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

[Strike_NOR 898]

55 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

Removing the "M" marker would be a good option, but I'd leave "flashing sector" warnings.

Exactly what I am hoping for! 

 

The "M" marker is the most arcade thing in the sensor suite, but I would accept it for active radar homing missiles. These are WAY harder to spoof and it would be nicely balanced if the pilot knew that A) This is a Radar Homing Missile, and B) I have to maneuver at the best possible time to defeat the missile (look at the "M")

 

 

[spanishsurfer 58]

Request BIS adjust laser targeting lock on with GBUs and other ordnance. Currently I can only lock onto lazed targets when laser is in visual range, so if view distance is 4000m I dont get a lock until 4km. I would like to see the ability to acquire the laze past visual range, way farther. This way dropping GBUS can be done at safer altitudes and distances which are only limited by the momentum of the bomb. 

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

The countermeasures seem perfectly balanced to me. There's 50/50 losses on my end. If found sometimes even dumping flares like mad and turning full speed still resulted in me getting hit. I've been hit as many times as I've dodged, and that seems fair, considering your not always in condition to put the bird down in one piece.

[Strike_NOR 898]

1 hour ago, darksidesixofficial said:

The countermeasures seem perfectly balanced to me. There's 50/50 losses on my end. If found sometimes even dumping flares like mad and turning full speed still resulted in me getting hit. I've been hit as many times as I've dodged, and that seems fair, considering your not always in condition to put the bird down in one piece.

 

While I really agree with your view on this matter, I feel inclined to say that missile type should matter. I don't know what you tested against, but if you tested, say 20 launches from Titan AA, and 20 launches from a ASRAAM, then I would expect different success rates. The air-to-air missiles should IMHO have an advantage over MANPADS. I don't mind a 50% success rate for manpads, given that they normally take two hits to kill a jet. But for AA missiles, they should either do more damage, or have a higher hit probability. That's my idea of balance.

 

Just imagine the online games where Titan AA's are readily available and cheap, versus bringing an expensive jet. You'd hope that the jet stood a better chance against handheld stuff, but other jets? That's different! 

[dragon01 902]

Quite frankly, these things move so fast that I don't see that'd affecting actual gameplay very much (you could just flare when the inner sector lights up). It'd feel better, though.

[darkChozo 133]

20 hours ago, CNutter said:

First, even with object and overall render distance set as far out as it will go, the right panel camera feed has really low render distance (same problem w/ the missile camera). Is this a known issue?

 

The info panel renders are tied to your PIP settings, same as for things like mirrors. Would be nice if they did some magic so you got more distance with a very low FOV, though.

[CNutter 24]

5 hours ago, darkChozo said:

 

The info panel renders are tied to your PIP settings, same as for things like mirrors. Would be nice if they did some magic so you got more distance with a very low FOV, though.

See that's the thing, though. I have my PIP set to ultra. Still getting a really short render distance / really close fog on the right panel cameras. :(

[xxgetbuck123 945]

1 hour ago, CNutter said:

See that's the thing, though. I have my PIP set to ultra. Still getting a really short render distance / really close fog on the right panel cameras. :(

 

Apparently full HD PIP Destroys your PC cause its too hard to render. As much as I believe that claim from everyone I would still like to see that happen in a video or something, maybe with 64bit things can change? 

[jarrad96 1940]

I've seen good quality PIP rendering in other games, without the overt stuttering that A3's PIP seems to have, even on higher PIP settings, but they are usually racing games- they do obviously have much shorter distance though. I think Insurgency also uses PIP for it's optics, or similar tech at least, and it's also limited to about 200M or so due to the map sizes. 

[chortles 263]

23 hours ago, woore said:

2) Recognizing a contrast spot != identification. And no, 2035 number won't give you that ability as well. It requires quite a work on image recognition and target database, and would be in development by 2035.

