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

[the_one_and_only_Venator 163]

6 hours ago, ski2060 said:

Question:  Could the CUP and RHS Radar Towers/Antenna be set up to function as Radar Emitters with Data Transmission to SIDE for each Side?
Would they have to be configured as AI Crewed vehicles like the Vanilla Satic Launchers from JETS to work?
Or can they be set up to work without having AI crew?

Some of them have rotating Antenna arrays.  Would those be eligible for configuration to an Emitter AS IS?

 

They have to be crewed by someone or something and also be configured as vehicles. Otherwise the whole sensor stuff is not going to work.

[Alwarren 2767]

10 hours ago, ski2060 said:

Question:  Could the CUP and RHS Radar Towers/Antenna be set up to function as Radar Emitters with Data Transmission to SIDE for each Side?
Would they have to be configured as AI Crewed vehicles like the Vanilla Satic Launchers from JETS to work?
Or can they be set up to work without having AI crew?

Some of them have rotating Antenna arrays.  Would those be eligible for configuration to an Emitter AS IS?

 

I guess they would need AI "pilots" like the carrier defenses, but actually, this is a cool idea... 

[Strike_NOR 898]

@ski2060 

 

This was one of the first ideas I came up with when sensors upgrade was first announced. A few of my hopes being:

 

• Semi-Active guidance (Vehicle/Antenna with fire-control radar guides a weapon which does not have its own sensor. Like AIM-7 "Sparrow" or the R-27 "Alamo")
• Early warning radars in the form of antenna, dome or aerial (Beriev A-50, E-3A AWACS) etc..
• Anti-Radiation missiles, like the HARM missile or KH-58U. They will not seek physical objects so to speak, but radar emitting sources. They are perfect for SEAD operations. I think the HARM can even be pre-programmed to fly to a GPS location and search for emitters in an area. This way you don't have to designate a target, you just fire blindly and it will hunt anything that uses an active radar.
• Advanced Data-link guidance. A target spotted by tracking radar can relay target information through data-link. Any other vehicle, compatible with the datalink network, on the right faction, may target and fire on the datalinked target*

 

*The hard thing about this form of datalink is that if say, a Blufor Cheetah used its radar to track an enemy chopper, then it would be shared with ALL blufor units that can receive datalink. While this is perfectly fine, I think, it is not realistic or "fair" that any allied vehicle with semi-active radar missiles can now fire on it. The datalink communications should therefore ideally use different "encryption" in order to work with certain weapons imho. It would be rather boring if a shilka could datalink for an S-500 missile system on the other side of the map and guide that thing to target.

 

My proposed solution to this problem is to have a parameter in the electronic sensors attributes to allow data "encryption keys" to be manually entered. It would be a normal textbox window that you can enter as many codes as you want for a given vehicle, for instance:

 

One search/track radar named "Alpha" is on the map, in addition to a circling fighter named "Bravo", and a distant sam launcher called "Sierra". There is one hostile aircraft circling the map called "Tango". Alpha can see the enemy at all times, Bravo every now and then (limited radar LOS) and Sierra can never see the hostile aircraft.

 

In the sensor encryption field of Bravo it says "LK16", in the field of Sierra it says "SAM_RDR", and the following examples are entered in the field of Alpha - the search/track radar:

 

 

"Alpha" encryption keys:

 

ex1: *Blank field* = Vanilla datalink (all vehicles on same side share target info regardless and may fire their weapons on datalinked target).

 

ex2: "LK16" = All vehicles share datalink target position, but only vehicles with matching encryption "LK16" may fire upon that datalink target. In this case both Bravo and Sierra can see the target on their maps, but only Bravo can acquire a lock with datalink weapons.

 

ex3: "LK16; SAM_RDR" = All vehicles share datalink target position, and now both Bravo (LK16) and Sierra (SAM_RDR) may acquire a lock and fire on the datalinked target.

 

 

 

In this way, you can set up a sam-battery that is 100% reliant on it's own fire-control radar. If that single radar goes down, then the entire battery is inoperable. If there is no encryption, then any other radar sensor anywhere on the map with datalink switched on will act as a sam-battery fire-control radar, which is just unrealistic and impossible to defeat from the enemy side.

