Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Regarding the question about "ambiguous / friendly / enemy".  IFF systems have the ability to identify friend or foe (obviously) and that is secondary to a radar lock.  It would therefore be nice if we could have the ability to switch on / switch off the IFF so that if the IFF is 'off' the radar would show all targets as "ambiguous" and only show as "enemy" or "friendly" if IFF is utilized against that target.  I could see this implemented as you lock the target, then perform an IFF interogation, at which time the target either turns green, red, or stays white if the target has no IFF system.

 

 

Missile RWR - I have added to my SAM pack missiles these radar settings which lets you perform some things with jamming scripts.  Instead of a magic "always jams the missile", the scrips will behave differently based on the missile characteristics.  I request to have the following added to the missile's ammo config:


 

RadarCanHOJ: 1/0  Some missiles like the SA10, AIM-120, etc. can home-on-jam.  This obviously improves the missile's chances at overcoming the jamming vehicle's defense.  It also allows these missiles to "passively" guide to the target so that the control vehicle can switch off their radar.
RadarFrequency: (String)  The missile's radio frequency in the emissions spectrum.  I have added this to my SAM pack's missiles for RWR scripting purposes.  There are UHF/VHF/SHF ranges and while many modern missiles operate in the SHF range, there are distinct layers within that range.  I suspect that modern RWR systems have the ability to be attuned to these different frequency ranges so that the RWR can show specific information about the threat.  My EF2000's RWR used an array to get the missile type.  It would be better IMO if we could interrogate the missile config's value.
RadarFrequencyHop: 1/0   The newer missiles can change their frequency in-flight so that the target cannot easily jam the guidance radar.  Older systems such as the SA-2 or MIM-23 HAWK that use a "fixed" frequency are much easier to jam since the radar frequencies are known.  The ability to hop frequencies makes the missile much harder to jam, effectively lowering chances for any jamming/spoofing solutions to succeed.

 

 

It appears there is a new value to detect if the vehicle's radar is currently on/off.  This switch and the following proposed value would be of benefit for radar-homing missiles.

 

A new radar "emitter" value so that ground vehicles can be targeted by Anti-Radar homing Missiles such as the AGM-88.  The value would effectively designate the vehicle as a "radar vehicle" so to speak so that ARM solutions such as found in my SAM pack would be possible.  My ARM script solution currently assumes the vehicle is actively tracking targets.  If the apparently new value "is radar on/off" can be queried via script, then that could be used in tandem with "isRadarEmitter" to allow these special missile types to be employed against the radar targets, which in theory will not be able to be targeted via IR homing, etc. since they are usually a static vehicle with a deployed radar array:

isRadarEmitter: 1/0   This can be used with the DLC's new "is the radar on/off" flag to script anti-radar missile attacks
RadarEmitterPower:  (float)   This value can be used to specify how powerful the radar is.  This could be accounted for by a plane's jamming system or the ARM missile's homing system, so that a more powerful radar beam will be more difficult to spoof, and at the same time be easier to target by an anti-radar missile (again such as the AGM-88).


 

Another one for the vehicles - if the aircraft has a jamming system, the jammer could be switched to active in the event of an incomingMissile EH or similar.  It is assumed the jamming systems are not "always on" and require some level of human interaction.  I have a script being tested by some of the upcoming plane mods that allows a jammer to function, and takes into account the above values for my SAM pack's missiles.  Therefore it isn't a basic "magic missile jammer" rather it is an active jammer that alters missiles based on those aforementioned values, and with varying results.  Some missiles are deflected more than others.  The AI "brain" of the missile attempts to reset to the target upon deflection, and the results are impressive... some missiles are easily spoofed, while others are incredibly difficult to spoof.

 

jammerOn:  1/0   Ideally we can query the value of the plane's jamming system.  This would enable jamming solutions as described.

 

I know for a fact that many if not most air radars have the ability to use the radar system to direct the "beam" toward a radar source that is locking them... a "home on jam" so to speak on the plane.  This is how a pilot would "break the lock" of an enemy.  I would like to see the ability to attempt to break the enemy's lock on your plane.  I am not sure how this would be implemented, because one would expect that your plane's radar / jamming system would have to be attuned or "aimed" at the enemy target.  Perhaps give a base value to radars (the radarEmitterPower I suggested) and use that to calculate the chances of breaking a lock.  If the target vehicle can overcome the targeting vehicle's lock, it would be like the "magic flares" in vanilla.  There would have to be some kind of factor to weigh in the check, with the balance being in favor of the lock remaining on the target.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, maffa said:

If a average jet is a F16, its normal cruise speed is mach 1, which means it travels 340km per second.

