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

[oukej 2910]

58 minutes ago, TeTeT said:

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.

Looked at it

• Fixed one major flaw you've just pointed me to - in our docs and partially in our own configs . Incorrect speed units. Updated the docu. But it doesn't seem like the cause of your problems.
• The range for targets with ground background (look-down) is kinda low, but probably also not an issue for a surface asset :D
• Noticed a comment on where the components belong. SensorsManager only into the vehicle's root Components. VehicleSystemsDisplayManager into any turret where you want to specify what panels will be available, root (next to sensorsmanager) is for driver. And afaict you've got it right in the config.
• SensorDisplay - fyi there's been an improvement during the development - you can specify the ranges as an array and have them as submode rather than another display - check https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Custom_Info

Otherwise not sure. If you can run it down to one specific change in the model where the target detection stops working it could help.

[TeTeT 1523]

28 minutes ago, oukej said:

...

Otherwise not sure. If you can run it down to one specific change in the model where the target detection stops working it could help.

Thanks for checking the config and the helpful comments! I tried to reproduce it with a 'cube' object and added the lodnoshadow and autocenter attributes, but it kept working. So I cannot reproduce the issue, sorry. 

 

On using the datalink to share data between radar and aa asset, I now added a radar with a range of 20km and the mk 29 sea sparrow launcher has a 16 km range. I had hoped that via datalink the mk 29 sea sparrow can see datalink targets on the radar between 16 and 20 km, but this does not seem to be the case.

 

The sample mission has in the radar initbox 'this setVehicleRadar 1; this setVehicleReportRemoteTargets true;' and the mk 29 sea sparrow launcher has in the initbox 'this setVehicleReceiveRemoteTargets true;'. Anything obvious I'm missing or misunderstood?

[oukej 2910]

8 hours ago, TeTeT said:

The sample mission has in the radar initbox 'this setVehicleRadar 1; this setVehicleReportRemoteTargets true;' and the mk 29 sea sparrow launcher has in the initbox 'this setVehicleReceiveRemoteTargets true;'. Anything obvious I'm missing or misunderstood?

You can also use config properties like receiveRemoteTargets.

Otherwise no idea. Have you checked it from the radars PoV - does it actually get those targets or is the problem in datalink transmit only?

[snoops_213 75]

8 hours ago, TeTeT said:

 

On using the datalink to share data between radar and aa asset, I now added a radar with a range of 20km and the mk 29 sea sparrow launcher has a 16 km range. I had hoped that via datalink the mk 29 sea sparrow can see datalink targets on the radar between 16 and 20 km, but this does not seem to be the case.

 

 

Funny i have no problem with the targets showing in the tests i've been running at those ranges..... i just wish that radar could be shared and used by other vehicles so they didnt need to light up their own for targeting, but i have a feeling this would be related to the semi active radar homing issue maybe? 

[Walsh.D 0]

On 4/20/2017 at 6:18 PM, nmdanny said:

 

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

 

On 4/20/2017 at 6:18 PM, nmdanny said:

 

 

I can confirm this bug,  Had me quite vexed and I did not see mention of it in my admittedly novice searches 

 

 

 

 

[TeTeT 1523]

I've added a Darter UAV and close by some OPFOR trucks to the mission, and those are reported as white hollow squares on the Mk 29 launcher radar sensor, as should be. However the radar I tried to create does not report the planes it detects. The radar itself however detects the planes and they are presented as solid green and white triangles on its radar sensor. 

 

Only when the planes are within detection range of the Darter, they are reported on the Mk 29 launcher radar sensor.

 

Interestingly when I switch places with 'moveInGunner' between radar and Mk 29 launcher, I see the hollow triangles of the planes for a split second. 

 

I've checked the eden 'Object: Electronics & Sensors' checkboxes (Data Link Send, Data Link Receive, Data Link Position, Emission Control active) on the darter, radars and mk 29 launcher. The config also has the reportRemoteTargets and receiveRemoteTargets set.

[Strike_NOR 898]

3 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

Here.

 

I threw together a quick proof of concept video showing what ArmA may sound like with a more fleshed out cockpit warning audio.

