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

[jerminhu 25]

7 hours ago, ski2060 said:

You might have been shot down by an IR missile.  In which case it's possible even with an RWR you wouldn't be notified because it won't be Radar Guided.  Or the other plane did not have it's radar on.

No. It's a human piloted Wasp II with radar on. I was shot down by an AMRAAM. When I heard the incoming missile alarm tone, it was already too late.

[chortles 263]

@jerminhu There's already a lock warning, though I don't remember ever seeing a "you're marked by this vehicle" symbol/warning.

[jerminhu 25]

4 minutes ago, chortles said:

@jerminhu There's already a lock warning, though I don't remember ever seeing a "you're marked by this vehicle" symbol/warning.

When you hear the lock warning, the enemy jet would be already sitting on your face. The RWR used on the Flanker will give a warning tone whenever the own plane is painted (not even locked) by a radar, whether it is of a friendly or a foe. But I think it is reasonable to assume that RWRs in 2035 would have the ability to differentiate between friendly and hostile radar signals.

[chortles 263]

Are you defining "painted" as 'you're appearing on an opposing force's radar' (within range and field of regard of an opposing radar sensor) or 'they selected you as their current target'? Because I believe that the latter is what the "marked by" symbology is for, and as for the former the in-game RWR acts as an 'opposing force vehicle has its radar on' indicator, admittedly irrespective of whether or not it's painting your vehicle...

[jerminhu 25]

If signals from an opposing force's radar reach you, then you are painted by it. You aren't necessarily detected by it when you are painted though. It might be due to excessive ground cluster behind you or because you're flying on the bogey's 3-9 line or the signals are too weak to reach back to the opposing force's radar. There can be a lot of possibilities.

[gatordev 219]

19 hours ago, jerminhu said:

But I think it is reasonable to assume that RWRs in 2035 would have the ability to differentiate between friendly and hostile radar signals.

 

Or the 1980s.

 

19 hours ago, jerminhu said:

If signals from an opposing force's radar reach you, then you are painted by it. You aren't necessarily detected by it when you are painted though. It might be due to excessive ground cluster behind you or because you're flying on the bogey's 3-9 line or the signals are too weak to reach back to the opposing force's radar. There can be a lot of possibilities.

 

It may be the internet that's causing a communication issue, but I think Chortles is talking about in-game, and you're focused on real-life, which might not be the same thing, due to game mechanics.

[dragon01 902]

21 hours ago, jerminhu said:

When you hear the lock warning, the enemy jet would be already sitting on your face. The RWR used on the Flanker will give a warning tone whenever the own plane is painted (not even locked) by a radar, whether it is of a friendly or a foe. But I think it is reasonable to assume that RWRs in 2035 would have the ability to differentiate between friendly and hostile radar signals.

That depends. In a situation like ArmA3, it's probably true, but what RWR can actually tell apart are radar types. If both sides happen to operate the same type of radar, you're out of luck. A Shilka is a Shilka, no matter if it's operated by CDF or the Russians, but one will shoot at you and the other won't.

 

A warning tone would depend on radar type, as well. Generally, no matter which side's radar paints you, the RWR will let you know about it.

[venthorror 117]

Buzzard radar whose range is graphically represented as 8km only seems to be 4km, and it is not picking up any targets on a greater distance than 4km.

Why would it then be equipped with Zephyr that has 10km range when radar is picking up only 4km?

Am I doing something wrong?

[chortles 263]

@venthorror If your Buzzard is flying high enough above an airborne target that drawing a straight line from your Buzzard to the target would result in the the target having the surface terrain behind it (that is, not silhouetted against open sky) then 4 km is the applicable range as described here; effective range can also be affected by the target's radarTargetSize.

[Strike_NOR 898]

I agree wholeheartedly with @jerminhu in terms of the cockpit voice messages. I think the cockpit noise is too "sterile". There's a very good reason almost all modern aircraft have warning sounds, because pilots are already multi-tasking and focusing on so many other things. We do really need a "nagging" reminder that something needs attention. The radar warning receiver system is exactly one of those things that prolong pilot life expectancy. 

 

I made a small and crude video just overlaying audio over some default ARMA 3 gameplay, to make a "proof of concept" video :) I wish the Devs would include more cockpit audio. Especially on the radar warning bit...

 

(Sorry for reposting video)

 

 

[soulis6 24]

Is there a way to make the static radar dome buildings act as a large range radar linked up with one side or another, with the next radar system? 