 

You got sth. wrong there. 340m/s seems more realistic then 340km/h.

Apart from that, i mostly agree with you. I am not sure if fast Fighter Jets fit well within arma du to engine, netcode, gameplay concerns. I am mostly excited about the new sensors being applied to helicopters.

But maybe the devs surprise us with Jets, that work well within arma. i could think of medium speed, VTOL multirole jets for example... or light attack aircrafts, like a modernized ov-10 bronco, or a a-29 super tucano. These would work very well within the engine constrains and would make sense in the armaverse for asymetrical warfare on tanoa for example...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, twistking said:

 

You got sth. wrong there. 340m/s seems more realistic then 340km/h.

Apart from that, i mostly agree with you. I am not sure if fast Fighter Jets fit well within arma du to engine, netcode, gameplay concerns. I am mostly excited about the new sensors being applied to helicopters.

But maybe the devs surprise us with Jets, that work well within arma. i could think of medium speed, VTOL multirole jets for example... or light attack aircrafts, like a modernized ov-10 bronco, or a a-29 super tucano. These would work very well within the engine constrains and would make sense in the armaverse for asymetrical warfare on tanoa for example...

 

 

yeah, got confused with mph and kn (which are both on the lower half of 300). And i even went and rechecked all the numbers to be sure...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's your opinion on the seperated TV/IR sensors? do you think it benefits gameplay, to have these two as distinct sensors?

 

i am not on dev branch, so i am only theorizing, but wouldn't it make sense to have TV and IR in one sensor and have this combined optical sensor perform differently at different ranges and visibilty conditions?

far ranges and bad visibility (night, weather etc.) -> only detection of heat sources

near ranges AND good visibilty -> additionally detection of targets, that are not heated up

 

the config could stay more or less the same, only the arc of the two sensors would have to be identical and there would only be one combined "optical" sensor on the sensor view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While your criticism has valid points. 

 

You need to ask.what is the alternative?  Not bother. 

 

These dlcs were not conjured in some board room out of thin air. 

 

People really wanted these dlcs and features.  Bis listened. Look at the new roadmap. 

 

Jets dlc- more jets lots of cool features attached . 

Tanks dlc -more tanks lots of cool features attached. 

Tac ops dlc-..... 

Make Arma 64 bit..

Sound overhaul continuing. 

 

I've missed stuff here. But this isn't a roadmap this is a big wishlist coming to life.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, amazing new features! I hope there will be appropriate scripting commands too. Thanks!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, twistking said:

what's your opinion on the seperated TV/IR sensors? do you think it benefits gameplay, to have these two as distinct sensors?

 

i am not on dev branch, so i am only theorizing, but wouldn't it make sense to have TV and IR in one sensor and have this combined optical sensor perform differently at different ranges and visibilty conditions?

far ranges and bad visibility (night, weather etc.) -> only detection of heat sources

near ranges AND good visibilty -> additionally detection of targets, that are not heated up

 

the config could stay more or less the same, only the arc of the two sensors would have to be identical and there would only be one combined "optical" sensor on the sensor view.

 

Sincerely, the more stuff can be output in order to be outlined and singled out by modders, the better. 

 

I suspect that BI will put out the kind of near futuristic/prototypical/once seen in a blueprint proposal and forgot in someone's hard disk kind of aircrafts, so it's hard to tell if they are really going to replicate the kind of actual radar technologies of AIM-120 Mavericks and Sidewinders (just to name three weapon systems that work with completely three locking methods). In a way, i feel like the radar system whould be attached to the weapon, and not to the vehicle: if you have an AIM-120 you need a targeting computer on board, because the AMRAAM need the help of the plane's radar to keep the lock until it's close enough to engage its own, while the Sidewinder just races after the heat signature you linked it up to and goes off on its own.  TV is very much HUD dependant, just think of the Javelin or TOWs. Heat tracking systems can be both linked to HUD cues or to radars: heat seeking weaponry is short ranged for aerial purposes because an AIM-120 being long range can travel for almost 50km (again, what are we talking about here?), and this also means that it is unlikely that anyone will have the time to lock multiple targets at a given time (while for active radar targets you wait for many seconds and minutes and can and will lock several targets at the same time: IIRC an F15 can lock up to 8 targets in TWS. So all in all i'd place TV on HUD, IR on short range radar and LR on LR radar. But thats me. I dont really know how they plan to do things, nor what's the base of their project.

