeing detected visually without the target beeing able to detect it back (since its a passive sensor and the sensor-vehicle is hidden in view-distance-fog). Its like allowing some people to play with higher view distance than other people.

[oukej 2910]

1 hour ago, x3kj said:

Damn. Is it really that complex? I would have imagined using a standard guided Missile, it knows its target. It should also know its "shooter", then checks periodically in 0.5s intervalls if shooter is still locking the target of the missile.

That's where it gets tricky with locality of each actor in MP and also with the way AI marks targets and uses PGMs.
 

3 hours ago, darkChozo said:

So does that mean that visual sensors, when used for detection on a vehicle, are supposed to represent the pilot using an optical system to pick out targets? I ask because, as I mentioned, those sorts of systems typically require a human in the loop; they may be able to track a known target, but they can't tell if a set of pixels is a target or background, unlike radar and IR (to a degree). The current system gives more of an impression of automatic recognition, either by magic or some sort of more advanced image processing.

The idea has been to have an abstraction of contrast seekers, primitive or imaging. The best example would be Mavericks and their evolution (and experience with IR tracking in desert environment - even though that's something we don't model). I believe image processing is quite common these days (not only IR or multispectral but also just in vis. spectrum).
The primary purpose is to have a passive sensor that doesn't require the targets to be heated up. Add another option for balancing. A vis. sensor doesn't need heated targets but it can be set as less capable, may be less effective at picking targets against ground clutter, can be blind at night, can be better against some targets and worse against another (a target can have different "signature" in each spectrum).

Keep in mind that the configuration of vanila assets is heavily WIP, random-ish and it's been deliberately early on Dev-Branch. To get your word on how you think it should be set up and balanced ;)

 

3 hours ago, darkChozo said:

Also, visual sensors appear to be significantly more limited than pilot cameras on dev. Plane pilot cameras have a ~300 degree arc compared to the ~40 degree arc for visual sensors, and the Buzzard doesn't get a visual sensor at all despite having a pilot camera.

Ideally this:

On 31. 1. 2017 at 8:47 AM, chortles said:

One thing I'm inquiring about if I haven't already is whether a sensor's animDirection can be tied to the TGP, giving a single-seater a way to have a sensor be aligned with/be pointed wherever the pilot is looking or otherwise pointed the pilotCamera... in essence, a way for a single-seater pilot to have the same gameplay benefit that the attack helicopters currently get with turret-aligned sensors.

 

[boarnoah 1]

44 minutes ago, oukej said:

less effective at picking targets against ground clutter, can be blind at night, can be better against some targets and worse against another (a target can have different "signature" in each spectrum).

How exactly would lowered effectiveness at low-light conditions and poor visibility (ground fog or smoke)  be simulated here, lots of factors involved. In low-light the vehicle might be illuminated by it's own or other sources of light, smoke and fog concealment is going to vary wildly with graphics settings, occlusion with different fog depths and smoke dispersion (with wind etc...).  
The problem here is that whatever approximation is going to be very opaque from a player's point of view (see complaints in video games about visibility through smoke for example).

Regarding visual signatures (sharp silhouettes, or ground clutter):
 - Silhouetting on ridge lines, against barren areas on the ground,
 - Camouflage and other ground clutter, how would the system decide whether a well camouflaged vehicle should or not be detected?
    - One (simplistic) approach I've seen (Metal Gear Solid V) is to use store camouflage meta data on terrain and factor the terrain camouflage + uniform camo and range into calculating visibility at a distance. Not feasible for Arma (the number of textures & terrain features involved. Not to mention community objects).

Point here is there is a lot of nuances to how visual sensing would work, Sensor Overhaul isn't the place for a computer vision system. The sensor risks detecting things that aren't truly visible to a player or not be powerful enough to justify its existence at all.

Consider how much criticism the AI (somewhat unjustifiably) receives for how they spot targets. From personal experience I've found it to be a very good system (the AI isn't too hamstrung and stealth is still a legitimate option). THe problem with the complaints is that to most players these nuances on how the AI sees things are not clear and therefore either looks totally random or as if they have "aimbot vision".

It's very difficult to balance a system (for a video game) where the sensor might contradict what a player visually sees. I just don't see how such a system will avoid criticisms of either "it spotted my Gorgon parked in a bush" or "it missed my gorgon parked on the middle of a runway".