 

I hope you enjoy:)

 

 

Pay attention to "New threat" on RWR.

 

Also enemy guns lock tone and missile fired (overlapping the BIS default one).

 

Also new is caution and warning sounds when taking damage.

 

This is NOT a mod, purely a "proof of concept" video editing with new audio.

Pasted this in from the Jets DLC official feedback.

 

This mainly effects the new Sensor overhaul. I'd like to know what you think!

 

[snoops_213 75]

4 hours ago, TeTeT said:

I've added a Darter UAV and close by some OPFOR trucks to the mission, and those are reported as white hollow squares on the Mk 29 launcher radar sensor, as should be. However the radar I tried to create does not report the planes it detects. The radar itself however detects the planes and they are presented as solid green and white triangles on its radar sensor. 

 

Only when the planes are within detection range of the Darter, they are reported on the Mk 29 launcher radar sensor.

 

Interestingly when I switch places with 'moveInGunner' between radar and Mk 29 launcher, I see the hollow triangles of the planes for a split second. 

 

I've checked the eden 'Object: Electronics & Sensors' checkboxes (Data Link Send, Data Link Receive, Data Link Position, Emission Control active) on the darter, radars and mk 29 launcher. The config also has the reportRemoteTargets and receiveRemoteTargets set.

Yes i see what you mean now, i've just noticed radar targets arent being shared over data link but the other sensors are sharing their target data.

[chortles 263]

38 minutes ago, snoops_213 said:

Yes i see what you mean now, i've just noticed radar targets arent being shared over data link but the other sensors are sharing their target data.

Am I correctly reading this as "all IR/visual-detected contacts are being shared but not those that were detected by the reporting vehicle's active and/or passive radar sensors"??? If so, calling @oukej...

[ACE-Iggy 2]

@oukej First, I would like to thank you guys for the continuous efforts that you guys put into the jets dlc. I enjoyed every Arma 3's DLC and platform update and I have to admit  that jets DLC is my favorite so far.

 

With that being said, my major concern to this DLC is that the way countermeasure works in the current game.  Like many people already addressed, countermeasures in Arma 3 are generally too effective especially for high speed air superiority fighters. You can just spam the countermeasure key and easily dodge literally every single missile that either is coming on your face or on your tail. It is almost 100% effective as long as you are not in bad shape, such as in a stall or already being heavily damaged. How does that impact the gameplay? It makes A2A combat 90% of time a repetitive, predictable experience.  A jet like F/A181 equips with 240 countermeasures in total, is capable of effectively dodging 24 AA/SAM missiles in 10-round burst. 

 

Another reason to nerf the countermeasure system is that you can easily dodge missiles by maintaining a good energy level in your maneuver. In fact, I would say it is much easier to outmaneuver incoming missile in Arma 3 than most people would call the casual shooter Battlefield 3. 

Here is me dodging 24 missiles fired from USS Freedom in about 2 minutes. Give a little practice everyone can do it with ease ;)

 

 

Overall, I think we need some tweaks in countermeasure system, especially the one on jet. It is so effective that it literally deprives the complexity and future potential of Arma air combat. In addition,  AA/SAM missile is already very easy to outmaneuver in most circumstances. Other than that, I believe this DLC will not only introduce a distinctive experience for players but also pave a solid foundation of air combat in future Arma games.

 

Cheers! 

Iggy

[chortles 263]

@ACE-Iggy I wonder how much of the issue comes down to cmImmunity values?

[snoops_213 75]

1 hour ago, chortles said:

Am I correctly reading this as "all IR/visual-detected contacts are being shared but not those that were detected by the reporting vehicle's active and/or passive radar sensors"??? If so, calling @oukej...

 I'll pay more attention next time but in this build yes it does seem that way. 

[ACE-Iggy 2]

4 minutes ago, chortles said:

@ACE-Iggy I wonder how much of the issue comes down to cmImmunity values?