 

16 minutes ago, teabagginpeople said:

While your criticism has valid points. 

 

You need to ask.what is the alternative?  Not bother. 

 

These dlcs were not conjured in some board room out of thin air. 

 

People really wanted these dlcs and features.  Bis listened. Look at the new roadmap. 

 

Jets dlc- more jets lots of cool features attached . 

Tanks dlc -more tanks lots of cool features attached. 

Tac ops dlc-..... 

Make Arma 64 bit..

Sound overhaul continuing. 

 

I've missed stuff here. But this isn't a roadmap this is a big wishlist coming to life.

 

 

Ships! But also tanks patrol etc! Everything is more relevant than jets! You cannot fit jets in the dimension Arma plays! It smells as fake and gamey as Battelfields'!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ships are huge and would require a large amount of time and resources. Jets, on the other hand, are much smaller and by this point, really need an overhaul. Especially flight model, but also sensors and damage models, which is what is being done now. ArmA3 maps are a bit too small for real jet missions, but that doesn't have to prevent them from being used, especially ones like Harrier of F-35. Ships just sit in the water and fire missiles. A carrier would be best, but to have proper carrier operations, you need jets to take off from it...

 

BIS should look into making cargo planes and landing vessels, but fighter planes are also a valid area to improve in the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they can't. "Radio Detection And Ranging System" (yes, this was originally an acronym). None of those letters stand for "Recognition". IFF is a completely separate system that can be linked to radar, but it needs to be present and turned on (usually not the case on military aircraft). It would be nice to have on planes, but it should be off by default (except on civilian planes).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dragon01 said:

Ships are huge and would require a large amount of time and resources. Jets, on the other hand, are much smaller and by this point, really need an overhaul. Especially flight model, but also sensors and damage models, which is what is being done now. ArmA3 maps are a bit too small for real jet missions, but that doesn't have to prevent them from being used, especially ones like Harrier of F-35. Ships just sit in the water and fire missiles. A carrier would be best, but to have proper carrier operations, you need jets to take off from it...

 

BIS should look into making cargo planes and landing vessels, but fighter planes are also a valid area to improve in the game. 

A LHA, USS Khe Sanh, was a stationary object on Utes' waters: that was the smallest map on A2 and can be used as a prototype for all the others. All you need is a LHD with helicopter pads, a cargo bay and a wet bay. It's a mobile base and you get to treat it as such, expecially since there's enough firepower to take it down.

 

Modders tried in all these years to add naval assets to the game, with mixed results. Burnes was almost able to provide the community with two landing boats, but had a hardware breakdown and lost everything. A third of all vanilla maps have sea on them: without ships it's almost wasted space. Beaching is a splendid game scenario: marines pouring vehicles and men off their LCACs, LCUs and AAVs.

 

There's literally no need for jets on arma. it doesnt have a dimension that allows for jets to operate. No jet warfare happen in the same piece of ground where it sits. Maybe only in Pusan, during the korean war, jets took off and landed as close as 50 km from the frontlines, but that was a desperate situation; Saddam Hussein preferred bury his Migs on a very similar situation. I cannot see a jet taking off Altis, to travel 3 km dropping off his ordinance and then fly back to base: it's against everything Arma is about, it's just BF madness. The same goes for cargo planes: cargo planes are needed as international means of transportation, and in some cases intercontinental. Whatever a C130 or a A400M could do on Altis or Tanoa, a helo can and will do better without breaking immersion.

Edited by maffa
5 -> 50km sorry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a small problem with the "mobile base" part. ArmA, in it's current state, is ill suited for mobile ships. So you end up with a stationary base. I can see why it can be handy (which is why I helped with the Nimitz mod, for example), but it won't be as useful as it seems. There's currently no good way to use naval vessels in combat, and if you think ranges are too short for jets, then naval combat works a completely different scale. There isn't really a way in the engine to take down a ship, either. 

 

Also, quite frankly, the ArmA2 LHD model is not up to A3 standards. To create an A3-standard carrier would be quite an undertaking, much bigger than putting together two jets. This means manpower can go to features like radar systems, plane damage overhaul, (hopefully) flight model and the like.