 

Thanks to comrade @SuicideKing for bringing this thread to my attention.

 

 

[a_killer_wombat 120]

I have two suggestions to help make the radar display more user friendly.

 

Firstly, at the moment the radar display includes 4 circles of different sizes which help signify different ranges. For example, Figure A shows the radar display at 12km resolution which means each circle indicates +3km range with the largest outer circle signifying 12km (12 / 4 = 3). This is really helpful for giving the player quick and easy ranging feedback for all the "objects" which the sensors detect. 

 

However, when the radar display resolution is toggled to 6km or 3km resolution (see Figures B & C), this ranging feedback is harder to understand due to the number of circles not adapting with the change in resolution so each circle indicates a non-round/non-absolute number of distance (for 3km resolution, each circle indicates +0.75km). 

 

I suggest that the number of circles displayed should adapt depending on resolution. For example, 6km resolution could have 3 circles instead of 4 where each circle indicates +2km range and 3km resolution could have 3 circles as well where each circle indicates +1km range. It's easier for players to estimate range when working with round/absolute numbers.

 

Secondly, the radar display already provides useful target information such as the target's altitude, speed and range (see Figure D). However, one very useful target info the radar display is missing is the target's bearing/azimuth in relation to the player's vehicle. I suggest that the radar display should also display this info in a similar manner as it displays altitude, speed and range.

 

From the player's point of view, knowing the bearing to a target is very important (I would argue it's more valuable info than target speed). For example, it allows an attack helo pilot to quickly and accurately notify his gunner/co-pilot where to look for a target ("Gunner, target vehicle bearing 187").

 

Figure A (radar at 12km resolution):                            Figure B (radar at 6km resolution):                                        Figure C (radar at 3km resolution):                                 Figure D:

                                                                                        

[JakobHT 1]

I am very excited to see that BI is looking to dumb down the auto grab a target feature by just mashing T & R buttons however like I posted in https://feedback.bistudio.com/T123052 I really would love to see the option for servers to be able to disable CCIP & targeting pods for jets server side. It seems that it would not be that big of a deal to give servers the option to disable it. Having the CCIP is great in missions where there are only a couple jets and you are looking at Air to ground missions but I primarily focus on King Of The Hill (a huge portion of Arma 3) and ever since CCIP showed up jets game play has been completely broken and unbalanced for us.

[chortles 263]

On 2/2/2017 at 6:59 PM, ss9 said:

Great idea!  Some kind of radar cross section parameter for vehicles (and a default one if not specified/inherited?).  That would be huge.

That parameter is radarTargetSize which "[w]orks as a coefficient of RADAR Sensor's range within the given combat situation." From that link:

Early test values

• 0.1 - fully stealth (<0.0005m2 RCS) (not recommended)
• 0.7 - small aircrafts, semi-stealth (~1m2 RCS)
• 1.0 - mid sized aircraft, car (~5m2 RCS)
• 1.2 - tanks, trucks (~10m2 RCS)
• 2.0 - large bomber, small ship and bigger (>80m2 RCS)

radarTargetSize = 0.1; // vehicle will be detected by a Radar sensor only at 1/10 of the sensors range in the given tactical situation
radarTargetSize = 2.0 // maximum value, vehicle can be detected at 2x the sensor's range

At last look on dev branch (may have changed by the time you read this post) the Cheetah/Tigris had radarTargetSize = 1.2; while the Wipeout had 1.0 and the Hummingbird a 0.7 or 0.8 for that parameter.

On 2/2/2017 at 6:59 PM, ss9 said:

Yes!  ATG and ATA should be separate!  Although ground mode may show some choppers?

None yet -- considering that devs are already implying 'low on available keybinds' -- but there can be separate detection ranges for sky-background targets (airTarget class) and ground-background targets (groundTarget class) as described here, and in the sensor's class there are parameters further affecting its effectiveness with regards to ground background.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Having just played around with the jets and I love the work so far.

 

A few issues I've noticed:

• Neophron A-G missiles cannot lock onto laser designator targets which contrasts to both the Wipeout and Buzzard A-G missiles that can.
• Buzzard and Neophron both seem to have thrust issues now where even at full throttle they barely seem to generate enough thrust to clear the larger runway on Tanoa

 

With these sensor changes I'm truly hoping we might see a radar-based ground unit or structure that players can use that doesn't necessarily have weapons.  Would make for interesting scenarios where players have to work in a combined arms scenario where the radar installation is taken down and all nearby AA units are scripted to passive radar or something similar.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

1 hour ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

Having just played around with the jets and I love the work so far.