 

You can even set up multiple batteries, and give them each their own encryption, or have one fire-control radar provide guidance for multiple batteries. 

 

This could either be set up in the mission editor, made as an in-game action (set code on the fly) or a combination of both. A third possibility is to have it adjusted at modder level, in the addon config. This could lead to conflicting issues with other mods or other compatibility issues though.

[xon2 102]

@oukej

 

On 28/04/2017 at 1:42 AM, oukej said:

That shouldn't be the case. As long as the target is within sensors FoV (in this case same as the camera fov) and detection conditions are met (speed, range...) it should automatically pop up on the display and you should be able to acquire it by pressing "R" (Next Target (veh)). Or by Lock target action - which marks a target in the center of view/under cursor (which, as I've mentioned in my prev post.,

 

But also back to vis. spectrum - some environments are just too hot.
Truth is, currently we only have IR guided Macers. We want to eventually add variants.

 

Is this still planned for arma 3, and if so, will it be added with one of the last two BIS dlcs, or is it something that might slip in indepently?

 

For the Macers, manual guidance like the DAGR and Scalpel missiles would be fine to get on cold targets. Its a pity you cannot target cold, imobile targets anymore. No ''magic lock anything'' is great, but limiting the macers to IR only is kinda a waste and not true to the real thing. Hope this is still on the agenda. The locking mechanic is already in the game via 'manual guidance' as with afore mentioned DAGRs and Scapels.

[snoops_213 75]

On 11/12/2017 at 5:54 PM, Alwarren said:

 

I guess they would need AI "pilots" like the carrier defenses, but actually, this is a cool idea... 

Yep set it up as an  autonomous  static vehicle, add the radar component  to it and auto set the datalink in the config and its good to go. They work good! 

 

3 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

@ski2060 

 

This was one of the first ideas I came up with when sensors upgrade was first announced. A few of my hopes being:

 

• Semi-Active guidance (Vehicle/Antenna with fire-control radar guides a weapon which does not have its own sensor. Like AIM-7 "Sparrow" or the R-27 "Alamo")
• Early warning radars in the form of antenna, dome or aerial (Beriev A-50, E-3A AWACS) etc..
• Anti-Radiation missiles, like the HARM missile or KH-58U. They will not seek physical objects so to speak, but radar emitting sources. They are perfect for SEAD operations. I think the HARM can even be pre-programmed to fly to a GPS location and search for emitters in an area. This way you don't have to designate a target, you just fire blindly and it will hunt anything that uses an active radar.
• Advanced Data-link guidance. A target spotted by tracking radar can relay target information through data-link. Any other vehicle, compatible with the datalink network, on the right faction, may target and fire on the datalinked target*

 

*The hard thing about this form of datalink is that if say, a Blufor Cheetah used its radar to track an enemy chopper, then it would be shared with ALL blufor units that can receive datalink. While this is perfectly fine, I think, it is not realistic or "fair" that any allied vehicle with semi-active radar missiles can now fire on it. The datalink communications should therefore ideally use different "encryption" in order to work with certain weapons imho. It would be rather boring if a shilka could datalink for an S-500 missile system on the other side of the map and guide that thing to target.

 

 

Point one wont happen has already been ruled out due to engine limitation.

Point two is easy enough to do with the model, hell i use the X-44 as a test subject for this, dont look pretty but works.

Point three see a page or so back someone did release one already. Not as advanced as a HARM but that couldnt happen anyway without scripting 

The last part is not accurate of the current situation, the missile itself has to be data linked enabled to be able to target the data linked threats, and even then they have to have a valid LOS to fire. 

4 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

@ski2060 

 

My proposed solution to this problem is to have a parameter in the electronic sensors attributes to allow data "encryption keys" to be manually entered. It would be a normal textbox window that you can enter as many codes as you want for a given vehicle, for instance:

 

One search/track radar named "Alpha" is on the map, in addition to a circling fighter named "Bravo", and a distant sam launcher called "Sierra". There is one hostile aircraft circling the map called "Tango". Alpha can see the enemy at all times, Bravo every now and then (limited radar LOS) and Sierra can never see the hostile aircraft.