Nitpicking this one, but the typeRecognitionDistance parameter determines the distance at which for example "Helicopter" becomes "PO-30 Orca" so a visual sensor being able to identify a target to that extent can be 'balanced' by a low-enough value (in meters) and thus how close the target has to be.

[Flax 397]

I'm not sure if the PIP view distance and render quality are tied together but it would be nice even to have low quality render with a much larger view distance. After all the view in a sniper pod isn't exactly the clearest - so long as you can make out what is going on in general it would be perfect.

[TeTeT 1523]

Today I configured the Nimitz air defenses with active radar sensors. Strangely more or less the same config worked on the Phalanx and the RIM-116 RAM but not on the Mk.29 Sea Sparrow launcher. The radar would turn on on the Sea Sparrow launcher, but no aircraft would ever be detected. After a lot of fiddling I removed the attributes from geo lod of the Mk.29 Sea Sparrow launcher, lodnoshadow and autocenter. Once this was done the radar would work properly on the Sea Sparrow launcher. Not sure how the attributes relate to this? Maybe if all attributes are missing from the model lod, some sensible default values are used that make the radar work?

[venthorror 117]

After today's update:

Titan AA does not seem to hit Shikra in any situation. I'm letting AI Anti-air soldier shoot at me while I'm flying shikra.

No flares, low speed, circle around the enemy, and his missile just vanished? Tried multiple times.

It is on the radar and just when it should hit me... nothing.  (I'm not trying to evade, I'm trying to get hit)

 

Also entering TGP crashes to desktop.

 

I'm sure this is known, since we are on the DEV build we can expect things to get "broken" in the afternoon while they are being worked on.

 

Best regards!!

[oukej 2910]

2 hours ago, TeTeT said:

Today I configured the Nimitz air defenses with active radar sensors. Strangely more or less the same config worked on the Phalanx and the RIM-116 RAM but not on the Mk.29 Sea Sparrow launcher. The radar would turn on on the Sea Sparrow launcher, but no aircraft would ever be detected. After a lot of fiddling I removed the attributes from geo lod of the Mk.29 Sea Sparrow launcher, lodnoshadow and autocenter. Once this was done the radar would work properly on the Sea Sparrow launcher. Not sure how the attributes relate to this? Maybe if all attributes are missing from the model lod, some sensible default values are used that make the radar work?

Were you specifying animDirection in the radar component?
 

4 minutes ago, venthorror said:

Titan AA does not seem to hit Shikra in any situation. I'm letting AI Anti-air soldier shoot at me while I'm flying shikra.

No flares, low speed, circle around the enemy, and his missile just vanished? Tried multiple times.

It is on the radar and just when it should hit me... nothing.  (I'm not trying to evade, I'm trying to get hit)

Maybe the Titans just wanted to see the stars... fixxored, should be ok in next build(s) ;)

Can't repro the crash. Do you still have dumps or can you still reproduce it? (PM to me pls)
Anyway, thanks a lot for the reports!

[oukej 2910]

On 18. 4. 2017 at 10:59 PM, arkhir said:

Instead it has just... Done something weird, flying in an unprobable pattern. I guess it has something to do with core in-game flare simulation mechanics rather than anything else. But yeah, generally speaking I feel like this just needs some proper balancing, I played around with it for only about 1-2 hours, so I don't know.

Sometimes though it just feels like flares are impossible to defeat, and I tried different firing disciplines: rippling, dumping a couple or firing off successively with interval. Got some good splashes, but most of the time it wasn't enough to cut it.

Thanks for the details. Recently it should be - generally - harder to spoof a missile, easier to distract enemy locking you. Full burst of CM gives you better odds against, 2 bursts put u usually on the safe side quite certainly. Single mode is mainly useful against locks. Ofc this is not carved in stone, so ;)
 

On 18. 4. 2017 at 10:59 PM, arkhir said:

AA guided missile used by Cheetah. Clearly getting locked, RWR doesn't warn about the radar lock, only getting the 'incoming missile' after the missile fired. Not sure if this missile is supposed to be a heatseeker or radar-guided missile, so tried again, this time with radar-guided munition:

AMRAAM with active radar homing. Same deal: no warning before the launch, only after (no radar warning reciever warning, only missile approach warning system triggers).