Sorry I am new to scripting and mission making. Do you know how can I change the value for individual jet? cmImmunity seems to be heavily involved in  effectiveness of CM. ;) 

[Komachi 10]

1 hour ago, ACE-Iggy said:

Sorry I am new to scripting and mission making. Do you know how can I change the value for individual jet? cmImmunity seems to be heavily involved in  effectiveness of CM. ;) 

cmImmunity* is the value governing countermeasure immunity of a missile, e.g. how easy it is to spoof it's guidance system with matching countermeasure. What however seems to be the case is the missiles in the game have awfully bad maneuvrability, since missiles in real life can perform very high G maneouvers easily.

 

*To change it you would need to make an addon editing those missiles and changing their cmImmunity value

[martin_lee 33]

7 hours ago, Komachi said:

What however seems to be the case is the missiles in the game have awfully bad maneuvrability, since missiles in real life can perform very high G maneouvers easily.

 

I find myself dodging missiles by outmaneuvering them way more oftern than I could in some other flight sim. Adding in some countermeasures into the mix I could easily stay above the enemy for quite a while.

 

Just wanted to add in a bit extra information: Most modern missiles have thrust vectoring, so during motor burn they are extremely manoeuvrable, I think up to something like 30G or above. (In fact, this is one of the reasons why some short range missiles like AIM-9X could shoot at target 90 degress off your nose).

 

After the motor burn-out, however, their manoeuvrability is greatly reduced, all that's left is their aerodynamic. They are still more manoeuvrable than your jet, though (still can do around 15G I think), and is still a formidable threat.

[mjolnir66 48]

That is another thing, is there any chance for off bore missile locks?

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

17 hours ago, ACE-Iggy said:

@oukej First, I would like to thank you guys for the continuous efforts that you guys put into the jets dlc. I enjoyed every Arma 3's DLC and platform update and I have to admit  that jets DLC is my favorite so far.

 

With that being said, my major concern to this DLC is that the way countermeasure works in the current game.  Like many people already addressed, countermeasures in Arma 3 are generally too effective especially for high speed air superiority fighters. You can just spam the countermeasure key and easily dodge literally every single missile that either is coming on your face or on your tail. It is almost 100% effective as long as you are not in bad shape, such as in a stall or already being heavily damaged. How does that impact the gameplay? It makes A2A combat 90% of time a repetitive, predictable experience.  A jet like F/A181 equips with 240 countermeasures in total, is capable of effectively dodging 24 AA/SAM missiles in 10-round burst. 

 

Another reason to nerf the countermeasure system is that you can easily dodge missiles by maintaining a good energy level in your maneuver. In fact, I would say it is much easier to outmaneuver incoming missile in Arma 3 than most people would call the casual shooter Battlefield 3. 

Here is me dodging 24 missiles fired from USS Freedom in about 2 minutes. Give a little practice everyone can do it with ease ;)

 

 

Overall, I think we need some tweaks in countermeasure system, especially the one on jet. It is so effective that it literally deprives the complexity and future potential of Arma air combat. In addition,  AA/SAM missile is already very easy to outmaneuver in most circumstances. Other than that, I believe this DLC will not only introduce a distinctive experience for players but also pave a solid foundation of air combat in future Arma games.

 

Cheers! 

Iggy

 

that is somewhat concerning.

 

i hope its just values that require some post-production tweaking and not baked into the Jet/AA dynamic

[TeTeT 1523]

Is there still any chance to see some sort of jamming for electronic warfare birds and ground stations? If not, is there a way to check and manipulate a side's view as well as individual units view on targets acquired by sensors?

 

Background would be to give the EA-6B the task to duplicate sensor entries and hence simulate to 'spoof' radars, if there's no native jamming support.