 

There's also a matter of general utility. What improvements you need to make ships viable? Pretty much only walking on large, moving objects. Maybe a more streamlined command system for complex vehicles, large vehicle damage and better sinking. Those things would be only good for ships. Now, the jets? Sensor overhaul, plane damage and (hopefully) flight model. The former changes the entire game for the better (the much bemoaned TAB-lock is finally gone!), the latter two affect both planes and VTOLs. Ships, once implemented, would always sit on the sidelines, being limited to artillery platforms and bases. Planes, on the other hand, can be right in the thick of it. Not only fighters (I think BI only needs them so they have something to sell :)), but CAS aircraft and VTOLs. Aircraft like A-10 can definitely launch from runways 10-20km from action.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/12/2016 at 7:02 PM, oukej said:

 

    •   Reveal hidden contents

      8MxnVqY.gif

 

Kudos to our modders and community for feedback, shared knowledge and endless inspiration (heya, mando missile :))

 

 

Now if only the DEVs could implement the full mando missile I'd be in heaven !

 

PS Can't remove the reveal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After spending a few hours with the update, by only gripe is....

 

BIS put these sensors, and radar into a new UI window like you see with miniGPS (CTRL+M). I'm not happy about that..

 

Especially when I go and read this...

Quote

>Yes, it's in the UI. Again no nice display on modelled MFDs.

 

Why... Why... Why... BIS... Why... Why...

Why are we taking things away from realism and realistic and throwing it in a GUI outside of cockpit?

 

I can see why for APC/Tanks/AA that don't have MFDs. (Or why we don't have interior views... oh wait, that be in Tank DLC I bet.. Yet was in A2..)

I played around doing my CAS mission and goofing in editor. Only thing I could say entire time playing was "Why the fuck is this not in the MFD... Why the fuck is this immersion broken so bad by being a GUI outside the cockpit"

Why can't I select in scroll wheel or mouse click to change displays?  You don't seem very amused by this BIS, and I want to know why. Are you scared of dipping into clickable MFDs? Did Nod & Franze scare you guys that Modders can do better work? http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=28085

 

Sorry if the bluntness is coming, but... You guys (BIS) never cared about jets for over 3 games now. Now it gets love, and you guys are going back in time... This is like a quick workaround people would of done in A2 when we didn't have great MFDs as we do now. (Looking at you Firwell and you wonderful bastard! https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/180959-firewill-standalone-series-release-thread/) This should be the staple of how BIS handles jets. His MFD's are great. The F-18X Wasp is another prime example of how MFD's can work perfectly. What we get from BIS? Oh just standard weapon loadout, and aircraft alt/speed. That's nice and all, and works great. But lets stay at the Modders level, and not downgrade the base game. 

Plus as others have mentioned on the BIS thread, is this really the full on thing BIS should be pushing in ARMA universe? Most people already think CAS is good enough for ARMA and barely works (depending on your level of thinking, knowledge). I can only think have A2A, IR , and RWR is just kinda...over doing it. We just don't have the space for this quite yet. 

 

TL:DR Glad you finally after 3 games now, you care about planes BIS. But, lets not go backwards in tech and functionality with them.. This was first release of the new system, but lets get this off the UI and onto actual plane displays.. Least make it toggle for pilots who want the real feel. Keep the UI APC/Tanks/AA and mod planes. But give the modders the access and knowledge they need to put in this sensor package into their own working MFD. 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never thought at naval combat as an adversarial fight between two different navies (even thought, on Altis and Tanoa, maybe...).  But in order to allow amphibious operations some ships should have been included, at least the smaller ones (from the LCAC down). I believe you when you say that creating a ship is a costly do as far as ther Arma engine is concerned, but im sure that workarounds can be found (like keep them stationary if you cannot have them mobile, just like the Khe Sanh) and they would have added so much to the game in terms of gameplay. 

 

Now, im sure you know that when we talk about jet planes CAS and short range there's only very few names to be made: Harriers, A-10s, M-346s and AMX for NATO and Yak-130 for Eastern countries. All the rest is either turboprop or flies too high to be concerned by a 30x30 km square map -between you and me, F36s on Altis is an eyesore). 

 

In any case, nothing much to be done here. I hope the sensors will improve everyone's life on Arma and i am sure they will be an improvement. For me, all this water is a waste and a missed opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is excellent news, makes all the time spent writing on @kju's "targeting improvements" thread worthwhile! :)

 

First things first, feedback as requested by OP:

 

Symbology:

IMO having too many "made up" symbols is not good. Use 1 symbol per type of thing, but colours to indicate IFF. So from what I can tell you have two choices:

 

1. Use the old symbols - triangle for aircraft and square for ground. White, Green, Red indicate IFF. Players are familiar with this, is intuitive.