 

A few issues I've noticed:

• Neophron A-G missiles cannot lock onto laser designator targets which contrasts to both the Wipeout and Buzzard A-G missiles that can.
• Buzzard and Neophron both seem to have thrust issues now where even at full throttle they barely seem to generate enough thrust to clear the larger runway on Tanoa

 

With these sensor changes I'm truly hoping we might see a radar-based ground unit or structure that players can use that doesn't necessarily have weapons.  Would make for interesting scenarios where players have to work in a combined arms scenario where the radar installation is taken down and all nearby AA units are scripted to passive radar or something similar.

 

Even the ability to script something like this would be great. A few key on-off toggles at minimum, which we could then link via script to pre-existing assets (radar domes, etc).

[x3kj 1247]

7 hours ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

With these sensor changes I'm truly hoping we might see a radar-based ground unit or structure that players can use that doesn't necessarily have weapons.  Would make for interesting scenarios where players have to work in a combined arms scenario where the radar installation is taken down and all nearby AA units are scripted to passive radar or something similar.

While i agree that it could be cool to have longer range radars, at this stage (having radar only on a tiny screen off to your side) it's not going to be any fun for the radar operator. He just sits there staring at 5% of his screen estate and calls out targets via com. Unless there is some information-relay mechanic in place, that can relay the sensor data to nearby units (AA vehicles), this isnt compelling or usable gameplay . Since you cant affect the sensor mechanic via script, you can't force AI or player units to use passive sensors only. And even if they have no sensors, there is no way to relay the information from sensors to another unit right now.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

1 minute ago, x3kj said:

While i agree that it could be cool to have large radars, at this stage (having radar only on a tiny screen off to your side) it's not going to be any fun for the radar operator. He just sits there staring at 5% of his screen estate and calls out targets via com. Unless there is some information-relay mechanic in place, that can relay the sensor data to nearby units (AA vehicles), this is not really viable. Since you cant affect the sensor mechanic via script, you can't force AI units to use passive sensors only.

 

Could provide a UI overlay that projects onto the map in a similar way to UAV terminals or Artillery computers.

 

As for the sensor mechanics, I dang well hope that there will be some scripting commands that allow us mission designers to do things like set pass/active radar modes for AI vehicles.

[snoops_213 75]

10 minutes ago, x3kj said:

 And even if they have no sensors, there is no way to relay the information from sensors to another unit right now.

I believe 

receiveRemoteTargets

reportRemoteTargets

reportOwnPosition

might be the mechanic for radar relay to AAA/SAMs. Hopefully this would work to for AI spotters and artillery. Havent  looked into this to see if it works or not but there is potential there with theses commands

[chortles 263]

On 2/3/2017 at 5:31 PM, JakobHT said:

I really would love to see the option for servers to be able to disable CCIP & targeting pods for jets server side. It seems that it would not be that big of a deal to give servers the option to disable it.

The state of things as of yesterday:

Quote

We've removed the CCIP (ground impact prediction) and TLI (target lead prediction) from cockpit and 3rd person view. For 1.68 it will be left only in actual in-game HUD and optics. Let's see if that works out. 
With release of Jets DLC we intend to make the CAS airplanes (Neophron, Wipeout) more specialized on their role. Eventually stripping them of TLI completely.
If none of this balancing does any good we'll rethink the approach.

Anecdote: the TLI remains but it seemed difficult to attain in the first place just as @oukej's earlier remark in that ticket alluded to, due to the marking requirement -- any situation where I could get the TLI was one where I could have instead begun or maneuvered to begin a missile lock -- and the sensor overhaul; when playing the fixed-wing showcase the sensor display gave me a horizontal direction to look for contacts in but I had to guesstimate or visually acquire the contact in order to point the jet's nose at it closely enough to mark the target.

[chortles 263]

On 2/4/2017 at 0:36 AM, Imperator[TFD] said:

Having just played around with the jets and I love the work so far.