Maybe just a script to call that adds a fake vehicle radar on a certain side at the start? 

 

It would be really cool to have those buildings serving as a functional radar, which could link to the radar of other friendly units, and give the other side a target to destroy to actually inhibit the owners military strength.

 

Sorry if it's been asked before, searched and couldn't find anything.

[martin_lee 33]

I think someone tried to get it work a while ago on this very topic, but I couldn't quite find it for now (on a mobile phone). If I remembered correctly it is just an emitter (could be toggled of with script) but with no datalink capability. He tried to put a dummy AA vehicle inside but there was some problem I think?

 

But yeah, if say we are trying to make an invasion scenario, then there would be a big incentive to actually destory the radar site to blind the enemy. It would open up a lot of interesting possibility.

[chortles 263]

@soulis6@martin_lee Data Link capability can be disabled/enabled at mission start in the emitter and receiving vehicles' Eden Attributes window via the Data Link Receive and Send checkboxes under Object - Electronics & Sensors. As far as "blinding the enemy", there are scripting commands for disabling/enabling a vehicle's data link reception and transmission (in this latter case detected contacts and/or own position), and dev branch has enableVehicleSensor for disabling (by setting to false) individual sensors of a given vehicle. As another example of 'incentive to destroy a radar transmitter', on dev branch the Mk21 Centurion's radar coverage was narrowed from a cone to a long-range beam while the Mk49 has lost its radar altogether, so both SAM launchers now rely on their data link sensor and Data Link Receive to feed them targets detected, tracked, and transmitted by a Data Link Send-enabled vehicle on the same side, such as the Praetorian 1C or a Cheetah.

 

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

9 hours ago, chortles said:

@soulis6@martin_lee Data Link capability can be disabled/enabled at mission start in the emitter and receiving vehicles' Eden Attributes window via the Data Link Receive and Send checkboxes under Object - Electronics & Sensors. As far as "blinding the enemy", there are scripting commands for disabling/enabling a vehicle's data link reception and transmission (in this latter case detected contacts and/or own position), and dev branch has enableVehicleSensor for disabling (by setting to false) individual sensors of a given vehicle. As another example of 'incentive to destroy a radar transmitter', on dev branch the Mk21 Centurion's radar coverage was narrowed from a cone to a long-range beam while the Mk49 has lost its radar altogether, so both SAM launchers now rely on their data link sensor and Data Link Receive to feed them targets detected, tracked, and transmitted by a Data Link Send-enabled vehicle on the same side, such as the Praetorian 1C or a Cheetah.

 

 

You've missed the point of their post: giving the data-link and sensor capabilities to static objects that do not have those capabilities by default.

 

[ski2060 167]

I believe it was hinted that you would have to config a building model as a vehicle and add the proper attributes for sensors to that.  I have no clue how that would be done as I am coding inept, but I'm sure there is someone out there in Arma-ville that can make the magic happen.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

11 hours ago, ski2060 said:

I believe it was hinted that you would have to config a building model as a vehicle and add the proper attributes for sensors to that.  I have no clue how that would be done as I am coding inept, but I'm sure there is someone out there in Arma-ville that can make the magic happen.

 

I'm sure there are many community made mods that are already hard at work implementing the stuff that 1.70 and Jets introduced but that will take time.

 

Having said that a duplicate of the two radar dome structures "Land_radar_F" and "Land_radar_small_F" but with configs that feature radar and data-link capability would be fantastic.  I guess though you'd need to create them under each SIDE so for example: "Land_radar_F_B"

Then you just adjust the radar ranges for each structure to represent the size differences.  The radars would function as 'UAVs' in the same sense the current turrets do.

 

This would allow for scenarios where the radar-dome structures are actually valuable military targets and would serve a purpose other than looking pretty.  The damage/ruined models already exist so no new modelling/artist work would need to be undertaken, only config side stuff.

[the_one_and_only_Venator 163]

15 hours ago, ski2060 said:

I believe it was hinted that you would have to config a building model as a vehicle and add the proper attributes for sensors to that.  I have no clue how that would be done as I am coding inept, but I'm sure there is someone out there in Arma-ville that can make the magic happen.

 

Good idea! Challenge accepted!