Titan MANPAD heatseeking missile triggering approach warning system. No idea if this is supposed to happen or not; older jets are unable to detect MANPAD launches though, even if they can detect radar-guided missiles. Also I don't know what's wrong with these missiles, but none of them hit me despite not flaring or evading them and flying very slow (airbraking )

I would expect it to work something like this:

1) RWR lock-on tone. Warns pilot about being locked-on by a radar. This is not happening when enemy is locking us with radar-guided munitions, or any other systems utilizing radar lock-on (e.g. AAA ballistic computers tied to their radars).

You're right, Titans are heat-seekers, locking is not revealed. ARHs may be just misconfigured. Try Zephyr
As for MWR and catching all missiles in flight - it's still an abstraction. To prevent confusion we're probably about to keep it on all jets. Distances in Arma are small and once you see the (M) it's already too late...almost ;)
The idea to indicate just the direction sounds good but it may require some time.
 

On 18. 4. 2017 at 10:59 PM, arkhir said:

1. Add automatic "timed" flare release mode.
   Once activated, your aircraft is dumping a flare/chaff round every couple of seconds, untill activated again, to make it stop. This would essentially protect you from virtually any sort of heat-seeking missile, but wouldn't be enough to save you from a radar-guided missile fired from a close range

Has been mentioned couple of times. Can be added, but it won't be interruptible. Perhaps we can wait with this after the CM balancing tweaks settle down first.
 

On 18. 4. 2017 at 11:08 PM, dragon01 said:

BTW, I just tested the LGBs again. Without lock they don't hit the laser. Tested from about 2.5km up.

Hm. Have you had the laserTarget marked? The current "LOAL" requires you to have something marked first (doesn't have to be in the munition LAR). It is a limitation.
 

On 18. 4. 2017 at 11:08 PM, dragon01 said:

Also, I found that the TGP's range readout maxes out at 5km. This is a bit too short when flying at high altitude. It should be a 5-digit number and go up to 12km (max. terrain VD).

Hm, now that we have FCS with 9999 max readout...:P  

[ski2060 167]

Oukej, will there be a comprehensive database, for lack of a better word, of weapon and vehicle sensors once Jets is released?

I would think that players would like to know what ranges, angles, etc that their craft can now target at and mark targets with. Such as which jets or PGM's have Look down radars, or fixed forward Cones etc.

 

[ski2060 167]

12 Km max terrain view distance is only with no mods.  I recently found one that enables scripted View Distance out to whatever you can handle. Been running 30KM VD on one of the PMC Air combat maps.

@oukej Can you provide an example of the procedure for an LOAL munitions deployment?  I'm trying to picture how that would work out in game? 
If someone else has vid of that procedure that would be great.

[arkhir 135]

1 minute ago, oukej said:

Thanks for the details. Recently it should be - generally - harder to spoof a missile, easier to distract enemy locking you. Full burst of CM gives you better odds against, 2 bursts put u usually on the safe side quite certainly. Single mode is mainly useful against locks. Ofc this is not carved in stone, so ;)

No, thank you for the prompt response and doing what you're doing. I really hope the changes result in a good compromise between realism and balance, so everyone has a cake and eats one, too :P

 

AI is still going to be just using the flare dumps, correct? Or will we see them using other modes as well?

 

3 minutes ago, oukej said:

You're right, Titans are heat-seekers, locking is not revealed. ARHs may be just misconfigured. Try Zephyr
As for MWR and catching all missiles in flight - it's still an abstraction. To prevent confusion we're probably about to keep it on all jets. Distances in Arma are small and once you see the (M) it's already too late...almost ;)
The idea to indicate just the direction sounds good but it may require some time.