 

A few issues I've noticed:

• Neophron A-G missiles cannot lock onto laser designator targets which contrasts to both the Wipeout and Buzzard A-G missiles that can.
• Buzzard and Neophron both seem to have thrust issues now where even at full throttle they barely seem to generate enough thrust to clear the larger runway on Tanoa

Curious, as a look on the dev branch config viewer indicates that the Buzzard A-G missile ammo (M_Scalpel_AT in CfgAmmo) has laserLock = 1; and both the Neophron's (Missile_AGM_01_F) and Wipeout's (Missile_AGM_02_F) have laserLock = 0; but none of these have a sensor (from the A3 Targeting config reference BIKI article: "Property is unused if the ammo uses the new Sensors (Radar, IR...) system.") with which to override those values, nor do they include the three new lock properties missileLockMaxDistance, missileLockMinDistance (meters), and/or missileLockMaxSpeed (km/h).

 

Also noticing the Buzzard/Neophron thrust problem, though it seems that the Wipeout didn't feel much if any better except that I was able to actually take off at all...

On 2/4/2017 at 2:05 AM, fn_Quiksilver said:

Even the ability to script something like this would be great. A few key on-off toggles at minimum, which we could then link via script to pre-existing assets (radar domes, etc).

On 2/4/2017 at 7:43 AM, x3kj said:

Unless there is some information-relay mechanic in place, that can relay the sensor data to nearby units (AA vehicles), this isnt compelling or usable gameplay . Since you cant affect the sensor mechanic via script, you can't force AI or player units to use passive sensors only. And even if they have no sensors, there is no way to relay the information from sensors to another unit right now.

 

No commands actually identified (although oukej previously mentioned a plan for a "confirm as hostile" command) but three days ago oukej's BIKI account added the three CfgVehicles parameters snoops_213 mentioned to the aforementioned BIKI article, reproduced here with my reformatting:

Quote

receiveRemoteTargets = true; // Says if the vehicle is able to receive targets and positions from friendly vehicles with reportRemoteTargets.

reportRemoteTargets = true; // Says if the vehicle is able to broadcast targets acquired by own sensors

reportOwnPosition = true; // Says if the vehicle is able to broadcast its own position

 

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

loving the new documentation, looking good

 

this may be out of scope, but while we're addressing some targeting mechanisms, can we get the command targetsQuery de-coupled from mapContent=1; game difficulty option?

 

Right now it only works properly if mapContent=1;

 

if mapContent=0; it only returns side unknown and side civilian data.

 

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/targetsQuery

[heavygunner 179]

3 hours ago, chortles said:

The state of things as of yesterday:

Anecdote: the TLI remains but it seemed difficult to attain in the first place just as @oukej's earlier remark in that ticket alluded to, due to the marking requirement -- any situation where I could get the TLI was one where I could have instead begun or maneuvered to begin a missile lock -- and the sensor overhaul; when playing the fixed-wing showcase the sensor display gave me a horizontal direction to look for contacts in but I had to guesstimate or visually acquire the contact in order to point the jet's nose at it closely enough to mark the target.

So Arma now gets balanced around Koth....? I wouldn't care if you could change it server side, but "balancing" it because some guys whined about it is defintely not what I expect from Arma?!

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

2 hours ago, heavygunner said:

So Arma now gets balanced around Koth....? I wouldn't care if you could change it server side, but "balancing" it because some guys whined about it is defintely not what I expect from Arma?!

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.

 

 

 

Chortles I didnt go so far as to check configs, only that the scalpels can lock laser while the Neophrons Sharur missiles cannot.

 

 

Im very curious however about these rebalancing of existing CAS aircraft loadouts. Has BI considered that changing loadouts on existing aircraft could/will alter existing missions designed and balanced around current loadouts?( playing devils advocate here)

 

Im interest to see if existing CAS will retain AA capability or if that will become the sole domain of the new premium content in theJets DLC

[heavygunner 179]

"Eventually stripping them of TLI completely.
If none of this balancing does any good we'll rethink the approach."

 

That's the part where it isn't about realism anymore, but balancing. 

[chortles 263]

What I described is from the configs, hence my surprise at you mentioning that the Sharur could not lock onto laser spots while the Macer could, because in addition all three vanilla jets have laser, NV, and passive radar sensors all inherited 1:1 with (unchanged from) those sensors' templates.