2. Use new symbols. The one you've shown for Ambiguous Air is something I've seen in flight sims (or similar). So you can keep it, but just vary the colour for IFF. Keep Ground as square.

3. Use "realistic" symbols. This ties into target identification, so I'll address it there.

 

I'm fine with the rest of the symbols (active radar indicator, laser spot, etc.)

 

Target Identification:

Related to #3 above, and echoing what some like @dragon01 have mentioned here (and maybe I have in the other thread), displaying the type of radar instead of the type of vehicle is, makes more sense. For ground targets, AAA could be represented as "A", SAMs could be represented by "S" or some further designation "S8" for the SA-8 "Gecko", for example. Aircraft could be marked with F (for fighter/fast-air), helicopters could be marked by H, etc. although I think simply using the symbol you've used for Ambiguous Air + name of the target as shown in the picture is fine.

 

Now, a bit more about the display of names - aircraft with their radar transponders on do provide information about their type, registration and callsigns. This is true of military aircraft too. How do I know? I have F16s, Apaches, etc. flying over me fairly frequently, and I look them up here. However, in war time I assume they'll keep them off. IFF used to be queried (according to the old F/A-18 Korea simulator). DCS does it like this (thanks for the link, @Zitron). For Arma's context I don't mind auto-IFF and auto-target name resolution for aircraft. It's a post-modern setting, etc, I can imagine some way of doing better IFF for the sake of immersion. Maybe add a bit of delay for enemies to simulate an IFF "ping" to which there's no response. And looking at how DCS does it, auto IFF on friendly aircraft seems fine anyway.

 

However, ground vehicles without an active radar should not be detectable by radar. And, if I'm not wrong, ground vehicles detected by the "visual" or IR sensors don't get identified unless identified by the ground? This is fine. TBH i'm not completely convinced that a "visual sensor" should be a thing, unless there's some real-world basis for it.

 

To help think about balancing, it's important to logically plan how the setup works. A rock-paper-scissor way of doing things is a fairly good idea. Like I've said on Kju's thread, take cues from Eugen's Wargame series. I like how the radar distances have been scaled for Arma's purpose. This is good. But explore this further: radar AAAs should have maybe upto 2km engagement ranges, and maybe 6km detection range is fine - but for radar locked targets only. If it's not using radar for tracking its target, make the range smaller. The Tigris and the Cheetah - are the missiles IR or radar guided? Decide and balance accordingly. Don't let the missiles get a lock at 6km if they're IR guided.

 

Similarly, whether or not you decide to add SEAD roles will affect balance. SEAD ordnance should typically outrange AAA/SAMs in Arma's context - maybe 6km is good, but 8km is better. This should go beyond object view distance, because fewer people will be able to have a smooth experience  with such high object view distance.

 

With balance the key is to use real world logic and scale it accordingly. This is why I keep mentioning the Wargame series, they do balance pretty well.

 

-------

 

Now for the other parallel debate: @maffa I agree that air superiority Jets are sort of pointless for A3 given the map size and the general infantry focus of most community games. If it had to be jets, I'd wish for multi-role, SEAD, CAS or bombers - but mostly multi-role SEAD capable planes like the F/A-18 Hornet. However I think this DLC is past the point where it's up for debate, so I'm not sure it adds much to the conversation. I would agree that Naval craft would have been a better idea, either as coastal support or landing craft. Especially true with Tanoa. Still, something like a functioning aircraft carrier would make Jets DLC quite useful. In MP there's an additional problem where the aircraft is either falling to the ground or has already crossed the map by the time one loads in to the mission and takes controls. Having a carrier, even if small, would make designing such missions much simpler.

 

@dragon01 oukej confirmed on Discord (#arma_gameplay) that there's no AFM like thing planned for planes, you'll at best see minor tweaks here and there.

Edited by SuicideKing
missing URL
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love it! Keep on doing stuff like this, guys. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, maffa said:

In a way, i feel like the radar system whould be attached to the weapon, and not to the vehicle

As radar's father dr.hladik already mentioned - individual ammo types can use any of the sensors or any combination. Just like the vehicles, independently. Weapon's seekers, detection and tracking is indicated via diamond in 3D. Vehicle's sensors are the brackets or square.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, kilrbe3 said:

Why are we taking things away from realism and realistic and throwing it in a GUI outside of cockpit?