 

In the sensor encryption field of Bravo it says "LK16", in the field of Sierra it says "SAM_RDR", and the following examples are entered in the field of Alpha - the search/track radar:

 

 

"Alpha" encryption keys:

 

ex1: *Blank field* = Vanilla datalink (all vehicles on same side share target info regardless and may fire their weapons on datalinked target).

 

ex2: "LK16" = All vehicles share datalink target position, but only vehicles with matching encryption "LK16" may fire upon that datalink target. In this case both Bravo and Sierra can see the target on their maps, but only Bravo can acquire a lock with datalink weapons.

 

ex3: "LK16; SAM_RDR" = All vehicles share datalink target position, and now both Bravo (LK16) and Sierra (SAM_RDR) may acquire a lock and fire on the datalinked target.

 

 

 

In this way, you can set up a sam-battery that is 100% reliant on it's own fire-control radar. If that single radar goes down, then the entire battery is inoperable. If there is no encryption, then any other radar sensor anywhere on the map with datalink switched on will act as a sam-battery fire-control radar, which is just unrealistic and impossible to defeat from the enemy side.

 

You can even set up multiple batteries, and give them each their own encryption, or have one fire-control radar provide guidance for multiple batteries. 

 

This could either be set up in the mission editor, made as an in-game action (set code on the fly) or a combination of both. A third possibility is to have it adjusted at modder level, in the addon config. This could lead to conflicting issues with other mods or other compatibility issues though.

I'd love to see an expansion of the data link features but doubt very much thats going to happen and especially  not to the complexity to which you describe. My solution would be to have additional parameters under send and receive. Under send should be the ability for Air or Ground only target sending as well as sending only tracking data vs tracking plus targeting data. And similar setting under the receive parameter. The Position parameter should show the unit on the map as well as the RWR/Sensor display.  With Tanks DLC in the works these and a rework of the way the map works could simulate the current /next gen battlefield networking that is becoming a big part of modern warfare. In beginner difficulty, the map auto shows everything the player sees/ knows about so it shouldnt be a stretch to have a similar "feature" added to maps in armored vehicles with a tab for an on or off option like the rest of the data link options and only vehicles should have this as man class and radio/backpacks cant use the sensors at all so infantry shouldnt have access to data link positions although it would be cool if they could. The problem is all vehicles that would require this would need some sort of "sensor" configured in order to be able to share any data.  

 

One thing that is bugging me was the removal of auto side recognition for data linked targets. I know this seems over powered and it probably is but............... is that not the point of the data linking in the first place? Was it not designed so that everyone that was hooked into the network could "see" and share  everyone else's target data? 

[ski2060 167]

Pooks SAMS does a god job at implementing Radar and Launch sites, but it is a large download and not a lot of people will want to use a mod like it due to the realistic ranges and site scripting.
 

Now that Arma 3 is coming to the end of it's Official Dev Cycle with no more BIS DLC being developed after TANKS, the community will have to carry it until Arma 4 or the next Sandbox MilSim.

Small mods that can take advantage of and leverage the sensors we currently have in the game will help. 

I am no coder, but I think I may have to delve in and see what can be done for RHS/CUP Terrains Radar sites.  If anyone can direct me to the BIS wiki page showing how to configure models as vehicles, that would be appreciated.

[xon2 102]

So i finally read the 'Sensor Overhaul OPREP' and was noticing that i never get those red 'confirmed hostile' symbols on the radar in game. In January Oukej mentioned that ''...IDing targets gameplay was something we tried to emphasize. We've actually got rid of the automatic enemy confirmation.'' and went on to state that ''...Allied (green) are only contacts from the same side. Contacts from a friendly side will still be shown white. Red contacts - and this is still just a plan - are only those that have been "confirmed as hostile" by a script command. This is to allow scenario creators come up with either pre-determined scenario setting and ROE or to come up with a dynamic system for confirmation of enemies.''

 

So, even if i visually identify an enemy vehicle close up, it is still shown as white atm. Is that the behaviour you guys experience as well or is somehting up with my install? I've looked but did not find the script command to unambigously identify a unit as hostile on the wiki, could someone kindly point me to it?