[Cenwulf 40]

On 10/06/2017 at 4:18 AM, martin_lee said:

I think someone tried to get it work a while ago on this very topic, but I couldn't quite find it for now (on a mobile phone). If I remembered correctly it is just an emitter (could be toggled of with script) but with no datalink capability. He tried to put a dummy AA vehicle inside but there was some problem I think?

 

But yeah, if say we are trying to make an invasion scenario, then there would be a big incentive to actually destory the radar site to blind the enemy. It would open up a lot of interesting possibility.

 

That was me! The issues I had were that the vehicle has to be manned, you cannot use hideObject or disableSimulation as this disables the radar functionality so you are forced to use setCaptive to prevent it from being engaged by enemy AI. I tried to hide the vehicle inside the large radar dome structure but while I wasn't able to conclusively prove this, I was pretty sure that the structure blocked the radar. I could be wrong but i'm guessing the radars are configured so that hey only work with direct line of sight (as I imagine they should). So ultimately I wasn't able to get it working.

 

I imagine the best solution would be a virtual radar entity (one for each side) that could just be spawned in at any position over any object rather than configuring multiple static structures individually with radar functionality. I don't have the modding expertise to create one though (yet!).

[chortles 263]

@ski2060 @Imperator[TFD] One possibility might be to create two "emitter" static vehicles, one for each radome size, to be placed atop the vanilla terrains' pre-placed radomes, with radar/data link and a location-specific (per radome size) user action for toggling the radar on/off, this user action being placed somewhere that the player could get to if the emitters were properly placed; even if one can't "get in" these emitters could still support data link transmitting so that their detected/tracked contacts can instead be seen in data link receiving vehicles, and should be possible to configure/script them so that they are destroyed or at least brought offline (i.e. no longer transmitting to same-side receiving vehicles) if the radomes are as well.

 

If you'd like to test this method as BLUFOR controlling the emitter and without the user action, try placing a Praetorian 1C atop a radome with no ammo (possibly no weapon either), radar forced on, and Data Link Send remaining enabled, with your BLUFOR player in a vehicle with a SENS panel mode (among BLUFOR this means the Cheetah and aircraft besides the xH-9 duo) and Data Link Receive enabled.

 

[the_one_and_only_Venator 163]

1 hour ago, chortles said:

@ski2060 @Imperator[TFD] One possibility might be to create two "emitter" static vehicles, one for each radome size, to be placed atop the vanilla terrains' pre-placed radomes, with radar/data link and a location-specific (per radome size) user action for toggling the radar on/off, this user action being placed somewhere that the player could get to if the emitters were properly placed; even if one can't "get in" these emitters could still support data link transmitting so that their detected/tracked contacts can instead be seen in data link receiving vehicles, and should be possible to configure/script them so that they are destroyed or at least brought offline (i.e. no longer transmitting to same-side receiving vehicles) if the radomes are as well.

 

If you'd like to test this method as BLUFOR controlling the emitter and without the user action, try placing a Praetorian 1C atop a radome with no ammo (possibly no weapon either), radar forced on, and Data Link Send remaining enabled, with your BLUFOR player in a vehicle with a SENS panel mode (among BLUFOR this means the Cheetah and aircraft besides the xH-9 duo) and Data Link Receive enabled.

 

 

Yeah. But don't you think it looks a little weird to have a Praetorian sitting on a radar dome?

[chortles 263]

Agreed but there's no faster way to test the gameplay concept with no 'modding proficiency' required, although scripting would be needed for it to be usable for non-BLUFOR (since the default crew/cargo is B_UAV_AI) or for players to get user actions for interacting with it, i.e. toggling data link.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

9 hours ago, chortles said:

Agreed but there's no faster way to test the gameplay concept with no 'modding proficiency' required, although scripting would be needed for it to be usable for non-BLUFOR (since the default crew/cargo is B_UAV_AI) or for players to get user actions for interacting with it, i.e. toggling data link.

 

Placing the turrets as empty and then dragging an Opfor/Indfor unit into the turret switches its side.

[crewt 31]

18 hours ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

Placing the turrets as empty and then dragging an Opfor/Indfor unit into the turret switches its side.

 

_g = creategroup east; 
(crew this) joinSilent _g;

 

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

4 hours ago, crewt said:

 

_g = creategroup east; 
(crew this) joinSilent _g;

 

Yup this is how I do it as well personally but for less vested scripters it might be easier to do my other method.

[Bruno Morais 0]

 

What is "assigned target"?