Two words - platform and manpower. This is an immediate solution that works across the platform, including mods that are no longer maintained. And it can be tested as such. Everywhere. Giving us much wider data to use for further improvements.
It's not that we prefer GUI over nice displays inside a cockpit. Not at all. But we have to make decisions. We have to iterate. This is what we were able to deliver within a reasonable frame. We can always go further. Then there are many other things to care about in Arma. Arma has always been a rough diamond and picking choices in its development is extremely difficult. There's always another critical, huge-gameplay-impact, should've-been-done-10y-ago issue waiting in the line. That's maybe why it may seem that modders are finishing our job. But maybe that's just the thing that allows the game grow so big.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ad Symbology - Thanks a lot for the feedback so far! The current, new one has been loosely inspired by MIL-STD-2525 and references from 5th gen airplanes. Including the shape+color IDing approach. However we're inclined to go back to what we used to have, maybe a bit richer.
 

1 hour ago, SuicideKing said:

However, ground vehicles without an active radar should not be detectable by radar. And, if I'm not wrong, ground vehicles detected by the "visual" or IR sensors don't get identified unless identified by the ground? This is fine. TBH i'm not completely convinced that a "visual sensor" should be a thing, unless there's some real-world basis for it.

The radar sensor can be configured - with a certain good degree of abstraction ;) - as something like a doppler radar or moving target indication (gating targets by speed) as well as some Ka-band scan with automatic detection of basically any target. What a sensor can detect and what it can't is configurable.

Visual sensor has been mainly done for simulating contrast seekers that work in visible spectrum. Like the first Mavericks. So you can have a EO sensor that doesn't only depend on the heat signature.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So tried out the system and I like it so much. it just is so much better then the magic radar. Though i couldn't turn the radar on inside the jets, but could turn it on inside the gunships (maybe I missed something).

Also i gotta ask, will aircraft and vehicles in game that are designed for reduce radar and IR signatures have some sort of effect on this system? Like a option that can be toggled on or off, kinda like advanced flight model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, oukej said:

The radar sensor can be configured - with a certain good degree of abstraction ;) - as something like a doppler radar or moving target indication (gating targets by speed) as well as some Ka-band scan with automatic detection of basically any target. What a sensor can detect and what it can't is configurable.

That's good to hear! But please do think of your vanilla Arma communities too! :3

 

What I mean is, if this is something that's to be configured via the class config or something else (I'm not a modder, I don't know), would be useful to have some script commands that we can adjust as mission makers (if possible).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ivan keska said:

Though i couldn't turn the radar on inside the jets

I think only the Buzzard has it at the moment.

 

3 minutes ago, ivan keska said:

Though for the gunner camera, we should just get the gun sight view.

I would agree with this, but I think it's fine both ways. (the current one encourages more communication, but having just the gun view is more efficient and useful).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, oukej said:

Two words - platform and manpower. This is an immediate solution that works across the platform, including mods that are no longer maintained. And it can be tested as such. Everywhere. Giving us much wider data to use for further improvements.
It's not that we prefer GUI over nice displays inside a cockpit. Not at all. But we have to make decisions. We have to iterate. This is what we were able to deliver within a reasonable frame. We can always go further. Then there are many other things to care about in Arma. Arma has always been a rough diamond and picking choices in its development is extremely difficult. There's always another critical, huge-gameplay-impact, should've-been-done-10y-ago issue waiting in the line. That's maybe why it may seem that modders are finishing our job. But maybe that's just the thing that allows the game grow so big.

So MFD's aren't ruled out is what this post basically sum'd up as?

 

I wasn't trying to be negative and go "oh this is horrible". Just "oh, this makes.. little sense". I even acknowledge mutiple times in my post that this was a first revision and pass at the new system. I even went deeper and said I can see why this GUI is in place for due to Air/Ground/AA and Mod/Non-Mod planes. I get that. 

 

My question was more towards, are plans in place to further expand to MFDs? Was this brought up in any meetings and white boards? I get the GUI is for a first glace at the system and tune it. 

 

Quote

That's maybe why it may seem that modders are finishing our job. But maybe that's just the thing that allows the game grow so big.

 

True. Don't think any disagree with that statement. You guys have been great at giving us the framework and blocks to build on, and let the Mods polish and add more features to it. But for something like this. I hope BIS doesn't fall that same hole. Not something as big as this, and realistic as actually having working MFDs.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×