[Sniperwolf572 758]

15 minutes ago, xon2 said:

So i finally read the 'Sensor Overhaul OPREP' and was noticing that i never get those red 'confirmed hostile' symbols on the radar in game. In January Oukej mentioned that ''...IDing targets gameplay was something we tried to emphasize. We've actually got rid of the automatic enemy confirmation.'' and went on to state that ''...Allied (green) are only contacts from the same side. Contacts from a friendly side will still be shown white. Red contacts - and this is still just a plan - are only those that have been "confirmed as hostile" by a script command. This is to allow scenario creators come up with either pre-determined scenario setting and ROE or to come up with a dynamic system for confirmation of enemies.''

 

So, even if i visually identify an enemy vehicle close up, it is still shown as white atm. Is that the behaviour you guys experience as well or is somehting up with my install? I've looked but did not find the script command to unambigously identify a unit as hostile on the wiki, could someone kindly point me to it?

 

Your install is fine, it's working as intended. The script command should be confirmSensorTarget.

[xon2 102]

thx mate. And identifying a unit with a tgp will not 'confirm it as hostile' for me and all datalinked parties? So the script command is the only way i would ever see a read enemy confirmation? Kinda makes not a lot of sense to me. I think its fine that stuff is not automatically confirmed, but if you look at it directly and visually identify it, then there should at least be a keybinding to mark it as hostile.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

14 minutes ago, xon2 said:

thx mate. And identifying a unit with a tgp will not 'confirm it as hostile' for me and all datalinked parties? So the script command is the only way i would ever see a read enemy confirmation? Kinda makes not a lot of sense to me. I think its fine that stuff is not automatically confirmed, but if you look at it directly and visually identify it, then there should at least be a keybinding to mark it as hostile.

 

That should be correct, yes. I think they wanted to do something, but in the end they left it as an exercise for the reader to implement any kind of hostile marking as they didn't want to open the "what is considered a bulletproof hostile identification" and "friendly pilot piloting a hostile factions plane" cans of worms.

[xon2 102]

Got ya. Could easily be solved with a mark as hostile keybinding i reckon. Which of course means you better have no bums on your team falsly marking greens as reds of course!

[snoops_213 75]

On 10/21/2017 at 4:26 AM, oukej said:

Mainly the missile is now able to lock onto the target provided by the said radar. Previously was only possible in some form with autoSeekTarget. Locking also allows the AI to utilize the feature.
 

 

Is it possible to make AI use the weapons without LOS? And without forcing them to fire the weapon with scripts? Will any of the ground vehicles be getting some of the sensors in the Tanks DLC? 

[Bruno Morais 0]

 

the flairs are running for missile IR and missile RADAR?

[the_one_and_only_Venator 163]

5 hours ago, Bruno Morais said:

 

the flairs are running for missile IR and missile RADAR?

Yeah. You can use them against both. But radar homing missiles are in general less affected by them in ArmA.

[SuicideKing 233]

8 hours ago, Bruno Morais said:

 

the flairs are running for missile IR and missile RADAR?

Both flares and chaff are released.

[SuicideKing 233]

Hey @oukej, any hope of seeing anti-radiation missiles before/with the Tanks release? :3

[the_one_and_only_Venator 163]

4 hours ago, SuicideKing said:

Hey @oukej, any hope of seeing anti-radiation missiles before/with the Tanks release? :3

Until then you could give this a try.

A small SEAD missile addon by me:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1186658763

 

It would be actually very easy to put something like this in the game since it took me just a few hours after release of the jets DLC and I had basically no idea of scripting before. It is a small config that uses the sensor system introduced with jets DLC.

[the_one_and_only_Venator 163]

Can anyone confirm that the Scalpel and Jian missiles are not locking onto targets anymore in latest Dev branch? The square icon is there and the rhombus edges are also there but doesn't get smaller and the missile doesn't lock but is just manual controlled.

 

[the_one_and_only_Venator 163]

10 hours ago, the_one_and_only_Venator said:

Can anyone confirm that the Scalpel and Jian missiles are not locking onto targets anymore in latest Dev branch? The square icon is there and the rhombus edges are also there but doesn't get smaller and the missile doesn't lock but is just manual controlled.

 

 

Correction:

After some testing I found out that if 

manualControl = 1;

the missile has to be pointed directly at the target no matter how the sensors are configured. Even a tiny degree off will prevent the missile from locking.