1 hour ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

Im very curious however about these rebalancing of existing CAS aircraft loadouts. Has BI considered that changing loadouts on existing aircraft could/will alter existing missions designed and balanced around current loadouts?( playing devils advocate here)

 

Im interest to see if existing CAS will retain AA capability or if that will become the sole domain of the new premium content in theJets DLC

I've heard nothing about this, are you sure you're not simply misinterpreting oukej's remark about the Neophron/Wipeout?

 

@heavygunner As for CCIP/PIP there was some earlier talk about that over in the targeting improvements thread, where you'll find the remainder of my reply.

[xxgetbuck123 945]

If KoTH is dictating if something should be in this game or not you're doing it extremely wrong. 

 

I'm yet to read a KoTH post where someone is like "Hey, thanks BI for these features, they're new and exciting and we can hopefully adapt these to our game mode" instead.. they're all like "Can you make it so you can remove this", "Having CCIP Is going to make jets OP", Now KoTH is going to have to remove jets".. all that kinda shit. 

 

This is a military sim, features should be added that reflect military simulation, not some pvp bf-esque gamemode. People should come up with their own solutions to 'balance' rather than have BI do the balancing for them. 

 

Sorry for the rant I'm just sick of people from KoTH having a cry at everything, especially jets. 

[jarrad96 1940]

So the CCIP and such are now part of the jet's glass HUD, rather than being a game HUD overlay effect? I think that's a good thing. 

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

9 hours ago, heavygunner said:

So Arma now gets balanced around Koth....? I wouldn't care if you could change it server side, but "balancing" it because some guys whined about it is defintely not what I expect from Arma?!

 

1. arma 3 is military game sold to civilian customers

 

2. most realism groups are heavily modded, and as such can customize their own experience with addons (that they were going to use anyways). its better for the community if milsim is corrective and realistic, and vanilla somewhat more accessible/casual and dare I say "balanced". real world '2035' high technology is simply not fun to fight with or against, its boring, procedural and super-lethal, not traits to build a game or DLC around. there just needs to be proper ability for milsim modders to correct and tune for realism.

 

3. KotH is largest milsim unit: https://units.arma3.com/unit/hostiletakeover   with over 2100 members :D

followed closely by second largest milsim unit "Casual Arma Players" with over 1800 members https://units.arma3.com/unit/cap

[oukej 2910]

Oh, c'mon. We're trying to do our best for both PvP and PvE.
A CAS airplane that does everything for you isn't fun in PvP (killing you all the time), neither in PvE (completing a combined arms mission on its own), neither for the pilot himself (unless the pilot is just ego trippin - and we ain't gonna support that) and nor it is realistic. I'd say game balance is equally important for everyone.

On 11. 8. 2016 at 0:51 PM, oukej said:

Reality can often be the best "game balance inspiration" after all

 

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

1 hour ago, oukej said:

Oh, c'mon. We're trying to do our best for both PvP and PvE.
A CAS airplane that does everything for you isn't fun in PvP (killing you all the time), neither in PvE (completing a combined arms mission on its own), neither for the pilot himself (unless the pilot is just ego trippin - and we ain't gonna support that) and nor it is realistic. I'd say game balance is equally important for everyone.

 

 

[xxgetbuck123 945]

2 hours ago, oukej said:

Oh, c'mon. We're trying to do our best for both PvP and PvE.
A CAS airplane that does everything for you isn't fun in PvP (killing you all the time), neither in PvE (completing a combined arms mission on its own), neither for the pilot himself (unless the pilot is just ego trippin - and we ain't gonna support that) and nor it is realistic. I'd say game balance is equally important for everyone.

 

 

Apologies if anything I said was too much. 

 

I don't know what kind of time frame you fine people are working to and what resources are available, though personally I'd think a loadout customisation menu for aircraft would bet the best form of balance for everyone, both PvP and PvE. 

 

- PvP can still embrace all the new features however restricting the aircraft's potential to certain loadouts thus lowering how OP it can be without removing nearly all the newly added systems/features and having a 'pre jet DLC' flying experience. 

- PvE/Milsim can still embrace all the new features without restricting the aircraft's potential but also allows for a more immersive experience by allowing customisation in loadouts and maintaining all new systems/features etc.. 

 

Also apologies this may have nothing really to do with sensor overhaul.