Got it. Will try later today/tommorow. Yeah, you're probably right.

Directional warning would bring in some sort of differentiation between heatseekers vs. ARHs but I wouldn't expect you guys to introduce it before the release date, I'm sure you've got truckloads of other things to do, and I wish you best of luck with that. Thank you again!

 

5 minutes ago, oukej said:

Has been mentioned couple of times. Can be added, but it won't be interruptible. Perhaps we can wait with this after the CM balancing tweaks settle down first.

Even if it won't be interruptible by a keypress then it's something worth looking into. RHS Mods has done it with their planes, and as far as I'm aware, you can interrupt it anyways by switching the CM mode :P

 

6 minutes ago, oukej said:

Hm. Have you had the laserTarget marked? The current "LOAL" requires you to have something marked first (doesn't have to be in the munition LAR). It is a limitation.

So to "LOAL" a GBU you need to target the laser marker (square symbol) but it doesn't have to be locked (square symbol with diamond)?

[ineptaphid 6413]

Since today's update, the minute I press the key to open the targeting camera, my game crashes. Anyone else having this problem? Running vanilla, tried verifying game cache...Baffled.

[dragon01 902]

Can confirm the crash. Didn't test extensively, but the last testing session ended with an attempt to go into TGP and subsequent crash.

21 minutes ago, oukej said:

Hm. Have you had the laserTarget marked? The current "LOAL" requires you to have something marked first (doesn't have to be in the munition LAR). It is a limitation.

That's exactly the problem. I can't even "mark" the darn thing. If by locking you mean having the chevrons converge on target, then it's possible from as high as you can mark it. 

 

Both missiles and bombs need to work without marking the target, without it being in sight, they even need to work without it even existing until seconds before the impact. That's how LOAL works IRL. 

 

TBH, the only time you might want to mark a laser target is when you've got multiple JTACs operating in the area or need to track somebody else's laser to line up your run. Otherwise it should be a completely optional step.

[ineptaphid 6413]

1 minute ago, dragon01 said:

Can confirm the crash. Didn't test extensively, but the last testing session ended with an attempt to go into TGP and subsequent crash.

 

Hmmm..wonder what is causing it. A shame-I was just gearing up to go on some major bombing runs :(

[TeTeT 1523]

1 hour ago, oukej said:

Were you specifying animDirection in the radar component?
 

 

No, animDirection is not defined anywhere, neither for the Mk.29 Sea Sparrow nor for the Phalanx nor for the RIM-116. I've uploaded the config to http://tetet.de/arma/arma3/nimitz/experimental/sensors/ttt_nimtech_aa_config.cpp . In the same directory is the experimental Nimitz build with the models et al, but binarized.

[nmdanny 22]

 

Has anyone managed to lase targets with the UCAV Sentinel? It doesn't seem to make a laser dot. Or maybe it has a very small range?

 

Edit: seems like it's bugged, the laser doesn't follow the TGP. I've made a bug-report here https://feedback.bistudio.com/T124470

 

[oukej 2910]

On 19. 4. 2017 at 0:25 AM, xon2 said:

Just to make sure its not me being stupid: on what condition does point track depend?

The target has to be tracked by a sensor. In the case of CAS the 'only' sensors they have are the TGPs own visual/IR tracking (in tech. terms IR and VIS sensors with animDirection on something animated by pilotCameraRotX/Y sources and with sensors angleRangeHorizontal/Vertical corresponding to the wide cam. FoV).

[nmdanny 22]

40 minutes ago, oukej said:

Hm. Have you had the laserTarget marked? The current "LOAL" requires you to have something marked first (doesn't have to be in the munition LAR). It is a limitation.

 

The problem is that you need to be fairly close to the laser spot to even just mark it, so if you're approaching from a high altitude (e.g e.g 3 km above the target) you can't mark it.

And even if you're flying low, you have to bash 'R' until you're in-range, which is annoying.

Perhaps increase the marking range?