[oukej 2911]

WIP :)

[jone_kone 158]

Any chance for getting Rocket pods and MK82 bombs available as payload options for the Jets dlc jets? They are multirole fighters right? ;)

 

EDIT: "Also, the MK82s are missing the ccip crosshair in tgp view." <- this seems to have been fixed. Thanks and Sorry. :)

[NealXu 0]

Hi..i think variable reckognition-distance are a good idea as well. you might also want to consider having the sensor sweep the arc and have new targets only detected when "swept" with the sensor. once the system works very well for accesibilty and gameplay, you could also add further randomization to detection, like random detection delays. obvisously you should be careful with these, as it might seem buggy to unexperienced pilots.

 

china pcb assembly

[oukej 2911]

6 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

• Titan AA spoofed by IR easily, but only select aircraft have missile warning system (unarmed aircraft for instance).
• Titan AA missile less maneuverable, to balance against no pilot warning and make the lock-and fire more skill-based (you have to wait for the right moment to fire).
• When missiles are spoofed, they don't deviate course very much (to increase hit probability on stationary aircraft, or head on attacks)
• Proximity detonation range = splash damage outer radius (if you see the missile explode, then the aircraft has sustained some level of damage)
• Proximity detonation mechanic (missile explodes when distance to target stops decreasing, and starts increasing) to insure detonation as close as possible to aircraft.
• Aircraft in general, should be damaged beyond saving at 1 direct hit (impact detonation). They should be able to sustain one close proximity detonation but still fly home badly damaged.
• Introduce new missile for Anti-Air vehicles. Like a SRAAM or something radar guided. A missile with much higher hit-probability, but warns the pilots at time of lock/launch.
• Fires.

Love them bulletpoints :) Will try to answer what I can atm

• Missile warnings - we probably won't be removing the MWR but there's now a way a limit distance how far the vehicle can detect an incoming missile.
• Maneuverability - can be adjusted. The key for configuration was that if the target is flying straight the missile should be able to reliably hit any target that can be locked. For the CSAT short-range, high off-boresight missile this means quite some aerobatics. But it should still be possible to outmaneuver both SR and MR missiles - the missiles are flying towards your "future position". Fly perpendicular to the missile, wait for it to get close and pull up at the right moment. Remember that few seconds after the launch the missiles are just 'gliding'. Arma missiles don't have boost sustain engines.
• Spoofing - no change planned in here, sorry.
• Proximity - currently the range for proximity explosions is set to ~20m for short-range and ~30m for medium-range missiles. The indirect damage should still harm the plane if the missile explodes at this distance.

3 hours ago, Beagle said:

Smoke does not work at all. You can lock and regain lock through smokecreens all day depite not beeing able to see through wit TI. (1.80, all kinds of Titan AT platforms)

Are you certain about being able to gain lock (mark the target) through the smoke screen with IR or visible spectrum sensors?
Smoke by itself doesn't break the lock (the "countermeasure ammo" that is released together with smoke however does). The system's not ideal. But you shouldn't be able to mark/lock a target when LoS is blocked by a smoke.
 

[Beagle 684]

16 minutes ago, oukej said:

Are you certain about being able to gain lock (mark the target) through the smoke screen with IR or visible spectrum sensors?
Smoke by itself doesn't break the lock (the "countermeasure ammo" that is released together with smoke however does). The system's not ideal. But you shouldn't be able to mark/lock a target when LoS is blocked by a smoke.
 

I would not have posted that when I had not tested it extensivly. I'm quite sure something is wrong with the vehicle monted smoke screen. Neither does it brake a lock, nor does it prevent from locking again after reload.

[scavenjer 112]

39 minutes ago, oukej said:

-snip-

Thanks for answering!

 

I like that you can configure the distance of MWR but most server owners simply don't know about these features (like tank FCS max speed) or simply don't bother.

 

I have definitely been able to lock through smoke before, although it happens less than an ATGM simply flying through smoke while still tracking the target.

 

Also, I really really hope there's some kind of an APS/warning system for MBTs coming up in tanks DLC.

 

Currently a tank is just waiting to get picked off by helicopters or jets while the tigris can do very little about either. (Reliably and at 3km+ for Heli and 1.5km+ for jets)