[Komachi 10]

Made a quick addon to showcase SEAD capabilities of new sensors:

Currently it adds a Black Wasp with Ground Anti-Radiation Sensor (Front facing, 35* down, 8km range, horizontal sweep 120* vertical 90*) and a missile with same specs designed to specifically engage Radiation Targets (currently only has an AR sensor so if target turns off their radar the missile will most likely stray offcourse, as it doesn't have a backup sensor)

classnames:

CfgMagazines: xeno_PylonMissile_Missile_ARM_01_x1 //Maimer I x1;
CfgVehicles: B_Plane_Fighter_01_SEAD_F //F/A-181 Black Wasp II (SEAD)

Missile is equippable through pylon settings (or by using setPylonLoadout)

You can still use missile on other compatible jets (Wipeout, Gryphon), or force it on incompatible pylons, but you would have trouble locking on targets (however it is still possible by aligning your bore or TGP with your target and pressing T)               

 

[snoops_213 75]

1 hour ago, Komachi said:

Made a quick addon to showcase SEAD capabilities of new sensors:

Currently it adds a Black Wasp with Ground Anti-Radiation Sensor (Front facing, 35* down, 8km range, horizontal sweep 120* vertical 90*) and a missile with same specs designed to specifically engage Radiation Targets (currently only has an AR sensor so if target turns off their radar the missile will most likely stray offcourse, as it doesn't have a backup sensor)

classnames:

 

 

Nice little addon, and this is mostly accurate, the only other sensor they have is a gps so if the emitting source turns off it goes to last known gps postion( in reference to HARM, not sure about other countries ARMs), but for game play purposes leaving out a second sensor would be a good thing so that aa vehicles have a fighting chance.

 Ecms have been asked for in this thread and a simple yet effective solution would be if switched on multiple air targets are displayed on radar screen that need to be tracked for a few seconds to identify it as a false contact and before moving to the next. As the ecm gets closer to the radar the number of false contacts drops until it gets to a point where the radar will always "burn through" the jammer and show only the real targets. The only problem im seeing is, in my tests so far, if AI plane is above 500m and a radar is active the radars toast with most of the agms in game. Not so much if the plane gets in side sam range then the radar goes on but even then flares and chaff keep them alive long enough to kill it usually. Even the new launchers with the 8km range a plane will dump flares and get into strike distance or escape safely every time. Which leads back to a2a and sams not being effective enough to warrant ecms or arms.

As someone pointed out the 9x has a 90  degree off bore cueing system but the missile its self has an over the shoulder capacity, which means the fucker will do a 180 and chase a plane thats flown behind you. The other thing is while missiles are very agile they will loose power in a turning fight so to off set this the onboard sensors will detonate short of its taget spraying them with shrapnel. This is something that arma doesnt do, but i think it can now with the new submunitions for missiles but i see this could get very taxing on performance on large scaled events. If a basic version was done that let out a small cloud of shrapnel  this could go a long way to helping aa missiles being less borked and those near misses can become fatal. 

[arkhir 135]

23 minutes ago, snoops_213 said:

As someone pointed out the 9x has a 90  degree off bore cueing system but the missile its self has an over the shoulder capacity

R-73 is capable of high-G maneuvers and off-boresight guidance as well. In fact R-73 had these characteristics first, even before 9x was designed, let's not forget about that! :)

 

If off-bore capability won't be introduced initially, is it at least possible to somehow mod it in with current config structure?

[petek 62]

Any one else not like the decision to remove sensors from xH9 family of helos? It may not have them on the model - but neither does the Orca (I'm not suggesting removing them there either!)

[Jnr4817 215]

30 minutes ago, petek said:

Any one else not like the decision to remove sensors from xH9 family of helos? It may not have them on the model - but neither does the Orca (I'm not suggesting removing them there either!)

I'm frustrated too. The ah-9 and ghost hawk are all I really fly. Sometimes the Mohawk. The xH-9 series helo's should have sensors and flares and dynamic load-out just like any other aircraft. 

[ineptaphid 6413]

22 minutes ago, Jnr4817 said:

I'm frustrated too. The ah-9 and ghost hawk are all I really fly. Sometimes the Mohawk. The xH-9 series helo's should have sensors and flares and dynamic load-out just like any other aircraft. 

At the very least it needs a reticle on a HMD to aim weapons. If you play with crosshairs off-as I do, it is literally impossible to aim any weapons in the AH-9

[Jnr4817 215]

9 minutes ago, ineptaphid said:

At the very least it needs a reticle on a HMD to aim weapons. If you play with crosshairs off-as I do, it is impossible to aim any weapons in the AH-9

Agreed